Current Topics

New Zealand Tablet, 25 August 1921, Page 14

Current Topics

The Self Determination League It ought not be necessary to say that the SelfDetermination League was organised for the purpose of insisting that the Irish people shall have the right to choose their own form of government without' any outside interference. This right is affirmed by Catholic theology it was the basic principle of the American Declaration of Independence it was proclaimed by the Pope during the war; it was reiterated by President Wilson ; it was accepted by all the Allies. The Irish people claim only what is right, and what, during the war, their enemies confessed was right. Be it well understood that it is to support them in their fight for that right the League was formed. The League was not formed as a means of telling the Irish people what we think they ought to do, and those people who have any notion of that sort ought to get out of the League as soon as they can. We have heard during the past few days that certain Catholics are going around saying they have lost patience with the Irish people, and condemning, de Valera for not being fool enough to accept Lloyd George’s terms. They ought to remember that if they are fools it does not follow that the Irish people are obliged to be like them. Their attitude is based on ignorance and impertinence: ignorance of the true bearings of the question, and impertinence in assuming that they know better than the Irish people, clergy, and prelates what Ireland ought to accept.

Mr. Lee and Samoa The Massey Muddlement at home is bad enough but in Samoa it is a holy terror. We have before us an article by a Samoan gentleman, written for a Sydney journal, and it tells Mr. Lee flatly that his wild assertions in defence of the administration of Samoa are not only untrue but an insult to the Samoans. The writer rubs in the tale of British breaches of faith, and of British neglect of native interests and even of native lives, and further emphasises what we published previously concerning the awful waste and inefficiency of New Zealand’s representatives in the Islands. Besides the article in question we have a copy of a letter addressed to Mr. Lee by the Samoans, who tell him that while they consider meeting him would be only a waste of time, they think the British Government ought to intervene and kick out New Zealand as a rank failure. Here are a few. extracts “The Hon. E. P. Lee, Minister for External Affairs, N.Z.

"Sir,On the occasion of your visit to Samoa we, the undersigned, wish to express our hopeless feeling with regard to the future of Samoa under New Zealand control. We recognise the futility of bringing our ideas as to the proper management of the group forward, as we have definitely decided that in future as in the past our suggestions and protests will only be ignored, although we are mostly people of from ten to forty years' experience in the Island affairs. "We are enclosing herewith a table showing the progress made by Samoa, both in revenue and expenditure, and in the number of officials employed since 1915 ,and we would like to point out that since that time the population has decreased by about 25 per cent - ■ • • taxation, has increased by over 100 per cent, for which we receive few extra necessary benefits. We need hardly advise you that the inhabitants, both European and native, are now more than ever disgusted with the state of affairs in Samoa." The Minister is urged to do his best to stop the rot. The document ends: "If this cannot be done we believe that you will be compelled to agree with our contention that considering the fact that it requires double' the revenue and about two-and-a-half times the number of officials

to control a considerably reduced population, New Zealand's administration of Samoa has been a hopeless failure."

This suggests a ( nice problem: 1 If a hundred Germans manage well 50,000 natives, how many New Zealanders can manage even badly half that number? Answer —Two and a half times as many.

Father Gilbert speaks for New Zealand A letter from our friend Father Aubry, one of the best Irishmen ever born in France, brings us an account of the great Self-Determination meeting held in Trafalgar Square, London, on June 26. On the previous day a meeting at Clerkenwell had been raided by the police, and this incident instead of acting as a deterrent only brought larger and more enthusiastic crowds into the Square on the last Sunday of June. Father Gilbert, who from the first, when our supporters were few and when it was not fashionable to be a Sinn Feiner, upheld the cause in Wellington, received a most cordial welcome on being introduced to the meeting. Indeed, before they let him go he had to speak from the three platforms erected in the Square in order to reach the immense gathering. At the close of the proceedings a resolution proposed by Councillor Lee (Manchester) was adopted amid a scene of great enthusiasm. This motion protested against an alien government of force in Ireland, condemned the barbarous methods employed by that Government, demanded the withdrawal of the troops in Ireland, and the application of the principle of self-determination to Ireland. Further, it expressed admiration for the fight the people at home were making, and protested against the arrest of the president of the organisation, Councillor P. J. Kelly, as an attempt to impede the progress of a perfectly legal organisation. The resolution was seconded by Mr. Barrington (Tyneside) and was supported by Father Gilbert (Wellington, New Zealand), Mr. McManus (Leeds), and Councillor Fox (Middlesbrough). Alderman G. Mortimer (London) presided at No. 1 platform, at which Mr. Barry Egan (deputy Lord Mayor of Cork) was the principal speaker. Mr. Egan said that if he had anything to do with the situation created by Mr. Lloyd George’s letter he would say to England: “If you are sincere you can prove your sincerity by your actions. Liberate the political prisoners, put an end to the torture and the murders, and let there be a cessation of hostilities. If you do that then you will do something to restore the shattered reputation you have gained by your miserable treatment of Ireland.” &

If England wanted peace, he continued, she could have it to-morrow. They in Ireland were ready for peace as they were ready to fight, but they would not tolerate any chicanery or trickery. Negotiations, if negotiations there were to be, would take place in the very near future. Ireland knew herself and knew her leaders, and they could leave it with the utmost trust to the leaders to carry on the negotiations as the Irish people would wish them to be carried on.

Speaking at No. 2 platform, Councillor Purcell (London), acting secretary of the 1.5.D.L.,' reminded the Government that their outrages would not intimidate the Irish people in their righteous struggle for freedom. ■ ./

NO COMPROMISE.

Professor Stockley, University College, Cork, said that the war which the Government was waging on the Irish people was perfectly unjustifiable, and entirely inconsistent with England's declarations in connection with the recent war. England's barbarous treatment of Ireland was bringing disgrace on the name of England throughout the world. It was causing friction in the Colonies. It was preventing an American alliance, and it was bringing English, trade to a standstill. Let England act according to her professions made during the war, and do in Ireland what had been done m the case' of Belgium and Poland. Irishmen would accept no compromise over the grave of Terence MacSwmey. _ (Applause.) ;^

THE VOICE OF NEW ZEALAND.

Father Gilbert, S.M. (Rector of St. Patrick's Col- |** lege, Wellington, New Zealand), who met with a great m" 1 ; ovation, said that in New Zealand not only the Irish j and Irish descendants, but people of all nationalities ?- supported Ireland's right of self-determination. Last St. Patrick's Day, in Wellington, he had the pleasure ; of submitting a resolution almost in identical terms to the one moved that day, and it was forwarded to Mr. Massey, the Premier. That resolution was in Mr. f: Massey's pocket now,-and he was asked to bring it before the Imperial Conference at present sitting in ,' London. "I shall be anxious to see," said Father Gil-

bert, "if he acts up to his word." Other speakers were Mr. Purcell (Tyneside), Aid. Scurr (Poplar), Mr. J. McManus (Leeds), Mr. H. Benson (Bradford), Mr. J. Harte (Liverpool), and Mr. P. D. O'llart (London), etc. The singing of "The Soldier's Song" brought the demonstration to a close.

Another Scourging for Elliott

Last week we referred in our "Topics" to Pro- " fessor Pringle's condemnation of an unnamed parson % whose bigotry called for special castigatijon. The Professor mentioned nobody by name, but the P.P.A. organiser took the remarks to himself and had the temerity to write to the press accusing Professor Pringle of misrepresenting him,- and challenging a criticism based on the report of his (Elliott's) remarks in the P.P.A. organ, The Sentinel. It was another verification of the old adage, Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Elliott might have kept silence and escaped, but in his inconceivable ignorance he had the audacity to defy the Professor and to assert that he stood by his words as reported in the Auckland No-Popery weekly. His friend, Rev. Knowles Kempton, tried to excuse the defamer of the dead nun by saying the poor man must have been tired and it was not fair to attack him after a No-Popery campaign ,j that had exhausted him. But Elliott scorned such a ■ defence and- gave Professor Pringle an opportunity r> to serve the public of New Zealand by administering to the itinerant disciple of Chiniquy and Maria Monk a castigation quite in keeping with any of the others that have been bestowed on this wretched bigot, whether by the returned soldier, Clements, by the magistrates, .. . Messrs. Bishop and Frazer, or by the various Members of Parliament who went out of their way to brand as a low cad the parson whom Professor Pringle now exposes as a blatant and untruthful nuisance. The Professor's reply to the challenge is as follows:

Sir,— gladly accept Mr. Howard Elliott's challenge to produce evidence of the numerous errors and misstatements of historical fact contained in his sermon on the League of Nations. It is certainly courageous of him to say that he is prepared to stand by the facts as he stated, them on that occasion. Unfortunately, the facts will not stand by him.

First, Mr. Howard Elliott says—l quote from the Sentinel article— "after the Napoleonic wars had devastated Europe, the Powers combined in what was called the Holy Alliance, to enforce a permanent ;V peace." Rarely have so many errors been packed into '• one brief sentence. In the first place, does Mr. Elliott ;; really mean the Holy Alliance or is he thinking of the / Quadruple Alliance? The Holy Alliance was formed in the autumn of 1815; the Quadruple Alliance was formed at Chaumont in 1814. I do not care which alternative he selects. The former alliance included . only the three autocratic States of Central and Eastern > —Prussia, Austria, and Russia. The latter, in addition to these Powers, included Great Britain. i|y Neither alliance consisted of all the Powers of Europe. %' For this reason, among many others, neither of them Ip is comparable to the League of Nations, which at prem sent includes the vast majority of States, not only of \ Europe,-but of the world, and which, in the intention ;; : .of its framers, will ultimately include all the State's of m the world. Further, Great Britain was never a mem-

ber of the Holy Alliance, as Mr. Elliott led his readers

(and hearers) to believe. Curiously enough, neither was the Papacy. The Pope at that time, Pius VII., "refused his adhesion to a league founded by a heretic and a Liberal." (Allison Phillips: Modem Europe, p. 18) is, by Alexander 1., the Tsar of Russia. The Tsars of Russia, as Mr. Elliott apparently does not know, have never from the time of Vladimir I. been Roman Catholics. Nor was the Holy Alliance a league to enforce a permanent peace. In form it was a declaration of three absolutist monarchs of their intention to govern their kingdoms on Christian princoples. In effect, it "had no real existence except as a noble ideal in the mind of Alexander I." Secondly, Mr. Howard Elliott in the next sentence goes on to say "the conditions then were almost identical with those surrounding the formation of the present League." This sentence is delightfully obscure. If it is intended to compare the international 'situation in 1815 with the international situation inl9lß, every observant man knows that, so far from being almost identical, they were radically different. If Mr. Howard Elliott's meaning is that the birth of the League has been attended with the same secrecy that surrounded the inception of the Holy Alliance, the statement is equally untrue. That the inevitable result of the war, if the Allies were successful, would be the formation of a League of Nations was clearly stated by responsible leaders of public opinion in every year from 1914 to 1918. For instance, to take only the authoritative utterances of British and American statesmen, such a policy was declared in set terms by the British Prime Minister in 1914, by Mr. Balfour in 1916, by Mr LlOyd George in 1917, by President Wilson and by Mr. C. E. Hughes, the Republican candidate at the American Presidental election, in 1917. Again and again the formation of the League was put in the forefront of the Allied war aims. It was preceded by the fullest discussion in Parliament and in the press. There was no such secrecy about it as attended the launching of the Holy Alliance in 1815. Again, Mr. Howard Elliot says that "the Holy Alliance under the dominance of the Vatican wrought the greatest mischief for all time in international politics,- occasioning, as it did the announcement of the Monroe policy by President Monroe, a policy which today accounts for the strange attitude of the American leaders m regard to international affairs." Again we have an example of Mr. Howard Elliott's controversial methods. What was the "greatest mischief for all time in international politics?" Was it the Monroe Doctrine or was it the present strange attitude of American leaders? Mr. Elliott has cunningly framed this sentence so that it is capable of both interpretations. But I can scarcely believe that he is referring to the present attitude of America. For America has refused to join the League of "Nations, and in Mr Elliott s opinion the League of Nations is a curse and not a blessing. He must, therefore, mean that the Monroe Doctrine is the greatest mischief for all time But the Monroe Doctrine kept the Catholic powers from having their own way in South America. Therefore Mr. Elliott apparently believes that it was the greatest mischief for all time that the Catholic powers were kept from having their own way in South America which as Euclid would say, is absurd. Whichever alternative he selects, he .stands convicted of using words without any clear idea of what they mean wirt, K Zl could JfV?" The whole article teems with absurdities, with false suggestions, and tricky innuendoes. For .example, Mr. Elliott says that the Pope gaye.Pesident Wilson a present valued at £BOOO Me would lead his readers to imply that this was a personal gift from the Pope to President Wilson I ask, is it possible to treat a man seriously who would make such a suggestion? I have no ■ references beside me to enable me to give your readers the exact facts regarding this transaction. Probably, the Pope gave Mr Wilson a gift for Mr. Hoover's fund for the relief of destitution in Belgium or in Central Europe Ido lt?°l m 8 L Say ' J have not the facts beside me. But I should as soon believe that the Pope gave Sir Robert Stout £BOOO for university *ducatL g in New Zealand or that he was subsidising Mr. Elliott's own

organisation, as believe that he gave a personal gift to President Wilson. Has Mr. Howard Elliott ever heard of Mr. Wilson's record as Governor of New Jersey? No man, as your intelligent readers know full well, has done more in one day to put down corruption in politics than the ex-President. To suggest that he could be bribed by the Pope is a public scandal of the most intolerable kind.' ' • ,

Mr. Elliott makes great play with an article against the League of Nations written by a Mr. E. P. Hewitt, K.C., an English barrister, whom he calls a legal and constitutional expert. I, too, am an English barrister. For the last twelve years I have been in and out of the Temple in London almost every day, and I never heard of Mr. K. P Hewitt* 1 Certainly, to call him a legal and constitutional expert is to play with'words. The National Review, in which the article appeared, is the organ of the most reactionary and militaristic party (fortunately a very small party) in England.' I attach no weight any article on the League of Nations coming from such a quarter. As all lawyers and jurists know, there is one outstanding constitutional and legal expert in England to-day. I mean Sir Frederick Pollock, K.C., whose writings and opinions are regarded with deference all over the" world. I advise Mr. Howard Elliott to read his book on the League of Nations. Let him study, ponder, and reflect on one of Sir Frederick's concluding sentences: "And if they" (i.e., the people of England arid of the world) "are cast down by the failure of the covenant to satisfy the whole world at once, •or to realise in a few months the completion of tasks that former generations did not find it possible even to begin, let them take heart from the saying of Colbert, a great French man of affairs: -' II ne faut jamais se mettre dans Vesprit que re que Von fait est parfait. Mais il faut toujours cliercher a avancer pour approcher tie la perfection, qiCon ne trouve jamais.' " One other point. Mr. Elliott complains that I .distorted his meaning when I said that he denounced the League of Nations because in it we shall sit cheek by jowl with the representatives of Catholic States. Well, his exact words in this article are these: "It is a fact that the Vatican controls the league as at present constituted, since of the 41 members 24 at least are directly under the tutelage of the Papacy." I simply put these words before your readers, and ask them: "Did I do Mr. Elliott the smallest injustice when I said what I did in my speech?" There are many other misrepresentations in this article which I could expose. But I am content to submit myself to the judgment of the public. Mr. Elliott is no doubt, as Mr. Knowles Kempton has suggested, a sincere man. So was James 11. of England. So was Philip 11. of Spain. But a man must" have other, qualities besides sincerity before he can become a safe guide or a real leader of public opinion. He must be a candid and careful controversialist; he must be broad-minded and statesmanlike in his utterances; he must sift his facts and be large-hearted and understand the point of view of his opponents. Judged by these and similar tests, Mr. Howard Elliott fails, and fails miserably.—l am, etc., \

—W. .Henderson Pringle. The University of Otago, August 15.