THE New Zealand Berald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1900.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11533, 19 November 1900, Page 4

THE New Zealand Berald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1900.

When the so-called Peace Society held a meeting in our own city we had occasion to point out that the fundamental basis of its peculiar ethics was that the enemies of our country are to be sympathised with and our ' self-devoting defenders to be condemned. This habit of mind is, of course, the inspiration of the British pro-Boer, who can think of no vituperative strong enough to express his absurd antagonism against everything which seeks to maintain the Empire within which he enjoys such unparalleled freedom. Its unreasonableness was made very noticeable at the International Peace Congress held last month at Paris, when the British delegatesproBoer to a man —offered a resolution so violently and illogically condemnatory of their country that even the Continental peace-at-any-price people felt it beyond them, and by a small minority sent it back to the committee for amendment. The Congress condemned us, of course; anything else was not to be expected. But compared with the suggestions of our disloyal countrymen, the censure decided upon was mildness itself, and only asserted that the British Government had " committed an outrage upon the rights of nations," and that the responsibility for the South African was was upon us. It is with mingled feelings of shame and appreciationshame for the unworthy British delegates and appreciation of the chivalry of a generous Frenchman of international reputethat we notice that our Imperial action was defended at the Peace Congress by M. Yves Guyot, while Dr. Clark, the gentleman who while a member of the British Parliament was also acting as agent for the Transvaal Government, and advised Mr. Kruger to invade Natal, led the hypocritical attack upon us. It is some consolation to know that a few days later the loyal people of Caithness showed emphatically what they thought of their ex-member's conduct, and did not even give him a respectable minority of votes; their ballot-papers "snowed him under" as the Americans say.

The defence of our Imperial policy made by M. Guyot was one that would have appealed convincingly to any intellig2nt body, really desirous of healing the wounds of war and of spreading love of peace throughout the world. For he did not ask them to condemn the Boers ; he only contended that a Peace Congress should not blame Britain as though it had no justification. He pointed out that the Transvaal hedged its offer of arbitration with all sorts of reservations and subtleties, that the question of suzerainty made an important difference in the matter it issue ; and that it was not right to defend in the name ot "peace" the violation of conventions with strong powers and individuals merely • because the violat'ng State was the weaker. He recognised from the first the hopelessness of convincing his hearers, but aided by several other chivalrous Frenchmen, he succeeded in preventing the " Peace Congress" from declaring that the Empire's action in resisting the insolent Boer attempt to drive the Englishmen into the sea was "a crime against civilisation, an outrage to the conscience of mankind, and treason to the cause of human progress." For this was the vicious language with which the Congress would otherwise have condemned that most

righteous and necessary defensive war forced upon us by the insane ambition of Mr. 'Kruger, the benighted ignorance of the Boers and the Mephistophelean cunning of the Hollanders. We do not suppose j that these ridiculous congresses and i pretentious resolutions affect ; the movements of the world by one iota. .Prince Bismarck bluntly told the Germans, and as we have so lately learned, nations are not made by resolutions and ballots, but by fire and steel. Yet wisely urged and tolerantly advanced, all great thoughts must in the ultimate saturate the minds of men and affect for good our human actions. There were, and still are, wonderful possibilities for good in the inculcation of the noble and humane ideas which these peace societies and congresses were originally intended to propagate and popularise. We know how George Fox, the Quaker, and Oliver Cromwell, the swordsman, met, and how they esteemed each other. We can admire, even if we do not Wish to emulate, the sublime doctrine of non-resistance declared by the Russian Tolstoi to be the teaching of Jesus. But we can have nothing but contempt for the superficial and hypocritical humanitarianism which degrades a great and immortal conception to the service of the lowest of human weaknesses — hatred of national greatness. Referring to which, we are reminded that Tolstoi publicly and indignantly denied the truth of a story circulated in England by the pro-Boers •to the effect that in spite of his doctrine he rejoiced to read of Boer successes. He said that he had no "side," that nothing justified war, that Briton and Boer were equally doing wrong. This is, at least, an understandable, because logical, position.

In the'speech of M. Guyofc, we find an indication of the motive which may be at the bottom of the extraordinary position commonly taken up by peace-at-any-price advocates, a position so viciously unethical and unjust as to make the very word " Peace Society" a synonym with many sincere people for disloyalty, treachery, and sedition. They possess unbalanced and neurotic imaginations; their creed is not the resuF- of the intensity of their Christianity, but of their inability to grasp the whole meaning of the social processes in the midst of which we are. They light upon the fact that the small State is absorbed and melted away in the larger, often struggling bravely against absorption, but they cannot understand how peace and order, law-abidingness and justice, is thereby being developed. If they lived at the time of the Heptarchy, they would have raved against the victors in the struggle that made the King's writ run from the Channel to Cheviot.. They close their eyes to the notorious misgoverament of ancient Poland and hear only how " Freedom shrieked when Kosciusko fell." They would keep the earth in the possession of trivial clans and trust to smooth orations to tame the horrors of war. They sympathise with the Boers not because they really think Mr. Kruger was right, but because they see that the Boer States were doomed to extinction the moment the gauntlet of war was thrown down. The same people usually blame the honest man for the existence of the criminal, and even regard the murderer as in some way the victim. It is fortunate for them that the great Empire which they abuse is strong enough and durable enough to be infinitely tolerant, and the supreme peace it secures within its borders brings freedom even for treacherous speech in its train. The petty States which are their ideal could not afford to do so. But we must include neither with these prejudiced partisans nor with those of his countrymen who have so scurrilously libelled us, generous and intelligent Frenchmen like M. Yves Guyot.