OUR ROMAN LETTER

New Zealand Tablet, 9 January 1919, Page 17

OUR ROMAN LETTER

(By “Scottus.”)

Some weeks ago a certain genius, writing in the great organ of English Catholic opinion, endeavored to wave aside airily all doubts as to the alleged discourtesy of the British Government in failing to reply to the Pope’s Peace Note, by calmly stating that a diplomatic reply had been sent, but not what he called “a discussion reply.” What exactly the distinction means he knows best himself. Ordinary intelligent people will take the facts as they find them ; and the facts, which cannot be controverted by any amount of sophistry, are as follows: A few days after the receipt of the Pope’s Peace Note the Cardinal Secretary of State was officially informed that the Government had received the Note, and that this Note would receive due attention. Subsequently, as will be remembered, President Wilson replied for himself and his own country ; and shortly after this it was announced by English newspapers that the British Government adopted that reply as its own. But from that day to this no intimation of the procedure has been conveyed to the Holy See, officially or otherwise, beyond that printed in the papers. .Different people will perhaps have . different ideas of courtesy ; but most people will hold that the mere acknowledgment of the receipt of a letter is no reply to that letter, and will be inclined to think that a document of the kind, which so closely affected the most vital interests of humanity, and which has since had the honor of being flattered in the most sincere of all ways—by imitation, deserved something more at the hands of the model of all Governments than the crude treatment thus meted out to it. In this connection a discussion that recently occupied the attention of practically every Italian newspaper affords a curious illustration of the value that is sometimes to be attached to diplomatic and parliamentary denials. When the Russian patriots, or revolutionaries — is not always easy to draw a hard and fast line these days between patriotism and revolution as lauded or condemned by the powers that be, let the fat into the fire by publishing a whole mass of secret diplomatic agreements and the like, one of the documents that attracted keen attention and discussion was that purporting to be an agreement between Italy, France, England, and Russia, distributed over a great many clauses, foremost among which was the famous Clause XV. In response to the outcry raised by the news, official statements were made in the Italian Chamber of Deputies which the man in the street could only take to mean that no such treaty existed, and that if a treaty did exist it was something quite different from that published. Statements not very dissimilar

were made in the British House of Commons about the same time, as readers will doubtless remember. Official denials were indeed limited to Clause XV., but by implication the whole treaty was denied and disavowed. .:_..'•'

Now comes a curious development. Across the Adriatic, down the Dalmatian coast, and inland for many a mile, ‘ there is a large population known as Yugo-Slavs. What they are I do not quite know; but I gather that 3 they are of Russian blood, are at present subject to. Austria, and are now claiming independence on the ground that this is a war for small nations and that they form one small nation or several small nations. It is not so long ago since they held a congress in Rome, at which several , resolutions were passed asserting their independence ; more important still, their claims were supported by Italy and England ; to-day they are commonly spoken of as the oppressed nations under Austrian rule : and they now form one of the small peoples for which Mr, Wilson says he is fighting. But— is always that queer word but—in the secret treaty there were several clauses regulating the future ownership of the Dalmatian coast, which was to come into Italian possession, or at least under an Italian protectorate l suppose there is a difference, though it is not very apparent; and on the other hand the new recognition of the Yugo-Slav nationalities admitted the right of the latter to self-determination, and consequently to independence of any and every power. Hence those tears, with which the sheets of the Italian newspapers were now copiously sprinkled. On the one hand you had a people claiming to be independent and having their claim recognised by Italy among others, and on the other you had an alleged treat y standing right in the way of that independence and giving to Italy the right to dispose of the destinies of that people.. The Italian is nothing if not logical ; and Italian politicians soon came to see that if genuine the treaty was in strident contradiction with the recognition of the Yugo-Slav claim. Gradually there arose a discussion which soon occupied the attention of nearly every paper in Italy. On the one side were ranged those in favor of Baron Sonnino, the Italian Foreign Secretary, who was regarded as responsible for the terms of the treaty and who was naturally supposed to be interested in its binding force : and on the other side were those who held that, treaty or no treaty, the Yugo-Slavs were to be encouraged against Austria and their rights to small nationhood recognised and supported. But one and all calmly took for granted that the famous treaty which had been solemnly disowned was no figment of the Russian brain, blit was a matter of solemn fact. 'As usual, the Italian mind found a compromise, which appeared to satisfy everyone, even if to the ordinary outsider it was not quite intelligible; for an official statement was issued that while Italy must insist on due recognition of her national aspirations, she would be quite ready to recognise those of the Yugo-Slavs—which seems to conic to this, that the Yugo-Slavs arc to be dependent and independent at one and the same time. Long ago, when reading Euclid’s delightful romances, we were always par tic ularly impressed with the ultimate appeal to reason summed up in the magic phrase, “that would be absurd.” The discussion, however, was not ended so easily. Like all discussions, it spread out as it grew. It was simple enough in the beginning to sympathise with the oppressed nations under Austrian rule, and to sigh for their liberation. But there are always nasty people who insist on carrying discussion to its logical conclusion : and so it, happened that subject, peoples were , to be found under nearly every Government, not only under Austria, but under Germany, and Turkey, and Russia, and the United States, and even under Englandand thus Ireland came under observation, and of course had to be disposed of as she deserved. The Gorriere della Sera has been mentioned more than once in these columns. It was the most influential newspaper in Italy down to a couple of years ago. It is

now understood to be closely allied to Lord Northcliffe and 1 the London Times. It was the great standard--bearer of the right of the Yugo- to self-deter-ruination in the discussion referred to.- And its intimate relations with the moulders of English opinion gave it, a special claim to speak with authority on the meaning of oppression and the limits of small nationhood. Signor Luigi Luzzatti was Italian Premier once, on a time for a few days; he should therefore be re-. garded as specially omniscient; be is a strong believer in English impeccability; and besides he had various reasons, it may be presumed, for taking off his coat in so good a cause. Accordingly he issued forth in the. columns of the Corriere delta Sera, clad in complete armor, with drums beating and banners flying, to stand up for oppressed nations and at the same time to say a good word for some of the oppressors. Naturally he had no difficulty in laying Austria low, for as everyone knows, Austria has not a leg to stand on in this respect. He had just as little difficulty in disposing of other Powers for a similar reason. But when victory seemed assured, and when Signor Luzzatti seemed about to carry all before him, the Avanti entered the lists and had a tilt against him as follows :

"But the article writer had in view one particular object, which was that of exhibiting England in fine colors—for all his sympathies go out to the fortunate Empire on which the sun never sets. For the British Empire is the sincere defender of nationalities—who can doubt it? It is as clear as noonday. But who says Ireland? Why, Signor Luigi Luzzatti shows that just as two and two make four, so there can be no denying that England is not to blame if Ireland is not perfectly content. •He does not indeed deny that the Irish people are SUBJECT to England, and therefore not independent, and down to the present day not even self-governing.. But he shows, and with an infinity of fine arguments, that if England is actually throttling Ireland it is with a gentle hand. If this restless people object, and if they find themselves torn by the claws of the Empire, who must bear the blame of this? 'No other Government,' he says, 'has tried, or is still trying, to blot out the mistakes of the past with finer efforts of political and social goodness.' An important confession, to be sure! But am I to regard as a gentleman that champion of mine who, after having relieved me of my purse, answers my remonstrances by telling me how much worse I might have fared ?" Meanwhile, according to paragraphs appearing in some of the Catholic papers of this city, the clergy of Bohemia have met at Prague and have issued the following proclamation regarding their attitude towards their own small nation:

“We, Czecho-Slovack priests, proud of being sous of the people to whom we are bound by ties of blood, language, and tradition, intend to remain united to that people in their struggles, in their -sufferings, and in their final victory. We affirm that the solemn declarations of our deputies and leaders, confirmed by the national pledge taken on the 17th of April, correctly represent our sentiments. We, too, see in the reconstruction of Bohemia as an independent State on act of Divine justice. To obtain this object we regard as indispensable the union of all the forces of the whole nation, side by side with strict discipline. And we declare that the Parliament-ary Union of Bohemia alone has the right to speak in the name of the nation, and we hereby condemn all private negotiations affecting the future of our country.”