is an honest man.  His memorable speech containing the “infamous proposal” phrase was most positively a genuine emotional expression of his conviction and of the conviction of the whole country, and Mr. Shaw, a finished master of barrister’s claptrap when he likes, has been merely scurrilous about it.  Germany’s proposal was infamous.  Supposing that we had taken the Belgium point at Mr. Shaw’s valuation of it, the “nonsense about Belgium,” as he calls it, and refrained from war, what would have been the result?  The result would have been that today we could not have looked one another in the face as we passed down the street.

But Mr. Shaw is not content with arguing that the Belgium point was a mere excuse for us.  He goes further and continually implies that there was no Belgium point.  Every time he mentions the original treaty that established Belgian neutrality he puts after it in brackets, [date 1839,] an obvious barrister’s device, sarcastically to discredit the treaty because of its age.  He omits to say that the chief clause in the treaty contains the word “perpetually.”  What is worse, he infers that by the mere process of years, as Belgium gradually made herself, civilized herself, enriched herself, and increased her stake in the world, her moral right to independence and freedom instead of being strengthened was somehow mysteriously weakened.  The theory is monstrous, but if he does not mean that he means nothing.

Further, he says that in 1870 Gladstone could not depend on the treaty of 1839 and resorted to a special temporary treaty not now in force, and that, therefore, technically the validity of the 1839 treaty is extremely doubtful.  This twisting of facts throws a really sinister light upon the later developments of Mr. Shaw as a controversialist.  The treaty of 1870 was, indeed, temporary, except in so far as it confirmed the treaty of 1839.  Article 3 of the treaty of 1870 says it shall be binding on the contracting parties during the continuance of the war and for twelve months after, and then proceeds “and on the expiration of that time the independence and neutrality of Belgium will, so far as the high contracting parties are respectively concerned, continue to rest as heretofore on the quintuple treaty of 1839,” (textual.)

Mr. Shaw’s manifesto is lengthy and it will no doubt be reprinted in book form.  I repeat what I said in my first paragraph as to the major part of it, but I assert that the objectionable part of the manifesto is so objectionable in its flippancy, in its perversity, in its injustice, and in its downright inexactitude as to amount to a scandal.  Mr. Shaw has failed to realize either his own importance or the importance and very grave solemnity of the occasion.  The present is no hour for that disingenuous, dialectical bravura which might excusably relieve a domestic altercation.  Before reprinting Mr. Shaw should, I suggest; seriously reconsider his position and rewrite.