Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman made a second speech at Bath, but
we can only notice two points. The first was his per- fectly sound but by no means original remark that the way to make the Empire great "is not to cast lustful eyes or lay greedy hands upon other people's territory, or to waste our millions in ill-considered and reckless adventures." If Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman would confine himself to such general statements, he would not merely do no harm, but would put a very useful set of political principles before his countrymen. The other point is one which we cannot commend, but one also which we cannot dismiss without protest. Because the Methodist Times, a weekly paper of standing and ability, happens to take a different position in regard to the refugee camps from that favoured by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, he thought fit to assail it in a manner both onfair and offensive. We quote his actual words to show that we are not exaggerating. "I saw the other day a publication, or a newspaper of some sort—by its name it would seem to be of a religious character. It calls itself the Methodist Times. I do not take it in. I am not a reader of it. I presume it is a religious newspaper. It cannot be a newspaper of the Christian religion." Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman adds, in regard to the defence of the camps: "The hypocrisy of these excuses is almost more loathsome than the cruelty itself." And yet we are told that the license and want of decency and courtesy exhibited by the Press are becoming unbearable. Unless it be the Daily Newi, we know of no newspaper which indulges in language of this kind in regard to our statesmen. But why should the standard of courtesy be lower for the statesman than the journalist?
Previous page
