Page images
PDF
EPUB

needed. Not that they ask or hope that religious men should rest satisfied with things as they are. "The want and misery of our fellow-countrymen" should, they think, "act like a goad urging us on to study and investigate the construction of the social organism, to examine which of its ills are inevitable, and which may be remedied by the spirit of self-sacrifice and energy." What they deprecate is the growing notion that Godliness is a way of gain for whatever Christianity may teach a man to do for others. "None dare ultimately expect more for himself from the message of the Church than a firm, consolatory faith, able to triumph over all the troubles of life." If Christianity is to remain the great The Spectator.

force for good-above all, if it is to be once more quickened into intenser life -it behooves all thinking Christians to hold fast the wise words of St. Paul spoken to the early Church at a time of great social unrest and expectancy: "Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand." But we may not forget that there is an indifference which plumes itself on its moderation, and is even more opposed to the spirit of Christ than fanaticism. No step in advance can be made without great searchings of heart and many mistakes, and it is difficult to contemplate without misgivings the sacrifices which a new Reformation may demand from the individual or the nation.

THE CRY OF THE RUSSIAN CHILDREN.*

What cry was that? Methought I heard a cry,
Faint and far off and pitiful and weak.

No, no, it was the sigh

Of the west wind that stirred the opening leaves;

Or did some swallow, late-returned and meek,

Twitter her humble gladness from the new-found eaves?

Again! It is a cry! And yet again!

And first it swells, and then it seems to fade

A cry of infinite weariness

And deep distress;

A cry of little children spent with pain,

A cry to make the boldest heart afraid,

* THE following is an extract from a letter which Mr. Punch has received from Dr. Kennard, formerly House Physician at the Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street, and now resident at Samara, Russia :

"There are over 300,000 children in Samara alone who need milk and and cannot get it : cows give no milk, for they in their turn feed off the decayed straw from the roof tops; then for want of milk these children and babies of the earliest age are forced to eat black bread, raw young cucumber, and anything that comes along-shto Bok poslaet' (whatever God happens to send), as the peasants pathetically state in their appeals. I have myself seen young babies with their mothers eating 'bread' which has amongst its other constituents acorns and powdered oak bark, and the mothers have wept bitterly when this was taken from them as a specimen, for, as they said, it was their 'food for one day.' The result of this terrible diet is, of course, death and disease; and it is on behalf of these unfortunate children that I appeal to Mr. Punch to touch the great fountain of sympathy always to be found in the British public."

Punch.

A cry of mothers fighting off with prayer
The black-winged angel of despair,

Or mourning by the grave

Of children whom nor love nor tears availed to save.

[blocks in formation]

Where still He waits and watches us will smile
For love of pity if we stretch our hand
And let our gifts go forth o'er many a mile
Of stormy sea and many leagues of land.
Hark, how the little children make their plea,

Their pitiful plea for help. What shall our answer be?

R. C. Lehmann.

THE NATIONALIST DECISION.

We said, a fortnight ago, that "if we do not wish to see Ireland governed as she is now, and that if we are determined to go on resisting Home Rule, the adoption of devolution in some form is the only course left us." What has become of this "only course"? Is it rendered impossible by the action of the Nationalist Convention on Tuesday? In the form it wears in Mr. Birrell's Bill it certainly is. A measure which provides a mainly elective Irish Council cannot hope to be of any value in the face of Nationalist opposition. We see now that even if the Bill had been accepted, it would only have been with the object of making it unworkable. The Nationalists would have put on one side the necessary business of Irish administration, and have made, the Council a parody of Parliament. There is nothing to regret in the failure of a scheme which, as we now realize, could have had no other result than this. If Devolution can only be had in co-operation with an elective Irish Council, we must be content to abandon it. But is Devolution inseparable from this particular way of giv ing it effect? That depends, to a great extent, upon the meaning we attach to the word. Devolution may be either legislative or administrative; and though the Home Rule controversy has accustomed us to associate it only with the former, it may equally stand for an Irish Administrative Council, nominated by the Crown, but having the power to co-opt Irishmen of all parties whose experience is likely to be useful. There is nothing to prevent Mr. Birrell from undertaking, in some future Session, the concentration into such a Council of the many Boards which played so amusing a part in his speech on introducing the Bill. That such a

reform would not satisfy Irish aspirations is true; but then nothing will satisfy Irish aspirations except Home Rule, and as we are not prepared to concede this, we must be content with satisfying Irish needs. This is a distinction which is inherent in the very idea of Devolution. It is this that separates it from Home Rule on the one side and from the existing system on the other. Its object is to leave the management of Irish affairs to Irishmen. But this may be done in two ways, either by an elective Council or by a nominated Council. The Nationalists have been able to defeat the first, but any opposition that they might offer to the second would be of little avail, since a great part of the work could be done by administrative order.

Passing to the immediate results of Tuesday's work, we have first to consider how the rejection of the principal measure of the Session affects the Government. It is generally assumed by the Unionist party that Ministers have received a very serious blow. It is annoying, no doubt, to have an offer flung back in your face; but, apart from this, we do not see that their position to-day differs greatly from their position a fortnight ago. No doubt they can no longer count upon the Nationalist vote, but even if this were consistently given to the Oppositionwhich is hardly likely-the Ministerial majority is large enough to stand the consequent reduction. It is even possible that the secession of the Nationalists will have the effect of drawing the majority closer together. The Liberal party is not specially fond of its Irish wing, and the withdrawal of the Devolution Bill will leave the line free for measures more interesting to English

men. Eventually, no doubt, Ministers will have to consider whether the rejection of the Devolution Bill by the Irish Parliamentary party makes any change in their attitude towards Home Rule. But there is no need for them to enter upon this inquiry at present. They are precluded, by their own pledges, from bringing in a Home Rule Bill in this Parliament, however much some of them may wish to do so, and it is unnecessary for them just yet to determine what place, or whether any place at all, shall be allotted to it in their programme for the next Parliament. That what they have proposed to do in Ireland has aroused such uncompromising hostility in the Nationalist party may even be taken by the country as evidence that they have kept strictly to their word, and an interval of irritation with the Irish members may have a consolidating effect on the English and Scottish Members. Nor, so far as we can see, is this change calculated to be of any service to the Opposition. On the contrary, they will no longer be able to speak of Home Rule as an imminent danger. As regards the Devolution Bill, the country now knows the worst, and knows also that the worst was not so very terrible. If there be any Unionists who, in spite of their dislike to Tariff Reform, remain in the party because they think it the only bulwark against the break up of the United Kingdom, they, for the moment, may lay aside their fears, and give their whole mind to English affairs. The disappearance of Mr. Birrell's Bill will, indeed, deprive the Cabinet of one of their charges against the House of Lords. Whether if they had been able to persevere with the measure the Lords would really have rejected it we are not at all sure, but the probability of their doing so has all along been put forward as one of the methods by which they might be trusted to "fill up the cup." Ministers

are now left with no justification for their denunciation of the Peers' action, except the mutilation of the Education Bill of last Session-a wrong which hardly seems great enough to supply the occasion for a great constitutional change.

Turning to more general considerations, we regret the failure of Mr. Birrell's efforts, because it leaves Home Rule in possession of the field. For some time past Devolution has more and more been regarded as a possible substitute for the larger policy. Had it proved so, it would have postponed the further discussion of Home Rule for a period longer than politicians need take into account, and we are sorry that this chance is at an end. Whatever improvements may be introduced into Irish administration, they will now be the work of the Imperial rather than of the Irish Government. Mr. Birrell's plan might, as we think, have done something to turn the minds of the Irish people to the promotion of their material prosperity rather than to the creation of a Parliament and an executive of their own. Had it acted in this way, it would have been a real barrier against Home Rule the most solid barrier which we could have hoped to find in the present state of English parties. That the Nationalist party should rejoice in the disappear. ance of the Bill we can quite understand. What is not so intelligible is the delight which it has given to Unionists. The difficulties that both parties have met with in governing Ireland remain just what they were. They will have to be faced and dealt with in the future as in the past. It may be said, perhaps, that it is better to have the issue narrowed and to have the electorate unmistakably divided into two camps-Unionists and Home Rulers. There might be some sense in this way of looking at the question if the Unionist party were

certain of drawing to themselves all the inmates of the third camp. We question, however, whether they have any right to feel assured on this point. There are Devolutionists, no doubt, who will argue that they have done all in their power for Ireland, and that the Nationalist rejection of their overtures leaves them no choice but to become Unionists. But there are others who may be more likely to treat the rejection of Devolution as the destruction of the one hope they had of staying off Home Rule, and to argue that in view of this it will be prudent to ally themselves with the Home Rulers as the only way of exerting any influence over their action in the hour of victory. If there are many of this The Economist.

mind, the Home Rule party will only gain in strength by the decision of Tuesday, and that is hardly a matter for Unionist rejoicing. It may be, indeed, that the conviction of the "predominant parties" remains so entirely what it was in 1895 that we can afford to disregard any accidental accession to the strength of our opponents. But when we remember the present disposition of the Liberal party to try experiments in all directions, we do not feel so certain as we could wish that Liberals will always treat Home Rule as done with, or that it will never reappear in a King's Speech at the suggestion of a Liberal Cabinet. If it does so reappear, it will be largely due to the failure of the alternative project.

HUNGARY AND THE AUSTRIAN ELECTIONS.

As far as the results at present known indicate-and yesterday's returns of the second ballots confirm the earlier indications-the Austrian elections, based on the principle of universal suffrage, have ended in the triumph of the Social democrats and the Christian socialists, and the utter rout of the pan-German fraction. To judge by the accounts received in this country, the outcome of the elections has excited some consternation in Hungary. The triumph of social democracy will be welcomed by a country which, ever since the days of Count Stephen Széchenyi and Louis Kossuth, has been making rapid strides itself in the direction of democracy; the rout of the pan-German fraction will be greeted by all true Magyars with unequivocal pleasure, for Hungary has, in the past. suffered to no small extent from the excesses of pan-Germanism. But the triumph of Lueger and Jingoism is a decided blow to the Hungarians. The famous Bürgermeister, who arranged

the unsavory welcome afforded to the Hungarian delegations a year ago in Vienna, is the sworn foe of Hungary and the Hungarians. The two watchwords of his Party, which is only "Christian" in name (never was a better misnomer chosen), are "Down with the Jews" and "Los von Ungarn." Their weapons are billingsgate and high-sounding phrases; their banner, nominally that of clericalism, is one of anti-semitic rancor and intolerance.

The Christian socialists have declared war against Hungary because they aver that the country of the Magyars is in the hands of Jews. Any one who has been in Hungary knows the absurdity of such a statement; but it forms an excellent starting-point for a bitter crusade against the legal claims of the sister State. The Jews have done much, in fact nearly all, for the commerce and industry of Hungary; many of them have acquired wealth and influence, just as in Austria; but the Government of the country is in the hands

« PreviousContinue »