Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 20 August 1914, Page 21

Current Topics

The Cossacks

' ; Saturday’s cables, reporting that the Cossacks had exterminated two regiments of Austrian cavalry, indicate that, as usual, tiie Cossacks are always handy when wanted, and that they have lost nothing of their traditional valor, dash, and resourcefulness. What manner of men they, are,' their mode of living and of fighting, and generally how they are regarded by the Russian war authorities, arc described in an article by a Russian general* on • ‘ The Russian Army,’ contributed some years ago to Armies of To-day. The writer -points out that this military force, unique in its kind, forms in -its-present state the connecting link between the regular and the irregular troops of Russia.- In war time the Cossacks can keep under arms 155 regiments of cavalry, 20 battalions of infantry, and 38 batteries of horse artillery. But in time of peace only about half these troops serve; the others stay at home and* attend to 'their peaceful occupations. The Cossacks of the Don , alone send to war 62;>regiments of cavalry and 22 batteries, of which 22 regiments and 8 batteries serve also in times of peace. In each division of regular cavalry there is, in time of peace, one regiment of Cossacks.

The military education of the Cossack begins while he is still in the cradle, for the first sounds that his ear catches are the warlike words of the songs by which he is rocked to sleep. All the Cossack children’s games are. of a warlike nature, and almost before the boys have learned to walk they, are placed on horseback. The Cossacks are fine tall men, with bronzed complexions and very energetic expressions; their women are renowned for their beauty. The Cossack and his strong little horse form one. His costume is simple and imposing, without any glittering and useless ornaments that would only help the enemy to discover him. He wears no spurs, and, all his- arms are so well contrived that they never make the’slightest noise. Nolan says of them, ‘A hundred Cossacks make less noise than a single-regular cavalry soldier.’ ■

On active service the: Cossack is the soul and the eye of the army, or. rather its pointer-dog. He seems to smell the enemy where no one even thinks of his existence. The Cossack and his horse do not know what fatigue means, and no one has yet been , able to discover when either of them takes rest. Even when slumbering they seem to be watching, and at any and every instant they are ready to act. The Cossack finds bis way . everywhere, and glides furtively across lb© ground . occupied (by the enemy. If* a commander wants to send a communication to a distant column whoso exact situation he does not himself . know, -he simply^gives; the letter to a Cossack, who is bound to find a way of delivering it. As guerillas the Cossacks 'have not their equals. They give the enemy not a moment’s rest night or day, and always appear at the point, where they are least expected: Next to the terrible winter,, it was the Cossacks who contributed most to the extermination of the French in 1812. An enemy’s train, however, close it may be behind. the troops,' can never be sure of escaping the attack of the Cossacks. They appear all of a sudden, and attack with lightning rapidity,/ but in the force of their shock they are inferior to the regular cavalry. ’ The consequence; is, that if , they happen to find themselves suddenly face to face with ,regular cavalry, they disperse like? a cloud 'on the . horizon, but soon como back from’ an opposite direction. The Cossack fights as well on foot as. on horseback, (and he is a very skilful shot.' When a troop of. Cossacks happens .to be surprised by superior forces, and cannot retreat or take up‘a tenable ‘position,/ the men make their docile horses: lie down, to serve them as ramparts. ..

The Duties of Admirals

V ; Leadership is' almost everything, even in the innumerable arts of peace, as we may notice in all direc-

tions every day. It is, of course, of incomparably greater importance in the art of war. We know what it means on land. A Hannibal, a Caesar, a Frederick, a Napoleon, has, by his mere personal individual genius, changed the map of the world, and made history. There is a popular impression that the progress of scientific invention and the coming of the machine gun have changed all . that, and that leadership nowadays is more or less a. secondary matter. It is true that it is more and more the machine that wins; but military officers to-day must reach as a whole a far higher level of general competence than was ever demanded of them before. This is especially the case in the Navy, and with naval men leadership is of incalculable moment. ' *

So, at least, says Lord Charles Beresford, who may reasonably be presumed to know. In a chatty article in Nash’s magazine for July, Lord Beresford, in telling of his experiences with the Mediterranean and Home Fleets, describes with some detail what are the duties of an Admiral, and shows how very far politicians and the public are astray in their ideas on the subject. Referring to the time when, he became Commander-in-Chief of the Mediterranean Station (1905), ho writes: ‘ One result, perhaps inevitable, of the swift progress of scientific invention, was that the public attention was concentrated upon purely material matters, regarding the Navy as a fighting machine automatically operated ; and conceiving of officers and men as workers in a factory, who had nothing to do but to press buttons and to manipulate levers. This unfortunate delusion was fostered by the politicians, who were quick to use it for their own ends. ... . The popular and political delusion that, under modern conditions, the duties of the naval officer have become mechanical is so far from the reality, that, in truth,’ they have never been more complex and onerous; nor is it possible that they should be rightly performed in war, in default of the most assiduous practice in peace. It is thus the business of an Admiral constantly to exercise the fleet both collectively and individually; and as the discharge of that duty tasks his energies to the utmost, there is little to record during a sea command except the cruises, exercises, and manoeuvres which constantly occupy a fleet. -- / - ' * - -

‘ln June, 1905, for instance, the Mediterranean Fleet left Malta and proceeded upon a cruise ; met the Atlantic Fleet at the end of July; exercised combined manoeuvres with the Atlantic Fleet; proceeded upon another cruise, and- so on ; never going to sea without practising some exercise or manoeuvre. All exercises and manoeuvres of importance were treated in a memorandum, in which 1 was explained the lessons to be learned from them, and which was circulated to the officers of the Fleet. Every morning when the Fleet was at sea, except on Sundays and in very bad weather, small tactical and turning movements were . executed ■ v from 7.30 to 8 a.m.; the movements of each individual ship being carried out by the officer of the watch, all lieutenants taking it in turns to relieve the deck, and being put in charge of the ship for this period of time. The captains did not interfere in the handling of the ship, unless the officer of the watch placed the ship, or a consort, in a position of danger. ; The lieutenants themselves made out the Commander-in-Chief’s signals and their purpose without the assistance of the captain or of the . yeoman of signals. ; Officers of the watch were informed that they need not be afraid of making a: mistake; for ..every one liable to make a mistake;. and the rest of the Fleet learned more when an error occurred than when all went smoothly and correctly. During the (forenoons, . there was usually practised some short manoeuvre in’ which an Admiral or a captain took charge'- of the Fleet, and manoeuvred it as be pleased, the Commander-in-Chief ; reserving to himself the right to negative any signal which he might' consider dangerous'dr - useless. After the Admirals, and Captains had manoeuvred the Fleet as a whole, it was divided into opposing fleets, officers selected by the Commander-in-Chief taking charge of these fleets. Each squadron endeavored to gain the initial, position of

advantage.. Once that position was obtained, the fleets were ordered to separate, and two other officers respectively took charge of the opposing squadrons. Great care was observed that orders relative to speed, and to the distance within which opposing fleets were not to tiespass., were rigidly observed. Officers were informed that all peace manoeuvres must be regarded as a game, and that no game should be played unless the rules were implicitly obeyed. The principle was that no manoeuvre should last very long, being much more instructive if it were short, and were frequently practised.’

Two Beresford Stories

In the article referred to Lord Beresford deals largely in reminiscence; and amongst the stories he tells are two which, as being connected with Irish members of the Navy, will not be without interest to our leaders. Ihe first illustrates merely the irrepressible middy s spirit of ready mischief ; but the second exemplifies a much higher trait of the Irish fighting man. There was once, says Lord Beresford, ‘a midshipman (an Irishman) who, perceiving treacle exposed for sale .upon the cart of an itinerant vendor of miscellaneous commodities, was suddenly inspired (I do not know why) with a desire to buy that condiment. What should the like of you be wanting with treacle?’ said the man, who was a surly fellow. ‘ Why should I not buy treacle? said-The boy. ‘ How much do you want?’ As much as you’ve got.’ ‘ I’ve got nothing to put it in, grumbled the man. ‘ Put it in my hat,’ insisted the midshipman, proffering that receptacle. It was a tall hat, for he was in mufti. The vendor of treacle reluctantly filled the hgt with treacle. ‘ What are you going to do with it?’ he asked again. * I’ll show you,’ returned the midshipman : and swiftly clapped the hat over the other’s head, and jammed it down hard.’

It was during one -of these (United Kingdom) cruises,’ runs story No. 2, that the Irishmen in the Fleet responded after their manner to an appeal made by their countryman. The anniversary, of St. Patrick’s Hay was drawing near when the Fleet lay in Bantry Bay. On St. Patrick’s Hay itself the Fleet-was to proceed to sea. Hitherto, the number of Irishmen breaking their leave in honor, of the Saint had been, roughly speaking, the number of Irishmen in the Fleet. When I made a signal giving the' Irishmen three days’ leave, and ordering them to return on board on St. Patrick’s Hay, I- added that the Commander-in-Chief, himself an Irishman, trusted his fellow-countrymen to obey orders; There were 766 Irish liberty went on' shore; and 766 were on board again ere the Fleet sailed on the night of St. Patrick’s Hay.’ ‘lt may be,’ adds Lord Beresford, jocularly, ‘ that the Saint would mention the thing in conversation with Saint Peter at the Gate, for future reference.’

England’s Naval Supremacy : A German View

England’s actual or potential supremacy at sea is admitted by Germany ; but German naval writers, not unfriendly to England, have professed to see in ; it a source of danger to the nations of Europe , this alleged danger, indeed, being made the excuse for the huge v naval armaments programmes which Germany has been carrying "out at such a ruinous cost. This is the position taken in an important article, giving a German view of The British Navy and of the relations between Germany and England, which 'appeared ,-in the Marine Rundschau , a few years . ago. It wasp.written ,by a German officer of high rank, and distinction ; Vice--Admiral Siegel.' The article is entirely free from any small-minded animus against England. ‘ I ,think that in Germany,’ says Admiral Siegel, ‘ the prevalent opinion is that it ? would be a national misfortune if w© were to be involved in a war. with England. , The English, pefserially; t attract our - sympathy.: They are 1 our kith and kin. We admire without envy their many great qualities and their success in the world! The most important commercial relations bind us to them,

\ • r: r- . » arid innumerable Germans have ■ found' a competency in England and her colonies. r The interests of the two nations run parallel, and do not cross one another even though sometimes there is a tendency to unjust commercial jealousy.’ ~ .'OCV . ,-iai ;to

The Admiral view of the 'relations between, the two navies is developed in terms which, though Englishmen are not likely to agree with them, are not in any way calculated to cause ill-feeling. ‘ Tie considers that the armies of the five Great Powers of the Continent are so nearly equal in strength that none of these' States in case of war with another could be sure in advance of being victorious. The consequence of this ’ equality ; is a balance or equilibrium between the Great Powers, and this balance tends to be stable. But, says Admiral Siegel, there is no such balance on the sea. At sea England has such a preponderance jthat no other Power in the world can vie with her. The Admiral has a very high opinion of. the British Navy, both -of its strength and its quality, an opinion which Englishmen are at this moment hoping ..will prove to be well founded. From this preponderance of the British. Navy he draws an interesting conclusion. 1 . ‘The thought that there is a Power on earth which is. at any moment able to destroy any other Navy, and so to cut off from the sea the country concerned, carries with it some anxiety.’ He Suggests that if any of the Continental armies had a similar preponderance over the others ‘ the Continent would feel it as an incubus!’ Then he makes the following. striking statement : ‘As things stand; the freedom of the sea for the States of Europe depends upon the English people’s love . of peace and the British Government’s wisdom being strong enough to avoid misuse of this maritime strength and the oppression of the other maritime States.’ Admiral Siegel appears to think that Germany cannot build a fleet equal in strength to that of- Great - Britain. - Tie . asks what strength the German Fleet should have, and he suggests the standard of a force able to prevent the blockade of the German coast even by the strongest fleet in the world. He would resist blockade not by passive defence, but by a vigorous offensive. The Admiral is not at all favorably disposed Towards the disarmament proposal, and his view on the subject is concisely expressed. He sees ! no; justification -for... an , international agreement limiting naval ’ armaments ‘ unless and until the strongest Sea Power gives a secure guarantee that she will not use her superior strength for the injury of weaker maritime Powers.’- I—-

We have quoted' this. quasi-authoritative article merely as presenting the’German point of: view .//.The obvious answer to the German Admiral’s contention is that as Britain is an entirely insular. State -it is absolutely necessary- as a matter, of mere self-preservation ■ that she ‘ should possess preponderating . . naval strength; that there has never; been, in fact, such a general sense of insecurity due To the preponderance of the British Navy as the German theory describes ; that all the world knows what country it is that has proved an ‘ inchbus ’to Europe-in military matters ; and that the supremacy of the., sea •is in safer hands than it .would be if it were transferred to a Power which stands discredited before the nations for its violations of international principles and practice, and 7 which has embroiled ; almost the whole civilised world 7 in the turmoil and tumult of an utterly unnecessary war. ■ . .; 1 •. -'Z*.- ,■ * W. *. Til ‘Sj -t- •

The ‘Count of Heads’ Argument

‘ What is Parliament ,but- a count of heads ; is one of Canon Garland’s replies-T-arid, indeed, his only reply —to the forceful arguments that, have ,been advanced against the proposal to decide v important" . uestions ' of religion and- conscience by the brute force of . a majority vote. The argument been repeated, by some leaders of public opinion 1 who are usually much more careful thinkers than ! Canon Garland has so far shown himself to be. } ' The Otago Daily o Times, .. forexam pie',j though opposed to the Bible in State Schools League’s scheme,

has expressed its approval of a referendum on the subject,,on the ground that to refuse it would be to deny that Parliament itself ; has the right to legislate on the lines desired by the League. It slxould hardly be necessary toj say. that those who object to the referendum on -the ground above indicated do emphatically deny that Parliament has the right— we mean, of course, the moral rightto introduce religion into the schools under conditions which violate the sacred rights of conscience both of teachers and tax-payers. In a formal and considered statement of his attitude on the subject of the referendum, prepared in answer to sundry queries on the matter. Bishop Cleary has set forth the Catholic position . with his customary clearness and conciseness, and has dealt comprehensively— and, we should say, finallywith this whole question of the rights of Parliament and the, ‘ count of heads argument. We have pleasure in giving his Lordship’s statement to our readers. ,

1. ‘-I have no objection .whatever,’ says Bishop Cleary, to Parliament deciding matters on iwhich it is competent to decide. 2. I have no objection to the principle of the referendum, provided that it be properly applied. The danger of the principle is realized in Switzerland, where only certain matters are submitted to it; and no authority there (so far as I am aware) favors the referendum on all subjects. The budget, for instance, is not subject to a referendum. The referendum gives the people right to veto—or to let ■ alone—measures that have already passed both Houses of the Legislature. The present Referendum Bill does not provide for a referendum at all. It provides only for a plebiscite. - It should, therefore, be called the Plebiscite Bill. 3. The plebiscite has long been an occasional French resort. It has been also used in other countries in times of political turmoil. I lived for four years in a city where important political issues were once ' determined by a plebiscite, amidst a wild storm of organised passion. The present Plebiscite Bill is a proposal to legislate over the head of Parliament. It is an extremely dangerous resort, and has never been adopted as part of the legislative machinery of any civilised country. 4. But no matter how laws are made —whether by Parliament directly or by popular votethere is always a limit to the right of-legislation. The legislative authority, for instance, is limited by natural right, and by the moral law. The civil law is a social code— not a personal code to coerce the personal religious conscience. Neither Parliament nor an electoral majority has the moral right or competency to interfere in the purely personal relations of a man with his personal religious conscience, and with the Divine Lawgiver at the back of .conscience. An Englishman’s house is ; said to be his castle. But a man’s personal religious conscience, is more than his castle : it is the place where God speaks to the soul alone. 5. Now if-Parlia-ment, or: an electoral majority, invade this sanctuary of a. man’s religious conscience,,; they invade sacred ground set ; profane,, feet in the place of God ; they ' presume •to dictate between God and the indiyidualsoiil. They are trespassers on God’s own ground.

fi},; 6. ‘Now, if against "your will And consent I climb across your fence into, your orchard, I commit a trespass. It f is my duty to cease the trespass. How do I do so ? • The most obvious way is to cross the fence again. Here .axe two crossings of your fence—one, of these was for the purpose of trespassing* the 1 other for the purpose of ending the trespass. The first crossing was wrong. The second was : right. 7. It is the same with a " Parliament which has trespassed upon those rights of conscience which are the rights of God. It trespassed " by legislation: By legislation' it must undo the trespass. 1 ‘ It must go back over the fence. by. which it entered. ' Under a constitutional Government there is no other j way open to undo a bad law than by a good law—by repeal; or otherwise— always by a law. In the 'case of the bad law your count of heads, makes a trespass on : sacred ? ground ; in the second. case the

count of heads undoes the trespass, and makes amends. The first is an evil act, because of its evil nature or intent, or both. The second is a meritorious act,-be-cause good in its nature, and good in. its intent. Now you see that the same act-counting heads—may, in different circumstances, have two very ' different moral values. 8. The moral law binds Parliaments as it binds individuals, majorities as it binds minorities. If Parliament , trespasses upon right or does any injustice, it is its duty to cease its trespass. But it cannot undo one wrong by creating another and a greater wrong. That would be a fresh act of trespass upon forbidden ground. In the. case under consideration here, a wrong was (in the estimate of Catholics} done by divorcing religion from its old and immemorial bond with education. ' But it would not remedy that wrong to do what the League and the League's Bill proposes: (a) To give to Caesar the things that are God’s—to force, the Government to do a part of the .work which, in clear terms of Scripture, God has imposed upon parents and the Church ; 1 (b) to invade the'sanctuary of conscience and force tax-payers, teachers, parents, and pupils to do what conscience does hot allow; (c) to abolish the Golden Rule, which requires us to do to others as we would that others should do to us and (d) to set electoral majorities above God and-make them the Lord of conscience. It can never be lawful for either Parliaments or majorities thus to trespass on God’s castle of conscience in the human'soul.’..':