NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19280, 19 March 1926, Page 10

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

CANADA'S FIRST AMBASSADOR

, Six years ago, provision was made for - the appointment of a Canadian Ambassador k to Washington, but no nomination to the office has yet been made. Recently Sir Esme Howard, the British Ambassador at Washington, repeated what he had said 011 former occasions, that he would wel- ) come such an appointment by the Cana- ] dian Government. His statement has _ been accepted in Canada as making it , clear that if at one time the British Govj ernment deprecated such a move by Canada on the theory that it would k affect what is often referred to as the 3 "diplomatic unity of the Empire," this _ idea has given way before the new conJ ception of self-governing and self-function- .. ing unts within the British Commonr wealth. Sir Esme expressed his opinion r that there would be free and willing co- . operation between the British and Cana--3 dian ambassadors at Washington, a cor operation that would add to rather than ) subtract from the unity of the British ; 9 nations, and that the presence of a Cana--1 dian minister would be a factor for prot moting goodwill between the United 1 States and Canada and between Great 5 Britain and tho United States. The ' Manitoba Free Press, Canada, says that 3 fifty-four nations have envoys at the United States capital. The list begins with Albania and ends with Venezuela. Down the list one finds Egypt, Haiti, Persia, and Salvador. These nations find it necessary to maintain their own represent- ( atives at the United States capital. Canada, which has a more direct geographical and business connection with the United States than any other country in the world, is without direct representation. THE COST OF FILMS. The cost of production is a heavy handicap on the development of the British film industry, according to an article in the Spectator by Iris BarryShe says that for a picture of the ordinary length (lasting, an .hour, or something over) the mere celluloid, with printing and developing, will cost pretty nearly £IOOO. To produce an average film costs from £BOOO to £15,000; if a picture costs over £6OOO it cannot expect to make a profit on exhibition in Great Britain alone. There are about 3500 cinemas in Britain; at the best not more than a third of them will want to show any one picture, because rival attrac- ■ tions are necessary for any entertainment industry. And the average revenue of such a film will not be more than £12,000, which means a loss, not a profit, for if the cost of production is £BOO0 5 the cost of distribution—advertising, commission on sales, and so forth—will bring the total up to £12,000; and the returns are delayed, not immediate. Moreover, British films cannot compete fairly with American films, even at home.. The most expensive, the most amusing American film ever made can be acquired for Britain' for £Booo—the price of a quite ordinary native picture. And the British rights of a film which, coming from America, is the equivalent in entertainment value of an £BOOO British picture, will cost only £IOOO or so. This is the crux of the whole situation. Unless a market abroad can be found fc.r British films it will never be otherwise. Perfectly good British pictures ha"e row anu then gone successfully abroad: to America, to France and Germany. The potentiality exists, but it needs developing.

RELIGION AND POLITICS. A series of lectures was recently given in Trinity Church, New York, by the Rev. G. A. Studdert Kennedy, known during the war as "Woodbine Willie" and described by the American press now as one of the most militant of the younger British clergy. The character of his militancy is indicated by an article he contributed to the Forum. "The point is that the parson has to speak out whether people like it or not, and if they duck him, well, that is mild—they crucified Christ," says Mr. Kennedy, the allusion being to the ducking of the Dean of Durham by miners who objected to his utterances on the wage question. "The one thing a parson has to stand for is his right to give his people the message God gives to him on his knees, and if he allows the 'fear of any form of persecution, whether it be ducking his person or docking his salary, to stand in the road of thatj he must reckon with the Lord he serves. and in Whose name he speaks. . . . How can you leave politics alone ? Where does 'politics' begin [ and where does it end ? I have been a ! slum parson, and have known what it is to go around trying to pick up men and women, boys and girls, out of the filthy conditions that make 'life well-nigh impossible for a decent lad or girl. Well, supposing the greed of builders' 'rings,' or the selfishness of unions, or the dirty work on municipal contracts, holds up the building of decent houses, as they are holding it up to-day in England; is the parson to keep mum because he might be talking polities in the pulpit and might offend the head of the bricklayers' union or some contractor who was a member of his congregation ? .1 know parsons who do think like that. I have known them tell mo to be careful what I said because there was so-and-so in the congregation, and they could not afford to offend him, or that it would empty their church if they preached about certain subjects. But against that, parsons, bishops, deans, vicars, curates, all the job-lot of us, have to stand firm, or we might as well shut up shop, aud take to minding babies.**