IN MEMORY OF SWINBURNE. (Vale, vale, in æternum, vale!) I. APRIL whispers "can'st thou, too, die, April, queen over earth and sky Yearns, and her trembling lashes shine: Down to the dim sea-line. II. "This is my singing season," he cried, "April, what sweet new song do you bring?" April came and knelt at his side Breathing a song too great to sing- III. Sleep, on the breast of thine old-world lover, IV. Thee, the storm-bird, nightingale-souled, Lit with thy snow-winged fame. VOL. CLXXXV.-NO. MCXXIII. 3 c V. Back, thro' the years, fleets the sea-bird's wing: So did he love her of old and sing! Listen, he flies to her, back thro' the dark! Sappho, of old time, once. . . . .. Yea, Spring Calls him home to her, hark! VI. Sappho, long since, in the years far sped, Fled to thee, sister. I have fled, Time is a dream! Shelley is here with us! Death lies dead! VII. Wide was the cage-door, idly swinging; VIII. Ah, but how shall we welcome May Here where the wing of song droops low, We that gazed on his glorious way IX. April whispers—can'st thou, too, die, April, conquering earth and sky Yearns, and her trembling lashes shine: Master in song, good-bye, good-bye, Down to the dim sea-line. ALFRED NOYES. NAVAL DEFENCE BY PANIC. To hear people talk, one would suppose that our present method of providing a navy adequate to our requirements was something new in our history, whereas it is in point of fact our usual plan. that the Lord Mayor refused the use of the Guildhall for a public meeting, a thoroughly representative one was held at the Cannon Street Hotel. Some important resolutions were passed; the agitation gained strength and volume; and finally the Government of the day (Conservative this time) was forced into passing Act of 1889, which provided £21,000,000 to build seventy ships, a wise, far-seeing, and statesmanlike stroke of policy, notwithstanding that it was the direct result of a popular agitation which had been stigmatised by many others besides the Lord Mayor of London as a discreditable panic. Result? France gave up the contest! Memories are short, for it is scarcely twenty years ago that precisely the same thing happened as is happening now. Our supremacy was the famous Naval Defence then threatened by another Power (now our very good friend, in view of a common danger). Our navy had been allowed to run down in 1888 to a state of dangerous weakness in comparison with that of France. The country was passing through one of its drowsy phases of calm indifference for the Admiralty of the day had told the people that all was well, and they might sleep quietly in their beds - when suddenly a few watchful sailors, led by Lord Charles Beresford, got up an agitation, which was stigmatised by the Lord Mayor of London (a gentleman of foreign extraction) as a "discreditable panic." The citizens of London, however, were too shrewd to accept declamation for argument; and having had the audacity to look into the matter for themselves and form their own conclusions, they vigorously supported the so-called panic, and This of course is all ancient history, though it bears a close resemblance to the present state of public feeling on the question of our naval supremacy, and indicates what may be effected by a bold, prompt, and statesmanlike policy in compliance with a plainly expressed popular demand for national security. Our readers will remember that 'Maga that 'Maga' took no small part in the enlightenment of public opinion on naval matters in 1888.1 ters in 1888.1 And now we are once more face to face notwithstanding with a somewhat similar sit 1 'Maga,' February 1888, "The Balance of Power in Europe: Its Naval Aspect"; April 1888, "Our Naval Policy." uation. Short-sighted economies in naval matters have produced a state of national alarm which is amply justified; and the recent discovery that an ambitious rival has stolen a march on us with swiftness and secrecy has not only awakened John Bull from his comfortable slumbers, but also has raised him to a pitch of righteous indignation which seems likely to vent itself on those mismanagers of his affairs who have allowed themselves to be hoodwinked and deceived by the specious promises of a rival; a rival who will do everything in her power to avoid hostilities until her plans are ripe for execution and she is ready to take the full advantage of of the initiative and strike a swift and deadly blow at the the heart of the Empire-undefended London. am This is no fancy picture of the imagination, drawn for the purpose of creating unnecessary alarm. It is a perfectly true and moderate statement of the present position of Great Britain with regard to the avowed bitions of Germany; and these ambitions have been so plainly and so unequivocally stated by Germany's leading men, that none save those who are wilfully blind or carelessly indifferent to their country's fate can fail to note the signs of the times. It is unfortunately the case that the present intensely commercial and anti-military spirit of modern England must inevitably give to any people who covet our wealth and our possesions the immense initial advantage of first blow. We appear to have forgotten the fundamental truth-confirmed by all history—that the warlike races inherit the earth; and that nature decrees the survival of the fittest in the never-ending struggle for existence. So that, in view of the present state of public opinion in this country, our yearnings for disarmament, our respect for that tender plant the nonconformist conscience, and the parrot - like repetition of the misleading formula that "the greatest of all British interests is peace," it seems impossible to imagine that we shall ever again find a statesman at the helm who will have the courage to take the initiative and strike the first blow, even though our very life may be dependent on doing so,-as it was in 1801, when we sent Nelson to the Baltic to destroy the Danish fleet, and thus overthrow the coalition of the Northern Powers which threatened our existence. If, then, we accept the postulate that under no possible circumstances, no matter how obvious the intentions and preparations of a potential enemy may be, we shall not be the first to break the peace, it follows logically that, having magnanimously resigned this advantage (and we scarcely know yet how great it may be), we must make our preparations for acting on the purely defensive by allowing such a margin of superiority in our ments as will still ensure arma victory after our enemy has reaped the full advantage of selecting his own time and place, with the possibility of a swift and sudden attack without declaration of war. "Oh," say our glib-tongued lawyers who now govern the British Empire, "we do not intend to give Germany any provocation, or any excuse for attacking us, and moreover she has told us that she has no intention of doing so, and our labour members and socialists are striking up a firm friendship with their coreligionists' in Germany." Bismarck did not hesitate to garble a telegram when he had determined to attack France, but wished neighbouring nations to believe that she was the aggressor. It is always the lamb that provokes the Wolf; and even Napoleon was able to persuade himself that he acted only on the defensive, a remarkable instance of which is given in Sir Walter Scott's 'Life of Napoleon,' in Scott's 'Life of Napoleon,' in the following dialogue which took place between the Emperor and his Minister, Decrès, immediately after the marriage of the former with Maria Alas for such puerile trash to put before practical Englishfoundation upon Louisa:as a which to build the security of their country! men No provocation? Why, we have already given ample provocation. We have made friends with our neighbours without Germany's permission, and we are thus "hemming her in," as she calls it. More than a year ago the 'Neue Politische Correspondenze' of Berlin wrote "England has enveloped us in diplomatic toils, which begin to interfere with our liberty of action. A desire may overcome us to break these toils with a vigorous hand before we are so enclosed by them that we can no longer stir." On a recent occasion, in the House of Lords, Lord Cromer in somewhat more diplomatic language said— "When once national interests point, or seem to point, in the direction of falling on a rival, it is quite within the resources of adroit diplomacy to find some means of casting a veil of justice and reasonableness over the real cause." "Napoleon-The good citizens rejoice sincerely at my marriage, monsieur? "N.-They are mistaken: yet it is not the fault of the lion; slumber would be as agreeable to him as to others. But see you not that while I have the air of being the attacking party, I am, in fact, acting only on the defensive?" With such an instance of selfdeception as the above (and numerous others might be quoted), it would seem as if those statesmen—or politicians who urge us to trust our national safety and independence to the friendship of our allies, the family ties of sovereigns, the suave assurances of foreign diplomatists, and our own eminently peaceful wishes, the sands, and are either ignor-are building a house upon ant of history or wilfully un The "adroit diplomacy" of mindful of its lessons. |