The times., 1897-09-26
The Monotnnv of Peace

On the 23d day of this month Gen. Lord
| wolseley, commander-in-chief of the Brit
| ish army, was presented with the freedom
of the city of Glasgow. The occasion was
remarks ON the military situation III India,
which, II is unnecessary TO say, is at
tracing a great deal of attention in the
United Kingdom. acknowledging the
honor d"ne him by the Scotch municipality,
Lord Wolscley said that the British must
maintain their supremacy on the ocean,
because, if they should lose 1t, they would
also lose their colonies. From British
point Of view this was patriotic and sensi-
BILE; bot what his lcrdship further remarked
Is susceptible OF comment if not OF adverse.
criticism.
In connection with the native uprising
on the northern frontier of India, he OBJ
served that. while Great Britain was the
most peace-loving nation in the world,
the army must always be ready for action
Great Britain cannot arbitrate with
the Acridis and such other tribes, as they
fight because they hate the monotony OF
peace
We Gesre to call attention to the last
expression quoted, since it is one Of the
most British, and, hence, at the same
time, one Of the most refreshingly hypo-
couTtered for several mocns. In the first
place, 1t is doubtful if anybody Of credit
and rcnown ever suggested arbitration be-
tween Great britain and the frontier tribes
In fact, it would be nearly impossible TO
conceive "t any subject of difference be
tween them susceptbleof arbitration. Their
relations have been simple. The Afrid1s,
the Orakzais and the Swaus together
inhabit 81 strip OF mountain country be-
tween British India and Afghanistan about
six hundred miles long by two hundred
broad. Naturally and historically, this
piece OF territory is connected with and or
dinarily speaking would belong to Afghan
istan, with which state it was in political
union for somctbinglike nine hundred years.
The British government, with political wis
dom, no doubt, as preferred thatit should
be segregated from tile Afghan con
nection and 50 has allowed the tribes in
habitlug it 10 preserve their local inde-
pendenca, treating them as allies and en-
ploying Their forces to hold the Khyber,
the Kho hat and other passes in the British
interest. In the latest war with Afghanis-
tan they proved true To their trust, even
against their own blood and kindred.
That they might have continued in the
same way is pres able if not certain.
The aggression which changed their friend
ship into hatred came from the British
India office. Moved by the colonial ex
tension ambitions OF Mr. Chamberlain and
Others the policy OF the government has
been changed, in the direction of the
occupation and subjugation of these wild
but friendly tribes, and the extension over
them of military government and repres-
sion. One OF the foremost authorities on
Indian affairs, Gen. Sir Neville Chamber
lain, says Of the uprising:
In my Judgment, these troubles are the
natural outcome of the provocative policy
pursued OF late years by the government
toward the Independent tribes, eliminating
In the reversal by the existing government
of the order issued by the government
Of Lord Rosebery for the withdrawal OF
Her MaJeSty'S troops from ChitraI and from
the road lea ding to it through the territory
of Swat and Bajour.
That seems to explain the situation.
Gen. Lord Wolseley sees in it native
detestathn CT 1.-THE monotony of peace
with a departure from which his nation
mas been careful to exasperate the tribes
men. There is nothing in that to arbi-
trate. NIr. Colonial Secretary Chamberlain
has said. who ever heard of nation
paramount submitting to arbitration with
g subject state?"
Hari ing back, in the history Of diplomacy,
TO AeSop on Inter national Law, the reader
will note that whether the lamb did or
did not muddy the spring, the Wolf = or the
lion, as the case may be thereby is not
TO be deprived Of his dinner.