A MOST REPREHENSIBLE ABUSE OF SACRED APPEALS TO THE BELLIGERENT NATIONS.
I cannot qualify in milder words the use Mr. Bourassa has made of the
solemn appeals His Holiness the Pope of Rome has, at different dates,
addressed to the belligerent nations in favour of the restoration of
peace. I bear to the Head of the Church I am so happy to belong such a
profound respect and devotion that I will scrupulously abstain from any
comment of the Sovereign Pontiff's writings and addresses. I have read
them several times over with the greatest attention and veneration, so
sure I was that, emanating from the highest spiritual Authority in the
world, they were exclusively inspired by the ardent desire to promote a
recurrence to good-will amongst men, in obedience to the Divine precept.
Having to reproach the Nationalist leader with having abused of the
weighty words of His Holiness, to support his own misconceptions of duty
as a loyal British subject and a Christian publicist, I will refrain
with great care from writing a sentence which might be construed as the
shadow of an attempt to do the same.
I will take from Mr. Bourassa's own comments of the Sovereign Pontiff's
appeals, the two conclusions upon which he lays great stress, and which
clearly summarize the convictions of His Holiness Pope Benedict XV.
Praying with all the powers of His heart and soul for the orderly future
of the world, the Sovereign Pontiff implored, in the most touching
terms, the belligerent nations to agree to a "JUST AND DURABLE PEACE."
As it was certain, even if He had not said so with such pathetic
expressions, His Holiness drew the saddest possible picture of the
untold misfortunes war, carried on in such vast proportions, was
inflicting upon the peoples waging the struggle.
I will only quote the few following words from the first letter of His
Holiness, dated July 28, 1915:--
"_It cannot be said that the immense conflict cannot be terminated
without armed violence._"
No one can take exception to this truism, authoritatively expressed
under circumstances greatly adding to its importance and to its solemn
announcement. It is just as true to-day as it was,--and has been ever
since,--when the whole world was passing through the crucial ordeal of
the days during which England and France were almost imploring Germany
not to plunge the earth into the horrors of the war she was determined
to bring on.
The questions at stake could then have been easily settled without
"ARMED VIOLENCE," if the Imperial Government of Berlin had listened to
the pressing demand of Great Britain in favour of the maintenance of
peace.
It is scarcely believable that the Nationalist leader has abused of
those weighty words to the point of attempting to persuade the
French-Canadians that the Allies, even more than the Rulers of the
Central Empires, have refused to listen to the prayers of the Pope. In
January last, he published a new pamphlet, entitled "THE POPE, ARBITER
OF PEACE," in which he reproduced from "Le Devoir" his numerous
articles, from August 1914, on the intervention of the Sovereign Pontiff
in favour of the cessation of the hostilities, and on the current events
of the times.
The oft-repeated diatribes of Mr. Bourassa against England were bound to
be once more edited in the above pamphlet. Their author, in a true
fatherly way, not willing to allow them to die under the contempt they
deserve, would not lose the chance to have them to survive in tackling
them with his comments on His Holiness' letters.
This pamphlet, the worthy sequel of its predecessors which, for the good
of Mr. Bourassa's compatriots, should never have seen the light of day,
would call for many more refutable quotations than I can undertake to
make in this work. A few will suffice to show the deplorable purport of
the whole book.
In his letter dated, July 28, 1915, the Pope wrote:--
"_In presence of Divine Providence, we conjure the belligerent nations,
to henceforth put an end to the horrible carnage which, for a year,
dishonours Europe._"
Positively informed about the horrible crimes committed by command of
the German military authorities in Belgium, and Northern France, and by
the ferocious Turks in Armenia, well might His Holiness say that Europe
was being dishonoured by such barbarous deeds. If the military
operations had been conducted by the nations of the Alliance in
conformity with the principles of International Law, most likely the
Pope would not have used the same language. For, however much to be
regretted are the sufferings inseparable from a military conflict
carried on with the utmost regards for the fair claims of human feelings
and justice, it could not have been pretended that such a war was a
dishonour for the belligerents on both sides, especially when fighting
with an equally sincere conviction that they are defending a just cause.
Referring to recent history, none asserted, for instance, that the
Russo-Japanese war was a dishonour to Europe and Asia. It was fought out
honourably on both sides. Peace was restored without leaving bitter and
burning recollections in the minds of either peoples. And when Germany
dishonoured herself and stained Humanity with blushing shame, both
Russia and Japan joined together to avenge Civilization.
Let us now see how Mr. Bourassa distorted the words of the Pope so as to
use them for his own purpose of misrepresenting the true stand of the
Allies, and more especially of England.
The first sentence of his article dated, August 3, 1915, to be found at
page 11 of the pamphlet, under the title: "_The Pope's Appeal_," reads
thus:--
"_The anniversary of the hurling of the sanguinary fury which makes of
Europe the shame of Humanity has inspired the Rulers of peoples with
resounding words._"
And after eulogizing the Pope's intervention, he adds:--"_that men will
not hear his voice, drunk as they are with pride, revenge and blood_."
This may be cunningly worded, but it should deceive nobody.
One cannot help being indignant at the contemptible attempt to place the
Allies on the same footing as the Central Empires with regard to the
responsibility _in hurling the sanguinary fury in 1914_.
The plain, incontrovertible, truth is that the outbreak of the war was a
shame, not for Humanity, the victim of Teutonic treachery, but for
Germany herself; whilst the sacred union of Belgium, France, England and
their allies to resist the barbarous onslaught hurled at them all, was
an honour for Civilization and the promise of an heroic redemption.
At page 12 of the pamphlet, he closes the first paragraph with the
following words:--"_since the fatal days when peoples supposed to be
Christian hurled themselves at one another in a foolish rage of
destruction, of revenge and hatred_." In French, it reads
thus:--"_depuis le jour fatal ou les peuples soi-disant chretiens se
sont rues les uns contre les autres, dans une rage folle de destruction,
de vengeance et de haine_."
Read as a whole, with the full meaning they were intended to convey,
those words constitute a daring falsehood. Historical events of the
highest importance cannot be construed at will. There are facts so
positively true, and known to be such, that they should preclude any
possibility of deceit.
It is absolutely false that, _on a fatal day_ of mid-summer, 1914,
_peoples hurled themselves at one another_. What really took place, in
the glaring light of day, was that Germany, fully prepared for the fray,
_hurled_ herself at weak Belgium, throwing to the waste basket the
scraps of the solemn treaties by which she was in honour bound to
respect Belgian neutrality. She had first opened the disastrous game by
_hurling_ her vassal, Austria, at weak Servia.
Rushing her innumerable victorious armies over Belgian trodden soil, she
_hurled_ herself at France with the ultimate design to _hurl_ herself at
England.
That in so doing, Germany was _raging_ with a _foolish_ thirst of
_destruction, of revenge and hatred_, is certainly true. But Mr.
Bourassa's guilt is in his assertion that the victims of Germany's
_sanguinary fury_ were actuated by the same criminal motives in
heroically defending their homes, their wives, their children, their
all, against the barbarians once more bursting out of Central Europe,
this time bent on overthrowing human freedom.
Is the respectable citizen who bravely defends himself against the
ruffian who _hurls_ himself at his throat, to be compared with his
murderous assailant?
But England was not alone in _hurling_ herself at Germany, as Mr.
Bourassa so cordially says. Without a word, even a sign, by the only
momentum of her _furious outburst of foolish destruction_, she was
followed by the whole of her Empire. How much we, Canadians, were, for
instance, deluded, the Nationalist leader is kind enough to tell us in
his ever sweet language.
When the Parliament of Ottawa unanimously decided that it was the duty
of the British Dominion of Canada to participate in the war; when
Canadian public opinion throughout the length and breadth of the land,
almost unanimously approved of this loyal and patriotic decision, we,
poor unfortunate Canadians, thought that we were heartily and nobly
joining with the mother-country to avenge "OUTRAGED JUSTICE," to rush to
the rescue of violated Belgium, of France, once more threatened with
agony under the brutal Teutonic ironed heels, of the whole world--Mr.
Bourassa's commanding personality included--menaced with the HUNS'
DOMINATION.
How sadly mistaken we were, Mr. Bourassa tells us. According to this
infallible judge of the righteousness or criminality of historical
events, we were labouring under a paroxysm of passion--_of a rage of
foolish destruction, of vengeance and hatred_.
Once overpowered by this vituperative mood of calumnious accusations,
the Nationalist leader slashes England, as follows,--page 18--:--
"_England has violently destroyed more national rights than all the
other European countries united together. By force or deceit, she has
swallowed up a fourth of the earthly globe; by conquest, and more
especially by corruption and the purchase of consciences, she has
subjugated more peoples than there were, in the whole human history,
ever brought under the same sceptre._"
Thus, in Mr. Bourassa's impartial estimation, the depredations and
slaughters of the hordes commanded by Attila, the savagery of the Turks
of old and present days, the crimes of Germany in this great war, are
only insignificant trifles compared with the horrors of British history.
Shame on such outrageous misrepresentation of historical truth.
Mr. Bourassa accuses England to have _by force or deceit swallowed up a
fourth of the earthly globe_. Considering the happy and flourishing
condition of the vast British Empire, the Nationalist leader, as every
one else, must admit that England is endowed with great digestive
powers, as she does not show the least sign that she suffers from
national dyspepsia from having swallowed up a fourth of the universe.
Her national digestion is evidently sound and healthy, for instead of
weakening and decaying, she grows every day in strength, in stature, in
freedom, in prestige, and, above all, in WISDOM.
The Nationalist leader has thought proper to express his formal hatred
of militarism. One would naturally suppose that, in so doing, he should
have pointed at the worst kind of militarism ever devised--the German
type of our own days. Let no one be mistaken about it. At page 58 of his
pamphlet, Mr. Bourassa bursts out as follows in the top paragraph:--
"_As a matter of fact, of all kinds of militarism, of all the
instruments of brutal domination, the naval supremacy of England is the
most redoubtable, the most execrable for the whole world; for it rules
over all the continents, hindering the free relations of all the
peoples._"
Was I really deluded when I felt sure that in peaceful times, British
naval supremacy on the seas was not interfering in the least with the
freest commercial intercourse of all the nations, whose mercantile ships
can, by British laws, enter freely into all the ports of Great Britain?
Mr. Bourassa's assertion to the contrary, I shall not, by the least
shadow, alter my opinion which is positively sound.
From the above last quotation, I have the right to infer that Mr.
Bourassa is very sorry that, in war times like those we have seen since
July 1914, British naval supremacy is sufficiently paramount to protect
the United Kingdom from starvation, to keep the coasts of France opened
to the mercantile ships of the Allies and of all the neutral nations, to
"rule the waves" against both the German military and mercantile fleets,
chased away from the oceans by the British guns thundering at the
Teutonic pirates on land and sea. If he is, he can be sure that he is
alone to cry and weep at a fact which rejoices all the true and loyal
friends of freedom and justice.
Mr. Bourassa cherishes a wish that will certainly not be granted. He
will not be happy unless England agrees to give up her naval supremacy
to please Germany. Let him rest quietly on his two ears; the dawn of
such a calamitous day is yet very far distant.
At the end of page 12, Mr. Bourassa asserts that _the Germans proclaim
their_ RIGHT _to "Germanize" Europe and the world, and that the English
imperiously affirm their_ RIGHT _to maintain their Imperial power over
the seas and to oppose "Anglo-Saxonism" to "pan-Germanism."_--
I have already refuted the Nationalist leader's pretention, and informed
him that England, no more than any other country, has no "Sovereign
rights" on the seas outside the coastal limits as prescribed by
International Law. He appears totally unable to understand the simple
truth that Great Britain's sea supremacy is nothing more nor less than
the superiority of her naval strength created, at an immense cost, out
of sheer necessity, to protect the United Kingdom from the domination of
a great continental power.
Does he not know that, in the days prior to England's creation of her
mighty fleet, she has been easily conquered by invaders? Is he aware of
the great British historical fact called the Norman Conquest? Has he
never heard that before starting on his triumphant march across Europe,
culminating at Austerlitz, the great Napoleon had planned an invasion of
England, with every prospects of success, if he had not been deterred
from carrying it out by the continental coalition which, calling into
play the resources of his mighty genius, he so victoriously crushed and
dispersed? Has he never read anything about panic stricken England until
she was relieved from the dangers of the projected invasion?
Does he not realize that, unless they were madmen, no British ministers
will ever consent to renounce their "UNDOUBTED RIGHT" to be ever ready
for any emergency, to save their country from enslavement by would-be
dashing invaders? It is the height of political nonsense to suppose that
responsible public men ever could be so blind, or so recreant to their
most sacred duty, as to follow the wild course recommended by
extravagantly prejudiced "Nationalists."
The man who would throw away his weapons of defense would have nothing
else to do but to kneel down and implore the tender mercy of his
criminal aggressor. Truly loyal subjects of the Empire cannot clamour to
bring England down to such an humiliating position. They know too well
that if ever matters came to so disastrous a pass, Great Britain could
easily be starved into irremediable submission with the consequent and
immediate destruction of the whole fabric of the Empire. A Nationalist,
yawning for such an end, may suggest the best way to reach it. But no
loyal man, sincerely wishing the maintenance of the great British
Commonwealth, will ever do so.
No wonder that he who came out openly in favour of Imperial Federation
for the express purpose of ruining the Empire, endeavours to achieve his
most cherished object in first destroying British naval supremacy on the
seas. Imperial Federation would then no longer be necessary for the
consummation of his longing wishes.
Freedom of the seas and British naval supremacy are not antagonistic by
any means, as I have previously well explained. It is an unanswerable
proposition--a truism--to say that supremacy on the ocean will always
exist, held by one nation or another. The Power commanding the superior
naval fleet will for ever be supreme on the seas. It is mere common
sense to say so. Mr. Bourassa would vainly work his wind-mill for
centuries without changing this eternal rule of sound sense.
If, by whichever cause, England was to lose her sea supremacy, it would
at once, as a matter of course, pass on to the next superior naval
Power.
In a subsequent chapter on the after-the-war military problem, I shall
explain the way or ways, by which, in my opinion, the question of the
freedom of the seas, so much misunderstood, could be settled to the
satisfaction of all concerned.
With regard to the supposed conflict of "anglo-saxonism" and
"pan-germanism" I will merely say that it is only another sample of Mr.
Bourassa's wily dreams.
As I have already said, this last pamphlet of the Nationalist leader is,
for a large part of it, but the repetition of his diatribes so often
_hurled_ at England. I will close this chapter by quoting from page 57,
the following paragraph which summarizes, in a striking way, the charges
Mr. Bourassa is so fond to _hurl_ at the mother-country. It reads
thus:--
"_What has allowed England to bring Portugal into vassalage? to dominate
Spain and keep Gibraltar, Spanish land? to deprive Greece of the Ionians
and Cyprus Islands? to steal Malta? to foment Revolution in the Kingdom
of Naples and the Papal States? to run, during thirty years, the foreign
policy of Italy and to throw her in Austria's execrated arms? to take
possession of Suez and to make her own thing of it? to chase France from
the Upper Nile, and subsequently from the whole of Egypt, to intervene
in the Berlin treaty to deprive Russia of the profits of her victory,
to galvanize dying Turkey, to delay for thirty years the revival of the
Balkan States and to make of Germany the main spring of continental
Europe? In a word, what has permitted England to rule the roost in
Europe and to accumulate the frightful storm let loose in 1914? Who?
What? if it is not the "naval domination" of England ever since the
destruction of the French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar._"
It would be most difficult to condense more erroneous historical
appreciations and political absurdities in so few lines.
Many will be quite surprised to learn, from Mr. Bourassa's resounding
trumpet, that England had been for many years gathering the storm which
broke out in 1914. So far all fairminded men were convinced that this
rascally work had been done by Germany, in spite of England's
exhortations to reduce military armaments.
In all sincerity, I am unable to understand how Mr. Bourassa can expect
to successfully give the lie to such incontrovertible truths as the
guilt of Germany in preparing the war she finally brought on more than
four years ago, and as the unceasing determination of England to
maintain peace.