Pioneer

MERTHYR'S MAY DAY. PAGE 3.

Political Notes I By F. W. Jowett, M.P. THE fcEUTER INTERVIEW. I Ueuter\s news agency, like every other insti- tution available for use by the Government, has become- part of the war machine. It is supposed to convey news from one part of the world to another, but in fact, it is now a Government agency for propaganda. One never can tell in these days, even when Renter pretends to eOll- vey news, whether it is news or war aims pro- paganda- one is reading. Lord Robert Cecil has recently made use of Reuter to prevent, another offer of peace being made by the Central Powers. He lias proclaimed to the whole world, through Renter's so-called news agency, that if the Cen- tral Powers renew their peace offers as a result --of the expected failure of the German offensive on the Western Front" their offers will not ap- proach anvthinsx that we can look at." The replv to this amazing pronouncement wa-s not lone delayed, and it was from Germany, to the effect that the Central Powers were not suing* for peace if the Allies did not want peace. Lord "Robert (Veil seems to regard the war a cher- ished institution not to he given up without a struccgle. THE DUTCH EMISSARY. e.. T said that Lord Robert Cecnl made Ins pro- nouncement, through tlit- iii-iii of Ren- ter. to prevent the enemy making another offer of peace. This scarcely represents the true situation, however, for then' is every reason to believe that when Lord ftowMt made his pro- nouncement an offer of peace terms had already "been -communicated. Tndeed. the leading news- papers had warned the public of the presence in London of a distinguished neutral through whom the -suggested terms of peace had been conveved. It was all verv well for Mr. Balfour to declare. In replv to Philin Snowden. that no representa- tive of a neutral countrv had made suggestions of peac<• negotiations, but nobody had said it was representstive of a neutral country who had acted as intermediary. What has been if tbat ■■ 4.¡>'Di1 ?flt-h. Cap- tain Colvti. a former Dutch Minister of came to i-his countrv and that although his visit wa* connected with the sand and gravel ques- t'on be wns nl«o authorised to re present the views <-f t-he German Foreign Secretary as to terms of rsearv. THE TERMS. Tlv t.o-Jlis which it is stated that tJw ex- Tiiifh M'nist^r of War communicated from the dermar. Foreign Secretary are as f?!nw-— 'ri,)r4,i,,n (1) Germnnv will renounce all claims in the C2> Belgium will be restored as art indepen- dent fnllv autonomous. Alsnce-T.ori"-Wne will receive full auto- nomv within the German Federation. (4) The status of the East will remain as at! pnnt-. Co) Austria will make certain concessions to Ttalv in the Trentino. (Pi i Balkan question will be solved by an in- ternational conference. (7) All colonial questions affecting Africa and Asia Minor will be solved by a conference of all the belligerents. ) (%) Germanv will abandon claims to Kiao- chou. but will in exchange require certain concession^ in China. A SAFE BASIS. Although the suggested terms of peace, above- mentioned. do not correspond wit1, the require- ments of the secret treaties which the Allies have made with each other, tliev would form a basis of negotiation that would lead to a. peace far more secure than could be obtained by fight- ing. whichever side should win—that is sup- posing either side could win—which, to say the least, is doubtful. ANOTHER BROKEN PROMISE. Notwithstanding Mr. Balfour's statement that no representative of a neutral country had made suggestions of peace negotiations it. is ex- tremely likely that the report to which Mr. Snowden referred is will founded. In this con- nection past experience and past pledges must be taken into consideration. It will be remem- bered that a definite pledge was given by the Government that in the event of any offer of {)eac<^ tennis being received Parliament would he consulted. It is now acknowledged that the Emperor of Austria did state terms of peace he WH.' willing to support, and they were even com- municated to the whole of the Allien, and PaT- liament was not consulted..Furthermore, it was stated in Parliament over and over again that no passports had been issued for the purpose of negotiating with the enemy. Yet it now appears witli tb(- eneniv. T*?t ir 7iovi, tpT),irq fill iiitliority fi-(?tyi enmity diplomats in Switzerland. Denials count for nothing in war time. THE MAURICE LETTER. I I I nfler the present system 01 Parliamentary Procedure it i" onlv in "pry exceptional circum- stances that Ministers can be compelled to make a flill disclosure of information which is well -%i-oti l d (-on d cnin known to exist if its production would condemn tlWnl. General Maurice has done his l>est at the risk of his own career to provide the necessary 1,0 far as some recent Ministerial declarations are concerned. The conrse he has adopted is thai of giving a flat, eontradiet'cn to statements nuyle bv Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bonar Law. In defence of their honour both the Ministers named have fliii, been compelled to promise to submit evidence and dis- close information to some form of Tribunal. The Tribunal should lrn parliamentary one, because the statements challenged hy General Maurice were made in the HOllSP of Commons. This is not the offer made. The offer of an investiga- tion oy two Judges does not meet the require- I ments of the case. Even Judges are liable to be biassed in favour of the Government. The Prime Minister has honours at his command and they count for something. Besides, one cannot forget the record of at least one Judge in these matters who has been appointed, successively, to conduct a number of enquiries, the result of which have invariably been to get Ministers out of difficult situations. Perhaps Mr. Lloyd George would like to give Lord Mersey, the Judge referred to, another job. But it may be that Lord Mersey should now be described as an ex-Judge, in which case I suppose he would be ineligible for the job. There are others, however, who are still Judges, quite as ready to make convenient use of their services as he has been. THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK. The chief poirt on wind) General Maurice challenged Ministerial veracity concerns the ex- tension of the British line on the Western Froh It "!irus been contended that the reverse inflicted.on the British forces in March was due to the fact that the British Army, presumably at the instigation of the French authorities, had taken the responsibility of a longer lint' than its number warranted. In this connection I have the clear reeollection of a passage in Mr. Lloyd George's speech in the House after he returned from the Versailles Council at which the addi- tional responsibility had been taken by the Bri- tish representatives., I quoted from the passage in question in these columns at the time. It was to the effect that the French representa- tives had honoured the British Army by giving it more work to do and leaving the defence of the French Capital to the valour of British arms. He was as proud as a pouter pigeon. to be able to give British soldiers what is now proved to have been an impossible task. General M aurice now accuses him of misleading the House of Commons with regard to the number of men available for tllSL task. THE 1917 OVERTURES. French Parliamentary isro.-edure is far more effective ubnn iS tha C irt iJiiiislf Parliament in forcing the disclosure of information by Ministers. Of this we have received once more the proof by the disclosure of the peace nego- tiations begun in March, 1917, at the invitation of the Emperor of Austria. The publication by the French Prime Minister of the Emperor Carl's first letter in which he suggested that peace ne- gotiations should begin on the basis of terms that included the restoration of Belgium and Servia and reparation for the former and a sea- port for the latter, and in which he also promised to use his influence to secure the just claims of France in regard to Alsace-Lorraine, came as a revelation to the French Parliament. Now the French Parliament has the advantage of possess- ing a Foreign Affairs Committee and the Com- mitt?e demanded full information a? to- what action had b?e? ta? 'n re the letter from the Austrian Emperor. The Committee was anxious to know why .French Ministers had not taken such a seemingly favourable opportunity of ne-! gotiating for peace. The Committee wished to be satisfied that the sacrifice of life during the year that had elapsed since the receipt of the Emperor Carl's letter ii-as justified. According to the account of the Committee's enquiry pub- lished by the Manchester Guardian the re- sult of the enquiry is one of the most astound- ing revelations made during the war. I will en- deavour to state what the enquiry has revealed. AUSTRIA'S OFFER. The enquiry revealed that on March 31, 1917,1 the Austrian Emperor suggested pea(,e negotia- tions on the basis of propdsals which I have men- tioned. but the knowledge of what had occurred was confined to a number of the Allied Govern-I ments. to the exchision of the remainder of the Allies. America was not informed, and Russia, then under the Karenski Provisional Govern- ment, was not informed. It was also revealed that the Emperor of Austria sent a second letter to which Clemenceau, who divulged the Em- peror's first letter, had made reference. In his second letter the Emperor expressed his belief that if France would confine its territorial de- mands to Alsace-Lorraine he would be able to induce Germany to consent. He had already obtained the consent of Bulgaria to the sug- gested terms. The negotiations failed because Italy was irreconcilable, presumably, because the annexationist provisions contained in the secret treaties between the Allies were not fully conceded and also the President of the French Be public was not satisfied, presumably because certain German territory on the left bank of the Rhine was not conceded to France along with Alsace-Lorraine. The conversations do not appear to have been broken off until Julv of last. year. Therefore, it has been made clear to the whole world that no direct negotiations for peace could lie entered upon a yea.r ago for, the reason that Italy and France would not con- sent to end the war without securing terms which are in direct conflict with the objects for which the Allies have declared they were fight- ing. The knowledge of this most important fact is directly due to the action of the French Foreign Affairs Committee. MR. MOREL'S RETORT. On the frail foundation that Mr. E. D. Morel was a mem her of the Afiglo-German Conciliation Com mittee some "PM'S ago, Sir George M;)!?'?. the anti-Socialist fanatic, has been tt;y)n? to "how in the ?Ntp?tppnth Century" that Mr. ?for?! has he?n in the service of Germany. Mr. j lord's r?ph is crushing. H? was never an? active memlier himself. He neither enlisted. members nor canvassed subscriptions, and he gives a long list of other members of the Anglor German Friendship Society whose connection with that body has apparently escaped Sir [George Macgill's observation. The- list includer, the Duke of Argyll, the Archbishops of Clantor- (Continued at foot of next column).

I Back For Re-Hearing Again THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HENRY THOMAS, C.O. I JUSTICES DARLING, AVORY AND SHEAR- MAN ON FAMOUS MERTHYR CASE. Following is the judgment of Mr. Justice Darling, Mr. Justice Avory and Mr. Justice Shearman in the case of WTiLson v. Henry Thomas-the well-known Merthyr C.O. case that has been so frequently before the local Court, and has twice been to appeal-on the occasion of the hearing in the High Court of Justice (King's Bench Division) on April 25th last. Henry Thomas, as most of our readers will readily recall, is a Merthyr C.O. who accepted work under the Home Office Scheme. He worked in various centres, including Lyme Regis, where, it is alleged by the Home Office Committee and denied by Thomas, he and some fellow C.O.'s jeered at some wounded soldiers. He was transferred to the Dart-moor Centre I from where he was sent home by the sub-agent, who in reply to Thomas' question as to the rea- son for being sent home, notified defendant that he could give no reason. Thomas was sub- sequently arrested as an absentee and brought before the Merthyr Stipendiary (Mr. R. A. Griffiths) who refused to convict on the ground that the terms of the circular letter issued by the Committee to Thomas whilst serving his sentence in Cardiff was a contract removing Thomas from the army, conditional upon tlir-i Central Tribunal finding, as they did in fact find, that Thomas is a genuine conscientious ob- jector, and his undertaking work of national importance under the scheme. The prosecution appealed against this finding and the case was sent back by the Law Lords for rehearing. The rehearing resulted in a similar decision in Mer- thyr, and again an appeal was made to the High Court, where it came up for hearing on Thurs- day, April 25th, and was again remitted for rehearing. The judgment was as follows — I MR. JUSTICE DARLING. Mr. Justice Darling: In this case I do not think that the form in which the Magistrate has stated it makes it possible for this Court to decide properly the question which it is de- sired to raise. The Magistrate has said. to- wards the end of his- judgment, from first to last, there is not a partiele- of evidence adduced by the prosecution on this important part of the case." That is, whether the defendant had failed to comply with the conditions subject to which the Army Council released him from mili- tary service. Now, it is not accurate to say there was "not a particle of evidence; there was "a particle of evidence;" and if the Ma- gistrate had not interposed after that and al- lowed certain very technical objections, there would have been a. great deal more evidence, because Mr. Whiseard was there, and probably could have proved every tiring necessary for the Magistrate to know. It was not for the Magis- trate to try the question whether Mr. Thomas, the objector, bad properly performed his obli- gations that is a question for the Civil Com- mittee established by the Home Office to decide; and the only question to which the Magistrate had to direct his attention was this: whether the Civil Committee had come to the conclusion that the conduct of tljp soldier or conscientious objector was not satisfactory to the Committee; not whether it was satisfactory to the Magis- trate the question was whether it was satis- factory to the Committee; and if there was evi- dence it was not satisfactory to the Committee, then the soldier had no grievance at all. The only undertaking with him was that he would be accorded certain treatment while his conduct was satisfactory to the Committee established by the Home Office; the moment it was not satis- factory, he would be sent back to his unit; and the only question for the Crown to direct evi- dence to was if the Committee was satisfied, and they ought strenuously to have resisted the Magistrate's inclination to try the question, if he was satisfied. At one point he realised he had not to try that, and if the case had been conducted on behalf of the conscientious ob- jector with one half of the generosity it was on the other side in not taking technical objec- tions, it is quite possible that Mr. Whiscard might have proved everything that it was neces- sary for the Magistrate to know. As it is he was stopped; and the consequence is the caae must go back for the Magistrate to hear the evidence, and to come to a conclusion whether the Civil Committee, set up by the Home Office, considered the conduct of Mr. Thomas satisfac- tory or if they did not. MR. JUSTICE AVORY. Mr. Justice Avory I agree, and only wish to add a wbrd to guard against any error on the next hearing. It does appear to me the Magis- trate has rather wobbled, if I may use a com- mon expression, in the course of his judgment; and I am not quite sure what his ultimate view was having regard to a passage at the end of his judgment: The onus was on the presecu- tion to satisfy me that the Defendant did not con form to the conditions under which he was released by the Army Council from Military dis- cipline and placed on Civil work." It is not for the prosecution to satisfy the Magistrate that the defendant did not conform to the conditions; the only thing it is necessary for the prosecu- tion to satisfy him of is that the Committee had. in fact, decided that his conduct did not conform and that the Magistrate, himself, a little higher up in his judgment admits, is the true test: because, he says: "It was contended

The "Iaily News" and Diplomacy I I CONDEMNATION OF BUREAUCRATIC I METHODS. ARE THE PEOPLE TO FIGHT ANb DIE IN I LIGHT OR DARKNESS." The London "Daily Xews" on Monday last had a leading article which indicates that one section of the capitalist press is rapidly moving towards a. position which none but- the Socialists have been courageous enough to espouse consist- ently through the black years of the past. The writer* deals with the attempt to poison in ad- vance any peace pourparlers that may be made from the Central Empires: and declares that the bureaucratic handful who have assumed omnipo- tence have condemned those pourparlers, without even having seen them; as they have condemned much in the past. This naturally leads to an im- plied contrast between these backstair politics and the open diplomacy of a real democracy, and the writer concludes: Are the peoples who are waging this war to live and fight and die in light or in darkness? Is the war to continue and peace to he indefinitely deferred on the fiat of a hand- ful of political autocrats who conceal or disclose information to suit the execution of their secret purpose ? We pass no judgment on the Emperor Karl's peace offer of last year or on the ap- proaches Germany s said to be making to-day. It may well be that there was no sound basis for a peace in 1917 and no sound basis for a peace now. It depends on the enemy's terms. And that is the very question—vital above all ques- tions to half the peoples of the world-on which the peopl es must be forbidden all knowledge. There will be peace when a militarist diplomacy in Germany are agreed on peace. Meanwhile the peoples and their Parliaments are to be alter- nately duped and doped by concealments and half-disclosures that are worse than secret dip- lomacy itself. Never has the clear issue between a politicians' peace and a people's peace stood more sharply defined."

I The Peace Offensive. PHILIP SNOWDEN'S QUESTION IN THE HOUSE. MR. BALFOUR'S DISCLAIMER. j Our Comrade and Chairman Philip Snowden Our Comrade- and ChaiJ'man Philip Snowden did the nation a great service on Monday when he raised in Parliament the question of the Lord Kobert Cecil "Peace Offensive" interview. Air. Snowden asked the Premier whether his atten- tion had been drawn to the interview in ques- tion, in which Lord Robert Cecil had stated that he had always expected a. peace offensive as a consequence of the offensive on the Western Front, and if there was in this country at the present time a representative of a neutral coun- try who had submitted tentative and informal proposals for peace negotiations; and, if so, what was the nature of such proposals and what reply the Government had given to them. Mr. Balfour: My noble friend did make a statement on Friday last similar, no doubt, to the one referred to, though I cannot altogether accept the hon. member's account of it. No peace offers have recently been made, and there is no representative here of any neutral country who has made tentative or informal suggestions for peace negotiations. A MARE'S NEST." Mr. Snowden: 4Joes the right hon. gentleman infer by that reply that no offers of any kind have been made to the Government, or members of the Government, within the past fortnight by a neutral, and may I ask further whether the right hon. gentlemn has seen in the papers to- day a Press telegram from The Hague which gives categorical details of the proposals which have been submitted to the Government? Mr. Balfour: I think it is a mare's nest. (Laughter.) Mr. Snowden: Will the right hon. gentleman give an answer to the first part of my question, whether there is in this oouatry at present, or has been for the last fortnight, a. neutral who has made representations to the Government, claiming that he was speatung for the German Government? Mr. Balfour: That is precisely the question I have answered with absolute lucidity, Mr. Bal- four then repeated his previous answer. IN AMERICA. Mr. Ouoh: Hoftortn ,.Jt right-on- gsa- tlernan give a reply, seeing that on the last oo- casion when a peace offer was made the Prime Minister dealt with the matter without reference to the Foreign Office at all? How does he know the Prime Minister has not dealt with this matter alro ? Hr. Balfour: I don't know to what the hon. gentleman refers. Mr. Outhwaite The peace offer made by the Austrian Government was dealt with by the Prime Minister without reference to the Foreign Office. Mr. Balfour: I was in America. Mr. Whitehouse: Will the right hon. gentle- man state in fact that no offer has been made? The Speaker: Order, order.

Dean Inge on Reconstruction THE ECONOMIC BASIS OF WAR. FORECAST OF LABOUR-THE WINNING SIDE. The number of eminent converts to the Social- ist view of the economic origin of war grows with a rapidity that is bewildering these days. All are, of course welcome recruits, and we trust that many will take the next logical step and see tha.t the peace of the world can only be se- cured permanently by the conversion of the world to Socialist views with reference to econ- omics and democracy, and that in consequence will be actuated by a loftier ideal than it has ever had in the past. The latest preacher of the economic basis of war is Dean Inge, who, preaching in London on Sunday-for which he was not mobbed as were the humbler holders of the same view who attempted to demonstrate on Finsbury Park—said that the quarrels of Euro- pean nations were at bottom quarrels about trade and markets, and all the tropical and un- developed countries in the world were not worth a twentieth part of the wealth which had been destroyed in the last four years A small frac- tion of our war debt would have solved all onr social problems, so far as money could solve them, and made England a model country. The irrationality of the whole affair was sickening, but we had to consider how to stop waste after the war, for on this depended national recovery. We should have not only the same amount of superfluous energy, but a vast untapped reser- voir, notably in women's work. How was it to be used!J He was dazed at the immensity of the work done in making useless things. A NEW SPIRIT. If the present deplorable state of feeling be- tween employer and employed was to be mended —and unless it were our whole civilisation would break up in bloodshed,'anarchy, and starvation— there must be a new spirit. The purchaser and the consumer must think of the real cost in terms of human lite, in time and trouble and dignity. As to whether these changes were pos- sible, he said that we had revolutionised our manner of living during the war, and this would make it much easier to drop any pre-war habit which we now might think undesirable. We must face the crisis seriously. NO PARSON BLACKLEGS. The Church should not throw itself into Labour agitation. That would be a disastrous repetition of the blunder which organised religion had al- ways tended to make—-that of backing the win- ning side. If the clergy did thia they would earn the resentment of their own class and "the contempt of the workers, who had a shrewd opinion that blacklegs were not to be trusted.

I bury and York, Lord Charles Beresford and Sir Edward Carson, among many other super- patriots. THE LICHNOWSKY MEMORANDUM. Referring to Mr. Morel reminds me that his article in the IT.D.C,. Journal for this month dealing with the Lichrowsky memorandum is a most valuable contribution and should be read by all who wish to place the memorandum in its proper focus in relation to other published docu- ments relating to the war. by Captain Stanley Evans on behalf of the pro- secution that it was for the Committee not for me to decide this question. If there were evi- dence that the Committee had done this I agree that I should have to accept their decision." That part I think is right, and the latter part is wrong. I am quite satisfied myself looking at the evidence which was attempted to be given that Mr. Whiscard probably was in a position to prove all that was necessary, but in consequence of the somewhat factious objections taken to his evidence, he never succeeded in getting before the Magistrate the one fact which I think would have concluded this case. I MR. JUSTICE SHEARMAN. I Mr. Justice Shearman: I am of the same opinion. I think this case must go back. It is impossible on the evidence given before the Magistrate that the real justice of the case should have been dealt with but as I have let fall some expressions in the course of the argu- I ment which I do not want to be misunderstood I I will add a few words w the judgments already given. This man was one of a class of conscientious objectors he claimed to be a conscientious ob- jector; he was held not to be; and had to join the Army, and refused to obey orders and went to prison. He was one of a large class who were in similar circumstances; and it is notorious that on the 24th August, 1916, something in the nature of a circular letter was sent to a large number of people saying if they choose to avail themselves of certain terms a certain line of conduct with regard to them would be pur- sued. I should regret if these conditions arc recallable as pleasure. It seems to me that it was a solemn undertaking on the part of the Government that these men should oe treated in such a way on those conditions, and I am glad that this case can be decided on the basis that the Government respect that aijpl treat their rights on the footing that they are regu- lated by that solemn agreement. Now. what is the agreement? It says you can go back to civil employment and remain there under the control of a Committee of a certain number of people definitely constituted and recognised, and they say you will be allowed to continue in civil work as long as your conduct is considered satisfactory. That is for the Committee to de- cide; not for the -ANagistrate. It is purely a matter (and must be) for the Committee. I am not altogether satisfied if the Committee lay down certain conditions, and say you will be sent back to prison if you break them, that that is not for the SiagTstraiehut under tht: cir- cumstances that is purely academic, localise it is for the Committee to decide whether his con- duct is unsatisfactory, and the basic conditions for giving this man his rights to be excused would be gone, which is a matter that the Com- mittee have to-decide. Then when the Commit- tee decide it, it must be proved before the Ma- gistrate that the matter has come before the Committee, that it has been dealt with by the vote of the Committee, and the Committee have arrived at a decision, I do not say that there should be a traial as 111 the Law Courts of the matter; but i do say that the Committee should carefully consider both sides, and that the per- son against whom complaint is made should have the nature of the complaint put before him, and be given an opportunity of explaining himself. I cannot doubt that if this man had, or if the Committee were satisfied that this mai had jeered at wounded soldiers, it is obvious that they ought to have found his conduct was not satisfactory, because that was misconduct and misconduct of an outrageous kind; but it seems clear the real facts, as this case was conducted, were never got at, and it must therefore go back to the Magistrate to be dealt with on that basis. Mr. Llewellyn Williams: Will your lordship make any Order as to costs? Mr. Justice Darling: It may be the case will not come back, but in any case we will not deal with the question of oosts to-day. Mr. Llewellyn Williams: Your lordships will reserve them, with liberty to apply ? Mr. Justice Darling: Yes.