Untitled

Press, Volume L, Issue 14987, 6 June 1914, Page 10

The French entertain such exalted notions of the rank of "Le Lor Ma ire de Londres" that it is easy to understand that something, like a sensation was caused in Paris when Viscount Peel, Chairman of the London County Council, insisted on taking precedence of Sir Thomas Bowater, the Lord Mayor of London. Technically we havo no doubt Lord Peel was quite within his rights. Within his own domain, tho City of London, the Lord Mayor is supremo, but outside of that sphere Lord Peel, as a Viscount, is many steps higher in tho table of precedence than Sir Thomas Bowater as a Baronet. What would be the relative position of tho holders of the two offices outside their respective jurisdictions supposing their standing in other respscts to be equal we are unable to say, but the natural conclusion is that the Lord Mayor of London, as tho holder of a position of great antiquity as well as dignity, ought to have precedence over the Chairman of such a modern creation as the London County Council. The conflict of authorities in the government of London i 6 an interesting subject, although not bearing directly on the precedence question, and this is dealt with in our leading article this morning.

The death of Sir -Doufrlas Straight removes from English public life an interesting and charming personality. Although never a great lawyer, he made j a rapid rise at the Bar, largely owing jto his personal-charm of manner iand j intellectual quickness. At a comparatively early age ho was made an Indian Judge, retired on a pension after thirteen years' service, and stepped into the editorial chair of the 'Tall .Malt Gazette." Subsequently ho became editor of tho "Pall Mall iMsgaziue." He was a staunch friend of the Institute of Journalists,, of which ho was honorary treasurer, and tie geni.il presence will be greatly missod at its principal gatherings. Another eminent lawyer, Sir Edward Ciark. X.C, who has recently retired from practice, has also taken a keen interest m the Instituto from its inception, and like Sir Douglas Straight, was a prominent figure at most of its gatherings

On Thursday wo permitted ourselves the pleasure of finally driving into the corner the Opposition critics of the Government's naval proposals. It will bo remembered that the drive occupied four movements. First, the critics cried out that the Government was establishing a local toy navy. When that simple mis-statement of fact was refuted, they complained that, anyhow, an appalling expenditure was contemplated. When they were reminded that Sir J. G. Ward proposed a scheme under which the country would spend £500,000 a year on naval defence, they dropped the question of cost, and turned to naval strategy. They denounced as preposterous and absurd the idea of having useful warships in our waters, out of touch with affairs. When they were reminded that in 1909 Sir J. G. Ward arranged with the Admiralty for just that very thing —he wanted quite a fleet of cruisers, destroyers, etc.—they played tueir last card. Well, they said, if Sir Joseph wero told that his 1909 arrangement was unwise, he "would undoubtedly" change his mind without demur, and would certainly not "dragoon" the Admiralty. So on Thursday we showed, by a quotation from "Hansard" of last session, that Sir Joseph Ward did demur, and did talk sharply and menacingly of the Admiralty's repudiation of tho arrangement which the "Liberals" say was wrong in principle. We aro not surprised that our "Liberal" friends have nothing left to say. Their reply yesterday was practically a surrender.

Of course, although they cannot maintain their last feeble excuse which the "Hansard" quotation destroyed, | they are resentful. We aro "appealing to Jiarty spirit" in destroying the careless arguments of tho Opposition critics; we aro "seeking shelter" behind Sir J. G. Ward; if we were "frank" we would admit something which they themselves cannot establish; and so on. This is a complete missing of the point. The point was not whether Sir J. G. Ward was right in 1909 and wrong now, or vice versa. The point- was that tho "Liberals" have shown themselves so reckless of facts, so careless of recorded events, so bent upon saying things at random and using foolish and inaccurate arguments, and so self-contradictory, that they have really no right, to expect anyone to take seriously their silly criticisms of naval policy. That was what wo aimed at demonstrating, and wo think wo did so.

The Opposition are fond of quoting, or rather manufacturing,, figures with the intention of showing that in tho polling of 1911 the Ward vote was nearly twice as large as the Ufassey vote. These estimates differ, and it is never explained how they are arrived at. One absurd contention is that because thero was no Reform candidate in Grey, for example, there were no Reformers there, and the "Liberal" poll there goes to swell the total of "Liberal" votes. Obviously the only really reliable method of arriving at an estimate is to take only those constituencies in which "Liberal" and Reform candidates mot, leaving out of account on the one hand the contests in which there were no Reform candidates and on tho other those in which no Govern-

ment candidate stood. If wo take only the 60 seats contested in this way, we get the following figures, which Mr Massey quoted last night:—Massey 160.616 Ward ... ... 148,339 Other? ... ... 54,476 This method is perfectly plain and straightforward. We have checked the figures by the "Year-Book," and it is open to anybody to check the calculation for himself. They throw on the election a light very different to that used by tho Opposition apologists. And as the by-elections have made clear, Reform has gained thousands of supporters since 1911.