TOPICS OF THE DAY.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 10060, 11 June 1898, Page 7

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

As a rule England has not Feet of Clay, been slow to honour those

of her sons who have helped her to gain and to hold the sovereignty ol the sea. There have even been cases in which the merit .of great naval successes has been deemed sufficient to outweigh great and grievous crimes. The memory of one of the most extraordinary of such painful episodes is just revived by the publication of a book about the feud between Lord Ellenborough and Lord Cochrane. We may bo forgiven for reminding our readers that Cochrane, or Dundonald, was a famous British Admiral, and that Ellenborough was Chief Justice of the King's Bench in the early years of this century. Cochrane was accused before Ellenborough and condemned by him for participating in an extraordinary conspiracy; and though, as we have said., the Admiral's offence was condoned, he regained his rank, fought bravely for his country, and now lies in Westminster Abbey. Yet the question of his guilt or innocence still stirs bitter feeling among those who attach more importance to the records of a glorious past than to the chronicles of the laborious present. It is indeed a strange story. On the night of February 21st, 1814, when Napoleon was making his last stand against the allies, end all Europe was heart-sick with excitement and suspense, a French staff officer in full uniform appeared at Dover with the news that Napoleon had been defeated and killed, and that the Bourbons were to be restored »t once to the French throne. The news spread swiftly, and next day four French officers drove through London in an open carriage, shouting "Vive le Roi." The excitement was intense, and stocks rose by leaps and bounds. In a few hours it was, of course, discovered that the whole thing was a hoax, (*nd matters resumed their ordinary course. The Stock Exchange authorities found it their duty to make an investigation, and they soon collected evidence on which they arrested and brought to trial the fire sham officers; but to the universal horror and indignation it was found that Lord Cochrane and his uncle had been in personal communication with the chief conspirator, de Berenger, and that the Cochranes and their friends had made a very large sum of money by " unloading" their stocks when they had reached their highest point. Accused of conspiring to defraud by raising the price of stocks, Lord Cochrane swore to his own innocence, but the proofb were unhappily too conclusive. The chain of circumstantial evidence breaks down in no wngle particular if we accept the theory of his guilt; whereas on the contrary* theory, the whole story is inexplicable. Lord Ellenborough could not but accept the finding of the jury, and the severity of the sentence may justly be attributed to the indignant disgust of an honourable man roused by this spectacle of cupidity masquerading in the guise of patriotism. We fear that this last book will not soothe -the indignation of family partisans, but it may serve to remind that from Marlborough downwards many of our great national idols have resembled in at least one particular the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar, the king, set up.

In one of the most reAmerican cent and most typical AmeriHistory. can novels there is a curiously

instructive little scene. The liero, who is English—and, at this stage, * rather unpleasant schoolboy—gets consider, ably the worst of an enoounter with a large American youth. This is how he explains the situation to the sorrowing heroine: — •'They all said the United States licked England twice and I said it didn't. They feoid I didn't know history and I told them they were liars, and he offered to fight for the crowd, so we fought." It will be observed that the American schoolboy pleads his knowledge of history as an excuse for his animosity to the Britisher, and the Mine excuse might well be urged by everybody whose experience of the international delations between England and America is confined to what he can get out of American *ecorde. "The revolutionary war," says the author of " The Land of the Dollar," "is as much a matter of personal right and «nrong a> it waa'a hundred years ago. Eaoh of the massacres recounted in the history-books is commemorated and crystallised for ever by a monument. Whether it *nw done by us or by Americans or by Indians or not at all, it is all put down to the account of the British." Here are some samples taken at random from the school books on which young America is reared :—" The eyes of the eoldiere glared upon the people like hungry bloodhounds. The captain waved his •word. The red-coats pointed their guns at the crowd. In a moment the flash of their muskets lit up the street, and eleven New England men fell bleeding upon the snow. Though that purple stain melted away in the next day's sun, it was never forgotten nor forgiven by the people." Here is another episode :—" A battle took place between a large force »of Tories and Indians, and some patriotic Americans. The Americans were defeated with horrible daughter, and many of those who were m»de prisoners wore put to death by fiendish tortures. •'' It is not, of course, expressly Btated here, but it is clearly implied, that the English assisted in the torturing ; and jonng America, after reading this sort of thing, may be pardoned for picturing the B itish soldier of last century as adorned with scalps and dining heartily on broiled patriot.

Sixty years ago de TocqueWanted— ville said that he could A Revised imagine no hatred more Version. venomous than that felt by

the Americans for the Englieh. Nor would any Englishman who has etudied history, even from the distinctly •pperior text books supplied iv English ■chools, venture to say that this hatred is altogether unreasonable, for we have little cause to think with satisfaction of the war of independence, nor of all our actions since. Americans, however, have come to see that Uμ Britisher, whatever he may have been, b not now the bloodthirsty but cowardly tyrant depicted in the school books. And fcothing would do more to clear away

American prejudices and rouse American sympathy than a just and credible account of the historical connection of the United States with Great Britain. Those who hope for the union of the Anglo-Saxon race will rejoice to hear that there is now some chance of genuine history finding its way into American education. It is stated that Mrs J. R. Green has been commissioned to write a text book on English history for nse in American schools. Of the literary abilities of the lady in question there can be no doubt. The daughter of an eloquent and cultured soholar, the wife of one of the moet brilliant of all English historians, Mrs Green has already shown in her researches in mediaeval history that she possesses the industry and the enthusiasm that go far to qualify her for the task that she is to undertake. One thing she must certainly be prepared to do: She mnst take the American view ot things very seriously, for America is in deadly earnest about itself. If the talented authoress doe 3 her abilities any justice the work that she contemplates may yet be of international importance and enduring value in drawing closer together the two great peoples who should never have been separated.

If Prince Ranjitsinhji goe3 Ranjitsinhji on in the way he is doing he on will seriously prejudioe beAustralia, forehand the popularity of

the cricket team he intends to bring out to Australia some day, and will make himself the best-hated visitor Australia ever had. He has got the Australian larrikin on the brain. Everyone remembers how his continual complaints on this score alienated from him a public which received him at first with ovations, and watched and applauded every stroke as they never watched and applauded cricketer before. He had, of course, good cause for grumbling —some of the crowds treated him and his colleagues disgracefully—but having proved the uselesaness of making a fuss about it, he should have stopped. Instead of doing this he talked and talked about it until some people began to3ympathise with the barrackers. And now he has opened a fresh campaign on the same subject in India. Speaking to a Madras interviewer he said, in reference to the Australian tour, that the Sydney " Daily Telegraph " was fair in its criticism all through, because " its sporting editor woe an Englishman," the inference as to the other papers being too obvious to need pointing. " ' Down with everything unAustralian' was the rule of the Australian Press." The Englishman, he added, " does not mind if he is beaten; on the other hand, he is delighted to think he can learn from a superior person, whereas the Australian is ashamed to be beaten—he is anxious to win anyhow." Remarks like this will endear "Ranji" to the Australian crowds. Australian batting, he had found, was slow and monotonous. What would Howell, Clem. Hill and Gregory, to say nothing of half a dozen others, say of English batting ? The Prince admitted that Australian bowling was better than any they had ever seen elsewhere, but we fear that this tribute will not go far to rehabilitate him in the good opinions of the great Australian public, upon whose sovereign pleasure will depend the financial success of the English team captained by the Prince.

The proceedings in conIndependence nection with the distribuand tion of relief by the Impudence. Wellington Benevolent

Trustees being open to the Press, the Wellington papers are able from time to time to throw a good deal of light upon the independence or otherwise of the applicants for aid. Two strongly contrasting cases, we notice, came before the Trustees at their last meeting. In one of them a woman applied for rations for her children until she could earn a little more than she has been doing of late. Here was a case which would set an example to many. She had been left with a family of 6ve children some years ago, and had somehow managed to keep them in comfort and respectability until things went awry, and misfortune forced her to apply for relief. "It will only be for a short time," she said, as she left," until I can get along by myself," and no one doubts that as soon as she can she will renounce charitable aid and live the life of independence she prefers. The other case was that of a young married woman with a baby. Her husband had married her on an income of 15s a week, with board and lodging- thrown in. She could not keep herself and the baby on this sum, and so she had taken a situation at 12s 6d, also with board and lodging. The baby was, however, in the way, and she therefore asked the Trustees to look after it. The trustees declined—without thanks—in fact one member went so far as to say that it wa3 " about the most impudent proposal that had ever been made to the Board." The chairman explained that if two young people, with a joint income of 27s 6d a week, and without the expenses of housekeeping, thought they could get rid of their baby in this easy fashion they were much mistaken. If young people would commit themselves to responsibilities there was no reason why the public should come to their assistance. The young woman, it is said, seemed to regard the Trustees as a most unreasonable lot of men, but accepted the situation and left.