The Canadian Forum/Editorial/1921-02

The Canadian Forum 1921-02 written by [[|]]

China in Travail

At page 131

The British Empire, as though in the present distracted state of the world it had nothing better to do than to attend christenings, has given its name to one more political organization in this already propaganda-ridden land — this time to one of frankly partisan constituents and objects. The recently formed "one school, one language" British Empire League of Canada, composed exclusively of Protestant British subjects, has by its unfortunate choice of title confirmed the worst suspicions of non-Protestants and rendered uneasy not a few Imperialists. The Globe refers to the injustice of "ostracism," with special mention of the hypothetical Hindu who yearns to be admitted to membership in this League. That is hardly the point. If John Jones organizes a co-operative society for the growing and selling of cabbages and stipulates that the surnames of all members begin with a J, John Smith has no right to resent his own disqualification or to urge the sufficiency of the J in John. But if Jones and his colleagues choose as their business name "The Citizens of Canada", Smith is quite justified in resenting the impertinence although he may have no desire to join the society. It is very much the same with the League in question. If the title is not impertinent, then its pertinence lies in the interesting disclosure that the British Empire is, esoterically, nothing but a Loyal Orange Lodge. It is a nice problem in dilemmas — freedom of race or freedom of creeds. It is also a nice problem in statesmanship — how to reconcile several millions of Canadians to an Empire which may any day be converted by fanatics into a travesty of liberty and justice.

A contemporary has announced the impending discharge of foreign workers on the Toronto-Hamilton Highway in order that their places may be filled with unemployed ex-soldiers. This decision is no doubt along the line of least resistance for a Department of Public Works when circumstances take it by surprise. But it is not a satisfactory policy. The best type of returned soldier will not accept, either with satisfaction or entire self-respect, work that has been created for him only by throwing another man out of employment. His first thought as a soldier was not for himself; it was to "play the game" with his fellows. Only the confessed cynic will suppose that he feels otherwise to-day. He looks for no piecemeal measures which will care for him and leave others out of work. Nor is he likely to benefit in the long run by a policy that is calculated to embitter the foreign-born worker. This country will prosper in the future only as we succeed in welding the diverse elements among us into a Canadian nation. We cannot expect from our immigrants the loyalty we need unless they receive from us impartial treatment. Interest and duty alike forbid us to discriminate against them; and we confess to wondering why no protest comes from the servants of a Wise Employer, Who said, "It is My will to give unto this last, even as unto thee".

Whether reforms should precede or follow the development of public opinion in their support is an open question. The conservative believes in the latter policy; he would make haste slowly. For many years the city of Toronto has been called conservative. If one may judge by the recent outburst of its perpetual mayor it is charity to apply the name conservative; Toronto is still in the dark ages. Mr. Church has definitely set his face against the provision of schools and teachers for children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen. The provincial act now about to be applied is based on the theory universally accepted in enlightened countries that boys and girls of fourteen are not old enough to have their training transferred from the atmosphere of the school to that of the shop or factory. The Mayor thinks the expense of Adolescent Education too serious an undertaking for the city of Toronto which, like Touchstone's Audrey, he regards as "a poor thing, but mine own". It appears that both in England and Canada the cleverest idea of some people who wish to be economical is to discount the mental development of the next generation.

A flare-up by Mr. Morrison, the secretary of the United Farmers of Ontario, in his recent speech at Wilton Grove in which he threatened dire things if Mr. Drury should continue to preach [p. 132] his doctrine of "broadening out" has caused the people of Canada, who are deeply interested in the Ontario experiment in Government, to wonder whether the Farmers' group is approaching the disruption foretold by seers of the two old parties. As a matter of fact the difference is of long standing, antedating and, indeed, explaining Mr. Drury's elevation to the premiership when he was not even an elected member and was preparing for the federal field. He was a man of liberal education to whom farm work and life had meant pleasure and success; the motive of strong class consciousness was lacking. Mr. Morrison, it is said, might have claimed the leadership, but he saw that his work lay elsewhere and agreed in giving to Mr. Drury the difficult task of leading a composite government whose only safety lay in appealing to the people as a whole. The seers and the press are unduly concerned about the present dispute. The strength of the farmers' movement lies in its spontaneity, its naturalness. The reason why people have come to mistrust the old parties is just because such things do not happen in their well-ordered ranks. All is arranged with machine-like precision. When differences are expressed, the dissentients become "a nest of traitors". In the present instance the question is whether the members of the farmers' clubs are going to become so concerned about the disagreement as to divide themselves into two hostile camps and whether the division of opinion will be carried into the legislature and impair Mr. Drury's slender majority. We think that neither result is likely to happen.

From all sides a better attitude towards Quebec begins to manifest itself in Canada. Mr. Meighen has committed himself to a policy of conciliation; Mr. Drury, elsewhere and in Ottawa, has urged peace and good-will; and now speaking in Montreal to the High School Boys' Canadian Club the former editor of the Toronto News, Sir John Willison, presents two most practical suggestions looking to the same end. Sir John advocates making French compulsory in all the high schools of Ontario and providing for the exchange of twenty-five or thirty High School teachers between Ontario and Quebec. It is evident that good Canadians have come to feel that during the last decade intolerance passed the bounds of decency and that Quebec has quite as much to contribute to the life of Canada as she can receive in return. Sir John's proposals are excellent, but he must go farther if he would touch the heart of the matter. The principle must be accepted as fundamental and essential to good-will that in Ontario parents, whether of French or English origin, who wish to have their children study French in the elementary schools should not be denied that privilege. Improved teaching of French in the secondary schools is good; especially useful it will prove in increasing the supply of bi-lingual teachers. But nowhere in Ontario elementary schools must French be proscribed. As Professor Will put it in the December issue of The Canadian Forum, our motto must be: English for all and French for those who wish it.

The question. Who won the Battle of Jutland? which has been revived by Admiral Scheer, has more than an academic interest for Canadian readers. For on the dominant estimate of the meaning of that battle depends the world's ship building policy. In making their own plans for naval defence the Dominions can hardly fail to follow suit. Crudely stated, the following alternatives present themselves. Either the big ship was necessary to protect the submarine, or the big ship succeeded in surviving only because the submarine protected it. A decision in favour of the former involves colossal units of expenditure; and just as, after the Russian Fleet was destroyed at Tsushima, the fiat of the naval experts (our sternest arbiters of fashion) decided for the Dreadnought type, so now they may decree the building of warships vastly more expensive. Except on rare occasions most naval powers refused to risk their Dreadnoughts in the war. The fighting of armoured ships is in danger of degenerating as that of armoured men degenerated in the Middle Ages. The trappings became so heavy and expensive that only the wealthiest and strongest could use them; and the risk of being smothered by his kit was one of the least pleasant features of a soldier's life.

'It’ is a far cry from the city of Calvin to the Quai d'Orsay but the transition has taken hardly more than a month. The delegates to the League of Nations assembly have returned to their homes — to quite inconspicuous homes, some of them — and the Supreme Council, clothed in all its former majesty, reigns in their stead. The exact significance of the Council's latest decision is still somewhat obscure, but its general trend is, in the light of recent events, fairly obvious. During the last few months the French Government has shown more inclination to face realities than at any time since the armistice. M. Leygues actually took the first hesitating step towards a resumption of trade with Russia, and he even had the courage in opposing the two years military service law to declare that France had nothing to fear from the present German Government. Under this moderating influence, however, the bloc national, the reactionary formation upon which every ministry must depend in this most reactionary of Chambers since the days of MacMahon, showed signs of becoming restive; and M. Leygues, several times threatened, was at last defeated. The choice of a successor was a difficult matter; the extreme right favoured M. Poincaré; the moderates probably regretted their [p. 133] precipitate action. A compromise was reached in M. Briand, but it was to be M. Briand with a loud bark.

Hence it was in an atmosphere of antagonism that the arrangements for the meeting of the Supreme Council were completed. Both British and French governments issued preliminary statements of policy; M. Briand's very firm and provocative, Mr. Lloyd George's full of sound sentiments and good intentions. A clash seemed to be inevitable; indeed it looked as if the situation contained all the elements of a serious crisis — a crisis more acute than any in the troubled history of Anglo-French relations since the armistice. For on former difficult occasions — in the crisis following the Frankfort coup, at the San Remo conference, and at Spa — a basis for compromise always existed; here it was difficult to find one. The question of the disarmament of the East Prussian and Bavarian civic guards presented no insurmountable difficulties; an agreement with regard to the Treaty of Sèvres was not impossible; but reparations, and the whole question of the fate of Central Europe that it involved, seemed to have been removed beyond the possibility of agreement. M. Briand had declared specifically for the old policy of destruction and punitive indemnities. Mr. Lloyd George, no doubt interpreting correctly the trend of English opinion, had declared that a genuine attempt at re-settlement must be undertaken immediately if the victorious countries were to escape the plight of the vanquished.

The "cordial conversations" that as usual preceded the formal opening of the Council seem to have done nothing to dissipate the tension; and the session had hardly opened before dissension broke out. M. Doumer, the new Minister of Finance, declared that in default of an annual indemnity of twelve milliards of gold marks France would go bankrupt; Mr. Lloyd George pointed out that the maximum named by the Brussels financial conference had been three milliards. Efforts to reconcile these two extremes, persisted in throughout the session, ended in deadlock; the conference adjourned, and Mr. Lloyd George sulked in his tent at the Hôtel Crillon. A few hours later through some mysterious agency a compromise was reached. Germany was to pay over a period of forty-two years: two milliards in the first two years, increasing to six milliards in the next nine years, and continuing at that figure for the balance of thirty-one years. In addition it was proposed that she should pay during the whole period an amount equal to twelve and a half per cent. of her total exports.

Except for the proposal with regard to the export tax, this arrangement is in principle the same as the one laid down in the Treaty; it leaves the final amount of the indemnity in doubt, and, except for the first few payments, it formulates demands that are hardly less fantastic than the original ones. It is in fact nothing more than a pretext upon which to hang the recurring but meaningless formula of complete agreement. In England, where the conclusions enunciated a little over a year ago by Mr. Keynes are no longer regarded as the doubtful assertions of a theorist, it will be recognized as a thoroughly bad compromise; and in France, or at least in the Chamber, it will probably be looked upon as a weak concession to English greed. Whether it will actually be rejected, for it requires the approval of the Chamber, is another matter. But, even if approved, the agreement will require the concurrence of the German government, and it would be by no means safe to assume that this will be forthcoming — at least without another struggle and probably another crisis. On the whole this latest attempt to reconcile two absolutely conflicting policies, the policy of eating the cake and the policy of keeping the cake, shows no sign of bringing us any closer to a re-settlement of Europe. Sooner or later the facts will have to be faced. This latest agreement may or may not suffice to postpone the day; but that obviously is the intention of its framers; for neither Mr. Lloyd George nor M. Briand have any desire themselves to face the storm of disillusionment that is already gathering.

China, distraught with civil strife, feeling also the rebound of the conflict which has shaken the foundations of Europe, suffers to-day in five of its provinces more intensely than any other state. It is true that in Central Europe people starve, but a more elaborate economic system with cruel kindness permits them to starve by slow degrees or to live on with health permanently impaired. In China conditions have joined in such fashion that rapid starvation appears to be the fate of many millions. Two crop failures, however, would not have been so disastrous had the Government been strong enough to govern. As Mr. Carscallen points out elsewhere in this issue, a state of anarchy virtually exists in the several provinces, one military adventurer succeeding another in dreary succession. China cannot now help herself; less unhappy countries must come to her aid. It appears that the Consortium can be trusted to see that the relief sent reaches those for whom it is intended. It is now stated that a commission will be appointed satisfactory to the Consortium, which will doubtless have military support from the allied states in defending convoys from marauding bands of soldiers. It is an encouraging sign of human progress that the claims of humanity in our age demand support for those who are unable to support themselves. In spite of wars and diplomacy we can no longer be satisfied with allowing free course to the laws of the jungle.