The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1914. MR ASQUITH’S APPEAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8857, 7 October 1914, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1914. MR ASQUITH’S APPEAL

Tho Kaiser complains that war was forced aggressively upon Germany, and on that statement lie bases the whole war policy which has plunged Europe into the horrors of this war. To this complaint Mt Asquith's speech at Cardiff is a carefully-prepared reply. It is more. It is a vehement vindication of tho attitude taken up by Britain as the defender of treaties and the upholder of the rights of nations. The whole Empire has rushed to tho support of the Prime Minister, having accepted without reserve the statement of the case' presented by him and by his distinguished colleague the Foreign Minister to Parliament. Nevertheless, it was due to the Etnpire that the Kaiser’s appeal to the conscience of Europe should be fairly/and fully answered. That, accordingly, is exactly what tho British Minister has done. In his speech at Cardiff which contained that reply, he began by utterly demolishing the plea that Germany had been forced by aggression into war. Those who remember the statements of the two members of the Government prior to the outbreak of war with Germany do not require to he told how the war was forced by the German, declaration of war against Russia, ■which scattered the peace negotiations then proceeding between the Austrian and Russian representatives as effectually as a bombshell explodes a bag of chaff. But even to them the statement of Mr Asquith is a revelation. So far hack as 1912—»mark the date—the British Government laid down the terms of Britain’s relations with Germany, and stated them definitely to that Power. The form was clear enough: “ Britain will .neither make nor join in any unprovoked attack on Germany. Aggression on Germany forms no part of any treaty or understanding of any combination to which Britain is now a party; nor will she become party to anything having such an object.” It was really a clear statement of the effect of the Triple Entente on tho policy, of Great Britain. Germany had some reason ire the rumours current at the time, as we remember well, to feel uneasy on the subject of the commitments of Britain. This plain statement cleared up tho position with absolute complete* ness. It was impossible in the face of such a statement for uertnany to even protend to believe in any policy of aggression against her, in which Britain could have any act or part. This is a revelation to the world.

Germany apparently was not satisfied. Why? The demand she made in reply gives the reason. Germany demanded a pledge of neutrality from Britain. As a matter of fact, she asked a pledge that whatever course she might ohoose to follow, Britain should remain neutral. “You do not propose to attack me, but what I Want is that whenever I attack anybody else you will not interfere." That is the plain English of the demand for a pledge of neutrality in 'any case. Such a pledge can never be given by any self-respect-ing State; cannot be given by any State which is working with other States in an international concert to prevent a breach of the general peace. Germany knew her own mind. She was aware that she intended to invade Belgium, trampling > alike on the rights of tho Belgian nation and the treaty by which Europe stood guarantee for those rights. Her demand, therefore, for an assurance of neutrality in any case was equivalent to asking for a signed blank paper to bo used as a permission for violating the treaty. Inexposing it the Prime Minister ■ of Great Britain has exposed the whole iniquity of the German scheme. Britain made tho obvious reply. She would keep her hands free. “When Germany selected the opportunity to overbear and dominate the European world, only ono answer was possible. That answer we gave.’’ The Government, wo now see, that was manly enough to decline the tying of its hands, played tho manly part when the hour sounded. It is also manly enough to make in words of unmistakable meaning the only possible deduction from the hideous story of treachery long planned. “Now we see, written in letters of carnage and spoliation, the signs and methods of Germany’s long prepared scheme against the liberties of Europe,” Never was criminal charge better stated or more cogently supported. It does not stand alone. M. Hanotanx, a former Foreign Minister of Franco, we learn from a message we publish this morning, has just written to tho “Figaro” quoting a remark the Austrian Ambassador made to him on July 31st last, which throws the whole blame of tho war on Germany. Neither Austria nor Russia wanted war. When they were negotiating and had got within view of success Germany forced the situation. It is a strong corroboration of the statements made to the House of Commons by Mr Asquith and Sir E. Grey. Of tho answer made by tho

Empire to the appeal based on this case, thus strengthened, and without adequate knowledge of tho strengthening, Mr Asquith has made tho most comprehensive and generous acknowledgment. Of that answer, no part was, as wo pointed out yesterday, more emphatic or more whole sou led or more logical than tho answer voiced by Mr Fisher, tho Prime Minister of the Australian Commonwealth. Mr Fisher’s appreciation is tho appreciation of the Labour party of Australia. As is tho Labour party of Australia on this matter so also is the Labour party of New Zealand. With the latter is, of course, very thoroughly the Illiberal party of New Zealand. Their common feeling hero is but one of tho bonds uniting tho two parties for the pursuit of their common ,1,; ~.i( wbii’ 1 ’ ; s the amelioration of human conditions in their beautiful common country. Their co-operation has, by enriching our statute book, given a great lesson to the old world. The war is malting tho old world more ready to listen to that lesson. When the war is over tho Liberal and Labour combination of Britain will be stronger , than ever under tho leadership of tho man who has done the manly thing in the supreme hour. It has already proved strong enough to break the obstructiveness of tho Second Chamber. It will have the field of social work clear of prejudices. It will do its best to prove that the combination of its forces is the only true combination for successful reform work. Its best hope in that direction will be tho splendid experience of the twenty years which showed in New Zealand the advantage of Liberal and Labour co-operation.