of the Hamburg Fremdenblatt had reached Wellington two or three days before Mr. Massey's warning. That paper declared: Germany must not surrender her island possessions in the Pacific, because if used as naval bases and coaling-stations they would enable Germany to defy Australian ambitions, check Japan, and threaten the western shores of North and South America. 66 After all, our German friends" remain our greatest asset. Mr. Massey told the Conference: I have the best of reasons for believing that the present Secretary of State for the Colonies understands and looks at the position from our point of view. But the danger would be at the Peace Conference, when it comes, and the terms of peace are being arranged. We cannot expect people on the other side of the world, even British citizens, however Imperialistic they may be, to see the importance of these islands as we see it. Every one who is capable of "thinking imperially" shares New Zealand's standpoint, and for one person who was capable of appreciating it before the war there are a hundred to-day. But it would be risky to leave the matter in the unassisted hands of any Minister, however well meaning, because Downing Street is paved with good intentions. Mr. Massey returned to the charge in a subsequent speech at Wellington (March 7), of which we have but the briefest report. He reiterated : Our interest does not lie in the fertility or productiveness of the island [of Samoa], but in the fact that we are anxious because Samoa is the key to the South Pacific, and if restored to-day would become the headquarters of a German fleet and the centre of German operations in the Pacific. The British flag was carried away from Samoa in 1889, and the New Zealand boys carried it back again in 1914. My opinion and hope are that it went back to stay. Wanted- We are most anxious to put this vital Imperial issue plainly and even brutally before readers at home and abroad. The German Government, from the Kaiser downwards, are absolutely determined to recover these lost possessions, as in their eyes any other solution would be an unspeakable humiliation fo the Fatherland, which would cause a ser ous set-back to the Pan-German cause, for which so many sacrifices have been made, bes des being a personal affront to the Monarch. Germany's future as a world-power depends on her maritime position, which in its turn depends upon coalingstations, every one of which could be made a formidable submarine base that would threaten every community within five thousand miles. So far from surrendering any German colonies, Germany confidently counts upon taking certain British colonies as jumping off places for fresh adventures. She has been told by her Sovereign that her destiny "lies on the water," and this war has but whetted her appetite. Count Hertling, the Imperial Chancellor, obligingly suggests that we should relinquish Gibraltar, HongKong, Aden, and the Falkland Islands, just as the Russians are abandoning the Baltic and the Black Sea. Can we be surprised at the open ambitions of Berlin when Lord Haldane apparently gives some countenance to Count Hertling's demand, while even members of the War Cabinet warn the Allies against putting their claims too high! Such an attitude towards the great hulking bully of Europe is simply asking for trouble. Our statesmen literally terrify us; of nothing else are we afraid. On one side of the North Sea is a relentless, determined Government that knows what it wants and means to get it, bent on recovering every colony -whose ambitions are encouraged by our Invertebrates. Unless the War Cabinet can be "gingered up we shall have a debacle whenever it comes to negotiations." It is the duty of the Dominions to make themselves continuously and thoroughly offensive to the Home Government, which invariably pursues the line of least resistance. British Bolshevists are already demanding that whatever the Hohenzollerns ask, that they shall be granted, in accordance with the maxim "no annexations," which was invented in Berlin for the express purpose of saving the German overseas empire without the necessity of defeating the Grand Fleet. Toast and It is everybody's duty to give up everything they can, and even some things they think they can't, if such sacrifices in any way contribute to the present prodigious national effort. It is not only the duty of the wine-drinker, the whisky-drinker, the beer-drinker, to drink less, but likewise of the tea-drinker to content himself or herself with less tea and more hot water, just as it is necessary to forgo meat, bread, and other things once deemed indispensable, of which there is at the moment, and will be for some considerable time, an alarming shortage throughout the world. All excess at this crisis of the country's fate is a crime as well as a blunder in the individual citizen, but we confess to being unable to appreciate the virtue in those who exploit the occasion by summoning others to make sacrifices. Thus teetotallers who may not contemplate drinking one less cup of cocoa angrily demand that all beer-drinkers give up their beverage. By all means let the latter, like the rest of us, consume as little as they can, and less than they care about. But there is no reason for putting them to the ban, as is proposed by a large number of enthusiasts of both sexes, who mean exceedingly well, though they would achieve more were they less conscious of their own merits and of the inferiority of their fellows. We can conceive no policy less conducive to victory than the campaign of men like Lord d'Abernon-who have never passed for being the most self-sacrificing section of the community-to constrain the British working man to cultivate patriotism on toast and water. There might be something in it were prohibition equally applied to wine, but this does not seem to be suggested. D'Abernonism strikes us as inverted Bolshevikism. We are not surprised that the programme arouses keen resentment wherever it is propounded by its plutocratic, not to say sybaritish, apostles. TEETOTALLERS are in a state bordering on frenzy owing to their belated discovery that this vast war has increased the National Drink Bill, as might have been foreseen by every Vodka one in touch with human nature. Mr. Leif Jones informed a more or less horrified House of Commons (March 12) that whereas the National Drink Bill for 1914 was £164,000,000, in 1915 it was £182,000,000, in 1916 £204,000,000, and in 1917 no less than £259,000,000. On the other hand, the amount received through the taxation of drink, apart from excess profits, was actually diminishing-namely, from £62,000,000 in 1915 to £35,000,000 in 1917, though it was not made clear why excess profits should be excluded. Our expenditure on drink is undeniably enormous, and in a perfect world the whole of this increase, if not the entire sum, would have found its way into War Savings Certificates. But as things are, a substantial addition to the Drink Bill was inevitable whenever the mass of the people found themselves exceptionally flush of money, as during the last four years. Indeed, considering the enormous increase of wages, the increased expenditure on drink does not strike us as disproportionate. If we thought it would in the smallest degree help to win the war to stop beer, as appears to be the opinion of Sir Charles Bathurst and our much-esteemed contemporary the Spectator, we should not hesitate for a moment, and “damn the consequences." But we believe the exact opposite. At one time, it will be remembered, the world was encouraged to imagine that the Tsar of Russia had taken a long step towards Victory by suppressing the drinking of vodka, but in the recent debate Mr. Clynes, a much-respected Labour Member, speaking on behalf of the Government, expressed the opinion that this autocratic action had neither strengthened Russia from the military nor the moral point of view. He declared, in fact, “the suppression had accounted, in some measure, for the discontent which produced revolution." John Redmond ALTHOUGH the death of Mr. John Redmond is a considerable Parliamentary event, because for many years the Irish Nationalist Leader had been a foremost orator of the House of Commons, it is not a great political event. He was never a strong man, and for many years his influence had been on the wane, though he never had any difficulty in intimidating the still weaker vessels who composed British Governments. There was one golden moment in John Redmond's life—namely, August 3, 1914-when he unhesitatingly cast his great Parliamentary influence on the side of Civilization, now challenged by Kultur, and by so doing went far to confirm a somewhat shaky House of Commons in the right path. Had he gone the other way, as many Nationalists in his place would have done, the result would have been disastrous. Englishmen will always remain grateful to him for this action, especially those who most vividly remember the circumstances of the moment. We equally cherish the memory of his brother, William Redmond, who set an inspiring example in the war, which, unfortunately, only too few Nationalists followed. The present atmosphere of that Party may be gathered from its selection, as John Redmond's successor, of Mr. John Dillon, a peculiarly venomous Anglophobe. They cannot be congratulated, though perhaps we are, as henceforward it will be impossible, even for credulous Unionists of the Duke, Bonar Law, Curzon, and Walter Long variety, to pretend that a Dillon Government in Dublin could be anything but hostile to this country. The Nationalist Party has driven a very long nail into the coffin of the Irish Convention. Not only is Mr. Dillon an implacable enemy of England, but he is equally an enemy of our Allies, the Italian Kingdom and the French Republic. He represents all that is obscurantist and reactionary. Some friend of Ulster must have had a hand in his nomination. The Grant to OUR politicians have paid so few compliments to the British Army -though they have been lavish in rewarding themselves as is pointed out in an interesting article elsewherethat the voting of £25,000 to the widow of Sir Stanley Maude came as a most pleasurable surprise, causing the keenest satisfaction to the Army and the country. Moving tributes were paid to the memory of that brilliant and lovable soldier in both Houses, Lord Curzon and the Prime Minister excelling themselves in discharging their delicate task. The former described the Conqueror of Bagdad as fulfilling "in manifold respects. . . the ideal of the Happy Warrior," while Mr. Lloyd George (March 4) gracefully told the House of Commons, "I never submitted a proposal to the House with a greater conviction of its merits and of its claims on the acceptance of this House." Sir Stanley Maude had found British prestige at a very low ebb in a place where prestige counted for much. He completely restored the position, his dramatic capture of Bagdad being among the finest feats in military history, exercising a magical effect throughout the whole East. The Prime Minister disclosed the painful fact that this great soldier had died a victim of his inbred courtesy, as on visiting a plague-stricken area he accepted hospitality at his peril " rather than hurt the susceptibilities of a people who were anxious to give him a welcome. There was cholera in the cup, and he died within a few days." Mr. Snowden's opposition but served to emphasize the universal appreciation of Sir Stanley Maude. We have just published what we believe our readers will find to be a most attractive little volume, entitled Take Cover,* in which Mr. Ian D. Colvin discusses, in his own inimitable "Take Cover" and witty manner, many topics of interest to political students, in the form of sparkling conversations in a raid shelter where a small but miscellaneous company has been driven by stress of circumstances. Published by the National Review, 43 Duke * Take Cover, by Ian D. Colvin. Street, St. James's, London, S.W.1. 28. 6d. net. |