New York Times Current History The European War From The Beginning To March Part 58

There is no time to lose. Already, by secret agreements and understandings, of which the democracies of the civilized world know only by rumor, steps are being taken which may fling us all into the fray.

Workers, stand together therefore for peace! Combine and conquer the militarist enemy and the self-seeking imperialists today, once and for all.

Men and women of Britain, you have now an unexampled opportunity of rendering a magnificent service to humanity and to the world!

Proclaim that for you the days of plunder and butchery have gone by; send messages of peace and fraternity to your fellows who have less liberty than you. Down with cla.s.s rule! Down with the rule of brute force! Down with war! Up with the peaceful rule of the people! (Signed on behalf of the British Section of the International Socialist Bureau,)

J. KEIR HARDIE,

ARTHUR HENDERSON.

KEIR HARDIE'S QUESTIONS.

Directed at Sir Edward Grey, British Minister for Foreign Affairs, in House of Commons, Aug. 27.

_Mr. Keir Hardie_ (Merthyr Tydvil, Lab.) asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the suggestions for a peace settlement made by the German Amba.s.sador, ["White Paper," Page 66, Item No. 123,] together with his invitation to the Foreign Secretary to put forward proposals of his own which would be acceptable as a basis for neutrality, were submitted to and considered by the Cabinet; and, if not, why proposals involving such far-reaching possibilities were thus rejected.

_Sir E. Grey_ (Northumberland, Berwick)--These were personal suggestions made by the Amba.s.sador on Aug. 1, and without authority to alter the conditions of neutrality proposed to us by the German Chancellor in No.

85 in the "White Paper"--Miscellaneous, No. 6, [1914.]

The Cabinet did, however, consider most carefully the next morning--that is, Sunday, Aug. 2--the conditions on which we could remain neutral, and came to the conclusion that respect for the neutrality of Belgium must be one of these conditions. ["Hear, hear!"] The German Chancellor had already been told on July 30 that we could not bargain that way.

On Monday, Aug. 3, I made a statement in the House accordingly. I had seen the German Amba.s.sador again at his own request on Monday, and he urged me most strongly, though he said that he did not know the plans of the German military authorities, not to make the neutrality of Belgium one of our conditions when I spoke in the House. It was a day of great pressure, for we had another Cabinet in the morning, and I had no time to record the conversation, and therefore it does not appear in the "White Paper"; but it was impossible to withdraw that condition [loud cheers] without becoming a consenting party to the violation of the treaty, and subsequently to a German attack on Belgium.

After I spoke in the House we made to the German Government the communication described in No. 153 in the "White Paper" about the neutrality of Belgium. Sir Edward Goschen's report of the reply to that communication had not been received when the "White Paper" was printed and laid. It will be laid before Parliament to complete the "White Paper."

I have been asked why I did not refer to No. 123 in the "White Paper"

when I spoke in the House on Aug. 3. If I had referred to suggestions to us as to conditions of neutrality I must have referred to No. 85, the proposals made, not personally by the Amba.s.sador, but officially by the German Chancellor, which were so condemned by the Prime Minister subsequently, and this would have made the case against the German Government much stronger than I did make it in my speech. ["Hear, hear!"] I deliberately refrained from doing that then.

Let me add this about personal suggestions made by the German Amba.s.sador, as distinct from communications made on behalf of his Government. He worked for peace; but real authority at Berlin did not rest with him and others like him, and that is one reason why our efforts for peace failed. [Loud cheers.]

_Mr. Keir Hardie_--May I ask whether any attempt was made to open up negotiations with Germany on the basis of suggestions here set forth by the German Amba.s.sador?

_Sir E. Grey_--The German Amba.s.sador did not make any basis of suggestions. It was the German Chancellor who made the basis of suggestions. The German Amba.s.sador, speaking on his own personal initiative and without authority, asked whether we would formulate conditions on which we would be neutral. We did go into that question, and those conditions were stated to the House and made known to the German Amba.s.sador.

_Mr. Keir Hardie_ [who was received with cries of "Oh!" from all parts of the House]--May I ask whether the German authorities at Berlin repudiated the suggestions of their Amba.s.sador in London, and whether any effort at all [renewed cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"] was made to find out how far the German Government would have agreed to the suggestions put before them by their own Amba.s.sador?

REPLY TO MINISTER GREY.

Made by J. Ramsay Macdonald, Member of Socialist Labor Party, in House of Commons, Aug. 4.

I would have preferred to remain silent this afternoon, but circ.u.mstances do not permit of it. I shall model what I have to say upon the two speeches to which we have just listened. The right honorable gentleman has delivered a speech the echoes of which will go down in history. However much we may resist the conclusions to which we have come, we have not been able to resist the moving character of his appeal ["Hear, hear!"]

I think, however, he is wrong, and I think the Government for which he speaks is wrong. I think the verdict of history will be that they are wrong.

The effect of the right honorable gentleman's speech in this House will not be its final effect. There may or may not be opportunities for us to go into details, but I want to say to the House, and without provocation, that if the right honorable gentleman had come here today and told us that our country was in danger, then I do not care what party he appealed to or to what cla.s.s, we would be behind him. We would vote him what money he wants, and we would go further, for we would offer him ourselves--if the country was in danger. [Cries of "But it is!"] He has not persuaded me that it is, and he has not persuaded honorable friends with me that it is.

I am perfectly certain that when the light honorable gentleman's speech gets into cold print tomorrow he will not persuade a large section of the country. If the nation's honor were in danger we would be with them.

There has been no crime committed by statesmen of this character without those statesmen appealing to the nation's honor.

We went into the Crimean war because of our honor; we rushed into the South African war because of our honor, and the right honorable gentleman is appealing to us today because of our honor.

If the right honorable gentleman would come to us and say that a small European nationality like Belgium is in danger [cries of "It is invaded!"] and would a.s.sure us that he is going to confine the conflict to that quarter, then we will support him. But what is the use of talking about going to the aid of Belgium when you are really going into a European war which will not leave the map of Europe as it was before.

The right honorable gentleman said nothing about Russia. We want to know about that and try and find out what is going to happen after this is all over. We are not going to go blindly into this conflict without having at least some rough idea of what is going to happen afterward.

At all events, so far as France is concerned, we can say solemnly and definitely that no such friends.h.i.+p as is described by the right honorable gentleman between one nation and another can ever justify one of those nations going into war on behalf of the other.

If France is really in danger, if as the result of all this we are going to have the power, civilization and genius of France removed in European history, let the right honorable gentleman say so. It is an absolutely impossible conception.

So far as we are concerned, whatever attacks may be made upon us, whatever may be said about us, we will take the action that he will take by saying that this country ought to have remained neutral [Labor cheers] because in the deepest parts of our hearts we believe that that was right and that that alone was consistent with the honor of the country and the traditions of the party that are now in office.

MR. MACDONALD REPENTS.

But Does Not Recant--Accusation of The London Times.

It is to be noted that while Mr. Macdonald has never withdrawn his accusations of bad faith against the Government--while he allows them still to be circulated as a broadsheet--he ventures to pose as having abandoned them. Belgian neutrality was, he said in The Labour Leader, and in effect in the House of Commons also, being used as an excuse--it was "a pretty game of hypocrisy." But writing in The Leicester Daily Post on Sept. 24 in vindication of his att.i.tude he said:

On one point I wish to be quite clear.... We could not afford, either from the point of view of honor or of interest, to see Germany occupy Belgium. The war that comes nearest having a Divine justification is the war in which a great and mighty State engages to protect a small nation. From that position I have never receded.

In the controversies that have been raised I have doubted whether, when our diplomacy is judged with the whole of the facts before the judges, it will come well out of its trial on this point, but that when the popular sentiment of the country is judged it will come out clean and fine, so far as Belgium is concerned, I am quite convinced.

This is the man who charges the Government with dragging the country into war because it would not acquiesce in the German armies marching through Belgium on the condition that the integrity and independence of Belgium were respected!

And will it be believed that Mr. Macdonald, whose indictment of the Government for deliberately dragging us into an unnecessary war is still in circulation, has actually ventured to a.s.sociate himself with the recruiting movement?