COMMENTS ON THE CABLES

Evening Star, Issue 12925, 13 April 1908, Page 4

COMMENTS ON THE CABLES

Lvtelligent observers will agree with Mr Marshall Hall (counsel far Drace-I'ortlnnd the defence) and Mr Justice Aftermath. Walton that the woman Robinson was a mere puppet in the hands of the master mind, or minds, guiding the audacious attack on the Portland and De Walden estates. The Judge was satisfied that she had been tempted and foil; eo, too, are we. It is to expert an impossibility to ask the public to believe that three witnesses—one from New York (now in- an asylum), one from London (now awaiting sentence), and one from New Zealand (now in penal servitude)— were not brought together as well as into line, and their yarns fashioned into a •semblance of consistency by some " master mind." The history of th© swindle, from its early beginnings to this hour, forbids such a supposition. There wore purpose, a definite aim, an ordered attack, and in the framing and directing of them something more than the bare statements of three witnesses drawn from localities so widely separated as New Zealand, New York, and London. The verdict had no sooner been given in the preposterous and cold-blooded charge against Mr Herbert Druce than eminent lawyers were hot on the trail of the conspirators, and the Press were most emphatic in their beliefs as to where the onus rested for the whole of the disgraceful business. The indignation of the public was heightened rather than lessened when the arrest of Mjs Robinson and Mrs Hamilton became known. Everybody know that these remarkable old ladies were "mere puppets." What was wanted was the punishment of the " master minds" behind the scenes. The Druce solicitors, Messrs Kimber and Cobnm, took up an exalted position. They expressed scorn of the woman Robinson—she could not be believed; thev washed their hands of her, and thoy brought libel actions. The London 'Daily Chronicle ' gave a history of the companypromoting side of the s'cheme (previou.s'lv |>u!,lishcd in our columns), and naturall'v brought down Cue thunders and threats of the aggrieved partios. Then followed a.n interesting ronvsponidence, the gist of which is subjoined. Messrs Paddison. Trevor, and Do la Chapelle, solicitors.' wrote on February 3 as follows: Messrs Edward Lloyd, Limited, •Daily Chronicle' Office, Fleet street, E.G.

Referring to our letter of the Ist in.st., we now beg to inform you that we have irailed a writ against 'you for damages for libel on behalf of our client. Mr T. K. V. Cobnrn. Would you be so good as to let us have the name of vour 'solicitors who will accept .service" on vour behalf?

To tliis the proprietors promptly replied that their solicitors, Mesei-s Hopwood and bone, would accept service of the writ, and that they had been instructed to take all steps possible to facilitate the hearing of -ho action. We have hear*] nothin.' since >° T. t! »* quarter, though, in' view ot tho Judge's remarks in the Robinson case, something will certainly come from somewhere. The ' Daily Chronicle,' for its part welcomed the action for libel. "It would,' wrote the editor, "provide the opportunity for deciding the degree of refiiwnsibdity attaching to the creation and sustaining of the great Dmce swindle."

Wv. may accept as indicative of public deling, and as a recogniMyMion and Uoti of and concession to ].el!*.uD. that feeling, the announceincut that at a meeting of he ivwciitiv-e of the National Societies [the Archbishop of Canterbury presiding it was resolved that a conference of Wllcuns Nonconformists, and Catholics would he desirable in the interests of peace and of a settlement of the education question on the basis of the preservation of religions instruction in the elementary schools Wo regard the suggestion, whatever its outcome may be, as ominous of coming events. Iho net result of the prolonged agitation and angry disputations of contending churchmen has not been to strengthen their cause in the minds of those who stand aside from active participation nor to reflect honor on tho Christian Church, nor to tho edification of the wond at large. The country is heartily tired of Lie business. Quite early in the controversy the question arose': Why cannot tho representatives of the three Churches come to an understand in" as to what should bo taught in the way°of religious instruction in the State schools' It was further known that no common basis was possible. ' The Catholic and Anglican Churches want far more than teaching of an undogmutic character. They want absolute control of their own schools, and they want their own way. Nor, so far as the Catholic Church is concerned, is there much likelihood of change while tho party of Lord Halifax and the Cecils in the Church of 'England are as equally determined. The possibility, therefore, of a conference such as that proposed, even if it were held, reaching a, modus yivendi that would be acceptable to Parliament is remote. The proposal, however, reflects tho sentiments of many eminent lay Anglicans. Quite recently a, protest was forwarded to the -Minister of Education by leaning laymen, who, among other" things, said: "We. the -undersigned members of the Houses of Laymen of Canterbury and York, feeling that, a continuation of "the controversy regarding religious education in elementary schools is inimical to religion,' and calculated to injure the best interests of the children, venture to put forward the broul principles which we believe would provide a settlement acceptable to the vast majority of tho nation " ; and they added that the .School Board system had generally worked satisfactorily "for some thirtyseven years past, both as regarded religious and secular instruction. Mr M'Kcnna's Bill peeks to restore the main features of the 1870 Act, but the Churches of England and Rome will not have it. It is the seeming hopelessness of the impasse that has compelled the present action on_ the part of Anglican Church authorities.

Mr Peter Barr has definitely decided to be a candidate for the representation of High Ward in the City Council.