"Dear Brethren, we certainly have the right, and we even consider that it is for us all, citizens of Canada, loyal subjects of England, a duty to demand from God the success of the arms ofour Mother-country and of her Allies in the present war. If we are not called upon, as a matter of faith, to pass judgment on the true causes of the war, and to divide the responsibilities respecting the calamity which covers Europe with blood, we are surely allowed to think and to say that all the circumstances actually known sufficiently prove that right is on the side of the peoples who have checked the invasion, and discouraged the overflowing of the enemy from his territory, in order that the sentiment of justice may serve to support the devotion of our soldiers, in this great conflict, called the struggle of Civilization against barbarism."The Church of Christ, always the same by her doctrine, has been marvellously constituted by the Divine Wisdom, to adapt her externally everywhere and always, to the infinitely varied circumstances consequent on the diversity of peoples, of governments, of social relations. She has never ceased to practice, by Her Pastors and her faithful children, the great lesson given by Christ: "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's and to God the things that are God's," and to claim with the Apostle all the rights as well as accept all the duties of citizens and subjects."
"Dear Brethren, we certainly have the right, and we even consider that it is for us all, citizens of Canada, loyal subjects of England, a duty to demand from God the success of the arms ofour Mother-country and of her Allies in the present war. If we are not called upon, as a matter of faith, to pass judgment on the true causes of the war, and to divide the responsibilities respecting the calamity which covers Europe with blood, we are surely allowed to think and to say that all the circumstances actually known sufficiently prove that right is on the side of the peoples who have checked the invasion, and discouraged the overflowing of the enemy from his territory, in order that the sentiment of justice may serve to support the devotion of our soldiers, in this great conflict, called the struggle of Civilization against barbarism.
"The Church of Christ, always the same by her doctrine, has been marvellously constituted by the Divine Wisdom, to adapt her externally everywhere and always, to the infinitely varied circumstances consequent on the diversity of peoples, of governments, of social relations. She has never ceased to practice, by Her Pastors and her faithful children, the great lesson given by Christ: "Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's and to God the things that are God's," and to claim with the Apostle all the rights as well as accept all the duties of citizens and subjects."
After recalling that from the dayDivine Providence, in Her mysterious designs, allowed Canada to pass from the French to the English Sovereignty,the Church, by Her Bishops, has declared that, henceforth, it was the duty of the French Canadians to transfer to the British Crown, without reserve, the cordial allegiance which the King of France had hitherto received from them, and that since then until the present days, the Canadian Episcopate has remained true to his course, Bishop Emard proceeds as follows:—
"We are then, very dear Brethren, in perfect communion of sentiments, action and language, with our venerable predecessors of the Canadian Episcopate, in asking you to-day to address to Heaven fervent prayers for the complete and final success of England and her Allies in the frightful war which is covering the earth with such unheard of horrors."The Clergy, never forgetting Peter's word respecting thesubmission all are in duty bound to practice towards Kings as well as towards all those holding civil power, was always faithful in obeying the Episcopal directions never ceasing to deserve the eulogium which the Bishops expressed to the Pope in their favour."The French-Canadian people, so taught by words and examples, have given in all our history the admirable spectacle of a constant fidelity which circumstances more than once rendered highly meritorious. Such are the true religious and national traditions of our country. They have in our own days, as in the past, found the exact expression suggested by the situation."On the other hand, it appears to us a well established fact, and the most serious minds so proclaim everywhere, that the British Empire, together with France, martyred Belgium and their Allies are actually struggling for the defence of the peoples' Rights and true Liberty. (Card. Begin.) Therefore, very dear Brethren, it must be acknowledged that Canada, herself threatened by the possibilities of a war fought with conditions heretofore unknown, has acted both wisely and loyally in giving, in a manner as generous as it was spontaneous, all the support in her power to the mother-country, England."The Catholics, and especially those of French origin, have not remained behind in this manifestation of true patriotism. If it was well to make a comparison between the other groups, from the standpoint of the free and generous participation of all to the European war, it would be necessary, in the respective figures obtainable, to take into account several elements which are perhaps not sufficiently considered."But this is not the real question. It is sufficient to show and to note for historical authenticity that, with the encouragement and the blessings of their Pastors, and true to their constant tradition, the Canadian Catholics, as a whole, have, in this frightful conflict proved the perfect loyalty which is the sound expression of true patriotism, and which is blessed by the Church and by God."Thousands and thousands of our young men, for a large number of them at the cost of particular and most painful sacrifices, and in many cases, without being able to give to their race the benefit of their chivalrous devotion, have gone, oversea, to fight and die for the cause which was proved to them noble and urgent."Moreover, all over the country, the courage of our soldiers was echoed and answered by many active and important works characterized by charitable solidarity, and this universal co-operative and sympathetic movement must be supported by the sentiments of faith and piety."Since we are, at all costs, engaged in a disastrous war, the causes of which we have not to discuss and judge, but the consequences of which will necessarily reach our country, and since our Canadian soldiers are battling under the British flag, with the clear conscience of an honourable duty loyally and freely accepted, it is just, it is legitimate that our prayers do accompany them on the very fields of battles to support their courage, and that these prayers ascend to Heaven to implore victory for our armies."
"We are then, very dear Brethren, in perfect communion of sentiments, action and language, with our venerable predecessors of the Canadian Episcopate, in asking you to-day to address to Heaven fervent prayers for the complete and final success of England and her Allies in the frightful war which is covering the earth with such unheard of horrors."
The Clergy, never forgetting Peter's word respecting thesubmission all are in duty bound to practice towards Kings as well as towards all those holding civil power, was always faithful in obeying the Episcopal directions never ceasing to deserve the eulogium which the Bishops expressed to the Pope in their favour.
"The French-Canadian people, so taught by words and examples, have given in all our history the admirable spectacle of a constant fidelity which circumstances more than once rendered highly meritorious. Such are the true religious and national traditions of our country. They have in our own days, as in the past, found the exact expression suggested by the situation.
"On the other hand, it appears to us a well established fact, and the most serious minds so proclaim everywhere, that the British Empire, together with France, martyred Belgium and their Allies are actually struggling for the defence of the peoples' Rights and true Liberty. (Card. Begin.) Therefore, very dear Brethren, it must be acknowledged that Canada, herself threatened by the possibilities of a war fought with conditions heretofore unknown, has acted both wisely and loyally in giving, in a manner as generous as it was spontaneous, all the support in her power to the mother-country, England.
"The Catholics, and especially those of French origin, have not remained behind in this manifestation of true patriotism. If it was well to make a comparison between the other groups, from the standpoint of the free and generous participation of all to the European war, it would be necessary, in the respective figures obtainable, to take into account several elements which are perhaps not sufficiently considered.
"But this is not the real question. It is sufficient to show and to note for historical authenticity that, with the encouragement and the blessings of their Pastors, and true to their constant tradition, the Canadian Catholics, as a whole, have, in this frightful conflict proved the perfect loyalty which is the sound expression of true patriotism, and which is blessed by the Church and by God.
"Thousands and thousands of our young men, for a large number of them at the cost of particular and most painful sacrifices, and in many cases, without being able to give to their race the benefit of their chivalrous devotion, have gone, oversea, to fight and die for the cause which was proved to them noble and urgent.
"Moreover, all over the country, the courage of our soldiers was echoed and answered by many active and important works characterized by charitable solidarity, and this universal co-operative and sympathetic movement must be supported by the sentiments of faith and piety.
"Since we are, at all costs, engaged in a disastrous war, the causes of which we have not to discuss and judge, but the consequences of which will necessarily reach our country, and since our Canadian soldiers are battling under the British flag, with the clear conscience of an honourable duty loyally and freely accepted, it is just, it is legitimate that our prayers do accompany them on the very fields of battles to support their courage, and that these prayers ascend to Heaven to implore victory for our armies."
Evidently the venerable Bishop of Valleyfield is far from believing, like the publicist whose errors we must all deplore, that in organizing a powerful army "to go overseas to fight and die for the noble and urgent cause so proved to them," the Canadian Parliament "were forging for us a militarism without parallel in any other civilized country, a depraved and undisciplined soldiery, an armed scoundrelism, without faith nor law."
The blessings of the Head of the Canadian Church and those of the whole Episcopate have consolated our brave volunteers for the outrages thrust at them, and have inspired them with the great Christian courage to forgive their author. The only revenge they have taken against their accuser has been to defend himself and his own against the barbarous Germans.
A long experience of public life, whether by daily observation, begun in my early youth, when the Union of the Provinces was finally discussed, carried and established, or, subsequently, during many years of active political life as a journalist and member of the Quebec and Ottawa representative Houses, has taught me to judge the actions of responsible men, whether ministerialists or oppositionists, with great fairness and respectful regard. At all times the government of a large progressive country peopled by several races, of different religious creeds, is a difficult problem. It should not be necessary to say that in days of warlike crisis, of previously unknown proportions, like the present one, the task becomes almost superhuman. Anyone taking into serious consideration the very trying ordeal through which, for instance, the rulers of Great Britain and France have been, and are still passing, since early in 1914, cannot help being indulgent for those who have the weighty and often crushing burden of the cares of State. Let so much be said without in the least contesting the right of free men to their own opinion about what is best to be done. But itwas never more opportune to remember that the honourable privilege of constitutional criticism must have for its only superior object the good of the country by improved methods.
We have reason to congratulate ourselves that this sound view has widely prevailed rallying almost as units great nations,—our own one of them—previously much divided in political thoughts and aspirations, for the noble and patriotic purpose of winning a disastrous war they were forced to wage, in spite of their most determined efforts to prevent it.
Public men, nations rulers, like all others are human and liable to fail or to be found wanting. Unconscious inefficiency, however desirable to remove, cannot be fairly classed on the same footing as guilty failures. The first may, more or less, injure the bright prospects of a country; the second stains her honour which an exemplary punishment can alone redeem.
But it is said with much truth that there are always exceptions to a general rule. That of the human heart to be fallible in public life, as well as in other callings, has met with only one solitary exception in Canada: the saintly Nationalist leader who will never have his equal, "nature having destroyed the mould when she cast him."
Considering the outrageous language he thrusted at the Canadians of the three British races and at our heroic volunteers, it is not to be supposed that he was so tender-hearted as to sparethe public men, not only of Canada, but of all the Allied Nations.
When he affirmed that the real and only cause of the war had been, and was still, the voracious greed of capitalist speculators, especially of the two leading belligerents, Great Britain and Germany, united together to profit to the tune of hundreds of millions out of the production of warship building and materials of all sorts, was he not charging all the statesmen and leading politicians of all the peoples at war, of having bowed either consciously to the dictates of traitors to their countries, or of having been stupidly blind to the guilty manipulations of financial banditti?
It would take many pages only to make a summary of the injurious words he has addressed to the Canadian public men of all shades of opinion—with the only exception of the Nationalist—on account of the support they have given, in one way or another, to the Dominion's participation in the war. He qualified as aRevolutionthe policy by which we willingly decided to take part in the wars of the Empire whenever we came to the conclusion that England was fighting for a just cause.
On the 23rd of April, 1917, he wrote as follows:—
"Very often we have shown the evident revolutionary character of the Canadian intervention in the European conflict."
After repeating his absolutely absurd pretention, according to the sound principles of ConstitutionalLaw, that Canada could have intervened in the war as a "nation" he found fault with all and every one because "we are fighting to defend the Empire." He went on and said with his natural sweetness of language:—
"The politicians of the two parties and the whole servile and mercenary press have applied themselves to this revolutionary work.... For a long time past the party leaders are the tools of British Imperialism and ofBritish high finance."
And not satisfied with having thus slashed all the party leaders, all the chiefs of the State, he turns round, in an access of passionate indignation, and charges not only all the leading social classes, but even the Bishops, the worthy leaders of the Church, as the accomplices of the Imperialist revolution. He thrusts the terrible blow as follows:—
"But what the war has produced of entirely new and most disconcerting, is the moral support and complicity which the"Imperialist revolution"has found in all the leading social classes.Bishops,financiers, publicists and professionals went into the movement with a unity, an ardour, a zeal which reveal the effective strength of the laborious propaganda of which Lord Grey has been the most powerful worker prior to the war."
So that there should be no mistake about its true meaning, he favoured his readers with a very clear explanation indeed of what, in his opinion,has transformed our meritorious and loyal intervention in the war into a guilty revolutionary movement. He wrote as follows:—
"But what the Imperialists wanted, and what they have succeeded in obtaining, was to bind Canada to the fate of England, in the name of the principle of Imperial solidarity and—as we shall see in a moment—to the cause of'UNIVERSAL DEMOCRACY'."
Thus, in the Nationalist leader's opinion, it is a great crime to help England and her Allies to win a war the loss of which would most likely have destroyed the British Empire, involving our own ruin in the downfall of the mighty political edifice to be replaced, in the glorious shelter it gives to human freedom, by the triumphant German autocratic rule and its universal domination. It is, to say the least, an extravagant notion to pretend that the war has afforded the Imperialists the opportunity—eagerly seized—"to tie Canada" hand and foot, "to the fate of England."
If I am not mistaken—and I am positively sure I am right in so saying—Canada was bound to the fate of England the very day when—by Providential decree, in that instance as well as with regard to everything earthly—she passed under British Sovereignty. The worthy leaders of our Church so considered—and have since unanimously considered—at once taking the sound Christian stand that the French Canadians were,in duty bound, to accept their new political status in good faith, and to loyally support their new mother country whenever circumstances would require their devoted help, whilst revering the old as every child must do, if he is blessed with a good heart, when separated by unforeseen events from the home of his happy youth.
I must acknowledge that with some of our French Canadians of the first class and standing, the word "Democracy" savours with soreness. Well read in all that pertains to the great epoch of the first French tremendous Revolution, they abhor, with much reason, the extravagant and false principles of theBOLSHEVIKISMof those days, which culminated in the frightful period of the "terrorism" which, for three long years and more, kept its strong knee on France's throat, her fair soil flooded with the innocent blood of her children. They are apt to be laid to the confusion that democratic government is in almost every case, if not always, synonymous of revolutionary institutions, in as much as it cannot, they believe and say, be otherwise than destructive of the principle of "Authority," certainly as essential as that of "Liberty," both as the necessary fundamental basis of all good governments.
Knowing this, the Nationalist leader, who has evidently abjured his liberalism of former days, which he was wont to parade in such resounding sentences, multiplies his efforts to capture the support of the few members of our most venerableClergy whom he supposes labouring under the aforesaid delusion. He would not lose the chance of trading on their feelings and sincere conviction, in boldly declaring that his good friends, the cursed Imperialists, had managed to drag the Dominion through the mire of the European war by blandishing before the eyes of the Canadian people, so enamoured of their constitutional liberties, the supposed dangerous spectre of "universal democracy."
If, in reality, democratic government could not help being either the "French revolutionary terrorism," of 1792-95,—which even frightened such a staunch friend of Political Liberty as Burke—or the Russian criminal bolshevikism of our own trying days, we would be forced, in dire sadness, to despair of the world's future, as Humanity would be forever doomed to ebb and flow between the sanguinary "absolutism" either of "autocratic" or "terrorist" tyrants.
Happily, we can, in all sincerity, affirm that such is not the case. Is it not sufficient, as a most reassuring proof, to point at the wonderful achievements of free institutions, first, under the monarchical democratic system of Great Britain and her autonomous Dominions; second, under the republican regime of the United States.
After many long years of earnest study and serious thinking, I cannot draw the very depressing conclusion that the two basic principles of sound government—Authority and Liberty—cannotbe brought to work harmoniously together for the happiness and prosperity of nations, as far as they can be achieved in this world of sufferings and sacrifices. Such a conclusion would also be contrary to true Christian teachings, the Almighty having created man a free being with a responsible and immortal soul.
Nations who, forgetful of the obligations of moral laws, indulge in guilty abuse of their liberties, are, sooner or later, as individuals doing alike, sure to meet with the due Providential punishment they have deserved. But, also like individuals, they can redeem themselves in repenting for their past errors, due to uncontrolled passions, and by resolutely and "FREELY" returning to the path of their sacred duty.
The Nationalist leader also deplores, as one of their guilty achievements, the fact that the "war had ended all equivocals and consummated the complete alliance of the two parties," to favour, as he asserts, of course, the enterprises of the dreaded Imperialism.
True to the kind appreciation he has pledged himself to make of the inspiring dark motives actuating the conduct of public men, he sweetly added:—
"The truce arrived at in 1914 could not, it is true, resist the thirst for power. "Blues" and "Reds" have recommenced tearing themselves about patronage, places, planturous contracts and "boodle." But with regard to the substantialquestion itself, and to the Imperialist revolution brought on and sanctioned by the war, they have remained in accord."
It could not strike such a prejudiced mind as that of the Nationalist leader, that political chieftains, and their respective supporters, could conscientiously unite to save their country, their Empire and the world from an impending terrible disaster, and yet freely and conscientiously differ as to the best means to achieve the sacred object to the success of which they have pledged, and they continue to make, their best and most patriotic efforts.
The public men, and even the private citizens, who, not believing that he speaks and writes with Divine inspiration, dare to differ from the Nationalist leader, cannot, in his opinion, do so unless influenced by unworthy corrupt motives. And he further draws the awful conclusion "that it is his duty to note the ever increasing revolutionary character that the European war, as a whole, is assuming on the side of the Allies."
To support this last and absolutely unfounded charge, he positively asserts that the joint "policy of the statesmen, politicians and journalists, has much less for its object to liberate oppressed nations like Belgium, Servia,Ireland,Poland and Finland, from a foreign yoke, than to overthrow in all the countries, allies or enemies, the monarchical form of government."
And then follows a most virulent diatribe bywhich he points, in support of his wild conclusion aforesaid, to the Russian revolution, charging "the officious and reptile press of the Allied countries to have joined in spreading the legend that it had been precipitated by German intrigues at the Court of the Czar, and to have accused the ill-fated Emperor to have been the spy and the accomplice of the enemies of his country."
At this hour of the day, in the turmoil of flashing events perhaps never before equalled in suddenness, pregnant with such alarming, or comforting, prospective consequences, it is much too early to attempt passing a reliable judgment on the true causes which produced the Moscovite revolution so soon and so dastardly developed into criminal "bolshevikism." The question must be left for History to settle when peace is restored and the sources of truth are wide opened to the impartial investigations of high class historians.
However, enough is known to prove that Mr. Bourassa's charge is altogether unfounded. Anyone conversant with Russian history for the two last centuries, is aware that German influences and intrigues have always played a great part in the Capital of that fallen Empire. From the very beginning of the war, it became evident that they were actively at work at the Petrograd Court, thwarting the Emperor's efforts and those of his advisers, military and civil, he could trust, to be true to the cause he had sworn to defend with France and England.
The Nationalist leader, I hope, is the only man still to wonder at this, after all that has been discovered proving what Germany has tried to bribe the political leaders and the press of the Allies, with too much success in France, England and the United States.
Russia has been for too many years the favourite soil where Germany was sowing her corrupt intrigues, to let any sensible man suppose that she would kindly withdraw from the preferred field of her infamous operations, at the very time she was exerting herself with such energy, and at the cost of so many millions, to extend her vast spy system almost all over the earth,—Canada included—debauching consciences right and left.
Is it unfair to say, for instance, after the event as it developed, that Roumania was prematurely brought into the war in consequence of the dark German machinations at Petrograd, with the evident understanding that the military operations, both on the Teutonic and Moscovite sides, were to be so conducted as to rush poor Roumania into a most disastrous defeat, in order to feed the Central Empires with the products of the fertile Roumanian soil?
No representative man of any consequence has pretended that the unfortunate Czar was himself a party to that treason of the Allied cause. He has likely been the victim of his own weakness in not using what was left to him of his personal autocratic power to silence the sympathies of thefriends of Germany at his Imperial Court, and even in his most intimate circle, rather than exhausting it in a supreme, but doomed, attempt at checking the rising tide of popular aspirations sure, as always, to overflow to frightful excesses, if unwisely compressed.
Almost daily witnessing the successive miscarriages of so many of the Russian military operations, too often by the failure of the ammunitions, supplied to such a large extent by the Allies, to reach the Russian soldiers, or by other inexplicable causes, it is not surprising that the people at large became suspicious of their government which they soon believed to be under German tutorage.
The rapid, almost sudden, overthrow of the Russian autocratic Empire can be accepted as evidence that the movement in favour of a change which would more efficiently conduct Russia's share of the conflict, was widespread. The goal it aimed at, once reached, and Russia proclaimed a Republic, with a regularde factogovernment under the leadership of abler men, whose patriotism was proved by their words, but more surely by their deeds, France, England, Italy and the United States cannot be reasonably reproached with having unduly opened diplomatic relations with the new Moscovite authorities.
Unfortunately, once successful in her intrigues at the Petrograd Court, soon to fall under the weight of popular exasperation, Germany tried her hand in a triumphant, but shameful, way withthe fiery sanguinary and treasonable element always to be found operating in the darkest corners for their own criminal purposes. The calamitous outcome has been "bolchevikism" betraying their country in the light of day, without blushing, without hiding their faces in eternal shame, and signing, with their hands stained with the blood of their own kin, the infamous treaty of Brest-Litovsk dismembering poor Russia, scattering to the winds her fond hopes of a grand future at the very dawn of the better days promised by a free constitution, and plunging her in the throes of German autocratic domination.
With regard to the Nationalist leader's rash denunciation of public men, I have only a few more words to say. My personal recollections going back to the early sixties of the last century, for several years free from all party affiliations, unbiassed by any sympathies or prejudices, I consider it my duty to say that, on the whole, Canadian public life, as well as British public life, is honourable and entitled to the respect of public opinion. Out of hundreds and thousands of politicians, both in the Motherland and in our own Dominion, there may have been failings. It would be useless, even pernicious, to point at them. The revulsion of public feeling towards the fallen for cause, and the severe judgment of misdeeds by the impartial historian, has been the deserved punishment of the few who have prevaricated. I prefer by far to take my lofty inspiration from the galaxyof faithful public servants who, from all parties, and from various standpoints, have given the fruits of their intelligence, of their learning, of their hard work—and in many cases—of their private wealth, for the good of their country. In the course of the last fifty-five years, I have known hundreds of our public men who lived through, and came out of, a long political life getting poorer every day without being disheartened and retiring from the public service to which they were devoted to the last. Need I point, as examples, to the cases of several men who, departed for a better world, Parliament, irrespective of all party considerations, united to a man to vote a yearly allowance of a few hundred dollars to save their surviving widows and children from actual want and destitution!
Just as well as the Canadians of the three British races, and the gallant volunteers of our heroic army, Canadian and British public men can rest assured that from the high position they occupy in the world's estimation, they are far above the fanatical aspersions of the Nationalist leader blinded by the wild suggestions of an inexhaustible thirst of rash condemnation.
Two historical truths, undeniable, bright as the shining light of the finest summer day, which have triumphantly challenged the innumerable falsehoods to the contrary constantly circulated by Germany, even prior to the outbreak of the hostilities, are:—
First, that all the countries united under the title—the Allies, have been energetically in favour ofMAINTAINING THE PEACE OF THE WORLD, when it became evident, for all sensible people, that Germany was eagerly watching her opportunity to strike the blow she had prepared for the previous forty years on such a gigantic scale.
Second, that, once engaged in the conflict against their deliberate will, and in spite of their noble efforts to prevent the war which they clearly foresaw would be most calamitous, they have always remained the staunch supporters of theRESTORATION OF PEACEupon the twosine qua nonconditions ofJusticeandDURABILITY.
To achieve these two objectives, they have been fighting for now more than four years, at tremendous cost of men and treasures, and they are determined to fight until victorious.
They would all lay down their arms to-morrow, if the results so important for the future of Humanity could be secured with certainty.
Like all great causes,Peace with Justice and Durabilityhas had itsTRUEand itsFALSEfriends.
TheTRUEfriends ofPeacewere those who realized from the very beginning of the frightful struggle that it was perfectly useless to expect it, if the disastrous Prussian Militarism was to be maintained and allowed to continue threatening Civilization.
TheTRUEfriends ofPeacewere those who pledged their honour not to sheathe the sword they had been forced to draw before Germany would acknowledge that she had no right to violate solemn treaties, and would agree to redeem the crime she had committed in invading the neutral territory of Belgium which she trampled under her ironed heels and crucified.
TheTRUEfriends ofPeacewere those who determined to bring Germany to renounce the abominable principles she has professed, training the mind of her peoples to believe and proclaim thatMightisRightand the only sound basis ofInternational Law.
TheTRUEfriends ofPeacewere those who, however anxious they were to have it restored as soon as possible—fervently praying the Almighty to that purpose—, knowing what are the principles of International Law recognized by all truly civilized nations, could not forgive Germany,UNLESSSHE SINCERELY REPENTED, the barbarism she displayed in her murderous submarine campaign, and practised in Belgium, Northern France and in every piece of belligerent territory her armies occupied.
TheTRUEfriends ofPeacewere those who clearly understood that to meet the two essential conditions ofJusticeandDurability, it wasPRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLEto secure it by a compromise which could not, by any means, protect the world against further German attempts at universal military domination.
TheFALSEfriends ofPeacewere those who said and wrote, in sheer defiance of truth, that the Allies, more especially England and Russia, were as much responsible for the war as Germany herself.
TheFALSEfriends ofPeacewere those who falsely alleged that the Allies were preventing it by their repeated declarations that their principal war aim was to destroy, not only the German Empire, but also the German race, thus wilfully and maliciously pretending that to battle for the abolition of Teutonic militarism, weighing so heavily on all the nations, was equal, in guilty knowledge, to fighting for an enemy's race destruction.
TheFALSEfriends ofPeacewere those who were ready to sanction, at any time, a compromise betweenHEROICand criminal war aims, which would leave future generations to the tender mercies of a Sovereign Power straining every nerve todominate the world by the foulest means ever devised.
TheFALSEfriends ofPeacewere those whose daily effort was to dishearten their countrymen from the noble and patriotic task they had bravely undertaken with the strong will to accomplish it at all costs, knowing, as they did, that it was a question of life or death for human Civilization.
"Defeatists," as they are called, to mean the shameless supporters ofPeacenegotiations to be opened by the Allies acknowledging their defeat and the victory of Germany, there were, and there are, in all the "Allied" belligerent nations. No one need be too much surprised at the hideous fact. In all countries, at all times, under the direst circumstances, when it is most important, in very distressing hours, that all be of one mind, of one heart, to save the nation's existence, are to be found heartless, low minded, cowardly beings, ready to betray their countrymen rather than stand the strain of their due share of sacrifices, or, which is still far worse, for corrupt motives, to deliver them over to the enemy.
"Defeatists" we have had, we have yet, in Canada, in the Province of Quebec. Most happily, they are few and far between.
Imbued with the false notions he has so tenaciously ventilated respecting Canada's participation in the war, it is no wonder that the Nationalist leader was sure to be found at the head of the small group ofpacifists, at almost any cost, musteredamongst the French Canadians. A sower of prejudices, he was bound to watch with eagerness the growing crop of ill-feelings he was fostering.
Those of us who oppose all, and any, participation by the Dominion in the wars of the Empire, be they even so just, so honourable, so necessary, under Mr. Bourassa's deplorable leadership, were naturally supporters of any kind of "PACIFISM."
I will not classify the Nationalist leader and his dupes as "defeatists," who were ready to accept peace as the consequence of defeat. The real "pacifists," so far as it is possible to ascertain their views, unable, consciously or not, to see any difference in the respective responsibilities of the belligerents in opening the war, consider that they are equally guilty in not closing it.
Most happily, such a disordered opinion is shared only by a small minority. It can be positively affirmed that public opinion, the world over, outside the Central Empires and their swayed allies, is almost unanimous that Germany, through her military party and the junkers element, is responsible for the dire calamity she has brought on Humanity. The question of the restoration of "Peace" must be viewed from this starting point—the only true one.
The standpoints of theTRUEand theFALSEfriends ofPeacebeing so far apart, the conclusions they draw are naturally widely different.
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 beeneasily 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 responsibilityin 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 firstparagraph 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 chrétiens se sont rués 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 dayof 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,hurledherself 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 byhurlingher vassal, Austria, at weak Servia.
Rushing her innumerable victorious armies over Belgian trodden soil, shehurledherself at France with the ultimate design tohurlherself at England.
That in so doing, Germany wasragingwith afoolishthirst ofdestruction, of revenge and hatred, is certainly true. But Mr. Bourassa's guiltis in his assertion that the victims of Germany'ssanguinary furywere 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 whohurlshimself at his throat, to be compared with his murderous assailant?
But England was not alone inhurlingherself at Germany, as Mr. Bourassa so cordially says. Without a word, even a sign, by the only momentum of herfurious 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 theHUNS' 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 haveby force or deceit swallowed up a fourth of the earthly globe. Considering the happy and flourishing condition of the vast British Empire, the Nationalistleader, 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, inWISDOM.
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 thatthe Germans proclaim theirRIGHTto "Germanize" Europe and the world, and that the English imperiously affirm theirRIGHTto 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 appearstotally 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 oftenhurledat 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 tohurlat 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 todeprive 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.
Whatever theTRUEand theFALSEfriends ofPeacemay hope and say, it is perfectly useless to close our eyes to the glaring fact that its restoration can only be the result of military effort combined with the highest practical statesmanship. After all what has happened, and the oft-repeated declaration of the Rulers of the belligerent nations, it would be a complete loss of a very valuable time to indulge any longer in the expression of views all acknowledge in principle, but which no one, however well disposed he may be, is actually able to traduce in practical form.
When writing my French book, in the fall of 1916, reviewing the situation as it had so far developed, I said:—