LORD METHUEN'S DISASTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11950, 26 April 1902, Page 1 (Supplement)

LORD METHUEN'S DISASTER.

RECEPTION OF THE NEWS.

SYMPATHETIC FOREIGN ATTITUDE.

THE KING'S REBUKE.

FRIENDLY GERMAN COMMENTS. [FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

London, March 14. Tins week will rank almost with that dismal one in December. 1899, as another grim page in our national history.

It would be supererogatory for me to repeat what has been already very fully cabled to New Zealand. Out there you had all the main facts as soon and as amply as Uiey reached us in London. But it may be interesting if .1 add a few notes as to the reception of the deplorable news, and the attitude both of our own people and of the foreign nations across the Channel. The earliest intimation that anything was amiss was caught from the curiously downcast aspect of Mr. Brodrick when he entered the. House of Commons on Monday afternoon. As he passed slowly and sadly to his place his appearance was so markedly that of the bearer of ill news that it produced upon the House quite a strange sense of uneasiness and impending calamity. Many members tried to waylay and " pump" him, but he merelv shook his head sorrowfully, and would not speak until the proper time arrived for him to take the whole House into his confidence. And then, with a preliminary expression of regret, he read the entire despatch from Lord "Kitchener, which announced a severe reverse to our arms, our General, Lord Methueu, wounded and a prisoner; four guns captured, and very heavy losses in killed, wounded, and prisoners. What followed makes one's British blood boil to have even to mention. A small gang of traitorous ruffians, all members of the Irish Nationalist party, actually greeted the news with loud and enthusiastic cheers. The uproarious btllowings disloyal blackguards rang forth with all the more disgusting prominence through the solemn and death-like silence with which the reputable portion of the House heard the evil tidings. But when the decent English, Welsh, Scotch, and Irish, too, heard those treasonable and disgraceful cheers their indignation could not be restrained, and they broke out into such shouts of " Shame, shame as had never before been heard within those walls, where even the mildest use of that word is always reproved by the Speaker as disorderly. In this instance the utterances passed unrebuked, and no wonder!

What every decent and loyal subject laments is that respect for the outward propifteuics necessarily precludes them from making an immediate personal onslaught on those wretched ruffians, and administering the sound bodily chastisement they so richly deserved, the only hint they are capable of appreciating as to the vile indecency of their conduct. No doubt our " Mother of Parliaments" gained in honour and dignity from the decorous self-restraint exhibited by its outraged members. Still one cannot help regretting for once that propriety prevailed over impulse, and saved those Irish Nationalist blackguards and traitors from experiencing the sound hammering they had so well earned.

Messrs. Redmond, Dillon, and others of the Irish Nationalist party, who were absent at the time of the outrage, have tried to shirk responsibility for the conduct of their colleagues, and " An Irish Nationalist M.P.," who dares not sign his name, writes in the Times yesterday as follows:"On behalf of myself and three-fourths of the Irish Nationalist party will you be good enough to allow me to protest against the unseemly display of a few of our number when the news of the defeat of the British forces was read out in the House of Commons last night? We feel and know that by such displays our hopes of redress of our country's wrongs are, greatly injured, and the good name of Ireland dragged in the mud. It is sad to think that a man of the education and position of Mr. Swift MacNeill should be a party to such a fiendish outrage on decency and humanity. I feel certain if Mr. J. Redmond had been in his place he would have discountenanced such tactics, which are simply ruinous to Ireland, and in every way deplorable.

But the Times very reasonably remarks: —"His letter would have been more effective had it appeared over his name. He declares—like Mr. Morley—that the offenders were few, and that he himself speaks for 'three-quarters of the Irish Nationalist party.' Why do not the rest of the threequarters speak for themselves? What reason have the public to suppose that this particular member is authorised to express their views, or that he does in fact express them'/ He is confident, he tells us, that had Mr. Redmond been present the Irish leader would have discountenanced tactics which are simply ruinous to Ireland and in every way deplorable.' If he is sure that the great majority of his colleagues and his leader agree with him why does he shrink from disclosing his identity to the public? Mr. Redmond might have rebuked the imprudent frankness of a portion of his followers, but solely upon grounds of expediency. Accounts of Mr. Redmond's autumn tour in America seem to show that, where these considerations do not constrain him to a semblance of moderation, the constitutional leader can sanction proceedings and use language as indecent and as outrageous as that condemned so warmly by his anonymous disciple." Even Mr. John Morley, in a flabby, halfhearted, anti-war speech which he delivered at Manchester the night before last felt himself constrained to characterise the Irish demonstration as " a great breach of right feeling and decency" and " an execrable exhibition."

It is pleasant to find New Zealand's earnest loyalty instanced as a sort of counterweight to this wretched Nationalist brutality of disloyalty. The Times observes in its leading article of yesterday:" It is refreshing to turn from this petty display of impotent, —which is greatly embarrassing the diminished band of British Home Rulers—to the magnificent exhibition of Imperial patriotism our New Zealand brethren are giving to the world. A message from Heilbron gives some particulars of the stand Colonel Garrett's force" made against De Wet when the Boer leader broke away before the ' drive' on the night of February 25. The series of outposts they held was occupied by 76 men and eight officers. Twenty-live of the men were killed and 36 wounded, and two of the officers were killed and five wounded, while the eighth was shot several times through his uniform. Although 200 of the enemy got through and made a gap half a mile long in the defences the New Zealanders succeeded in preventing them from getting out the rest of their friends. The Boers simply refused to face the fire. The party which had escaped marched away, leaving their cattle behind them, without firing a shot, and the panty which had failed remained to be swept up by. the columns. If all out' men

fought like the New Zealauders we should have fewer and less disastrous mishaps to record.

"It is gratifying,'' continues- the Times, "to remember "that a Ninth Contingent of those splendid lighting men. is on its way to South Africa. In the speech in which he wished them God-speed Mr. Seddon. the Premier, spoke with a spirit worthy of the colony which is the home of such heroes. He referred to the pain which the conduct of the Irish members had caused. Then he pointed out, as Lord Rosebery has pointed out at home, what is the right way in which men of British blood ought to meet the news of Lord Methuen's reverse. They ought, said thin most progressive Minister of our most progressive colony, to redouble their energies. New Zealand, at any rate, is ready to do her part. He hinted that this young community, whose entire population of white males is but little over 400,000 men, and whose revenue is under £6,000,000, would be ready to form a Tenth Contingent as an answer to the Boer success. While England can produce sons such as these she may laugh at the dismal forebodings of such Cassaudras as Mr. Motley." Referring to the same engagement of the New Zea landers the Globe says: "Therecord of the small force of New Zealanders which tried to hold De Wet is one of which the colony may well be proud. They were not successful, indeed, but to have fought on until out of seventy-six men and eight officers sixty-one men and seven officers were either killed or wounded is an achievement which may well claim its place among the finest feats* of arms. The memory of it will endure in the Old Country as long as in the colony itself." It is not surprising that most of the English Home Rulers should frankly admit thai the disloyal and brutal outburst has given the death-blow to the Home Rule cause, which never again can raise its damaged head on this side of St. George's Channel. Lord Rosebery, in his speech at Glasgow, strongly emphasised this phase of the situation, and in so doing voiced with his usual clear perception the strenuous feeling of his fellow-countrymen. England is rapidly glowing tired of this persistent and irreconcilable enmity and toy-treason on the part of one small corner of the Empire, and were the Government to pluck up spirit for once, and to bring forward some exceedingly stringent mode of ruling those traitors who have proved themselves impervious to all favours, the step would be hailed with cordial and general gratification. The Nationalists have shown on the one hand that they command a majority in Ireland: on the other that their animosity to the British Empire is inveterate. The interests of the Empire must come before those of a relatively insignificant comer. Therefore, as such a disloyal corner is always a. point of weakening, and as conciliation has proved impotent, the only rational course is stern and persistent repression or expatriation. That is what thousands of thoughtful common-sense people are now saying. One very weighty pronouncement has been made from the highest quarter. Directly after the publication of the Irish Parliamentary outrage on decency the following official announcement appeared: — "The King,' by the advice of his Ministers, has expressed his regret to the Lord-Lieu-tenant that the visit of their Majesties to Ireland cannot take place this year."

This remarkable announcement was, of course, keenly discussed in the Irish press. The pointed absence of any reason for the abandonment of the trip— as personal inconvenience or clashing with other Royal arrangementsand the plain intimation that the King was acting expressly " by the advice of his Ministers was too clearly marked to be mistakable. The step was a distinct expression of the Royal displeasure.

■A Conservative Irish journal, the Daily Express, says: The announcement will give very real disappointment to the King's loyal subjects in this country at a time when the fame of Ireland has been dragged in the dirt by., the hired and blatant disloyalty -of a few score of political adventurers'. They had a generous anxiety by the ardour their welcome to their Majesties to rehabilitate, their country's honour in the eyes of the Empire. . . . To-day they will leant that the kindness of the Irish Government to disloyalty and sedition has obliged the King's 'Ministers to dissuade him from his proposed visit to his kingdom of Ireland."

T!he Unionist Irish Times says: "His Majesty would probably have been disposed to make a special effort to gratify bis Irish subjects if there had been a disposition on the part of their journalistic and Parliamentary mouthpieces to make it clear that he would be welcome, but as they have done all in their power to convey an oppositein our opinion a quite erroneous—view it is hardly surprising that the visit has been postponed. We, in Ireland, know exactly how much value is to be ascribed to the illconditional statements, and how little they represent the real feelings of the people at large.

The Nationalist organ, the Freeman's Journal, says: "By the advice of his Ministers— form of the announcement is strange and startling—we believe it is absolutely without precedent His Majesty's Ministers have put their veto on the intended visit of the Sovereign to a portion of his dominions. It would l>e difficult for His Majesty to reject the veto of his constitutional advisers; but it is plain that he insisted that the responsibility should be theirs, not his. His Ministers could not venture to allow the King to see with his own eyes and hear with his own ears the barbarous methods of the Castle, and the deep resentment of the people. His presence would then be a sore encumbrance to, the coerchmists, There was imminent danger that his visit might have converted him to Home Rule, or confirmed an existing conviction. Therefore his Ministers, in their own interest, and in the interest of Unionism, have forbidden his visit to Ireland."

That, of course, is just the sort of contemptible shuffle one might have expected from such a quarter. But the nation at large cordially applaud His Majesty for thus marking his disgust for open treason and indecency. The country that can return a majority of the party tainted with this outrage can hardly be deemed the lit recipient of a Royal visit. And so I feel sure the Empire of Greater Britain will say. On this same subject the leading Vienna paper remarks: " One must admire the dignity and steadfastness -with which the bad news of the Tweefonteiu reverse was received. Not a word of abuse, of blame, of indignation against, the unsuccessful commander who was beaten, not for the first time, but. on the contrary, sympathy with Lord Methuen, who, everybody is convinced, did his best, and. at any ride, his duty. The self-command of the English, their coolness and composure, are signs of continued self-confidence, which is not to be broken by whatever may happen. The Irish members burst into loud cheers on hearing the news. It is something monstrous that the report of a national catastrophe should be hailed in one's own country by a political party. But with what moderation, tolerance, and self-control was even that provocation received by the English members of Parliament. In any other Parliament the behaviour of the Irish would have let! to scenes of violent indignation, mutual recrimination, and even blows. . . . Seeing that the Irish dragon again raises its head, it can truly be said that England's worldpower has never been exposed to a more severe and dangerous trial since it came into existence."

According to one English lobbr correspondent: '-Many Liberal members intimately associated with the policy of Sir Henry Canipbell-Banneiman have taken rare to absolve themselves from sympathy with what one gentleman stigmatised a.s ' Qua abominable display.' Another member of the same party emphatically declared that if such a thing had happened in the Reichstag, in the midst of a German war, the Kaiser would have had the actors in the scene shot in the morning. A well-known front bench Liberal who has systematically opposed coercion was driven'into saying. 'An incident like that of Monday is deplorably and unpardonably malicious. It gives Lord Salisbury five more years of despotic rule in Ireland, and it means rekindling the war feeling in England. Messrs. Redmond, Dillon, ifealy, and O'Connor should pray to be delivered from their followers.' One Irish member pronounced the episode as 'the worst blow Ireland had sustained, for jyears,.'" •■ '..■"■ •"