« ПретходнаНастави »
As he was certain to be the senior officer in the field he would naturally take the command if there were to be concerted action after he arrived; and on this ground the other powers made little objection. If a German had the chief command and he were competent to be an administrator as well as a general, Germany would be in a favoured position. But if part or all of the troops had withdrawn from Pekin before he arrived, and there were nothing for him to do except to wait at Tien Tsin until the Chinese Government made up its mind as to what terms to offer, then Germany would seem to have made a great fuss about nothing. Whether or not Russia calculated upon this effect of its proposition, the very fact that the proposition was seriously made discounted Germany's move.
As reasons for withdrawal, Russia claimed that the immediate object of the expedition had been accomplished in the relief of the Legations, and that, as there was no Chinese Government at Pekin, it was not necessary, nor was it altogether dignified, that the Legations should remain waiting for a Government with which they could deal. In the Russian circular reference is made to the occupation of Newchwang and other places in Manchuria, and there follows this very interesting sentence: "As soon as lasting order shall have been established in Manchuria, and indispensable measures taken for the protection of railway construction, which, according to formal agreement, China assured, Russia will not fail to recall her troops from these territories of the neighbouring empire, provided the action of other powers does not present any obstacle in the way of such measure. As Russia must be the judge whether lasting order has or has not been established, as she must be the judge whether the measures taken at any time for the protection of railway construction complete the list of indispensable measures, and as she must also be the judge whether the action of
any of the other powers has placed an obstacle in the way, it will be seen that she gave no assurance of any practical value that she would ever withdraw her
troops from Manchuria. It is a very common thing to talk of Russia's bad faith. It is more profitable, however, to look at Russia's position. Expansion is a necessity for Russia if she would preserve her present system. It is a necessity also if she would extend her commerce. She needs more outlets on the sea than she has had in the past. The history of Russia in modern times has been largely a stretching out towards the sea. Her long coast line on the Arctic Ocean is not of great value to her. On the Baltic she is surrounded and hemmed in by foreign powers. On the Black Sea she is still more confined, unless she can secure Constantinople. Britain is opposed to her reaching the Indian Ocean. At Vladivostock, on the Pacific, she has a port open only during the summer months. As she is expending an enormous amount of money on the construction of her trans-Siberian railway she must have for it a port open all the year round. This she has secured by the lease from China of Port Arthur and Talien-wan. But she must secure this railway against interruption, and to do this she must control the territory through which it passes. Russia cannot give up Manchuria, and she will not. No matter in what form her diplomats may cover up her intentions, there can be no doubt that her intentions are, in the first place, to exclude all others of the Allies from Manchuria, and in the second place, to prevent the establishment there of any Chinese Government in such strength that it could threaten her railway or her territory to the north. By whatever name she may call it, she will virtually annex Manchuria. With this fact we must start. What then will the other powers do? After the manner of diplomacy none of them express themselves in simple language. Germany has taken the lead among those who decline to withdraw from Pekin, and has shaped the work to be done
while remaining at the capital. The Chinese Government have appointed two envoys to treat with the Allies. One is Prince Ching, uncle of the Emperor, and until Prince Tuan deposed him, President of the Tsungli Yamen, and the other is Li Hung Chang. Before dealing with these envoys Germany lays it down that those persons who were the original and real instigators of the attacks against the foreigners must be delivered up and punished, and that the representatives of the powers at Pekin should report upon those who, they have good evidence to know, were the leaders. To act upon this course will probably entail a long delay before further matters can be adjusted. future is very uncertain.
No doubt is entertained as to the result of the British elections in October. Even the Liberal leaders themselves have admitted that the return of the Liberal party to power is beyond their expectations, but nevertheless they believe that the Liberals will show themselves stronger at the polls than the Conservatives are inclined to believe. In so far as the Conservatives can do so, they will confine the issues to the justice of the South African war, and the nature of the settlement. Mr. Chamberlain vigorously, and even brusquely, forces these two issues to the front, and Mr. Balfour, while he acknowledges that there are other questions of the first importance, also makes the South African question supreme. And certainly the settlement of the South African trouble is the pressing question of the hour. If the result of the election should in any way bring indecision or weakness into the settlement, it would be a national calamity. It may be said that the principal Liberal leaders show no disposition to dispute the Government's position that what is now done must forever render it impossible for a race conflict again to rise in South Africa; but the very fact of disunion in the Liberal ranks, and of the absence of
any one leader whom all the rest are willing to follow, would render it unwise for the country to entrust the Liberals with the carrying out of the settlement. At the same time it is, from a party standpoint, fortunate for the Conservatives that the Liberals are not strong in themselves, and that there is one great matter which the Conservatives are best fitted to deal with, for there is so much else with which the country has reason to be dissatisfied, that it might otherwise go hard with the Government. It would be unfair, of course, to lay at the door of the Conservatives all the weaknesses revealed in the War Office, but the Government of the time is sure to suffer when weaknesses are revealed. There have been other questions relating to methods adopted, upon which effective criticism might be raised, and it is by no means sure that the country, if it had nothing else to absorb its attention, would vote confidence in the Chinese policy of the Goverment. The very eagerness with which Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Balfour are calling attention to the South African problems, might almost be taken as an indirect admission that there are weaknesses in other directions. As matters stand, however, the chief interest for outsiders will lie in the reconstruction, which will undoubtedly take place in the Conservative Cabinet after the elections, and in the evolution that is equally certain in the Liberal party itself.
afterwards accepted the offer of the Government of the Netherlands to place a warship at his disposal to convey him to Holland. It is understood that the British Government did not object to this, although the action of Holland was a discourtesy to Britain that amounted almost to an unfriendly act. Of the operations of the British troops during the month it can only be said that they were constantly successful With the exception of two or three days when General Buller's army was checked before an almost impregnable position, the record has been one of steady advance on the part of the British, and of equally steady retreat on the part of the Boers. The Lydenburg district, in which even a small band of Boers was expected to be able to hold out for months, was quickly overrun. The fact was, however, that the Boers had become so demoralized that they could hold no position, no matter how strong it might be. On September 19th Lord Roberts reported that a general tumult had occurred in the main body of the enemy on the recognition of the hopelessness of their cause, and that they were destroying their guns and scattering. As an organized army the Boers are no longer in the field, and it is only a question of time before the small guerilla bands will be worn down. Among the events were two of the greatest interest to Canadians. A detachment of 125 Canadian Mounted Rifles on Sept. 7th repelled a Boer attack on a section of railway they were guarding. Although the Boers brought two guns and a pom-pom to bear upon the Canadians, they were driven off. Lord Roberts characterized it as a very creditable performance, and has added one more to the already long list of such performances by the Canadian troops. The second event was the announcement of the return of 500 men of the first contingent at the end of their year's term of enlistment. This news was hailed with great satisfaction in Canada. Many of the men decided to re-enlist for a further term, and we must admire the spirit which prompted
them to do so, but, under conditions now existing in South Africa, there is no necessity that our infantry should remain, and there are many good reasons why they should return. They will be welcomed as they deserve to be, for they have so conducted themselves that their country can be proud o them.
A strange thing was the wave of apprehension which swept over England that war with France was imminent. It seemed to be taken for granted, without any tangible evidence being adduced, that France was only waiting for the close of the Exhibition to begin war. While the manifestation differed widely in the two peoples, this phenomenon may be compared with the apprehension France felt some few months ago that, as soon as the war in South Africa was over, Britain would turn her victorious army against France. The reasons for the strained relations between the two countries are many; and no doubt there are in some quarters conflicts between substantial interests. But a fact that should not be lost sight of is that it is possible to assuage the bitterness of national feelings when there is a disposition on the part of men in responsible positions to do so. In this case two incidents had a marked effect in relieving the situation. One was the visit to Paris of 500 representatives of the British Chamber of Commerce. British visitors have not largely patronized the Exhibition, and this visit of representative business men was regarded as significant by the French people, and the welcome extended to the visitors was exceedingly cordial. The other incident was the warm praise given to the French troops under his command by Admiral Seymour, in his report on the abortive expedition toward Pekin. Canada has a deep interest in the relations between Britain and France. We have in this country men of both races, and it is certainly desirable, because of its effect in this country, that the races should be on cordial relations throughout the world.
PEOPLE AND AFFAIRS.
JOHN RUSKIN protested against
the outcries concerning passion or sensation. He claimed that we need more sensation rather than less, because the ennobling difference between one man and another is precisely that one feels more than another. A man who is blunt in body and mind is vulgar, and does not feel for another. Disciplined and tested passion or sensation is good for a man. Fineness and fulness of sensation prevents vulgarity, and develops a sympathy which is above reason, is the guide and sanctifier of reason. There have been plenty of incidents during these passing days to call forth our sympathy and arouse our passion: the suffering of our race in China, and the indignities and inhumanities heaped upon innocent women and children; ceaseless barking of the dogs of war, and the absence of the white-winged angel of peace; the usual drownings and railroad accidents of the summer days; a town in our sister country swept over by a devastating storm which destroyed thousands of homes and snuffed out hundreds of bright lives-until one feels that human sympathy is inadequate to encompass human woe.
more of happiness and then an overturned lamp in the middle of the night envelopes baby and mother and father and cottage with flames. The father breaks out through a window, but the mother's cry, "My baby! my baby! where is my baby?" draws him back
-once-twice—searching for the two that are already dumb. And at last he is found prone across the threshold by those whom we appoint to save. He is taken to the hospital, but his reward is not denied him. Next day, husband and wife and baby are prepared for burial, while three released spirits enter the harmony of the eternal.
A recent magazine writer * comes to the defence of plagiarism and claims that it is the basis of all superlative literary achieveThis is a rather surprising attitude and a most unusual statement. The literary critics have been watching us closely, and the moment a writer uses a phrase or thought previously written by another, he is held up to ridicule. Every reader of Canadian literature remembers "The Battle of the Poets" in which several Canadian litterateurs engaged with the object of proving that the other or others were plagiarists. Each and every one avowed his virtue and declared that he had never knowingly committed a theft. And yet here is a magazine writer who comes forward with the claim that plagiarism is the basis of all great literary achievement. Is this the secret of the weakness of our Canadian poets and writers that they have not discovered the value and benefit of literary theft?
One of the most touching incidents
little house was erected on the lot.
I sence of a sturdy little chap, whose
black eyes shone back into those whose
This defender of plagiarism claims that truth and beauty are eternal and the most any man can do is to become
Ainslee's Magazine, August, 1900.
conscious of them. "Every fundamental idea belongs to the world as a whole, just as does a word. Some man may be the medium through which it finds expression, but it in no sense belongs to him. . . . Your true genius recognizes no man's right to withhold any truth he may have discovered, and indeed it would be as reasonable for a man who discovers a comet to try to get a title-deed to it as it is for a man to lay claim to any idea, thought or truth simply because he has been privileged to have it occur to him." Shakespeare and Homer collected ideas together from everywhere and laid no claim to them. They were editors, epitomizers, plagiarists, literary Rockefellers and Rhodeses. Shakespeare "received the knowledge, beauty, poetry and wisdom contained in those wonderful plays from all the world, and to all the world he returned them without claim or vanity."
Every orator is a plagiarist, every painter is a plagiarist, and neither uses quotation marks. Why should literary men use them? Would it be reasonable to expect Mr. W. A. Fraser, whose animal story begins in this issue, to give credit for his work to all the men who have written animal stories before him? Would it be reasonable to ask him to give footnotes showing where each of the hundred bits of information in every chapter has been picked up?
In this connection a good story is told of two Canadian professors whose specialty is economics. One of them. has been writing a series of articles on the early days of banking and exchange. The other is in a rival university, and found it necessary to recommend these articles to his students. In doing so, he pointed out that the articles were marred because the writer had neglected to give references to all the original documents, pamphlets and private records from which he had drawn his information. What an unnecessary criticism!
I remember once, when a student, having written and read before a student's seminary an article on Karl
Marx's "Iron Law of Wages." proceeded to demolish Marx's theory by quotations from learned economists controverting each one of his points. The professor, who was guiding our studies, criticized my quotation marks saying that I should have made these criticisms my own and read them as such in my own words. He pointed out that the objections were none the more forcible because I had credited them to others, that my business as a student was to master knowledge and make it my own. He could see no great harm in plagiarism.
When William McLennan wrote "Spanish John" he was accused of having stolen the story from articles in THE CANADIAN MAGAZINE published in 1826. What if he did? He made the story his own, told it well, and made it more interesting and artistic. And why should he not receive credit for his work?
When Gilbert Parker wrote "The Seats of The Mighty" he founded it upon a long-published volume of experiences written by an officer who was a prisoner at Quebec before the battle of the Plains of Abraham. But Mr. Parker was no more a plagiarist than Shakespeare when the latter wrote his "Julius Cæsar" and other historical dramas.
Canada is waiting for her great plagiarist, for her Homer or Shakespeare. She is waiting for the man who will write a great poem, a great epic which will embody her national history and her national aims; an intellectual freebooter who will embody in one grand work all we have done and thought. When his great work is issued, a hundred critics may arise who will cry plagiarist; and show where he has stolen from Parkman, Kingsford, Mair, Campbell, Roberts, and all the other past and present Canadian writers. He will probably receive neither praise nor profit during his lifetime, but centuries later Canadians will erect monuments to his memory, and praise him in innumerable magazine articles.