Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 2 November 1916, Page 21

Current Topics

A Question of Consistency -‘ A ‘ foolish consistency,’ , says Emerson, ‘is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you, think now in hard, words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict everything you said to-day.’ Apparently it is some ‘ great soul ’ of the Emersonian type who has presided over the education policy of the Anglican body in the Dominion. An Anglican Commission appointed in 1913 to report on the question of education said, in its report:—‘From every point of view, the Church will never be in a position to carry out its paramount duty towards the young until we possess primary schools of our own, which will not only afford a sound education for many of our children, but will also become training centres for the teachers of the future.’ Yet in that very year the Anglican body, from the North Cape to the Bluff, threw in its lot with the Bible in State Schools League, and espoused a system which, if adopted, would have rendered it forever impossible, practically speaking, for Anglicans to establish a single primary school in this country. If the Commission’s report represented anything like the real sentiment of" Anglicans, the latter have reason to be very grateful to Catholics for having saved them from themselves. The Closure on the War News The ‘ fog of war ’ —in one of the many senses of that over-worked expressionis being used of late in rather a striking manner to coital from the outside world the course that military operations are taking on all fronts. For the past two months we have received next to no details, from either east or west, as to what is going on, except when some town or village or more or less important position changes hands. From the west we have had no information in the interval between the fall of Combles and the recent French success at Verdun. For a long time the only news we had from Rumania was that the situation was ‘ obscure.’ From the Halicz-Kovel region we have heard nothing for weeks past except that a sanguinary struggle is proceeding. An so on. No one really knows how the war is going. It may be that there is nothing of importance to report. But it is just as likely that the war has in fact entered upon a phase predicted by the military expert of the Rome Tribuna, who said at the beginning of this (European) summer that when critical times were at hand the Allies would draw a curtain over the theatre of war. It looks as if this has actually happened. According to this view, operations of the utmost gravity are taking place in an atmosphere of secrecy designed to baffle the commanders of the Central Powers, and the fate of these operations is not disclosed. The Allies are dealing in generalities for the moment because they have learned from experience not to supply the enemy with details that might be of material assistance to him. The War Prophets and Rumania The swift descent of Germany upon the Dobrudja and the critical situation in Rumania which has so speedily followed teach at least one lessonand that is the foolishness of boastful prophesying. The intervention of Rumania was the signal for the war experts and prophets in England to let themselves go, without any sort of restraint. Even careful writers like Mr. Hilaire Belloc, and sober journals like the Spectator, indulged in language that can only be described as in the highest degree extravagant. The Spectator, after elaborating the point that the verdict of history is anticipated by Rumania’s action,’ concluded its article thus; ‘ We are not using the word in any conventional sense when we say that at such thoughts , as -these , the

Germans must be utterly appalled. It is the writing on the wall. The general tone is exemplified in the utterance of- the London Star : ‘ It is a task for a Titan. The German Empire is floundering in Masurian swamps which are deeper and wider than those in which the old soldier made his name. It is not East Prussia that is sinking in the swamps. It is the whole German Empire. It is the whole Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is Bulgaria. It is Turkey. It is the House of the Hoheuzollerns. It is the House of the Hapsburgs; What a change in a week! In all history there has never been an avalanche of disaster so colossal. The human mind cannot grasp the full meaning of this swaying and tottering of the whole Prussian system. It is a world that is crashing and crumbling about the ears of the All-Highest, whose threats used to curdle the blood of Europe. Speculation is superfluous. One does not speculate in the middle of an earthquake. One looks on.’ * ~ Well, we are looking on, but in a somewhat diffeient spirit from that reflected in the London paper. We believe that Rumania and the Entente will safely weather the storm, but that does not alter the fact that this cheap and empty boasting was much too previous. It is now abundantly clear that Berlin was fully prepared for Rumania’s dramatic appearance amongst the belligerents. Whatever may be said regarding the readiness or otherwise of the Entente, it is certain that Germany, at least, was not caught nap-' ping. Sir Douglas Haig Leading French journals such’ as the Paris Debats and the Figaro , are devoting much space to an account of the personality and career of General Sir Douglas Haig, the brilliant cavalryman who directs Britain’s ‘ big push ’ on the western front. As a soldier, General Haig’s chief title to distinction is his rediscovery and restoration of the horse to its traditional glory on the field of battle. He revived the cavalry the moment responsibility had been thrown upon him. When he was in Germany long before the war studying Prussian military methods, he did not conceal from the friends he made there that the general staff in Berlin would yet pay dearly for its neglect of this arm of the service a piediction that has already in this year’s campaigns, both on east and west, been notably verified. His v hole career, prior to the present war, had been one protest against the prevalent notion that the day of the cavalry was past, and he is at the head of the big push to-day because of the belated discovery in Europe of the real lesson of the Civil War in America. * Hie 1 1gam’s description of General Haig’s personal appearance is highly poetic and romantic—of the type which imaginative young ladies love to read about. Looking somewhat taller than he is, owing to the slimness of his build, General Sir Douglas Haig, in the I igaro s description of him, is graceful in every movement, yet masculine in the muscular strength stamped upon him by a life of activity. The complexion is swarthy, tanned by African and Indian suns, yet the bluish grey in the large, limpid eye flashes under grey brows and betrays the northern extraction. The hair is grizzled, like the moustache, and imparts an oddly youthful finish to features finely chiselled. The salient ■ feature is the strong, shapely chin. The lean brown hand clasps that chin in moments of reflection. It is the chin of an artist, and the face is the face of an artist. Sir Douglas is a great soul, a Scot m the breed that has given currency to the saying that ‘ tender and true ’ is the north from which he comes. The voice in which his few words are spoken is low, modulated to the atmosphere of the drawing-room, yet commanding, decisive. He moves quickly, yet his gestures are few. The figure is clean cut, the build slight, the cheek' darkened ; by years of the closest shaving, the bearing very straight, like the walk, which is regular, rigid. Sir Douglas does not leap against the back of the chair

in which he sits. His hair is plastered down upon the head.- * So much for the outward appearance. It may interest those who are constantly pointing to the war as a mark of the failure of Christianity to know that General Haig, like so many of the most capable generals on the western front, is a man of strong religious faith and deep pietyin his case, of the Presbyterian evangelical type. On the whole he is sombre; but he has humor, nevertheless, and he sometimes reveals it through the medium of an apt citation from the Scriptures, which he reads diligently. His intellect is markedly Scotch and metaphysical, and his favorite poet is affirmed to be Robert Burns. It is said of him that he never reads a novel. As a soldier, his real opportunity came in the South African war, for it was his work with the cavalry that brought him under the notice of General French and turned the tide of British disaster. Here it was that his piety especially came to the front. Haig does not swear or gamble or dance all night at revels or affect the dress uniform of his rank. This asceticism has always been understood, 1 for he has the Presbyterian temperament markedly. The officers’ mess was not, all the same, prepared for his reply to the quarter-master who asked him during the Colesberg operations if, in a brush with the Boers, he had lost anything. ‘ Yes,’ confessed Haig solemnly, ‘my Bible!’ Not once did his countenance relax its gravity as he gazed at the grinning faces in his .vicinity. To this day, Haig is grimly Scot in his spirituality, attending Presbyterian services every Sunday at the front, revelling in. doctrinal sermons that are not at all brief. He suggests Gladstone in a certain passion for theology, and his private library, when he was general officer commanding at Aldershot, was well stocked with works on polemic divinity. Haig has a decided taste for reading, which, even when of a serious kind, is one of his relaxations. He keeps inclose touch with the very heaviest periodical literature, and he can read German and French as readily as he reads English. He is, above all, a man of decision, and he profoundly impressed the members of the general staff in Berlin when he studied German army methods there several years ago. In Paris his name was a familiar one long before the present Avar brought him renown with the multitude, for Haig followed the manoeuvres in the Champagne country and elsewhere in the capacity of British military attache. Altogether, both by personal qualifications, and by his previous experiences in Germany and France, the British Com-mander-in-Chief seems specially cut out for the responsible work which he has in hand. Peace Talk in England According to Saturday’s cables, a distinguished neutral resident of Berlin, who is visiting Sweden, states that the authorities in Germany ‘ are co-ordinat-ing their efforts to secure a peace which will not brand them as having been defeated ’ ; and we have been accustomed for some time past, to the flying of peace kites and the publication of something not far removed from peace overtures by official or unofficial representatives of the fatherland. But it comes with rather a shock of surprise to find that serious journals and representative and influential men in England are also talking peace, or at any rate are pressing upon the Government the desirableness of making public the peace terms that would be considered satisfactory to the Allies. A writer in the Fdifnii/htli/ declares that ‘ A careful examination of the speeches made by Ministers, since they discovered that Germany was not going to collapse quickly through starvation or Avant of men reveals so many discrepancies and contradictions between their most formal declarations that it is impossible to believe that their views are firmly fixed and their resolution unswerving ami unyielding.’ A contributor to Ihe Candid Quarterly also complains that after nearly two years of Avar nobody knows what the Allied attitude is to be towards peace when the vague rumors emanating from the enemy which even nmy'filj

the .air crystallise into definite proposals. He scouts the idea that Mr. Asquith’s famous Guildhall declaration was either clear or explicit, and he ridicules the notion that such an overthrow of Germany is possible, as was implied in Mr. Masterman’s ‘ official' interpretation ’ of Mr. Asquith’s speech. To prove his point he dives into history. ‘ It is characteristic of truly great minds to arrive, even though by different roads, at the same end. They part on the road apparently never to meet again but they meet at last and Mr. Masterman’s idea of to-day is exactly the .same as Napoleon’s of a hundred years ago. There is only this difference: that what Mr. Masterman proposes Napoleon actually did. He did it all and more. After the Battle of Jena, in 1806, and the Treaty, of Tilsit, in 1807, he left Prussia not only pushed back beyond the Rhine, but deprived of one-half of her territory, not only with her military domination, but with all her military power destroyed—destroyed as it then appeared wholly, finally, and for ever. For he did not leave her even her independence. His armies lived on her, ravaged her, ransomed her, and harried her, and he bound her never to have more than an army. of 42.000 men. But it all proved useless. Stein found means to evade the limitation of the army; within six years after Jena, Prussia was found again among the enemies of Napoleon, and in 1813 she sent not 42.000 men, but nearly half the army of 290,000 men to the Battle of Leipzig, which finally defeated him and brought Prussia with the rest of the Allies to Paris and Napoleon to Elba. The truth is that it is harder than Mr. Masterman suspects to destroy Prussia and to keep her destroyed as completely as Napoleon intended.’ The writer concludes by suggesting that it would be more modest and wiser to abstain from anything in the nature of 1 tall talk,’ the only effect of which is to strengthen our enemy. ' # * -finally, a series of letters on the question of peace has been appearing in the influential London financial weekly, The hcnnoimst, and the views expressed are rather remarkable, coming as they do from men of high standing and acknowledged authority. In the first Lord Brassey reviews the general position thus: As to the objects of the war, the Prime Minister has said again and again that we ere out to put down militarism. But unless we are resolved ourselves to disarm—a policy certain, sooner or later, to invite attack—how can we demand that Germany shall be without an army? Do we not hear from the same quarters that we need a larger permanent force, backed by a strong reserve ? In a recent letter to The Times , Lord Cromer has given us the lessons of his ripe experience and commanding authority. If, he says, the German armies could be completely vanquished, it would be a fatal effort to endeavor to impress from without any internal reforms on Germany. What is chiefly necessary is that the Germans should show signs of conversion and readiness to re-enter the comity of civilised nations. It may be submitted that such signs are not wholly wanting in the German Chancellor’s recent speech. The circumstances of the hour would seem to point to the possibility of negotiations which might lead to peace. . . . Surely we may ask ourselves, is it worth while indefinitely to prolong the awful struggle, with its lamentable sacrifice of life, and the waste of resources not easily replaced?’ Lord Loreburn, a man of high standing and a former Lord Chancellor, writes even more strongly, and his words may be quoted at length : —‘ What are our objects in this war ? The view generally held in this country is that we are engaged in what is really a crusade to prevent the odious military autocracy of Prussia from imposing its will upon us after having overrun the Continent. If either thecommencement or continuance of war be necessary to defeat so preposterous a pretension', there is not a man worth his salt in the kingdom who would not at any time fight, and, were it needful, go down fighting rather than submit. There are, however, other things besides that and beyond that which require notice, i Language has been used by Ministers, some of it explicit

enough, some of it marked by an unhappy ambiguity, which indicates, or is interpreted as indicating, a design to effect a conquest of Germany so complete as to leave her stripped of many provinces, and without an army sufficient to protect her against other Powers. History tells us what Germany has suffered in the old time from her neighbors. It is a record which, while in no way palliating the atrocious methods of Prussian militarism, does explain the national resolve to possess military strength. It also explains the desperate determination to go on fighting in the belief that the German national existence is at stake. The language of some among our Ministers, echoed by less responsible people outside, has played the game of the German Government. These declarations have filled the German press, and been freely placarded on their Avails to stiffen their determination. * ‘Are these really our objects ? They have been affirmed as such by the minor gods. They ought to be disavowed explicitly, and in quite unmistakable terms. Otherwise the character of the Avar would be profoundly altered. It would no longer be a crusade for freedom. It would have become a war of conquest. . . . Whatever be our aim, I submit that no Government has the right to keep us in the dark. It may be, though I do not believe it, that the country will say : We are prepared to go on until Russia obtains Constantinople and the provinces that command the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles ; till Serbia not only gets back her own dominions, but also Bosnia and Herzegovina ; till all Poland is restored to autonomy under the Czar; till Italy obtains Italia Irredenta; and France not merely regains Alsace-Lorraine, but acquires parts of Rhenish Germany as well. But we are uninformed upon two points in this connection. One of them is the extent and nature of our engagements towards our Allies. We are pledged, as Ave know, not to make a separate peace. That is a different thing to being pledged to insist on particular terms as the price of peace. If we are committed in this latter sense, so that we cannot be guided by our own views of what is right, then it is well that Ave should realise what it means. . . . Let us know the truth. What are our aims? What are our engagements What are our prospects ? What are the views of our enemies? We shall then know how to act. I believe that more than one neutral Power is on the alert to help forward an honorable ending of this Avar, and further, that if treated as they should be with proper confidence on both sides, they would succeed. It would be a very serious error if such an opportunity is not used. Lord Beauchamp writes to' precisely the same effect, and concludes : ‘lf we refuse to discuss the terms of peace to-day, we take the responsibility of another twelve months of war, or more. Who in the world can face such a prospect without a hope that it may prove unnecessary, and that terms of peace satisfactory both to ourselves and to our Allies may, afterall, be arranged?’ * We do not, in the slightest degree endorse these views, hinting, as it seems to us they do, at a premature and inconclusive peace; but they are interesting and significant as showing that influential men in England are seriously debating the., question. Those who have been so severe on the Pope for his efforts to establish ‘ a just and lasting’ peace will now have to acknowledge that he has weighty sympathisers.