Welsh Journals

but in hating some other country and in setting aside the moral law of Christendom, where that country is concerned. Now, before I proceed with my analysis of Lord Hugh Cecil's view's, I may mention that, in my opinion, his chief fallacy lies in his confusion of the idea of Nationalism with the idea of Imperialism. Imperialism represents the desire to dominate the world. Nationalism represents the desire to develop on natural lines what is best in your own country. The sin of Germany was not an extreme Nationalism, but an extreme Imperialism. With this parenthetical observation I return to the pam- phlet. To bring permanent peace to the world, Lord Hugh opines that the evil spirit of what he calls Nation- alism, must be exorcised. But how is this to be done? History gives him a little help. But he reminds us that at one time families and clans fought each other with a bitterness equal to that with which great States fight each other to-day. Civilisation, he insists, has ended such blood feuds by such rough, if justifiable methods as ended the Highland clan system after the '45. He considers that there would be comparatively little difficulty in enforcing compulsory pacificism on the little nations. Small States, and especially those to which the late war has brought independence, ought not, in his opinion, to be allowed to make war under any circumstances, but ought to be bound by treaty to submit all quarrels in which they might be involved to the arbitration of the Hague Tribunal or of the League of Nations. But even if this could be arranged, he sorrowfully admits that the great States would remain centres of belligerent Nationalism (here I should write Imperialism) and that to reform them to pacificism is the crux of the question. He hopes that a League of Nations may take some steps to bring about permanent peace by the federalisa- tion of the world, but he is not over-sanguine that in this way a solution of the difficulty can be found. His fear is that the Nationalist feeling of the big States will not permanently allow their sovereign rights to be curtailed. Diplomacy must do what it can by creating a League of Nations, but if Nationalism retains its present force, the League will be as powerless against it as was the old "Concert of Europe." "No doubt, while the memories of the war are fresh, there will be a strong inclination to keep the peace. When the sacrifice and sufferings of the conflict are forgetten, Nationalist sentiment will again assert itself and move towards the inevitable goal, another war." Nor does our author find any hope in the idea of the Cobdenite that war can be stopped by proving it to be bad business from the commercial standpoint. War, he allows, can be proved to be an economic folly, but the demon cannot be exorcised by invoking the protection of mammon. Where, then, is there hope? He finds it in religion. The corporate sentiment now associated with what he calls Nationalism, he would transfer to the Catholic ideal, not the ideal, I should explain, of the Roman Catholic Church, but of the Catholicism recognised by all Christian Churches. Every religious teacher for the next thirty years should, he holds, preach the univer- sality of the Christian society, the brotherhood of man, the uniformity of the moral law throughout the world, and the supreme and equal claim of Christ upon all races and nations. Such teaching, he truly says, might profitably be given by all Christian Churches, and would, he believes, remove from Christian hearts the evil passions of Nationalism by convincing believers that their duty to Christendom was higher than any duty that they owed to their country. Such teaching might, he thinks, perhaps convince the world that there are nobler ideals than Nationalist aspira- tions, and a love for the whole Christian Communion would in the end replace national hatreds and jealousies. There is much that is impressive in this aspiration and the idea underlying them is true and noble. Inevitable as the Reformation may have been, it cannot be denied that it weakened the bonds of Christian fellowship and set the Church above the State. A new realisation of the obligations of a common Christianity on all its professors would greatly help to the reconciliation of nations. Still, even to this ideal there are two sides. The revival of the sense of a common Christianity might lead unreasonable Christians to the idea of new crusades against the Infidels. And it must further be remembered that on the large section of European thought that, is estranged from all forms of Christianity, such an appeal would have no effect whatever. But it is not on such grounds that I would challenge the writer's position. Desirable as it would be to revive the sense of the obligation of a common Chris- tianity among mankind, useful as such teaching might be to oppose the brutal Imperialism which Lord Hugh wrongly identifies as Nationalism, I do not think that in any way it would check Nationalist feeling, using the word Nationalist in its proper sense. Lord Hugh Cecil, in my view, makes two fundamental blunders. In the first place, he assumes that strong Nationalists are more bellicose than other people. In the second place, he assumes that the road to peace lies through the suppression of small nationalities, all of which he proposes as the first stage to his millenium to deprive of sovereign rights. Now as to his first idea that strong Nationalists are necessarily Jingoes. it is only necessary to mention a few names to refute it. The names I shall take from the Welsh politics of to-day. They are those of Mr. Ed. T. John, Mr. Llewelyn Williams, K.C., and the Rev. Towyn Jon es, M.P. Of these gentlemen, it may safely be said that Mr. Towyn Jones is the least of a Welsh nationalist of the three. As a proof of this I may mention that he voted against the separate representation of the Welsh Uni- versity in the House of Commons, that he opposed the re-election to Parliament of the best Welsh Home Ruler alive, Mr. E. T. John, and that he remains in a Govern- ment which through the mouth of its Lord Chancellor has insulted the ideal of Welsh self-government for which Tom Ellis stood. On Lord Hugh Cecil's theory, Mr. Towyn Jones ought to be less of a Jingo than the average Welsh nationalist. In fact he is more so. His case at the general election against gentlemen like Mr. E. T. John was that they were not warlike enough. Mr. Llewelyn Williams is a far better Welsh nationalist than Mr. Towyn