THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1892.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8888, 26 May 1892, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1892.

Lately a very animated debate took place in the House of Commons upon the question of local against general enactments, the matter of local option being therein involved. It appears that the Borough of Eastbourne, like some other corporate towns in England, possesses the privilege of preventing any procession accompanied by music, by the discharge of firearms, fireworks,or by other disturbing noises, from parading the town, a right which remained inoperative from the time of its being granted, in 1885, until the invasion of Eastbourne by the Salvation Army in 1890. The mode of procedure of this host, by trumpet and drum, and by other disturbing noises, being a direct violation of the law afpresaid, and being also opposed to the wishes of almost nine-tenths of the inhabitants, as expressed by a special vote taken to strengthen the hands of the local authorities, attempts were made to abate what seems to be there considered a nuisance, but these failing from some unexplained cause, the Army, which* persisted in defying the local ordinance upon the subject, brought upon itself the ill-will of the mob, whereby most unseemly rioting was occasioned, the Salvationists naturally getting the worst of it in such an unequal conflict, a result which, by enabling them to pose as martyrs, may have aided in turning the Parliamentary scale in their favour. At all ; events, the second reading of the amending Bill, by which the special privileges of Eastbourne in this respect are cut off, has been carried by a majority of 269 to 122. It is therefore more than probable that the power of protecting themselves against noisy Sunday demonstrations will be lost to the people of that' town, a result by which it is contended that the principle of local option will be violated. This right, when it rests upon the nearly unanimous opinion of any community, ought always to command respect. More especially should it be so when its observance involves no departure from social policy or undue interference with the liberty of the subject. It is hard to see how, in the present instance, any of those rules have been broken in the exercise of its powers by the Corporation of Eastbourne, which, besides having the law on its side, seems also to have been supported by reason in its efforts, to carry the law into effect, for it will not be contended that propagandists have the right to compel attention to the arguments or methods employed by them to en force their doctrines. If, therefore, these become offensive to the persons addressed, it would be nothing less than persecution to force them to listen, which in the case of individuals subjected to such annoyance, gives a right to legal protection and redress.

If then to annoy an individual bo an offence cognisable by the law, a fortiori, the infliction of such injury upon a whole community by methods from which there is no escape, must be regarded as astill more serious offence. Yet the offenders in this case are upheld in their violation of a local law 'and in their defiance and disregard of the feelings and wishes of the people, to whom they profess to come with a mission of salvation. Conversion by fire and sword is nothing new in the history of religion. Mahomet and his conquering armies made it their business to force his creed as well as his rule upon the nations subdued, and the conquering Salvation Army are imitating his procedure while employing different weapons. With j them the drum, the trumpet, the earpiercing fife, along with explosions from I leather lungs, take the place of matchlock and scimitar, and although not equally deadly with the latter, they are more difficult to evade and ten times more irritating. Such a system of proselytism cannot be defended upon any grounds. Curiosity therefore may well be awakened by the verdict given in favour of the Army by the Lower House of Parliament, and the views upon which it was founded. These were purely legal. The arguments in favour of abrogating the special priveleges of Eastbourne consisted in showing that the exceptional legislation for that borough was in conflict with the law of the land, by which the right of public meeting and procession is inviolably preserved. The SolicitorGeneral, who paid a high and in the main a well-deserved compliment to

the Salvation Army, said that he had always held the belief that the right of public meeting and public procession were two cardinal and invaluable rights, so important to the people that Parliament ought not to allow any tampering with them by any local regulation. Sir Henry James and the Home Secretary followed in the same lines, and so by weight of authority, if not by gravity of argument, the second reading was carried.

J But the eminent persons who thus i gave the prestige of their names in favour of maintaining the general law i relative to public meetings and pro- | cessions in all its integrity, seem to have overlooked the fact, that such unusual powers as were then objected to, prevail in no less than nineteen corporate towns in England and throughout the whole of Scotland, yet it has never been complained of that such privilege has weakened the rights of the people to meet in public or walk openly in procession. It is thus apparent that the arguments which prevailed were not victorious because of their strength, nor did they expose the real cause of their adoption by the majority of the Commons. That is to be found in the good opinion entertained of the work done by the Salvation Army, which in the judgment of many is sufficient to hide a multitude of sins—and even to overpower the right of local option. Upon the whole it would appear that the only gainer in this general melee lias been the Army, which not only has conquered a right to exasperate and to convert the people of Eastbourne, but has become the recipient of a high testimonial from the Solicitor-General and other celebrities, by means of which it will no doubt be enabled to proceed uninterruptedly upon its noisy mission, the end in this case justifying the means, while the vanquished seem to have no other resource left open, than to vote a supply of cotton wadding wherewith to protect the ears of the suffering burgesses, and so to them, make the Sabbath the day of rest designed by its author.