TOPICS OF THE DAY

Dunstan Times, Issue 2094, 10 September 1901, Page 3

TOPICS OF THE DAY

[From the Dunedin Evening Stak.]

LONDON, July 12. STILLMAN—THE RESTLESS ROVER

Mr W. J. Stillman, who died at Deepdene last Saturday at the age of seventythree, seems to have been named on the " lucus a non lucendo " principle, for a more restless rover it would have been hard to rind. He began by running away from the sombre Puritanism of his Schenectady home at the early age of ten, and ten years later he went off to England with limited cash but unbounded confidence in Providence, imbibed pre-Raphaelitism, and came back to America,' to paint. But when Kossuth came to America in 1851 painting had to give way to plotting, and Stillman was despatched with a mystic cipher to Hungary to dig up the Crown'jewels, which had been secretly buried before the suppression of the insurrection of 1848-49. He could not find bis fellow conspirator, and was glad to escape with a whole skin, but still full of revolutionary ardor. While he was painting at Paris with the masters of the Barliznn school he was waiting to take part in the Milan rising. When that fizzled out he sought solitude in the Adirondack forests, and there communed with Nature face to face. Emerson, Lowell, Longfellow, and other poets and philosophers he enrolled in his Adirondack Club, one expedition of which was commemorated by Emerson in a poem. Longfellow was to have been one of the party, but jibbed when he heard Emerson was to take a gun. After some years Stillman was on the move .again, and began to paint in London, placing implicit faith in Ruskin, whose counsel only resulted in the spoiling of a picture on which Stillman had worked for three months. This study of Nature was called ' The Bed of Ferns,' and contained tlie figure of a man and a dead deer. Ruskin saw it. and exclaimed: "What do you put that stuff in for? Take it out. It "stinks." Out it went, and when Rossetti called next day he told the artist that the picture was ruined, and departed in a rage. Nevertheless, Stillman went off on a. sketching tour with Ruskin in Switzerland, and did so much work that his eyesight failed. He had scarcely married, when the' American Civil War broke out, and Stillman rushed back from Normandy to fight for his country, only to be told by a colonel: "Co home ; we have not seen the enemy yet, but we have buried all the men like you already." Stillman was pacified by an appointment as U.S. Consul at Rome. A Consulship at Crete followed, and he championed the Christian Cretan cause so strongly that the Mussulmans boycotted him and threatened assassination. He had to leave the island, And found himself in straits in Athens. The death of his wife and the wasting away of his son brought him back to England, where he tried the experiment of sharing a house with Rossetti. But his association with the eccentric poet was as unfortnate as had beeu that with Ruskin. He was before very long roving again, this time in the East as a volunteer correspondent, when the insurrection in Herzegovina broke out and the war between Turkey and Russia followed. He sent home letters to ' The Times' that, evoked so much enthusiasm for Montenegro that Lord Beaconsfield was forced to advocate the claims of that principality, which gained 1,900 square miles of territory by the Treaty of Berlin. The result of these letters was that Stillman became 'Times' correspondent, first at Athens and then at Rome, in which capacity lie wrote with critical outspokenness. Three yea-re ago lie retired to the quiet henthland of Surrcv and the companionship of squirrels and wild birds, whose cause he advocated as warmly as he had previously advocated that of oppressed peoples.

AGREEING—TO DIFFER.—SWORD IX ONE HAND, OLIVE BRANCH IN THE OTHER.

The Liberal party, at their meeting at the Reform Club on Tuesday afternoon, at last found something to agree upon. After a resolution of confidence in Sir Henry Camp-bcll-Lannerman and many expressions of mutual admiration and esteem, they agreed —to differ. How a party can have confidence in a lea<ler who has backed and filled, veered and jibbed, tacked and gone about instead of steering a. steady course, is as great a mystery to lis in London as it must be to you in the colonies. " CJ.B,'' will never give us a clear statement of his policy. He delights in Sphinx-like generalities that may be interpreted whichever May the Liberal breeze seems blowing for the moment. His very speech at the Reform (Jlub was tin excellent example of his futility. He asserted that he had from first, to last endeavored "to save the Liberal party from any share in responsibility" for the. war, although on the 17th October, 1899, he said as leader of the Opposition: "A message has been received from the Government of the South African Republic, couched in such language as to render it impossible for Her Majesty's Government or any self-respecting country even to take it into consideration. Two British colonies have been invaded by an aimed force, and actual hostilities have com-menced-—an aggression which it is the plain duty of us all—Ministers, Parliament, and people—to resist." What a position for the leader of a great party to take up—to shirk responsibility for a war in which the Empire's very existence was endangered. This was the programme he put forward as that upon which the Liberal party were agreed : 1. Make every effort to bring the war to a speedy and victorious conclusion. j 2. Make known the reasonable terms of peace we are willing to grant. Hold |out the olive branch with one hand, while we have the sword in the other.

3. Avoid any actions' in military operations likely to leave behind it a sense of unnecessary harshness.

4. Announce a general amnesty of all British subjects who have taken up arms.

5. Promise that so soon as ordinary social conditions are re-established on the ending of the war, after a short interval of irregular government, the free, independent system of colonial self-government shall be set up, leading ultimately, if the several States so desire, to a federal constitution in South Africa.

That very ilav~the negotiations between Botha and Lord Kitchener were published in all the papers, and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt not only how futile but how illadvised was the offer of any terms of peace to the Boers. Botha, in his address to his burghers, shows that on the Boer side there was no intention of accepting our terms. They only wanted us to show our hand. And as the open letter of De Kock, the peace delegate executed by the Boers, shows, our offer was looked upon as a sign of weakness. Both Botha and De Wei decline tbat the only object for which they are lighting is the complete independence of the Republics. What, therefore, is the use of offering them something else? We have already offered the Boers not only reasonable but generous terms of peace. The result was only the prolongation of hostilities, owing to the Boer belief that we were weakening. What possible sense is there, therefore, in talking about holding out the olive branchV What the nation fears is that all this vague talk about conciliating (he Boers would only be a prelude to the repetition of the events of 1881 if the Liberal party came into power again. If the Liberal party be agreed that, independence cannot be restored to the Boers, and if "(J.8." really assents to what (with the exception of an amnesty tu the rebels) is the Government programme,

why doesn't he make it plain that the whole nation, Conservative and Liberal alike, is of one mind as to the future of South Africa, give the Government every possible assistance to bring the war to a speedy conclusion, and then let the Liberal party turn its attention to those domestic reforms which are peculiarly its province? This would be a patriotic and statesmanlike policy. But " O.B." cannot comprehend the difference between patriot and pro-Boer. He declared at the Reform Club that what divided the Liberal party was not real and essential divergences of opinion, but personal antagonisms.

This idea Mr Asquith and Sir Edward Grey boldly repudiated. They pointed out' that the split in the party was due to deep difference of opinion about the war. Mr Asquith put the point tersely: "It is no good, when honest differences of opinion do exist, to say that they do not, or to fancy that you can get rid of them by resorting to ambiguous formula;." Both claimed unfettered liberty to express and act upon their convictions without any imputation of party disloyalty. The pro-Boers lay low and said nothing, which at least was something gained. Sir Edward Reed pointed out that "it would be a very disastrous encouragement to disloyalty at the Cape if it were given out that, however many of them may rebel, they will be all amnestied at the end of the war. I think amnesty is a most excellent thing at the end of the war, but, under existing circumstances, it seems to be fraught with very great peril to announce such a thing." He asked for an explanation of "C.B.'s" speech on this point, but didn't get it, for Sir Edward Grey suggested that they should uot go into details. They didn't. To have done so would have exposed at once the vital division between the patriots and the pro-Boers. Peace was patched up—until the next pro-Boer outburst. The party are still tainted with pro-Boerism, and the country withholds its confidence. THE MOUNTED RIFLEMAN—THE MAN OF THE FUTURE.

The Government will require a strong backbone to resist the pressure that is being brought upon it to continue the Imperial Yeomanry as second-rate cavalry rather than to convert it into effective Mounted Infantry. Sir Edward Hutton has expressed his opinion on the need for Mounted Infantry in no uncertain terms, and I am glad to see that Lord Dundonald on Tuesday night plumped for the Mounted Rifleman as the mounted man of the future. Mounted Riflemen is a preferable term to Mounted Infantry, for so many people in this country are misled by the word "infantry" into believing that such a force would be composed of inferior horsemen. What is required is a man equally at home on foot and in the saddle. This Lord Dundonald put strongly. The mounted man of the future, he declare 1, would be a man who was skilful in reconnaissance and outpost duty, could attack a position and defend a position, and was, above all, a good shot and able to walk many miles without fatigue, t'> ease his horse. The ordinary cuttirg sword should go, and some light weapon be substituted tha't could be utilised at the end of the rifle or for thrusting. The clay of shock action and of the sabre was over. Smokeless powder and flat trajectory and magazine fire were too much h.i it, to say nothing of light machine guns. A few lancer regiments might still be of use on special occasisons if their horses were kept fresh, but for general use the rifleman was the man. The unfortunate part of it was that the qualifications which made men of real use to the country were not those which brought down the applause of the gallery. The man who could walk twenty miles a day to save his horse and enable a general to carry out a great turning movement without killing his horses, the man whose accurate shooting made him as valuable as several men, the man who could find his way anywhere and send back his information accurately and concisely was the man the country wanted. He might not look a soldier, but they must judge him by what he could do, not how lie looked, and this was the man who in the future would help to bring glory to our flag.

These are words of wisdom from n man who knows from practical experience both of cavalry and mounted riflemen what lie is talking about. Yet only a few days ago Lord Wemyss appealed to the Government in the House of Lords tc allow the Yeomanry to continue Yeomanry Cavalry! Tradition and sentiment play no small part in retarding progress, and, although it may be heretical to say so, the Life Guards at Whitehall, in their gorgeous but medieval panoply of helmet and cuirass, the Foot Guards in their costly and senseless bearskins and the recollection of the Charge of the Six Hundred at Balaclava, do to-day more harm than good to our army. They divert the attention of the man in the street from the essential and the practical to the obsolete and the picturesque. Sentiment rather than reason is at the bottom of the desire for the retention of the sword, and the prejudice which undoubtedly exists here against Mounted Infantry.

A NAME AND A HINT

What's in a name? Their lordships of the Admiralty evidently think a good deal, for they intend, as Lord Selborne announced in the debate on the condition of the navy the other night, to christen their three new battleships, each of 16,500 tons, with a, speed of 185,- knots, King Edward, Dominion, and Commonwealth, in recognition of the loyalty with which the two sister nations have rallied round the Throne The idea is excellent, and each part of the Empire will take a special interest in and may be encouraged to contribute something to the equipment of that vessel which bears its name. Sir Charles Dilke put in a plea that New Zealand, the one colony which had madq enormous sacrifices of men and money, should not be forgotten when other ships were being named. Mr E. Robertson expressed the hope that the complimentary title given to the battleships would suggest to Canada and Australia that they should follow the example exhibited without compulsion by the Cape Parliament, and make a substantial contribution to the navy which served their purposes. He supposed that there would be a new Australian agreement. Mr ArnoldForster, in reply, explained that a new form of contract was ready, and would be issued as an unopposed return. Mr Gilbrit Parker thought that the colonics might bo expected to contribute to the defence of the Empire, on the basis, not of population, but on that of their share in the world's commerce. They already made some contribution to the defence of the Empire :n the matter of garrisons and maritime- stations. The relative wealth of the colonies and of the United Kingdom, and the fact that the. colonies were bearing the initial expenditure of building up new institutions, were also to be considered in relation to the question. Public opinion in the colonics was not at present prepared to take into consideration a practical contribution towards the defence of the Empire—(some Ministerial cries of " Why not?") —because they had all they could do at present to look after their own military defence and the extraordinary expenses attaching to the development of new' countries. The colonies were not prepared to put (heir hands in their pockets unless they had some form of representation in

some council of the Empire, such as a committee of defence or that House. He thought, they did not desire- the latter, but he repeated Sir Wilfrid Laurier's words: "If you desire us to share the responsibilities you must call us to your councils."