The Waikato Times With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1919. BRITAIN AND CONTINENTAL WARS

Waikato Times, Volume 90, Issue 14027, 2 April 1919, Page 4

The Waikato Times With which is incorporated The Waikato Argus. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 1919. BRITAIN AND CONTINENTAL WARS

In the last issue of the Edinburgh Review for 1918 Mr G. M.' Tr'evelyan, the well-known Garibaldi Historian, gild grand-nephew of Lord. Macaulay, develops some interesting: reflections on England's attitude towards four great European wars. The circumstances in each case are brought into clearer .light by Mr Trevelyan; and it is worth while to pause on them. The first of these wars was that of which the revolt of the Netherlands and the expedition of the Spanish Armada formed component parts. The next- was what is commonly known as the War of the Spanish Succession, which occupied the first decade of the eighteenth century. The next was the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War. And the fourth was that which has just closed, but which had not closed when the article was written. These wars had at least one leading feature in common, viz., that in each the main object was to dominate Europe in the way in which ancient Rome dominated her Empire. In the 'first, the Power seeking this domination was Spain; in the second, it was the France of Louis XIV.; in the third, the France of Napoleon; and in the fourt£, the Germany of Wiltrelm 11. In every one of these England "came in," though in none was she the Power most vitally concerned. In the first two the heroState was Holland, first against Philip 11., next against Louis. In the great period of French conquest under Louis XIV., Germany was divided against herself, Bavaria siding with the enemy; whereas in the first war France was in a hopeless state of chaos owing to her wars of religion.

But, if there are parallels and features of resemblance, there are, when we look into the matter, some broad and striking features of differences. It may be laid down in a general way that the struggles-against Philip 11. and Louis were struggles for popular liberty, Drake and Marlborough helped to save such popular liberty as then existed, though neither of them thought or talked much about such things. These results were confined to Holland and England. It was William the Silent Who first acknowledged democracy as ,an object. Elizabeth, with her ear to the ground as always, saved England, though she would have repudiated the idea of bringing "democracy" into her country- She had no army, but she threw herself on Parliament, ynd she trusted her people. We have, then, between the lirst two wars the common feature of being struggles for popular liberty. But when we come to the third, the Revolutionary and Napoleonic War, the issue becomes much more confused. The confusion arises from cur regarding the whole war, from 1792 to 1815, as one, whereas it falls into two divisiors, in which the ruling spirit and purpose were, radically different. When England joined the Confederated States against France in 171)2, her effort was really meant to suffocate theFrench Revolution. No doubt the effort was fully -provoked; the danger which she apprehended from that movement was very real. We cannot now discuss the question whether England was justified in trying to strangle Jacobinism in France; in view of later developments, such as Bolshevism, we shall not be too hasty in condemnation. But about the beginning of the new century the original purpose, to strangle the revolutionary movement, became ' transformed into a quite different purpose, to save England herself and Europe from the domination of Napoleon. And what were the results of the war, which culminated in Waterloo? Napoleon himself was certainly eliminated. But in France the attempt to re-establish the "ancient regime" had only a partial and temporary success. In almost every other country the victory of Waterloo meant the establishment of clerical, social, and despotic reaction. Poland and ; Italy were handed back to their torturers. So far as Germany and Austria are concerned, we have been now for four and a-half years fighting the results of Waterloo.

It is easy to tic wise after the event; but History never forgives. In England in 1792 there were two men, one a statesman, the other a poet, who regarded England's participation aginst France as a tragedy. Fox

firmly believed that if England had sympathised with France in the early stages of the Revolution, Franco would never have called upon the devil of Jacohinism to defend her. aginst her foes within and without. And there is a ludicrous inconsistency in thinking Fox unpatriotic, and at the same time keeping Bastille day and praising those who, mostly dressed in rags and * singing the " Marseillaise," saved France from her despotic invaders. We cannot go on having it both ways. Either the I'rench Revolution was an entire mistake, as Burke maintained, or Fox was largely in the right. If the former, we are on the wrong side today. It is just as much due to our French alliance that we should revise our historical views of 1798, as '0 our American alliance that we should celebrate the 4th of July. The poet was Wordsworth. We know from his own writings of the thrills and raptures with which" the French revolutionary movement inspired him. Joy it was in that dawn to be alive;

But to be young was very Heaven. And in a detailed passage of the ' Prelude " he describes the moral shock which he had experienced from England's joining the Confederation against France in 1793. But when he wrote in 1804 he was enthusiastically for the war aginst Napoleon. The despotic action which followed the war lasted even in England for many years, .and led tp the moral and physical deterioration of the masses. Then came the various revolutionary movements of 1848. These, again, ended in failure, and chains were orfly riveted still more strongly. England remained neutral; again, as in 1792, her statesmen were frightened. But Canning, Russell, Palmerston and Gladstone were gradually building up the new order. Still England's only achievement abroad on behalf of popular liberty during the century was the liberation of Italy. Twenty jears ago, forgetting Cavour, Gladstone, and Lincoln, we declared Bismarck to be the one great figure of the century. The recent war has transformed the whole situation; and no feature of it has been more remarkable than the tendency, as it proceeded, to proclaim liberty and democracy, more and more, as the main issue.