MONARCHY OR REPUBLIC

New Zealand Tablet, 11 December 1919, Page 9

MONARCHY OR REPUBLIC

(By Walter O'Brien, in the Catholic Bulletin.)

- In these days when, on the one hand, we hear the rumbling of tottering thrones, and on the other, silly talk about the "divine right of kings," it may not be either uninteresting or uninstructive if we inquire into the origin of kingship; but it will take us pretty far afield. Turning, then, to the inspired Book, we arrive at the 12th chapter of Genesis, or tho year A.M. 2084, before we find mention of the word "king," or rather "prince," which is the same thing. We are told how the Ruler of Egypt in those days— was one of the many Pharaos took a fancy to the wife of another man because she happened to be very beautiful and was wishful to make her his own. However, it must be recorded in his defence that he acted under a misapprehension and that he immediately made reparation when he discovered his mistake. History records that Pharao has not been without royal imitators in this matter, but that they have not all been so scrupulous or so punctual in making the "amende honorable" for their little peccadilloes. Someone, I think it is Dickens, has cynically remarked that it is the prerogative of kings to govern everything but their passions. In the 14th chapter of Genesis we read of the expedition of the four "kings" who made war on five other "kings," all of whose names and kingdoms are recorded, and whose numbers are strongly reminiscent of "Quadruple Alliances," and "Entente Powers" of which we hear something in these later and not less bellicose times. But beyond this, who these "kings" were, whether they ascended their thrones by popular acclamation or by right of primogeniture or, what is more likely, by the power of the "mailed fist," we know not, but this we do know, that it was not by "Right Divine," for kings did not come into being among God's own People for many years subsequentlyto be exact, about the year A.M. 2908 and who down to that period lived under a Theocracy, that, is,. God Himself was their Ruler, governing them through; Patriarchs and Judges. But about the time above stated, a change came over the spirit of their dream. Samuel, the last of the race of the Judges, was growing old, and the reins of office were becoming slack in his enfeebled hands, and he recognised this fact himself, and he resigned. Here I might pause to say how very desirable it would be if modern judges, and others holding important and responsible positions would take a leaf out of Samuel's book, instead of clinging to "the fleshpots of Egypt," long after they have lost; the mental or the physical vigor necessary for the duo performance of their work. Failing this voluntary retirement, the desirable consummation'should be accomplished by the gentle pressure of legislation. ■ Samuel resigned, but in doing so he seems to have been-guilty of a little bit of nepotism, a sin which has haunted both' Church and State from > his days to our own. He ; appointed his two sons jointly to : fill the : vacant office, but it did. not work well. "His sons walked not in his ways, but they turned aside Rafter lucre and took bribes and perverted judgment." • Upon this the people "struck." They said to Samuel: "Behold, thou old and thy sons walk not in thy ways; maice us a, j±.viiy xo juugo uo, «o »u nouwuo «»"j.

This suggestion or T demand did not meet with Samuel's approval. He was angry, but he prayed to God for guidance, and God replied: "Hearken to the voice" of the people in all that they say to thee; they" have i not rejected thee, but Me, that I should not reign over them." Then He goes on to add: |j "But testify and foretell to them the rights (i.e., the powers) of the King that shall reign over them." These "rights" would appear to be briefly these: that he would make slaves of their.children, that he would take possession of their lands "and.pass them •. over to his servants, that he would demand tithes to make him arms and chariots; in a word, that he would crush them and tyrannise over them. Lastly, Samuel, by command of God, prophesied that a day would come when they would cry out against this tyranny, but that God would turn a deaf ear to them because they demanded a king. Notwithstanding this solemn warning, they persisted in their request, for a king, and they got him. History records that the experiment did not prove very successful. Such is the story of the foundation of Monarchy, given almost verbatim from the Holy Book; and reading it, we are tempted to quote the trite saying that "history repeats iself." We are told of the restlessness of the people under a form of government which was by no means cruel or oppressive, but was on the contrary undeniably good and paternal, even admitting the excesses of Samuel's sons. We are confronted with nepotism or favoritism; with briber y and corruption. We are even brought face to face with militarism and the crushing taxation which it always brings in its train; and at length, overborne by the strong similitude of it all, we ask ourselves, is the writer speaking of his own century or of ours, for, surely, his words fit the twentieth century like a glove.

We have often been told that war, whether international or internecine, is barbaric, that it is the outcome of a lower standard of morality among the peoples, but that as civilisation and education, culture and refinement advanced, the untamed instincts of man would be brought under better control, that the sword would be turned into a ploughshare and that might would yield to right. This pleasant dream did, indeed, seem to have been almost realised. We had Hague Conventions sitting in solemn conclave, adjusting national claims and smoothing international difficulties. We had even built a superb Peace Palace, where our delegates might pursue their pacific avocation with dignity and ease, so essential for such a work, and all pointed to the fact that the halcyon period had really arrived, when, suddenly, like a bolt from the blue, the blow of an assassin's hand, like the striking of a match in a gas-charged room, awakened men from their dream and blew the Hague Convention and its Peace Palace into eternity, turned Europe, nay, Asia; Africa, and America as well, into one huge camp armed to the teeth, and proved to the day-dreamers that man is ever man, the same in the twentieth century as in the first, that his boasted civilisation is a fraud, a thin veneering, that as, "if you scratch a Russian'you find a Tartar," so, also, if you scratch a man you find a savage, especially when ho has given himself over to the spirit of materialism and ignored God. All this was strongly emphasised by the barbarous methods, the "frightfulness," adopted in this modern war, which horrified us because it took.us by surprise; we had never heard or read of such things, they were the product of modern science, of which we had grown so proud. The Allies, or "Entente Powers," as they are called, cried out, "Behold the 'Hun'!" Yes, it was the "Hun," but not because he is a "Hun," but because he is a man. As far as I can see, "the upper dog" is always cruel, his worst passions are let loose by the smell of blood and run riot; he loses possession of himself, does many things he is only semi-conscious of, and many more he is afterwards thoroughly ashamed of. If you turn over the pages of "history I venture to think you will find it has been ever thus, that the "Hun" (whether he be of German or other nationality) has always so acted, gouging out eyes, cutting off ears and noses, and committing other unnameable barbarities and cruelties. Need we do more than recall the French Revolution to prove up to the hilt that at such times men become actually insane and that, reason being ' dethroned, they are no better than beasts or birds of -prey? It is in this way, I think, we may best explain, though not palliate, the persecutions, cruelties, burnings, hangings, and quarterings, etc., whether of Catholics or Protestants, which took place in. days gone by in this kingdom and on the Continent, and which now cause our hair to stand on end and our cheeks to burn with shame to think- that such crimes could have been perpetrated in the sacred name of religion but as Lord Macaulay says, "men are found to wade knee-deep in blood in defence of a religion which they desecrate every day of their lives," or, to quote a higher -authority, "They will put you out of the synagogues,? yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever.killeth you,, will think he doth a service to (rod.

(John xvi., 2.) The old proverb has it that "all's-fair in lore .and. war." Perhaps this is the German's apologia. When Jim t Jeffries met ■* Black Johnson in the Ring they shook hands agreed to abide by the "Code of honor," namely, ■- not ito strike "below the. belt," etc. Now, everyone; understands lit ... was merely ] a display of science, a friendly rivalry between the White - and the Black races, and so it was worked out on well-defined professional lines. But if you were walking on a lonely road arid suddenly met a ■ determined ruffian armed with a deadly weapon and you knew he was intent upon taking your life, I hardly think you would care very much whether you struck above the belt or below it, you would try to anticipate him in his lethal design, and fool you would be if you didn't.

T ?<; Is not this the position of the belligerent? They are engaged in a deadly strife, and they either forget or ignore the "Hague Rules," which they lay down that you may not strike "below the belt" (?). You may bayonet a man, but you may not 'gas' him! To me these "Laws of War" would seem to border on the comic, were it not for the tragedy of it all. Christian men meet together and gravely lay down the conditions under which you may decently take away the life of your fellow-man! But soldiers in the field of battle, face to face with the realities of life, or rather of death, simply brush aside these academic laws and let themselves go. As well might yon enact the "Laws of Burglary or Brigandage." War is a crime, and Militarism an outrage. For my own part, I had as lief be "gassed" as run through with a bayonet. This reminds me of an incident which took place in the Boer War. An English officer writes home and tells of an attack made on the Boers; they came to close quarters, and of course the bayonet came into play. "Then (writes this fellow) we had some excellent pigsticking." This man was not a "Hun," but an English "Gentleman"! I was horrified, and I immediately wrote to the paper, an English one, in .which it had appeared, but of course my letter was not inserted. I don't know which to stigmatise more strongly, the "pig-sticker" or the editor who quoted his letter with approval and gloated over it. They would both, no doubt, justify the incident by saying it was unavoidable. The Germans say the same about the killing of women and children. They say they are all militants, and so in a sense they are. Every woman who "does her bit" by taking the place of a soldier and thus releases him as a militant, every civilian who "pays towards the upkeep of the army, willingly or unwillingly, becomes thereby a militant. Again, if you bombard a city you necessarily, though it is beside your intention, kill women and children. You say, "Well, anyway, it is brutal." I reply: Yes, it is, but tell me anything that is not brutal in war. Would it not be brutal to see two brothers fighting to the death in their father's house and before his very eyes? Is it less brutal to see two nations, or sets of nations, fighting like dogs in deadly conflict in the presence of their Father, the God of Peace, who wishes His children to settle their disputes by arbitration, rather than by the arbitrament of the sword?

Since the day when Samuel anointed Saul and appointed him first King of Israel, empires and kingdoms have come and gone "many a time and oft" ; they flourished for a day and then disappeared and were succeeded by others, some of them now existing, and these, too, will make room by and by for others not yet born. If you were asked the reason for the "decline and fall" of these empires, you would very likely say it was due to their pride, their insolence, their luxuriousness of living, which enervates and enfeebles nations, as it does men, their materialism, and above all their abandonment of God. All this is true, but there is yet another reason to be found, namely, their militarism. Militarism is the necessary accompaniment of the monarchic form of government. It is part and parcel of the pomp and circumstance, the tawdry display of royalty, which cannot exist without an army and an hereditary nobility and aristocracy, from which the chiefs of the army are always recruited and which latter-is for them a "happy hunting ground." Granted an army, it must justify its existence, and this can only be done by war. Then, its very presence is a standing threat to neighboring kingdoms, which must keep themselves in a perpetual state of preparation for defensive purposes. I need not travel very far afield for an illustration of this fact. Look back 20 or 30 years previous to 1914 and you saw a bloated and ever-expanding army growing up in Germany day by day, and side by side with it you beheld an enormous and ever-increasing navy building up in England. This involved crushing taxation to r the peoples of both these countries, and they cried out against it f then to prove how necessary it all was and to drown these awkward cries, they go to war and war leads to the dismemberment of empires.

Now this would riot be if the nations adopted the republican or democratic form of government. You will tell me that republics go to war, too, as witness America and France in the present strife. |,- True, but America was forced into it in self-defence, arid before! her much-to-be- ; regretted entrance . into v the vortex; of European politics, relying on. her "Monroe Doctrine,"" she possessed only "a contemptible little army, r and lier navy was not much more. France had recourse to militarism from sheer dread of the terrible enemy on her borders, whose intentions were known to be hostile and whose designs leant on her chest like a nightmare or bugbear. A republic is the .people's form of government, and the people are opposed to" war, for they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by it,'whilst the very reverse is true of monarchy as I have above pointed out. - Again, a republic, like the "plain man," lives a simple, unostentatious life, it has not to maintain the pomp and dignity and splendor of royalty, it is not "costly. For instance, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has- a far larger salary to keep up a mack court, a miserable travesty of the royal court of St. James', than has the President of the United States, who rules over a Continent; whilst, on the other hand, to maintain the royal families of Russia, Germany or England and their entourage, the people are taxed to the tune, of hundreds of thousands, if it does not run into millions. Passing over the archaicism of the monarchic system, which, however suitable to. the Middle Ages, is entirely out of date now, an absurd anachronism, we come to the principal objection, namely, that it is opposed to the sound and recognised principle that the governed* should have a voice in the selection of him who is to govern them. This was laid down many years ago by Leo XIII., when ho told the royalists of France, greatly to the disgust of Count de Mun and such as he, to throw in their lot with tho French Republic, that the Catholic Church ■ had no preferences as to the form of government, provided it was the free choice of the people. If the French Republic did not afterwards prove itself grateful for Pope Leo's powerful aid in its then critical state, that is no argument against tho principle in se. The President of the United States has recently endorsed the teaching of Pope Leo, and we even find that renegrade democrat, Lloyd George, wiring his congratulations to the revolutionaries in Russia when they dethroned withstanding that, as Prime Minister of England, he re- . presented a monarchy !

Perhaps you will say that the form of the Catholic Church's government is monarchic. It is and it isn't. The Pope is, and ever will be, a king—a spiritual king, reigning over millions of subjects. He was & temporal sovereign also, until another monarch by the aid of militarism dethroned him and despoiled him of his dominions. But lie is not an hereditary king. Being a celibate he has no son to succeed him. He is elected by the voice of his subjects, expressed by the votes of the electors, the Cardinals. Here we have the true spirit of democracy, not the outworn system of primogeniture. Can anything be more absurd than that a man should succeed; to a high and responsible position, requiring the highest qualifications and talents of no ordinary calibre, simply because he is his father's son, nay, his eldest son? Take, as an instance, the Kaiser, William 11. Whether you love or hate him, admire or detest him, you must in honesty ad- ; mit that he has proved himself an able administrator, a" man of brains, a strong personality, and a capable leader to his people. During his reign of 30 years, his kingdom has advanced by leaps and bounds, commercially, educationally, and scientifically, until it became the exemplar of the world in these respects. It is true he has now "upset the applecart" by his fatal love of militarism, but still the fact remains that during his long reign his country attained a degree of prosperity it had never known before. Well, he dies, and the Crown Prince succeeds, not' because he has brains, nor because he has proved that he possesses the art or gift of governing, but simply and solely because he is his father's eldest son! Can anything be more ridiculous, nay, more dangerous, than to place the destinies of a people in such hands and for such a reason? Of course, the same argument applies with equal truth to all monarchies, and also to the - hereditary chamber of the British Parliament.' The making of our laws, on which our happiness and prosperity largely depend, is placed in the hands of men, many of whom not alone are not known to be fit for the discharge of such solemn functions, but are known to be absolutely unfit. $ In a republic all this would be impossible. The people would select the best man they could find, because he was the best man; they would give him a fairly long term of office, say, ten years (preferably, to the American system of four) in order to secure greater stability and permanency, for change always brings .unrest in its Lrain, and.

when Ms term "of -" office had expired, they • would s declare him^ineligible for iTeelection and assign to him a decent ; pension;. ; / . '•The remedy, then, for the existing anomalous state Of affairs' is to adopt jjfche .teaching of Leo XIII. Let each nation, great or small, have its choice/ by means of a referendum or plebiscite, whether they shall remain as they are, or stand on their own feet, and if the latter is decided upon, whether it shall be the Republican form of Government as America selected, or the Monarchic as Norway adopted some ten years ago. And here let me say/that this may be done without a revolution, or violent upheaval, as happened in the case of Norway and Sweden, which separated, though not without strong opposition on the part of the latter Power, without the effusion of a single drop of blood. Personally, I should like to see great unwieldy empires such as Russia, Britain, and Germany resolved into their component parts, for just as a big, strong man is apt to be a bully—his very strength unconsciously makes him so, for, to possess power is to wield it —so, also, overpowerful nations are likely to be a danger and a menace to their smaller" and weaker neighbors. Recent events prove this.