Untitled

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14854, 20 December 1913, Page 10

Their loss of the Lyttelton seat seems to have caused another loss to our "Liberal friends—a serious loss of memory. The nature and extent of that loss can best be shown by the method of "parallel" columns. Hero

are two statements from the local organ of tho Opposition:— December 2nd. December 16th. Mr McCombs .. . Wo confess that we must remember that should have been ho is no longer a better pleased if Mr Liberal or even a McCombs had conProgrosaive Liberal, tested the seat as a but a Social Demo- Progressive Liberator crat. .. . The trouble an Independent Libewith the Federation ral, but we are bound of Labour and with to admit that in Mr MoCombs is that every essential he they want "to reach stands just where d?the millennium by a mocratic candidates ehort cut in which who havo borne thero is moving room thoso names have for only a section of stood, the community. Tho real "trouble with tho Federation of Labour and with Mr McCombs" is, just now, the fact that tho conjunction thus admitted on December 2nd refuses to dissolve itself.

Mr McCombs, however, is of no particular consequence, and is not in tho least likely, by continuing in politics, to cause his friends all this trouble any longer than a year. But the confusion of tho Opposition extends beyond this particular politician,. Wo aro now told that it is absurd to say that there is any real resemblance between Red Fedism and official "Liberalism." Yet we wero told just the opposito quite lately by the sam* authority. Tho following juxtaposition of extracts from our local contemporary will shotv tho sort of thing that «a bewildering the handful of true "Liberals" in the country, although it does not bewilder ajiyono olse: July 31, 1913. Dec. 10, 1913. The Liberals [at Ho [the Hon. F. M. Grey] supported Mr B. Fisher] knows perWebb because they fectly well that the knew that nine-tenths Liberal Party has no of his policy was their moro connexion with own. thorn [the Social Democratic Party and tho Federation of Labour] except in tho common desiro for progress than the Reform Party has. The truth is that our "Liberal" friends will say anything that suits the needs of the moment, even if it must be unsaid on the morrow. The campaign against the classics goes on. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain recently decided to set aside Latin as a compulsory subject for the Society's preliminary examination. Chemists will, of course, still bo instructed in tho reading of the Latin terms in which doctors' prescriptions aro written, but the change will probably raise the question whether it is necessary for doctors to continue to employ Latin. Why, it may be asked, should a dead language bo used for such a purpose, when plain English would do equally well? For one reason, it may not be always advisable that the patient should -know what he is being given, any moro than it is always advisable to tell a patient exactly what is the matter with him. A doctor who wrote "heart disease" on: the chart of a hospital patient, and consequently nearly killed him through fright, has since employed the term "morbus cordis," with no untoward results. Similarly, in these days of fairly widespread medical knowledge, it might not always be advisable to enable a man to deduce his complaint from tho prescription. Besides, the prescriptions in English might lead to amateur prescribing in the home, with very serious results • there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than a little medical knowledge. The Latin prescription will probably hold the field for a long time to como, additional safety being afforded by the fact that the caligraphy of the average doctor is almost as difficult to decipher as that of tho average divine.

The financial situation in France, to which reference is made in one of today's cable messages, is almost appalling. A few weeks ago the then Finance Minister, M. Dupont, reported a deficit of no less a sum than 950,000,000 francs, and it was estimated that the expenditure for 1914 would be 800,000,000 francs more than in 1913, owing to the demands of the military establishment. Since any attempt to raise fresh revenue through the Customs would in all probability result in a reduction of revenue through diminished consumption, M. Ihipont was able to suggest only an income tax, an income super-tax, and an increase in the tax on foreign securities. These three taxes, however, would yield only £10,000,000, andM. Dupont accordingly proposed to raise a loan of £52,000,000. The "Economist" declared that the outlook .was "unusually black," and even spoke of the rigk of nothing less than, a "financial catastrophe."

The Opposition journals are still shy of responding to our invitation to them to point out the "Toryism" in the statutes of 1913. Perhaps they are thinking the matter over, and wo are willing to wait until the holidays are ended. In the meantime it may help them into a proper fighting frame of mind if we quote some observations by the London "Daily Herald," the Labour paper, in its issue of July 26th last. Like the Radicals and Red Feds, and "Nine-Tenth-ers" here, the Labour politicians call thoso who are not members of tho official Liberal or Labour Parties "Tpries" and "Conservatives." Tho "Herald" said:—

It is only a superstition of a somewhat aged kind that the Conservatives are less democratic than the Liberals. The Liberal Democracy works itself out as gas at election time. . . The Tories have probably passed more reforming Acts than tho Liberals. However, led by blind bats, like the present Labour leaders, the male voter wanders on in his delusion.

No doubt we shall be told that we are here identifying the Reformers with the English "Tories," but if it gives our "Liberal" friends any pleasure to tell us that, we shall not mind if they will arraign the Government's legislation.

The text of the settlement which has been arranged between the shipping companies' representatives and the representatives of the Seamen's Federation, which we print to-day, will appear rather dry and technical to most of our readers. But they ought not to miss the very important provision that the Auckland. Wellington, and Dunedin branches are to come under tho Arbitration Act, and that the agreement*? entered into are to be registered. This is a heavy blow to the Federation of Labour.

The attempt to blow up the wall of Holloway Gaol is, with the exception perhaps of the attempted ■ burning of a theatre in Dublin during a performance, the worst act of the militant suffragettes. Outrages of this kind may cause widespread suffering. This particular one recalls the attempt to rescue Fenian prisoners from Clerkenwell Gaol in 1567 by firing a cask of gunpowder close to the grison waE.

Six persons were killed outright, and six more died from the direct effects of tho explosion: five moro owed their deaths indirectly to it; 120 persons were wounded; 40 mothers were prematurely confined and two women lost their rte. son and damage to the extent of £20,000 was. done to person and property. Such are the possible consequences of employing such methods as these criminal women have used to rescue one of their comrades. Surely the small following they have among the public should be reduced to almost nothing by this callous act. The Government, even if they feel inclined to, cannot show any leniency to women who adopt methods that aroused public abhorrence when they were employed by the Irish irreconcilable-.

A Liberal running away when an opponent tries to pin him down to facta is always an interesting spectacle. The other day the Hon. Georgo Peel, prospective Liberal candidate for Rugby, said in a speech: "Another thing which oppressed the agricultural labourer at present was if he wanted to vote Liberal, and it was found out, then somehow he was told he must leave his house." 'This is one of the commonest of the Liberal political arguments, though it hardly seems to square with the secrecy of the ballot, and with tho failure of tho Gladstone League, established for the very purpose, to prove that such political intimidation existed. Mr Peel's statement was promptly taken up in a friendly spirit by Lord Willoughby de Broke, who asked for specific instances of such dismissals. Then Mr Peel behaved for all the world as if he were a member of our own "Liberal" Party. He gave no instances, but reminded his lordship that "after careful investigation of such oases' as I havo referred to, his Majesty's Government has just announced that in order to stop in future such 'capricious' or 'wanton' notices to quit, it is necessary to introduce legislation, and this will bo done." In short, the charge was repeated, but no proof adduced. Mr Peel then attempted, in the most barefaced manner, to abandon the controversy by asking his challenger how many of the 5000 volunteers he claimed to have secured for Ulster really existed.

Lord Willoughby de Broke replied to this by drawing his opponent's attention to the point at issue. "In you_ speech at Radford you condemn a whole class of turning labouring men out of their homes on account of their political opinions. When you are challenged you fail to produce a single concrete case." To this Mr Peel replied: "If you are not satisfied that 6uch capricious br wanton evictions as I have referred to do occur, I am."—which reminds one of Lewis Carroll's character, who said that if he said a thing three times it was true. "If you think otherwise," concluded Mr Peel, "tell it to the Horse Marines, or, better still, to the modern equivalent, your 'army." The trouble is that politicians who are "quite satisfied" that something is true cannot'infect the public with their conviction by merely asserting it. Sensible people, and most people aro sensible, want facts.