Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

He further represented the conciliation of Russia as the traditional policy of Germany. During the reign of Frederick William III', he said, 'Prussia frequently showed her gratitude for the benefits which she had received from Alexander I in 1813.' In particular, he quoted her neutral attitude in the Crimean War'. În the same spirit, he boasted that in 1870 Germany was able to requite Russia for her friendly neutrality by services in the Treaty of London relating to the Black Sea, and that, at the Berlin Congress, he was almost a plenipotentiary of Russia. Russia', he also said, ' has certainly every reason to be grateful for the loyal attitude of Germany in the Bulgarian question. If Russia calls upon us to support, in our communications with the Sultan's Government, such of her claims as are compatible with the decisions of the Berlin Congress, should have no hesitation in doing so.'

The whole speech meant that it has been, is, and will be the traditional policy of Germany to divert Russia by favouring her designs in Eastern affairs, and at the expense of England. Nor did this policy fall with Prince Bismarck. As he learnt it so he taught it to the present Emperor, who, within six months after his Chancellor's speech and directly after his own accession opened the Reichstag on June 25, 1888, with a speech in which he pointedly declared that the Austrian alliance permitted him to cultivate carefully his personal friendship with the Emperor of Russia and the peaceful relations which have existed for the past 100 years with the neighbouring Russian Empire. The result is that William II is now, at this moment, pursuing the traditional policy which he has inherited from King Frederick William III and learnt from Prince Bismarck.

In order to prove this interpretation of his attitude I cannot do better, Sir, than quote the words of your

Correspondent in Vienna from The Times of yesterday as follows:

'In the recent co-operation of the Powers at Constantinople ' it was never for a moment doubted in diplomatic circles that Germany's reserve was intended to please Russia at the expense of England. It was well known that Russia was not satisfied that any other Power but herself should take the ' lead of European action in the East, and that is why Germany constantly hung back and did not send her ships to Turkish waters during the recent crisis. In the present instance, again, Germany's proceedings are entirely consistent ' with that policy. Her object, evidently, is to entangle Great 'Britain in South Africa and thus to make it impossible for the Queen's Government to exercise influence in Oriental affairs. ... Russia would thus be relieved of all concern as to opposition on the part of England in the accomplishment of 'her Eastern policy.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

It would no doubt be going too far to conclude that the sole object of the Emperor William's message to President Kruger is to hamper England's action in the East, or to make her forget Germany's colonial aspirations in Africa. On the other hand it would be a still greater mistake to ignore either the consistency or the connexion between the patronage of the Transvaal and the conciliation of Russia, which are both at the expense of England. The greatest mistake of all would be to allow Germany's colonial jealousy, which is hardly more than an annoyance, to distract our attention from the more real danger of Germany's general policy. We are on the brink of the fifth Eastern crisis of the century predicted by Prince Bismarck-a crisis in which we shall have to reckon with France as well as with Russia; a crisis in which we must assure ourselves that Germany will continue her traditional policy of saving herself from being crushed between France and Russia by conciliating Russia at the expense of England. Oxford, Jan. 7.

E e

210

ENGLAND AND THE DUAL ALLIANCE

The rapprochement of France and Russia was becoming obvious in 1891, but the military convention or alliance between the two countries was not actually signed until 1894.

The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria, and Italy was made in 1882.

FROM The Times, NOVEMBER 1, 1899.

Your Paris Correspondent says that ever since 1891 he has maintained that the Franco-Russian Alliance was very fortunate for England, because, in case of conflict between the Dual and the Triple Alliance, she could turn the scale in favour of either. But suppose that England were to turn the scale in favour of the Dual Alliance of France and Russia, what then? Why, when they had thus been enabled to cripple Germany, France and Russia could, and would, throw their whole combined and uncounteracted force on the British Empire. The very fear of Germany in Europe withholds France from us in Africa and Russia from us in Asia; and if in a moment of irritation England should ever succumb to the temptation of using these two Powers against Germany she would be like Samson, who took hold of the two pillars to destroy himself with the Philistines. October 26, 1899.

THE TAXATION OF THE TRANSVAAL The South African War lasted from October 12, 1899, to May 31, 1902. Before it was over a proposal was made to the effect that the Transvaal and Orange Free State (which had been declared to be annexed to Great Britain as colonies in the summer of 1900) should pay a special contribution towards the cost of the war. Nevertheless, the final peaceterms of May 1902 secured the Boers from such payment; on the contrary, the British Government gave a free grant of three million pounds sterling as a contribution to the post-war work of reconstruction. FROM The Times, DECEMBER 18, 1900.

With the utmost surprise I have read the recent debates in the House of Commons, in which all

parties alike applaud the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that the Transvaal, and of course, if possible, the Orange River Colony, shall make some contribution towards the cost of this war, and that the whole cost shall not be thrown on the taxpayers of this country. If these States had been given their independence, it would not have been surprising that, having attacked us, they should have had to purchase their freedom by a war indemnity. But they have been annexed as colonies, and to tax colonies without representation, and therefore without their consent, is to repeat the very mistake which lost us our American colonies.

The historical parallel is very close. Immediately after the peace of 1763 Grenville brought before Parliament his proposal to tax the American colonies, urging that 63 millions had been added to the National Debt, largely for the successful war against the French in America, and that it was reasonable that the Americans should be taxed for its repayment. It was plausibly argued that taxation was no tyranny, that the Sovereign by Parliamentary requisition had the right in England to impose taxes on the colonies, that they who are subject to laws are liable to taxes, and that, therefore, it was just that, in return for the immense expenditure in peace and war, by land and sea, incurred by England for the sake of America, the American colonists should be taxed. But the Americans simply replied that they should not be taxed by a Parliament in which they were not represented. By the sword they established the principle of no taxation without representation; and in doing so they deprived this country, not only of the power of taxing them, but of governing them at all.

With this parallel before us, how can a Parliament in England try to tax colonies in South Africa? What Grenville and others said in the last century

the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others are repeating now, with no greater plausibility, and without England having now done for South Africa any more than England did then for North America. The answer is the same, no taxation without representation. It is an answer of principle; it is therefore irresistible. What is more, it is the answer of English history. The greatness of the House of Commons is founded on the refusal of the English people to be taxed without its consent. Is England, then, going to impose taxes on South Africa without its consent? Finally, the very same principle was the occasion of this very war. England declared that the Uitlanders should not be taxed without representation by the Transvaal. Is she going to eat her words, and declare that the Transvaal shall be taxed without representation by England? If so, England must expect that what happened in North America will happen again in South Africa.

Amidst the passions raised by the present war, it may do good to quote what two great Englishmen said in the former war. Pitt said in the House of Commons that the kingdom had no right to lay a tax on the colonies'. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations said that

Great Britain is perhaps, since the world began, the only 'State which, as it has extended its Empire, has only increased ' its expense without once augmenting its resources. Other 'States have generally disburdened themselves upon their subject and subordinate provinces of the most considerable 'part of the expense of defending the Empire. Great Britain 'has hitherto suffered her subject and subordinate provinces 'to disburden themselves upon her of almost this whole expense.'

It will be found that this traditional policy is the wise plan, because it is the only chance of conciliating South Africa. It is also the fair plan, because on account of the great profits realized by Englishmen through investments in South Africa the English

« VorigeDoorgaan »