WORLD AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 246, 17 October 1929, Page 6

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A WEEKLY REVIEW. » • (By BYSTANDER.) ' It is quite safe to say that, before the Federal I elections, nobody speaking with authority had ; ventured to predict a sweeping victory for Labour. Yet quite a lot of people are now saying "I told you so" with great einpliasis. In all probability a great many electors outside the ranks of the Labour Party disapproved of the Nationalist fiscal J policy, and were rather suspicious of the motives • behind Mr. Bruce's attack on the Federal Arbitraj tion Court. But the general opinion now seems to Ibo that the people had simply got tired of Nationalism and wanted a change. The "Sydney Morning Herald" remarks philosophically that "the swing to Labour was bound to come sooner or later," and promisee Mr. Bruce better luck next time. Meanwhile the big financial organs and the leading Conservative journals at Home are rather perturbed by this somewhat dramatic transformation, and they are wondering if Mr. Scullin is likely to be "safe." They need have no apprehensions. Mr. Scullin has not hitherto committed himself in any way to the extremists, and his latest programme contains nothing alarming, '. except a reference to the Commonwealth Bank, which may be interpreted in a great variety of ways. The London newspapers apparently confuse Mr. Scullin with Mr. Lang, and the Federal Parliament with the New South Wales Lower House. But happily there is a very wide difference between them. Palestine's Tragedy. The Commission of Inquiry appointed to investigate the recent sanguinary outrages perpetrated by the Arabs upon the Jews in Palestine has started for the East, and no doubt the promise of a full and impartial investigation into all the circumstances of this deplorable tragedy will be faithfully kept. However, there is one comment on this Commission that seems well worth making. It has already been pointed out at Home that the members of this Commission should have been appointed by the Prime Minister, and not by the Colonial Secretary. For strictly speaking it is the Colonial Office which is now on trial. As the "Jewish Chronicle" puts it, no matter how able and disinterested Sir Walter Shaw and his colleagues may be, this will hardly balance the fact that "they are chosen by that department in the Government upon which the duty rested of maintaining law and order in Palestine, and which failed." This is most unfortunately true; indeed, public opinion at Home eeenis to have been gravely stirred by this failure on the part of the j British Government to discharge its functions effectively . as the Mandatory authority in Palestine. A Charge to Answer. At the great meeting of protest held in the Albert Hall on receipt of the tragic news from Palestine, Lord Melchett made a vigorous attack upon the Government for its neglect of its obvious duties in regard to the protection of the Jews. The British authorities had withdrawn practically all the British troops; they had disbanded the white police on the score of economy; and the native police, composed mostly of Arabs, deserted to the enemy as soon as trouble began. In Lord Melchett's words, "the position that has been allowed to arise in Palestine is a disgrace to any British administration, a stigma upon British honour and the British flag." A cable message from Cairo which appeared in the "Observer" certainly gave the critics an excuse for putting the worst possible construction upon the conduct I of the British authorities. The High Commissioner, I it stated, justified the disarming of all Jewish constables, even though they were British subjects, "on account of the threats of the Moslem leadeie that, unless the Jewish constables were disarmed, they would not attempt to control the fury of the Arab masses." This means in plain English that the British authorities in Palestine allowed themselves to be bullied by the Arabs into leaving the Jews at their mercy. Colonel Wedgwood, who spoke at the Albert Hall meeting, eimply refused to believe this report, but, as he admitted, "the horrible fact remains that the cable is printed in English papers without comment and without protest." No wonder that Mr. A. Maclaren, M.P., who joined in the public denunciation of this official incapacity, hinted ominously at "antiSemitism in high circles." There is little doubt that in spite of many warnings the British officials in Palestine failed lamentably to take adequate precautions to protect the Jews, apparently deeming it their first duty to placate and conciliate the Arabs. The report of this Commission, when it has completed its work, should provide most interesting reading. A Personal Matter. There is a Maritime Conference in session at Geneva just now, and it is "carrying on" under rather peculiar conditions. The shipowners' delegates objected to Ben Tillett representing Britain. Theoretically the ground for the protest was that the British seamen's delegates had been appointed by the Trades Union Congress instead < of by the Seamen's Union. It is true that Mr. i Tillett's presidential address to the recent Trade i Union Congress at Belfast left little to be desired in the way of moderation and enlightenment. But no doubt Mr. Tillett's past record as ' an agitator and advocate of strikes counted i for something against him. As their protest j was unavailing, the employers withdrew their , delegates, and the Maritime Conference now . consists of the workers' delegates and the j representatives of the various Governments, i It is strangely ironical that after Ben Tjllett , has reca,nted his extreme revolutionary views he should be marked out for such strong { public disapproval. The workers, however, assert ', that the objection to Tillett was only an excuse, and that the employers have tried to break up , the Conference so as to prevent it from carrying \ a universal eight hours day for sailors. The i employers maintain that the workers cannot 1 constitutionally hold the Conference without them, < but the other delegates are going on with the * discussion all the same. Altogether a very curious * and significant quarrel. J

"The Duke Will Sell" — It was announced recently that the Duke of Montrose had decided to sell six islands in Loch Lomond. An interview with the Duke elicited the statement that he would be "sorry to part with Inchmurren, as it contains the ruins of one of the oldest castles in Scotland, and every inch of it has historical associations." But he means to sell, in spite of this, and he has further announced that if the purchasers want to put up flats or boardinghouses on the islands they will have every right to do so. Asked to state his reasons, the Duke made answer that he had to pay such heavy death duties on the death of his father four years ago that he simply cannot "carry on." Now j« this simply an ingenious way of expressing ducal resentment against the "Socialistic" legislation of the age? If it is not, the Duke's distressed circumstances amount to a national calamity. It is intolerable to think of Loch Lomond profaned with flats and "reeorts," or alternatively falling into the hands of some American millionaire who may draw the water out of the lake and dig up the islands to adorn his own newly invented "country seat." Surely legal ingenuity' could have discovered for the Duke of Montrose a better way than this out of his financial troubles.