RANDOM SHOTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XVII, Issue 124, 29 May 1886, Page 4

RANDOM SHOTS.

[By Zamiel.]

'i tie write, a neighbour's name to lash, ; Same write—vain thonght^-for needful cash, ; «f-*ue write to please the country clash, , And rai3e a din. S tor me <m aim 1 nevw £«sh T 1 I ■Write for 'ftfn.

Thk twenty-fourth of May has once more Afforded tbe people of ttiese'colonies an opportunity of demonstrating their loyalty and affection foe Her Majesty the 'Queen. They have kept high holiday and fired ealvoes oS artillery, and praised the many virtues of the noble Lsdy who reigns over a coalm on which. the sun never sets, &c. Afc Auckland the highest development of Soyalty h*« been reached, for a meeting of Home Rulers—comprising our most extreme Land Leaguers as organised by the redoubtable Redmond—have passed a special resolution expressing their fealty and devotion to Queen Victoria. Tho approaching jubilee of Her Majesty's reign, and the recent ■marked favour she showed these colonies in ■opening the Exhibition in person, may have bad some influence in making this year's birthday observance more fervent than usual; but some further explanation is required to account for the ultraloyal sentiments which always animate •colonists in general toward the throne and person of Her Majesty, as contrasted with the growing indifference of Home people on the subject. It cannot be that colonists are touched with toadyism to auch an extent that they pay superstitious homage to the title; yet the fact itself is undoubted. Men with rabid republican ideas come here from England, hoping to find a favourable field for disseminating their-views, but after arriving they modify their opinions considerably and end by endorsing the sentiment of the community with regard ts the beneficent rule of Queen Victoria. :

Possibly the adage that " distanoe lends: ■enchantment to the view " has something to >do with the phenomenon of colonial loyalty, i Jt is easy to admire monarchy as an abstract {principle at a distance of 12,000 miles,: especially when you have not to contribute anything towards the support of the costly: toy! ©istance is a grand enchanter, i Englishmen have«ven been known to praise bagpipe music—at a distance of twenty iailes. or so 1 But in London—where the Queen is a visible entity, as tangible as the tfat woman in a show, and as manifest a superfluity aa a-third wheel to a cart—there is complete disenchantment, and neither Queen Victoria nor the monarchical ideai jh particularly popular, except among the' privileged classes. Even the high old Tory " Standard " lately gave a bit of advice to' the Queen, which proved the Conservative organ to be deficient in the spirit of true; loyalty, which declares that "the Queen: «an do do wrong," for it gravely eafd:— "There is no room in the English! Constitution for a sovereign who lives in almost complete seclusion!" I have also seen it recorded that when Her Majesty emerged from her seclusion to open the present sesrion -of the "English Pallia naent, her appearance in the House of Lords waß ihe signal for mingled cheere, groans, and hisses ! Tbiß may have been due to political feeling, for our Sovereign Lady has the blunt outspokenness of her race, and is not a bit careful to conceal her preferences and dislikes even in matters political. It is more ominous to read that at a dinner'recently given to labour repressntativse in London t&6 toast of ''The Queen " was received with hisses, and three-fourths of the company declined to honour it by even so much as rising to their feet I

At colonial gatherings tha health of Her "Majeety and the Royal Family ia always tmost enthusiastically received, and at concerte closing with the National Anthem the audience to a man uncovers and remains " upstanding " until the last strains of John Bull's music have died away. Even in ravage, communities in tba South Sea Islands the name of Victoria is received with every mark of reverential respect, and dusky lips give a hearty response to the sentiment of " God Save the Queen," for these people recognise her aa the source of Christian light and bene Scent British rule, whereas the more enlightened €ockney only sees in her a podgy and elderly female, the head and centre of a cpßtly system of government, under whose ■segis flourish Court extravagances, favouritism, fat sinecures, plenteous pensions, and other formsofcorruption. The Freethinkers of these colonies are the only people who have the hardihood to he peculiar in their attitude towards the British Crown, for at the Conference. held in November last in Melbourne, when representatives of all the colonies were present, a minute of proceedings at a banquet was approved which read as follows :—" The toast of the reigning representative of the House of Brunswick, Alexandria Victoria, commonly known as Victoria, Queen of Groat Britain and Ireland Defender of the Faith, and Empress of India, was not placed on the toast list." But even these Freethinkers were divided on the subject, for a minority of five dissented from the record standing thus, although they approved of the omission of the toast. Mr Bradlaugb, who is shortly expected to visit these colonies,is an avowed Republican ; I -wonder whether he will not also feol the-Bpell of colonial loyalty and close his orations with tho National Anthem.'

And talking of Bradlaugh reminds me of the rather nice question which has been raised in the columns ot the Stab—whether it is not a shameful thing for an Anglican clergyman to avow a feeling of admiration for the abilities and political labours of one whom certain people will only refer to him as " the Atheist" with a big big A ? If it were not that some consciences are very peculiar, I should think this question easy of settlement. For my part I think the Anglican clergyman worthy of pll praise for his liberality of mind and catholicity of spirit in recognising merit in Mr Charles Bradlangh as a fearless political leader and exponent of popular aspirations; I would so further and say it is a distinct loss to England that Mr Bradlaugh's influence is so narrowed by religious prejudice. If he had only a conscience sufficiently elastic to enable him to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles without believing one of them, as some people do, he would be a power in England that would sweep clean the Augean stable of State corruptions, and even snake the Throne itself. Bat as Mr Bradlaugh is < the owner of such a peculiar conscience, he mast pot complain if others also are a little punctilious, and that Anglican clergymen in particular should consider him " a pestilent fellow," one of the lower orders, and so forth. ' A Church of England clergyman at Borne who would say a good word of the Atheist would not be tolerated an instant, but in these freer lands he is no anomaly. So there is room for hope that Mr Bradlaugh, if he comes here, may be induced to sign the Thirty-Nine Articles, sing " God Save the Queen," and the rest of it. By the way, 1 hear it whispered that the Anglican clergy of Auckland are getting up a "round robin" sort of declaration that they didn't write that letter to the Stab, so that the public may really know who did write it! . ■

His Worship the Mayor of Auckland has j ust had occasion to send to a former Superiutendant of the Fire Brigade the expression of the Corporation's sense of his valuable services. Thin is rather a contrast to the relations sustained between the Mayor of a certain English town and the Chief of Fire Police. His Worship and the Chief had a conflict of opinion, which ended by the latter telling the Mayor he might -'go to blazes." Sure enough, the objurgation seemed to prove effective ; at any rate the Mayor's house shortly afterwards went to blazes, whereupon His Worship, remembering thej warm oath of his antagonist, hinted to the Council that he suspected the Chief of the Fire Police of setting fire to his premises. Hearing of this accusation the Chief sued His Worship for libel and actually recovered £300 damages — having satisfactorily shown that when he consigned the Mayor to flames he meant something much hotter than the " blazes " of a burning house.

The law of libel is rather curious. I read the other day of a Queensland photograDher recovering £350 damages from the proprietors of a local paper for publishing a paragraph to the effect that a Chinaman had stated that the photographer, was the son of another Chinaman. Now, it fairly bothers me to Bee wherein the libel against the photographer consisted. It was a libel pombly, on his mother, but no man is responsible for the actions of his parents and supposing the maternal relative of the photographer in question had fancied a Chinaman, there was nothing in all that the least derogatory to the offspring of the union. la all likelihood the unfortunate

■photographer had a yellow skin, almond: eyes, or .some other Celestial sign about him, and the libel would in that case have consisted in holding his personal peculiarities' up to public ridicule. As the law of libel;; at present stands, judges and juries haVe; almost unlimited power of imposing penal- i ties for fancied or ridiculous wrongs, and as the above instance shows, judges and juries are sometimes lameatafcly deficient in common sense.

If It be libellous to call a person " the son Of a Chinaman," is it actionable to call a man a .lew ? " Kamiel" knows a portion of Her Majesty's realm where the term " jew " is One of the deepest reproach. The verb '• to jew," signifying to swindle, is m common use ; and I need hardly add that Jews are only known there by jaundiced report, and the word is probably a survival from the days of brutal ignorance and prejudice. An apostolic gentleman of Auckland the; other day called an antagonist a "'-Jew", evidently by way of reproach { but no one here is so silly as to believe that any shame attaches to a Wan because ot the race or religion to which .he may; belong. Stall, in the. present stato of the law of libel, the taunt would not ba a cafe one if uttered in other parts oi the; British Empire. You may 'call a man a Jew with impunity in New Zealand, because the people here understand by the term a person belonging to an ancient and wonderfully active and influential ratte—a shrewd yet honourable man of business— an ent&rprising, successful, and public-spirited type of citizen. In other parts of the Empire, i again, It Would be quite allowable to call a man a Chinaman, but in Queensland you must not even hint that anybody is the son of a Chinaman ! The name of. Chinaman is not a bit less honourable, for instance, than that xX Frenchman or Englishman; but because " the yellow agony " is at the i acute stage in Queensland, the very name! is held in abhorrence.

1 am not ver.y sui"e that it would be safe to designate anybody as *• the son of a Chinaman "' in -New Zealand. The anti-Chinese feeling here ie strong, if it seldom burst* forth. The latest development of it is that little bill which Sir George Grey has just introduced, the object of Which is to prevent the employment of Chinese or other coloured labourers in,the'formation of the Canterbury Midland Railway by an English Company. On national, sanitary, and social grounds it is of course highly desirable to prevent any considerable influx, of Celestials to the Colony ; but how about the financial aspect of the question ? There is at present a 1 railway to be made in Queensland from Palmers ton to Pine Greek, and tenders were called. The contractors were asked to state two prices— onfe for Chinese, the other for white labour. The tenders very plainly snowed that Chinese labour was much cheaper, the alternative sums being s White labour, £721,086 ; Chinese labour, £638,405 There is a considerable difference—£Bo,ooo in a £700,000 job between the two1 offers—and yet I suppose the white lsbour would be accepted, as no Government could stand against tho howl of indignation that would be raised if Chinese were employed on public work*. It has been proved in America that John Chinaman is better than ah Irishman for navvy work. But if Queenslanders will tax themselves to the extent of £80,000 for the luxury of employing their fellow countrymen at hard labour, instead of an interior race, nobody has a right to grumble ; and in like manner, New Zealanders are perfectly justified in paying higher rates for the satisfaction of keeping the " yellow agony " at a distance from our shores. XXX

"Dear 'Zattiiel' (writes, nay old friend ' Diamond'), I like your Saturday's philosophy, and probably there are others who do. I like to read replies and rejoinders on philosophy — moral or otherwise. But I do tbink that bare, naked philosophy in your Saturday's columns is likely to shock most of your readers' very sensitive modesty. Perhaps I myself have more reason than any man in Auckland to restrain myself from giving these kind of shocks to people with whom I come in contact. Moral philosophy, or moral sciencs, is better for moßt people if it is dressed up, clothed, by some one ; and this fact is the real pith and meaning of that portion of the allegory called Genesis in the Bible where Adam and Eve are said to have made aprons of fig leaves. Now, instead of fig leaves you have chosen the dress of the clown, and therefore in order to be consistent ought this dress not to be maintained ? That this sort of thing will 'take' is not 'Punch' a sufficient proof? I don't know whether you will consider it a compliment if I tell you that you are eminently well qualified to play the part of guide, philosopher, and friend in clown's clothing; and I hope you will not be offended if I say I think that on occasions lately the clown's dress has been lifted so as to expose the philosopher in such a way as to frighten some people. To this mistake I believe I have to some extent

to plead guilty. I should like to write some articles on doctors, and patent medicine, and several other things, but I doubt your columns are not the place for them, because I cannot dress them up enough, i.c clothe them sufficiently." _

I find that somebody in Wellington has been moved by a similar yearning to write about "doctors, patent medicines, and several other things," and has communicated to the "New Zealand Times" the following utterances of medical men, which I reproduce to save " Diamond " the trouble of writing:—

Sir Astley Cooper declares that " The science of medicine is founded on conjecture and improved by murder."

Mr Majendie pronounces that " Medicine is a great humbug."

Sir J. Forbes tells the world that "In a large majority of cases diseases are cured by nature, in spite of doctors."

Dr. Baker writes that "The drugs administered for scarlet ferer destroy far more than the disease does."

Dr. Froth says "There ia scarcely a more dishonest trade than medicine."

Dr. T. Watson : " Our profession is continually floating on a sea of doubt about questions of great Importance."

Dr Coggssays: "Weremedicine abolished, mankind would be infinitely the gainers." Dr. Franck : "Thousands are annually slaughtered in the sick room."

Dr. Mason Grode : " Medicine is a jargon that has destroyed more than war, pestilence, and famine combined."

There ! These are sufficiently cutting sayings for a " Diamond," surely ! I grant that they want clothing badly, and their very "naked" condition may shock some sensibilities; but despitemy correspondent's gentle flattery of my "clothing" abilities, I don't feel inclined to rake up old jokes against the medical profession. The truths enunciated in the above quotations seem to me self-evident, and at the same time too serious for " cap and bells" treatment. And, after all, the doctors are not to blame so much ao the public themselves, who by their ignorance, apathy, and gross superstition in all matters pertaining to the healing art not only allow the " regular dustmen " of the profession, but quacks and empirics innumerable, tofatten upon their infirmities. I must stop, or I shall run my head too hard against the great asinine British public,. which would only prove me to be of the same genus, and quite unfitted for the post of laughing philosopher.

That sentence in the Hannaford-Gar-rard case seems rather severe; but it should have a wholesome deterrent effect upon those people who delight in writiDg offensively personal letters to the press. Gerrard had a real "grievance" for once, and was quite justified, in going in a state of " badgatation " and requesting an explanation; but if is evident that in the succeeding affray the matchmaker was actuated by a fear of personal violence which led him to " lose his head " and rush on Garrard with the hockey-stick, The gravamen of hia offence, however, was the taking up of a lethal weapon, when he was threatened only by an old man with one hand disabled. In the eeclusion of his hermit cell, the matrimonial go-between has doubtless come to the conclusion that the game was not worth the candle. Compared with other cases, the punishment seems excessive. I have just come across the report of an aggravated assault by a youDg man on his mother-in-law at Coatbridge, Scotland, only two weeks after his marriage The evidence was perfectly clear against prisoner, who had .flourished a poker though he had not used it. Bailie Pettigrew, addressing the accused, said it was a serious matter getting married on a woman's daughter so very lately, and starting to -thrash the old woman in that way. It was neither fair nor manly. He imposed a fine of 10s or seven days in gaol. "Neither fair nor manly" is good, especially when followed up by a fine of " ten bob." I fanoy there are a good few sons-in-law who would gladly pay double the sum for the privilege of "thrashing the old woman." So long as an unpaid magistracy exists, these anomalous sentences will be imposed..