among the private efforts are those made by Sir Horace Plunkett to improve agricultural methods and by Lord and Lady Aberdeen to encourage mechanical industries, especially in the homes.

Anti-Catholic legislation inherited from the bitter conflicts between the Roman and Protestant Churches in Queen Elizabeth's time had imposed on the Roman Catholics both in England and in Ireland intolerable disabilities. Whatever excuse the unscrupulous activities of authorized representatives of the Papacy in England may have furnished for the anti-Catholic legislation at a time when the authority of the English throne and the liberties of the English people were threatened, that excuse no longer existed. But abuses continue after the causes which have produced them cease. The Act of Union could probably never have secured the approval of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland if promises had not been made that it would be at once followed by an Act of Catholic Emancipation. The failure of the Government to fulfill these promises, due partly to the obstinacy of the King, justly aroused the indignation of the Irish, nor was it until nearly thirty years later that, despite Tory opposition, legislation was enacted which put Catholic and Protestant on an equality before the law.

There still remained another religious cause of irritation. An overwhelming majority of the Irish are Roman Catholics, and they were compelled to support by their taxes the Established Church of England, which rendered them no service and which they abhorred both because of its (to them) heretical doctrines and because it was the Church of the hated Englishman. It took another forty years for the slow-moving English mind to conclude that the cause of religion is not promoted by forcing a reluctant people to give it their support. But at length, in 1869, under the leadership of Mr. Gladstone, himself a devoted Anglican, this injustice was remedied by the disestablishment of the English Church in Ireland.

England has been very slow to recognize the need of universal education for a free people. That it made no provision for popular education in Ireland is not surprising, since it made none in England, but it was no small cause for Irish discontent that it forbade the Roman Catholics from providing for the education of their own children. Catholics could not be teachers without being

117

guilty of felony; parents could not send their children abroad for education without forfeiture of their property and their citizenship. Such teaching as was given at all was given clandestinely. These penal laws have now all been abolished and a common-school system has been established providing for the education of children of all classes and open to children of all denominations in which no pupil is required to attend any religious exercise and all children are afforded an opportunity to attend such religious exercises as their parents or guardians desire.

Successive steps have been taken to redeem Ireland from the curse of absentee landlordism, which has been one chief cause of its poverty. There is here no space to narrate these successive steps in detail. · By the individualistic and self-supporting American they have been often criticised as Socialistic. It is enough to say that by them the tenant is entitled to compensation for the improvements which he may make in a rented property, may appeal to a commission to determine what is a fair rent for him to pay, and can borrow on advantageous terms from the Government the money to buy the land he cultivates at a price which the Government fixes; and this is accompanied by a provision for building laborers' cottages for such as are not able to build or buy for themselves.

The political problem still remains unsolved of all English problems the most difficult and perplexing to the English statesman. That problem may be briefly stated thus: How to give to the Irish people the control of their own local affairs without endangering the integrity of the British Empire.

To the American this seems a comparatively simple problem. We have solved it by a Federal system allowing home rule to each State and reserving for the United States only those matters of a common concern. ̧ But in no one of our States does there exist any such condition as exists in Ireland. The animosity between the Roman Catholic Irish in the South and the Protestant Irish in the North is greater than the animosity in either section of the Irish to the English. The Irish are not united in their desire for Home Rule. In 1703 the Irish begged for that legislative union which in 1800 was granted to Ireland, and it is very doubtful whether now anything more than a small minority of the Irish desire independence. It is certain that Mr. Bonar Law truly expressed the sentiment of the Orangemen of

the North when he said that they would rather be governed by a foreign power than by an Irish Parliament. But the advocates of an Irish Parliament will not consider any proposal for a divided jurisdiction, and those who advocate independence will not consider any proposal for a limited jurisdiction. Nevertheless successive English statesmen have attempted to provide some form of Home Rule for Ireland which will be satisfactory to all factions. Gladstone tried it in 1886, and split his party in twain. He tried it again in 1893, met great opposition from enthusiastic Unionists in Ireland, and was defeated in the House of Lords. Mr. Asquith tried it again in 1912. It was this trial which provoked the hostility of the North of Ireland to such an extent that a volunteer army was raised to resist Irish Home Rule if the bill should become a law, and a million and a half of dollars was raised to support any relatives of volunteers who might be wounded or killed in the fighting which they believed was sure to come. Various attempts at compromise were made between the Irish factions supporting and opposing this measure, which was, of course, far removed from independence, and no result had been reached when, on the first of August, the breaking out of the great European war postponed for both England and Ireland any further consideration of the so-called Irish question. But it was only postponed, and there is every reason to believe that the purpose of the Liberal party in England to provide some adequate measure of self-government for Ireland by an Irish Parliament is not weakened. We think ourselves justified, however, in saying that the Irish question is the most difficult and perplexing of all English political questions, since if England grants Home Rule it will have to face a revolution from the North of Ireland, and if it refuses Home Rule it will have to face a revolution from the South.

This brief history may help the impartial reader to form a judgment on the question whether the recent Irish revolt was justifiable. If cruel memories of past wrongs justify revolution, the executed leaders may be honored as martyrs. But memories of past wrongs do not make revolution right. Three conditions must concur to make it right to resort to so perilous and terrible a remedy: Present practical injustice, no hope of peaceable remedy, and a reasonable ground for the expectation that the revolution may be suc

cessful. These three conditions existed in our American Revolution. Our Declaration of Independence recited the practical injustices under which the colonists were suffering and the futile attempts they had made to secure a remedy by peaceful measures. The result of the Revolution demonstrated that their expectation of success was not unreasonable. None of these conditions existed in the case of Ireland. The Irish are not now suffering from intolerable injustice; the history of the past century demonstrates the reasonableness of the hope that the union with England effected in 1801 will eventually bring her both liberty and justice. Her appeals to the English people have not been Imade in vain. There was no reasonable ground to hope that the revolt attempted by the irreconcilables could succeed. They represented only a fraction of the Irish people, and probably only a minority of them, and if they could by any possibility have succeeded, the history of the past and the conditions of the present give no reason to hope that they could cope with the difficulties of the Irish situation as profitably for the Irish people as the present Imperial Government in which the Irish people are represented. The leaders in such a revolt are not entitled to American sympathy. While their Irish brethren were bravely fighting in the trenches for world liberty against a military barbarism which threatened civilization they joined hands with the enemies of that civilization. They have suffered no injustice in paying with their lives for an act as treacherous to the Irish people as it was to the English Government.

But history will, we believe, pronounce the English Government guilty of a double blunder. It knew the excitable temperament of the Irish people. It knew how much had recently occurred to inflame their easily inflamed passions. At a time when Ireland needed an experienced, sagacious, and strong statesman at the head of its affairs, the English Government appointed as Chief Secretary one whose chief distinction was his ability to write charming essays. Under his inefficient administration the revolt was allowed to assume perilous proportions. And the prompt and vigorous action which six weeks ago might have sufficed to prevent any attempted revolution will now have at least as one of its effects the creation of a public sympathy among the Irish people both at home and abroad for those whom we fear

1916

they will be led to regard as martyed leaders in an episode which will constitute a new count in the Irishman's indictment against England.

AFTER THE ULTIMATUM Germany has murdered our citizens-not once only, but repeatedly. For a year we have been politely requesting her not to murder our citizens any more. Germany has also interfered with our goods and our mails, not merely by detaining them, as England has done, but by destroying them. This, however, we have almost forgotten because her campaign against our goods and our mails has been overshadowed by her campaign of murder. She has pursued against us her policy of frightfulness. In diplomatic language she has warned us to keep out of her way if we did not wish to get hurt. All this she has done with impunity.

With this nation we remain on amicable terms. With her we are still exchanging diplomatic correspondence. Only last week, under the hand of the American Secretary of State and by authority of the American President, we sent her another note. We still call her our friend.

During all this time there has been ample. ground for breaking off diplomatic relations with Germany. The nation that tears into scraps any treaty that stands in her way, that burns and hacks her way in such a land as Belgium, that makes war on non-combatants, that torpedoes merchant vessels without warning, that acts on the assumption that necessity knows no law, makes of herself an outlaw among nations. To cut off relations with her would have been simply to refuse to recognize barbarism.

The Administration has declined to sever diplomatic relations with Germany on this ground. It has, however, stated to Germany on what ground it would sever diplomatic relations. In the note of April 18 the Secretary of State told Germany that this Government would have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with her unless the German Government should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of submarine warfare against passenger and freight carrying vessels."

These two grounds for breaking off relations with Germany are distinct.

One is the general ground that Germany has chosen a course which unfits her for

119

relations with civilized peoples. This is the ground on which the American Rights Committee urges our Government to cease friendly relations with Germany. The other ground is a limited one-namely, the refusal of Germany to give a specific pledge. This is the ground on which the Administration warned Germany that it would be prepared to break off diplomatic relations.

By implication, according to the Government's ground, if Germany gives and observes the pledge required, formally friendly relations will continue. The Outlook believed that Germany could not give that pledge, for it would be a repudiation in one field of the policy which she has pursued throughout all the fields of the war. It would have been perfectly easy for her, if she wished to give that pledge, to make it distinct and explicit, and frame it in the words in which it was demanded. This she has not done. Instead, she has sent a reply skillfully phrased to give a self-contradictory impression. A large part of her reply is evidently designed to persuade her own people that she is not yielding; the rest of it is phrased to give the impression to this Government that she is yielding. She informs us that the German naval forces have been instructed that merchant vessels "recognized by international law" (whatever that phrase may mean) shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives unless the ship attempts to escape or offers resistance. The German Government, however, couples with this the demand that we should make certain demands upon Great Britain, and that if Great Britain does not accordingly modify her course" the German Government would then be facing the new situation in which it must reserve tɔ itself complete liberty of action.

There is thus but one question now be fore our Government concerning diplomatic relations with Germany: Has Germany given the pledge demanded? President Wilson has decided that she has given that pledge.

We believe that she has not given the pledge and did not intend to give it.

We have been asking for assurances from Germany that she will not put American lives in jeopardy. If this means anything, it means that when an American husband puts his wife and children aboard a vessel to cross the Atlantic he will be sure that no German submarine will attack that vessel without warning. Nothing that Germany has said in her reply can make such an

American sure of the safety of his wife and children.

We have demanded of Germany an abandonment of her submarine warfare against merchantmen; the most that she has offered in return is a suspension.

We therefore do not agree with the President that Germany has acquiesced in our demands; and we also therefore believe that even on the ground which he himself has stated Germany has given us good cause for breaking off diplomatic relations with her. On this point we believe public opinion in this country will remain divided.

On one point, however, public sentiment will be overwhelmingly with the President. In its reply to Germany our Government states, in effect, that the United States cannot allow Germany to shift to Great Britain responsibility for German misconduct. Whatever dispute we may have with Great Britain is our business, not Germany's. The neutrality of the Government of the United States is in its own keeping. The United States cannot allow Germany to make the safety of American citizens against German outrages conditional upon what some other nation may do.

As the situation now stands, we are just about where we were before. At any time Germany may resume what she calls her "complete liberty of action," a German submarine may attack a peaceful merchantman, American lives may be lost. Will that mean the severance of diplomatic relations or will it mean more investigations and more notes?

The German Government has been carrying on a war upon non-combatants, and specifically upon American non-combatants. What the German Government now proposes in its reply is an armistice. There is no doubt in our mind that the reason for this armistice is that the German Government is watching the course of the Presidential campaign. If the political situation favors Mr. Wilson, the German Government knows what policy it will pursue. If it favors Mr. Root, it will pursue a different policy. If the political situation favors Mr. Hughes, it will pursue another policy. And if the political situation favors Mr. Roosevelt, the German Government, which knows Mr. Roosevelt, will pursue a policy different from either of the others. The German Government has managed to maintain itself in outwardly friendly relations with the United States and can now watch the course of events.

THE WILSON FOREIGN
POLICY

"Whatever else you may say about Wilson, he has kept the country out of war."

This is the popular summary of President Wilson's foreign policy, and it is exact. The key to President Wilson's foreign policy is to be found in four words-keep out of trouble.

We suggest that our readers keep this in mind as they read the answers which were given to the questions of our staff correspondent, Mr. Davenport, and which are printed on another page. Those who will keep this in mind will find the Wilson foreign policy consistent; and those who accept as true the assumption that their Government's chief business is to keep out of trouble will find the answers to Mr. Davenport's questions convincing.

It is clear from these answers that it is on this basis of keeping out of trouble that the Administration will appeal for support to the country. It has been frankly a policy of Safety First.

This will explain the legal argument about Belgium. A peaceful country, averse to war, was suddenly invaded by Germany, in plain violation of a convention signed by both Germany and the United States. What should the United States do? The answer of the Administration is, Keep out of trouble." So the Government has recourse to the extraordinary argument that Belgium was not merely a neutral country, under the Hague Convention, but a neutralized country under a special treaty, and when the Germans entered Belgium and by force of arms destroyed her neutrality (leaving to her simply her neutralization!), we were released from all obligation. This amounts to saying that the more solemn the guarantee, the less safe it is. If a small country is defended by the Hague Convention, it is comparatively safe; if it is defended by the Hague Convention and by a special treaty, it is in greater peril. It is the reverse of the old rule that two negatives make an affirmative; for, according to this argument, these two affirmatives make a negative. This is the sort of argument that appeals to the lawyer who wants to find legal ground for keeping his client out of trouble.

1916

ants on the high seas. As each fresh murder has been committed, the Administration has found some new point on which the discussion could be prolonged. It has now become no longer a question of murder and piracy; it has become an involved legal argument about defensive armament, burden of proof, and other legal niceties. And as the crisis becomes acute and an ultimatum is sent, the Government puts out another note raising a new question as to when an armed merchantman "possesses a status tainted with a hostile purpose.' And the defense for all this is frankly that "notes are very tiring to that section of the people who desire action, but the Administration to-day has the record of having kept the country out of war."

So with regard to Mexico. The object of the Government has not been to protect American life and property, not to eradicate the dangerous contagion of anarchy on our border, but to keep the country out of trouble.

By the same key can be explained the Administration's Philippine policy. The Philippines were troublesome wards, therefore get rid of them. The proposal to withdraw from the Philippines is not a proposal to observe an obligation, but a proposal to keep out of trouble.

121

It is the same key that will unlock the Administration's Asiatic policy. "Let sleeping dogs lie."

There is another way of looking at the duty of the Government in foreign relations. It puts, not safety first, but justice first. According to this other view, the chief duty of the Government is, not to avoid trouble, but to do justly to others and see that others do justly to it. If in doing that the Government can avoid trouble, well and good; but, trouble or no trouble, it is the Government's business to practice justice and to insist upon justice from others. There is precedent for this view of the Government's duty. General George Washington did not appeal to the country for support on the ground that he had kept it out of trouble. The Illinois railsplitter, Abraham Lincoln, is not honored to-day on the ground that he kept the country out of war. The reason why Washington and Lincoln are National heroes is that they put something besides safety first.

To those who have the point of view of Washington and Lincoln our duty with regard to Belgium, with regard to submarine warfare, with regard to Mexico, and with regard to the Philippines has been very simple and very plain. The policy of avoiding trouble has been a policy of evading duty.

I

N the preceding editorial The Outlook

discusses the continuation of the long diplomatic correspondence between the foreign offices of Germany and the United States with regard to Germany's illegal submarine warfare, first announced by Germany in February, 1915, and vigorously repudiated as contrary to international law and humanity in President Wilson's" strict accountability" note, written more than a year ago and before the sinking of the Lusitania.

It will be remembered that in the American note of April 18, sent almost simultaneously with President Wilson's address before Congress, these words were used: "Unless the Imperial Government should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of submarine warfare

against passenger and freight carrying vessels, the Government of the United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German Empire altogether."

THE GERMAN NOTE

It is in reply to this demand that, after over two weeks' consideration, the German note of May 5 was published. We here summarize that note, with direct quotation of the most important passages.

1. As to the Sussex, Germany is "alive to the possibility" that a German submarine destroyed the Sussex. If it so prove, Germany "will not fail to draw the conse quences resulting therefrom.”