THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM

Northern Advocate, 4 May 1933, Page 2

THE CASE AGAINST SOCIALISM

AND OTHER ABSURDITIES. (By A. Hornet.) No. 3. Russia is always Russia, be it under the Tzars, or be it under Soviet government. In the words of .Bonaparte —“scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar.” A highly imaginative nation like the Irish, the Russian has all the vices of a Tartar and the corruptness of a Hun. Invaded by Huns, A.D. 37(5, Russia got a top-dressing of Tartars 850 years later, and they made Moscow the capital. Moscow is now the seat of the Third International, from which springs choice and dainty propaganda so dearly relished by ignoramuses, highbrows, and university prigs. A somewhat similar case of persecution to the one now engaging the attention of the public, happened at the beginning of the last century, and resulted in a tragedy. No reference, as far as I know, has been made to it in any of the newspapers. Some time ago I alluded to this case in one of my articles, and, as it bears, to some extent, an account of injustice done to a British subject, I will rehash the ease.

An English gentleman, named John Bellingham, early in 1800, was engaged in Business in Russia. He had the ill-luck to fall foul of the authorities, so suffered a term of imprisonment. On his release he returned to England, broken in wealth, health and spirit. At this time the Right Hon. Spencer Perceval was the Prime Minister of England, and LordLeveson Gower was the British Ambassador at the Court of St. Petersburg. Mr Bellingham had petitioned the British Ambassador at St. Petersburg, but he refused to interfere, and when he was a free man in England he also petitioned the British Government to take the matter up with the Russian Government for the injury which he had received at their hands. Each time tins unfortunate man drew a “blank.”

Now no one likes to draw a blank, be it for a horse that was “ pulled ” or a horse that ran straight, and no one likes a snub from a Government official —the man who forgets that he is paid to serve the public. Mr Bellingham allowed his grievance to prey upon his mind. It haunted him as the dagger did Macbeth —he clutched at it, and his hand grasped air. This poor misguided man, suffering from a heat-oppressed brain, had no great counsel like Carson, or Simon, to establish right in the face of wrong, no Portia to plead his cause with a maiden’s tongue. >So what was Bellingham to life, or life to Bellingham? 0, the pity of it. One fine day in May, he took matters into his own hands, •walked down to the House of Commons with a pistol in his pocket, and shot the Prime Minister, the Eight Hon. 'Spencer Perceval, through the heart, killing him instantly. Bellingham was arrested, tried, and defended by some of the best talent of the English bar. His counsel raised the plea of insanity, which was overthrown by Sir William Garrow (afterwards one of the last of the “hanging judges”), and found guilty. Three days later he was hanged by the heck until he was dead. Blond alone can atone for blood. 0 world! O life! O time!

Mi- Bellingham, the day before he was hanged, had the decency to send his apologies to the Perceval family for his atrocious act. It appears he was not out to shoot the Prime Minister—the job he was after was to kill Lord Leveson Gower, the British Ambassador to Russia, from whom he had received a snub. This gentleman, fortunately for himself, was not on the scene, so Mr Bellingham fired at Perceval instead, as some one had to be gunned on account of Russia. Bellingham, poor wretched man, also wrote a letter criticising his lawyers, and w T as particularly severe on Mr Alley, the defending counsel, who led, and accused him of not calling witnesses in order to make most out of their examination. Instead of doing this, Mr Alley relied too much on his eloquence when pleading insanity, otherwise, said Mr Bellingham, “I would have Avon the case. ” It is always a moot point with counsel as to which is better—pertinacious questionings, or a bursting charge of eloquence. Naturally it depends somewhat on the mentality of the jury, {'iome of the 12 men, good and true, are not attracted by a truthful Avitness—rather fancy a liar of the first magnitude. Other jurors approve of loud eloquence, the more flow-ery the better, and others have minds more given to doubt than to examine, Avhile some have an entire absence of mind.

In the present ease of the Vickers Company’s engineers, the British Government took a rightful and dignified course of action, and clearly showed to the Russian Soviet tyranny that there was such a thing as “International Law, ’’

During Lord Palmerston’s administration, there was again a case of a British subject suffering wrong from a foreign Power. This time Greece was the offender. A Jew, named Don Pacitie.o, who was a. British subject, wh eu doing business in Greece, had been treated in a most ungentlemauly manner, and his property unjustly seized. The Greek Government, forgetful of Navarino, and ungrateful to England for having secured their independence from Turkey in .1827 (when Navarino was fought, and the Turkish fleet, destroyed), refused redress to Don Pacifico when asked for by the British Government. Lord Palmerston soon brought the rascals

to heel. He sent a fleet and blockaded the Piraeus. His spirited policy led to a big debate in the House of Commons. Many Liberals, led by Gladstone, with amiable weakness opposed Palmerston’s spirited foreign policy, but he was, supported by Disraeli and the Conservatives. It was on this occasion that Palmerston after speaking for five hours, reiterated the doctrine of “ Civis Romanus sum,” taken from the old Roman Law —a law common to all civilised nations outside of tlie working man’s Utopia, Russia.

The civilised nations of Europe, and elsewhere, including the United States, have their jurisprudence .to some degree based upon the old Roman Law. According to the Institutional Treatise published under the authority of the great law giver, Emperor Justinian, who lived in the nth century, nations are partly governed by their own laws and partly by those laws as are common to civilisation. In other words, all self-respecting nations have to abide by international lafo r , which is founded upon natural law. Hence, in all civilised countries, outside of Russia, a person accused of crime, even though he be a foreigner, should have a trial, with a definite charge against him formulated in writing. He should be entitled to cross-examine witnesses called against him, to have witnesses on his own behalf and should be represented at every stage of the hearing. But, according to Mr Lansbury, any nation can do as it wishes when dealing with the life or liberty of a British subject. This leader of the Labour Party—a party pretending to contain everything pure and holy —talks about Russia’s ‘ ‘ sovereign rights. ’ ’ Sovereign rights indeed! Sovereign fiddlesticks! Has international law no sovereign rights? Is Russia a. nation with a law unto itself? Is the voice of Britain, the voice of humanity, to be stilled because Messrs Lansbury and Webb happen to bo Socialists, and late members of the London County Council? Was the voice of St. Paul stilled, when fortified as a. Roman citizen, he exclaimed —“I appeal unto Caesar. ’ ’

(To bo continued.)