HOME NEWS SUMMARY.

New Zealand Mail, 29 January 1902, Page 51

HOME NEWS SUMMARY.

(From the “Spectator. )

LONDON, December 7. nrcrf} PRINCE AND PRINCESS OP, WALES.

Th© welcome home accorded hy the Citv of London to the Prince and Princess of W ales which took-place on Thursday proved in every sense of the phrase an unqualified success. The enthusiasm of the crowds and the splendours of the city’s hospitality made a fitting ending to a most memorable Imperial episode. Unquestionably the best speech delivered at the breakfast was that of the Prince of Wales. Not only was it extremely well delivered, but the Avliole tone and temper of the speech Avas of the happiest. IVe can give it no higher praise than by saying that it vyas the speech of a great Englishman. The speech rang true in every Avord, and Lord Rosebery paid the Prince of Wales no conventional compliment Avhen he spoke of its statesmanship, for statesmanship marked it throughout. Yet it was no studied and elaborate essay on the Empire, but was simple, frank and manly from first to last. Above all, it was entirely free from that vanity and egotism which are apt to disfigure the speeches of even the ablest of Royal personages when they have been taught to believe themselves the authors of national greatness, and are not as our Royalties, Sovereign and Princes alike, proud to consider themselves rather as co-operators in the common cause of adding to the well-being, strength and happiness of the Motherland. THE PRINCE’S SPEECH. The Prince of Wales's speech began with a narrative of his voyage, and mentioned that except at Port Said—as the “Times” remarks, only a technical exception—he and the Princess never once set foot on soil o\-er Avhich the British flag did not fly. After very properly noting that the sense of loyalty which he found throughout the Empire belonged not only to the CroAA-n, but to the Motherland, he dAvelt upon the fact that this loyalty Avas due to two things—to the life and example of the late Queen, and to “the AA’ise and just policy which in the last half-century has been continuously maintained toAvards our colonies.” That is, of course, a widely recognised fact, but it is good to have it put on record in such fashion. We cannot epitomise all that the Prince of Wales had to say as to the lessons of his tour, but must note his advice to the representatives of the commercial interests in this country. “I venture,” said he, “to allude to the impression Avhich seemed generally to prevail among their brethren across the seas, that the Old Country must wake up if she intends to maintain her position of pre-eminence in iier colonial trade against foreign competitors.” That, and also the lesson learned Avhen he saw the cadet corps in the colonies, a lesson Avhich he recommended to the especial notice of Mr Brodrick, are lessons vvliicli the Prince of Wales did well to impress on his hearers and the country. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. President Roosevelt’s, first, message to Congress, though it contains no very sensational announcements, is a most striking and memorable production. It bears all through the stamp of a vigorous and comprehensive mind. Here, at any fate, is a man avlio kneAvs what he means, and means the Avorld shall knoAV it also. People may agree or not agree Auth what he says, but there is no mistaking Jiis meaning. In home affairs no is in favour of maintaining the tariff tempered by reciprocity. As Freetraders, Ave, of course, think him Avrong, but the matter is ono solely for the American people. As long as the American consumer is in favour of increasing tne profits of the producer by Act of Congress, he will of course have his , hai) Mr Roosevelt lias to say about the Trusts will be regarded by many persons with disapproval, and he alrL.v' c f us °d, of favouring the million- , es, but such an accusation will not ° believe that in reality the i" 51 ' 1 ™ 1 18 perfectly sound in not makSnnrL b T y - , of . the Trust movement, must in leg > slatl <m forbidding Trusts memo m b \ SO . drasi;ic as to kill comvou nnf I® 1 ® 0 I b ° I 'mffcct.ua]. How can that 1 ?r U b i X ? businesses by law—for that is, after all, what Trusts are. DEALING WITH TRUSTS. is T b ° tru -°, ' ray of dealing with Trusts the « i bat f tb ° a dministration of organFsed i b ° Itr1 tr ? g e!lou Sh and well protection to +F Sb . s l ecu . re complete oppressive n V lO .'''dividual against any I f^L/ llegal actio * W the efficient judkfial * !i e re . st , ramf; d by an oppressing m i- m a dmimstration from from iiiiudois 1 Ti ldUalS, i th o y wiU bo ke P fc Dee con,pSion' 3 "' Tl* ? y the P lay of ever i,, a Lnfortunately, howjustice is a Stat ICa ts ! e ad ministration of 8 a State matter, and it is there-

fore very difficult) to be sure that the Courts will always and everywhere protect the individual from illegal action. But President Roosevelt, while refusing to hamper the legitimate work of Trusts, or to attempt to make them illegal per se, rightly proposes that the nation should supervise and regulate any corporation doing inter-State business ; and if Congress concludes that it has not power to pass the necessary legislation, then recourse must be had to a constitutional amendment. Hitherto American statesmen have been too much inclined to regard the notion of. a Constitutional amendment as something quite impossible, something beyond even discussion—a point of view from, which the Constitution becomes nothing but a political strait-waistcoat. THE MONROE DOCTRINE. In dealing with foreign affairs, Mr Roosevelt announces that the treaty with Great Britain in regard to the Isthmian Canal, which he hopes the Senate will ratify, guarantees to the United States “every right it has ever asked for in connection with the canal.” The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is abrogated, and the sole right of the United States to build the canal is recognised. Passing to the Monroe doctrine, President Roosevelt thus describes it:—“This i'octrine should be the cardinal feature of the foreign policy of all nations of the two Americas. It is in no wise intended to be hostile to any nation of the Old World, and still less is it intended to give cover to any aggression by one of the New World Powers at the expense of another. It is simply a long step towards assuring the universal peace of the world by securing the possibility of permanent peace in this hemisphere.” A definition of the doctrine is to be found in the passage which follows:—“We do not ask under the doctrine any exclusive commercial dealings with any other American State; we do not guarantee any State against punishment for misconduct provided the punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American Power, and we have not the slightest desire to secure any territory from our neighbours. Wo wish to work with them hand in hand, so that all of us may be lifted up together. We rejoice over the good fortune of any of them, and gladly hail their material prosperity and political stability, and are concerned and alarmed if any fall into industrial or political chaos. Wo do not wish to see any Old World military Power grow up on this continent, or to be compelled, to become a military Power ourselves. The people of the Americas can prosper best if left to work out their own salvation in their own way.” But President Roosevelt is not so foolish as to think that a doctrine fraught with such tremendous consequences can rest upon air. He therefore, calls for a strong navy in order to guarantee, secure and enforce the Monroe doctrine. “The navy offers the cmy means of making our insistence on the doctrine anything but a subject cf derision to whatever nation chooses to disregard it. We desire the peace which comes as of right to the just Ilian armed, not the peace granted on terms of ignominy to a craven and weakling. It is unnecessary to increase the army, but to keep it at the highest point of efficiency a General Staff should be created.” That is, we need say, nothing but common-sense. We believe that the Americans are perfectly right in insisting upon the maintenance of the Monroe doctrine as essential to their welfare, and we would, if we had the power, accept the doctrine, and in the most binding way possible pledge ourselves to observe it. : But though we see that the Monroe doctrine is good for us and America, and also for the peace of the world, we ; are quite sure that it will not be willingly acquiesced in by the Continental i Powers. They will never admit it in I theory, and will only acquiesce in it in 1 practice as long as America is strong enough at sea to enforce it. BISMARCK’S CORRESPONDENCE, i The “Times” of Saturday last con- ; tains further interesting extracts from j Bismarck’s correspondence in 1877 and ! 1878. These relate to the efforts made 1 by Count Henckel von Donnersmark, then residing in Paris, to bring about a meeting between Gambetta and Bismarck. Count Henckel von Donnersmark was confident of his ability to induce Gambetta to visit Bismarck, pri- I vately or publicly, at Varzin, with a i view to re-establishing European confidence on the basis of a conjoint attitude between Germany and France against Rome, and a reciprocal understanding with regard to the Army Estimates. Bismarck, however, while professing his cordial feelings towards Gambetta, was averse to taking any step that might compromise Gambetta’s position in France. “I attach too much importance to the preservation of his authority to facilitate any shock to it.” Besides, he felt sure it would frighten the Emperor. It seems difficult to gainsay the justice of Bismarck’s objections, but whatever may have been the cause, they were suddenly removed. Negotiations were resumed through Count Henckel von Donnersmark in April, 1878, and only fell through at the last moment. Gambetta,

from some unexplained cause, holding back. Later on, he visited Friedrichsruh incognito as a tourist in Bismarck’s absence. ANGLOPHOBIA. Apropos of Continental Anglophobia and the animosity excited by Mr Chamberlain’s reference to the Franco-Prus-sian War, the Berlin correspondent of the “Etoile Beige” has quoted some remarkable extraots from a book written by Herr Rindfleisch, who served as an officer in the Prussian army, and published in 1883, while its author was Under-Secretary of State in Bismarck’s Ministry. From the extracts reproduced in last Saturday’s “Morning Post” we quote the following:—“December 2, 1870. ... Just now our hostess, having refused to give blankets and mattresses to my men, I gave orders to take the nice blankets off her bed and to throw them into the mud, and then my men, with their dirty boots, rolled themselves in these blankets. December G.— ... I can assure you that m the interest of civilisation, of which we are proud in Germany, we must hope for a quick ending of this war between two races. One avenges abominable attacks by committing atrocities which remind one of the Thirty Years’ War, and certain localities have received the same treatment as at that period of which the tales make us shiver. Not later | than yesterday I saved with my company the inhabitants of a house who were condemned to perish in the flames. | This, however, is an exception. My companions have not such scruples for | those whom they call a ‘nation of pigs.’ ” : We are not surprised to find the Berlin j correspondent of the “Etoile Beige” stating that the protests against Mr Chamberlain’s speech “lack sincerity.” Quis tulerit saevos de “baxbaritate” querentps ? MISS EMILY HOBHOUSE. A detailed statement of her visit to Africa, and her subsequent arrest and deportation, were sent to Wednesday’s papers by Miss Emily Hobhouse. While ; denouncing the action of the responsible authorities as tyrannical and lawless, : Miss Hobhouse makes no general complaint of the mode in which their suborI dinates carried out their orders, to : which she offered a passive resistance. : Lord Hobhouse accompanies his niece’s j statement with a letter in which he states that “every reasonable effort will .bo made to bring this case to the calm j arbitrament of law,” a statement to : which further significance was lent by , the subsequent announcement that Lord Hobhouse had instructed his solicitors to bring an action against Lord Kitchener, Lord Milner and the officers employed in his niece’s removal for false imprisonment and assault. It is entirely satisfactory that Lord Hobhouse, whoso opinions are entitled to the respect due to a man of liis learning and distinction, should exhibit the courage of his opinions by testing the legality of these proceedings. As for Miss Hobhouse, while cordially deprecating the unchivalrous tone of many of her assailants in the Press, we cannot think that her statement is calculated to enhance her reputation for dignity or tactfulness. SIR REDYERS BL'LLER. Sir Redvers Duller is no Bullerite. With a restraint that does him the greatest credit, he refused to avail himself of the opportunity presented by the Devonian banquet last Saturday night | either to harass the Government or ad- j vertise himself. After a cordial and ; natural acknowledgment of his reception I and the address presented to him, Sir 1 Redvers went on to say that at the pre- ' sent time he was absolutely precluded I from entering into discussion of any of ! the subject's raised by the previous ! speakers. Secrecy, as they all knew, was entirely foreign to his nature, and were it not for considerations of discipline, he would gladly take them all into his confidence and say all that there was to be said. Ho then continued: “But I feel that while you are so kind to me there is behind your kindness an impulse which springs also from the fact that I am a soldier, and from your knowledge that at this moment there are many other soldiers in quite as difficult positions as I havo ever been in.” With this orief but dignified reference to his own case, Sir Redvers Buller passed to a generous eulogy of the achievements of the Devonshire Regiment both on the inarch and in the blockhouses. “It is the fashion,” lie observed in conclusion, “to complain of our troops . . . but the fact remains that there are some two hundred thousand Englishmen now in South Africa doing their level best, in circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, to bring—as it is necessary they should—the war to a definite, final, downright settlement—to bring it. to the sort of settlement that Devonshire men got for Queen Elizabeth in the days of the Armada, the sort of settlement that Devonshire people alone could accept—a definite settlement.” In short, the whole tone of the speech was worthy of praise. Sir Redvers Buller’s honourable refusal to sanction the exploiting of his case for party purposes entirely knocked the bottom out of the Hyde Park demonstration on the follow-

mg day. A precession esfitn.Ueil :;t from five to ten thousand people, in which the various lodges of the Total Abstinent Sons of the Phoenix were prjmently represented, marched with banners and a band from the Embankment to Hyde Park, where speeches were delivered from four platforms to a crowd variously estimated at from twenty-five to one hundred thousand persons. ” The principal speakers were Mr Steadman, L.C.C., and Mr Havelock Wilson, but Parliament was unrepresented, save by letters of excuse. It would be idle to deny that the attitude of the audience was one of genuine admiration for Sir Redvers Buller; it would be equally idle to affirm that the meeting in any way represented the solid or thinking elements of the middle or the working class, or that it indicated any deeprooted resentment against the Government. The temper of the majority pre- ! sent was not savage, but good-humour-ed ; there was certainly nothing to warrant the issue of the extraordinary leaflet, printed in broken English of a strong Teutonic flavour, which deprecated violence in the don’t-nail-his-ear-to-the-pump style. Indeed, the mind of the crowd seemed somewhat like that of the mobs which used to support the j Claimant. They cared nothing for and knew nothing of the merits of the case, but they were not going to see a man put upon or kept out of his rights. COLONEL BENSON’S DEATH. Mr Bennet Burleigh gives in Tues*. 1 day’s issue of the “Daily ITelegraph” a ! vei-y striking account of the attack on Colonel Benson’s column, and of the I charge made by a thousand mounted I Boers. The Boers charged, not our | men, but rather rushed at a gallop a ridge which commanded our position—• a piece of tactics which shows that there may still be a use for the cavalry charge, though it will be a different sort of charge from that to which we are accustomed. As may be imagined, the Boers charging furiously in open order presented a very difficult target, and very j few of „tliem were knocked over hy r our , men. The Boers, it should be noted, j fired from the saddle as they charged. I No doubt they did not make very many j hits, but we do not doubt that the I moral effect of their fire was great. | The story of Colonel Benson’s death is | one of the most pathetic and heroic incidents of the war. It is thus that Mr ; Bennet Burleigh tells it:—“Turning to I Colonel Wools-Sampson to take good-bye I of his comrade and friend, with whom jh® l iac l made many an adventurous trek ; over the wide expanse of veldt and kopjes, Benson said: ‘Ah, Sampson, old ! man, we shall do no more night march|mg together. It is all day now. Goodj bye. God bless you.’ And there were j tears in every eye but the dying man’s !as Colonel Wools-Sampson wrung his I hand, and hastened cut into the night to duty’s call.” People may talk as j they like of the jealousy and friction I between colonials and regulars, but such | scenes as that testify to the forging j during the war of links of Empire that | nothing can sever.