NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1217, 28 June 1895, Page 17

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

It is difficult for the ordinary mind to imagine the possibility of the crime for I ■which sentence of death was pronounced at Invercargill the other day. Bat the records of crime show that notwithstanding' its peculiar atrocity this crime is by no means rare. Baby-farming since the days of Margaret Waters, whose case gave a distinctive name to a practice as old as the state of society which gave it birth, Las been a thing of evil, very much under the vigilance of the police. But in spite of the utmost vigilance baby-farming leads to murder. The world is honeycombed with vice, and out of vice comes baby-farming, and out of baby-farming comes death. Death, the wages of the sin of the indiscreet parents, is paid by their inconvenient offspring. The poor waifs are unwelcome guests, they do not stay long, and their despatch to the next stage costs but little.

We are speaking here generally ; as not knowing the circumstances of the particular case before the Court at Invercargill -we do not wish to make any imputations of complicity. At the same time wo must say that the conduct of all those who employed the woman Dean in the clandestine fashion which has been exposed is a proper subject for rigid enquiry.

It is the extraordinary feature in all these stories of infanticide that persons have been found to do the murder for so little. But human nature supplies many instances of the cheapness in which human life may be held. A poor decrepit old man, for example, was murdered a year or so ago in London for the sake of sevenpence halfpenny, a sum of which the murderer know the exact amount. It was proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he knew his victim had nothing else of any value about him, and that for those few wretched coppers he deliberately planned and carried out the murder. It is difficult to imagine the possibility of murderous temptation lurking in sevenpence halfpenny, even for a starving man, or a dipsomaniac mad with more than the usual thirst of the morning after. But here was a case in which cupidity was tempted to murder without the pressure of either natural hunger or unnatural thirst. The same story of the cheapness of human life is told by the frequency with which children have been made away with for the sake of the petty insurances effected on their lives. There is nothing new, therefore, in the fact that the murder of which the woman Dean has been convicted was not particularly profitable to the culprit.

The novelty consists in the fact that a small sum has been proved to be effective at this end of the world as a temptation to murder. The novelty is decidedly very unpleasant. The Dean case is the third of the kind during the last two years, the first two having been supplied by two other colonies. In New South Wales the Makins; in Vicioria Mrs Knorr; in New Zealand Mrs Dean; they have all worked together to prove the universality of the infanticide which grows out of baby farming. In the Makin case, the guilty woman was not executed, and the husband, who was probably innocent, and certainly less guilty than the wife, was hung. In Victoria the sentence of death was carried out on the guilty person; in New Zealand the convict lies under sentence without at present a single redeeming point in a peculiarly revolting case.

Certain evidence, we observe, of another murder was admitted by the Judge, in accordance with the decision of the Privy Council in the Makin case. That decision, we may remark in passing, proves the fallacy of a certain famous judgment of the Appeal Court of New Zealand, by which a murder conviction was quashed for the admission of evidence referring to another case. The Court of Appeal then only had the principles of law to guide them. Now they have these principles plus the ruling of the Privy Council. In future they will probably be better lawyers in the concrete than they were then in the abstract.

In this case there is not the remotest doubt as to the facts. .The wretched woman's movements have been traced from the negotiations for the adoption of the child to the day of its death, and the finding of its body in her garden. When Margaret Waters was executed in 1870, it was known that she had during the previous four years adopted 40 children, of whom many had died. In each case she got a premium of a few pounds. Before that it will be remembered that there had been a great deal of suspicion in the public mind through the deaths of children farmed out, or given up to people advertising to adopt them with a premium. There is a parallel in the New Zealand case, for there has been a good deal of suspicion, and if there was no agitation as in London before the conviction of "Waters, it is because the police took up the matter. The Chief of the Police in fact declared in one of his annual reports his conviction that there was grave reason for suspicion, and suggested an Infant Protection Act; and his suggestion was accepted, and now the conviction of the woman Dean has justified the suspicions.

How much reason there may be for more suspicion we cannot of course say. The area of suspicion has no doubt been restricted by the compulsory registry of the boarding-out establishments and by the formalities of the adoption system. But the Dean establishment was not registered, and adoptions were undertaken without any formalities at all. There is this curious feature in the case, viz., that not a soul in the Dean household knew anything of the murderous trade that was going on. That is exceptional. Nevertheless, the question forces itself of how

many more Deans may there be in the country.

The conviction of the other day will no doubt strike terror. But the usual cause of such crimes—the desire to get children out of the way—is still with us. In addition to the continued vigilance of the police, we may require further legislative protection for the inconvenient, the helpless and the unprotected.

As to the parents of the children murdered, they stand in a not enviable position. At the best they are guilty of the gross carelessness of giving their children to a stranger of whom they knew nothing. At the worst,how could they imagine it possible that a ten pound note could honestly relieve them of encumbrance. The legal responsibilities before the criminal law of parents in such cases ought to be reviewed. If the surrender of a child is trade evidence prima facie of complicity in any crime that may be committed on that child, a new terror would be added to baby-farm-ing. The certainty of having to stand in the dock with the baby-farmer, with a strong probability of sharing in the punishment, would do much to kill what remains of the pursuit of baby-farming outside the registered area. You cannot appeal to the morality of the immoral, but you can give them the fear Of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom.

The debate on Tuesday was brisk and remarkable. It was remarkable • for mauy things, but chiefly for the financial discussion. The attack was made by Sir Robert Stout, who found fault with the Treasurer and the Agent-General. They had made wrong statements, and suppressed the truth and suggested the false. One reply of the Premier's was very effective. In the comparison of the 3 per cent, loans, the fact had been suppressed that a 3 per cent. Canadian loan had come out under the Imperial guarantee. The same for the loans of tlie Mauritius and other places. The Premier said nothing about falsehoods and suppressions. He merely said that the leading fact ought to have been mentioned.

It rather took the steel out of the really magnificent peroration of the senior member for Wellington. . No one will deny that the peroration was true as well as magnificent. It was a great effort of eloquence. But where is the application F Such heavy material ought not to come from a man who makes such a cardinal mistake as to forget the Imperial guarantee in a loan comparison. When one compares Lombard street to the familiar China orange, one does not leave out Lombard street.

As to the peroration; of course we all believe in honesty and veracity and the virtues. These things are very well marshalled in that peroration, and they are very well placed in the quoted poetry. But we cannot accept the peroration as a blow at the Government, or at the Treasurer, or at the Agent-General. When there are two sides to a question it is not right for one side to accuse the other of falsehood merely because it takes the opposite view. The peroration in the dry light of facts becomes a burlesque.

. Nothing better was done in the debate than the Premier's analysis of the Canadian 3 per cents. The average price of the issues of four of these loans was a few pence better than the first New Zealand. It was of no use for the senior member of Wellington to urge that he was only dealing with the ordinary quotations. The point he raised was thus by his own admission shown to be not the point at all. The question of the price of issue is the bed rock, and the Premier showed that on the bed rock we are practically level with Canada, in spite of the enormous start they have had, and in spite of the greater bulk of all their resources. That is a fact which nothing can get over. The personal experience of Opposition theories in London which Mr Duthie contributed to the discussion, and the support given to those theories here by the senior member for Wellington are alike ineffectual. Comparison with Canada was challenged, and we have the comparison on the bed rock, and the comparison settles the matter for the Government.

Then there is the Ceylon loan of 3 per cent. Issued at less premium than our 3 per cents., and the money (less than onethird of our issue) not covered by subscription. Practically the Ceylon loan was a failure. And this was a comparison which was supposed to flatten U 3 out. Such is the consequence of ill-advised asperity !

The only point of this farrago of the most serious accusations of bad faith and misrepresentation which remains unanswered is the point relating to the three millions of unpledged securities. The Premier has shown that at all events the amount was correctly stated, as Parliamentary papers do not contain everything. As to the pledgable or unpledgable nature of a large proportion —it was shown that there was enough unpledged to cover several times the amount of the land tax in question—there are two sides to that question. That ought to have prevented anyone from making charges of unveracity. Happily, the good sense of the House has agreed that the question shall be left open till Mr "Ward is here to defend his side of it. The conclusion is a grave rebuke to the style of criticism that has been adopted, because it declares emphatically that it ought not to have been made.

Unpatriotic it was, of course, having regard to the time and manner of its making. A lame attempt was made to prove that the Government absolved everybody by beginning the criticism. But all the ingenuity of Mr George Hutchison ia unequal to the task of proving that the Speech did anything more than claim credit

for the success of the 3 per cent. loan. Mr Hutchison himself declared the success to have been great, and therefore he endorsed the reference in the Speech.

The general effect of the debate of last night is very marked. Last year Sir Robert Stout and the Left Wing went apart a pace or two, or perhaps more, from the Government. Last night the Left Wing was brought back by Mr G. W. Russell's emphatic remarks about the prudence of the Mmistry, its careful finance, and the Premier's strength of character and eye to the main chance. Sir Robert, on the other hand, went further off than ever.

In the matter of Sir George Grey's absence, the House sided mainly with the Government. It is to the credit of Sir Robert Stout that he practically proposed a Bill of Validation to secure the veteran irom the consequences of a possible adverse verdict of the legal as]iect of the question. No one will misunderstand his attitude in the matter after that. The House, however, preferred a shorter course to the same object, by deciding that it required no Validation Act, but found the present Act quite , sufficient. Sir Robert is the only lawyer in the House who thinks that it is not, and the only lawyer in the country. The only point raised was that the leaves of absence last year were not sufficient. But the point is that a leave of absence causes absence to coxmt technically as Therefore it follows that Sir George was not absent for a whole session, in the technical legal sense. Prom Mr Duthie's account of Sir George's feelings —Mr Duthie spoke up like a man, and all honour to him—it is clear that the veteran will be pleased with the result. But we make bold to say that if he can possibly manage it he will be here before the end of the session.'

We heard much about the gross surplus last night. Now no one denies that the ,£250,000 was paid over to the Public Works Fund out of the Consolidated Pund. The" objection is that the money having been paid over ought not. to be reckoned in the surplus. In the abstract that is right enough. But in the concrete comparison has to be made with years. The great fact of the situation is.that this is the only Government that has ever paid anything over to public works from the Consolidated Fund. It has, as a matter of fact, assisted that fund by threequarters of a million. To make clear the fact that it has done this, it became necessary to draw a distinction between a gross surplus and a net surplus. The gross surplus shows the unprecedented difference between this Government and its predecessors. The net surplus is the record of how the finances stand after the transaction. To leave out mention of the transaction would be unfair to the Liberal administration, and would give the previous administrations an unfair advantage. Hence these tears. They are crocodile tears dropped into a bottle labelled "Financial virtue." But the proceeding imposes on nobody.

One word as to Parihaka. The Premier, we notice, said nothing in reply to the criticism of Captain Russell, which was amplified, and very pleasantly amplified —with mastery of humour and graphic power —by Mr George Hutchison; and this we notice found the Premier laughing good humouredly with the rest, but not making any interrupting protest. The Premier was right, for his object was to defend his absent colleague and the AgentGeneral. On that task he concentrated all his energy and power. ' His own case he left alone. The country will admire the self-denial which was in every way worthy of the position of Prime Minister. His own case may come later. Enough has transpired since Parihaka and in the House to show that there is a good deal to be said for his conduct on that occasion. Good judges say that he made a mistake in going to Parihaka at all, but that being there he scored heavily. As to his going the last word has not yet been said.

Two points in the debate remain to be noted. Every one will agree that Mr Hutchison's compliment to the Premier on his birthday was both graceful and handsome, and Sir Robert Stout's speech struck every Wellington newspaper reader as having been written in instalments in the leading columns of the Evening Post. All the details had a familiar air, even to the doves that were sent to Australia to find material on the labour settlements.

Like the warhorse that sniffs the battle afar off is Mr Gladstone. The noise of the resignation of his friends is the sound of the trumpet, signalling the arrival of a

supreme moment. At once the great veteran is on the road to London, with books, magazines, controversies, axes—all things intellectual and physical—streaming behind him as he hurries on to help his party with the lighb of his counsel and the strength of his wisdom, which has in the words of the poet attained to prophetic strain. At the present moment he is in the midst of his old colleagues, discussing the plan of campaign with his successor. We asked the other day, where is the campaigner who alone can restore the Liberal fortunes in the present crisis ? We grieved to think that there is no one to bend the Bow of Ulysses or forge the bolts to be launched by that tremendous weapon. Has Ulysses come back refreshed by rest, invigorated by travel, ready to forge his bolts and make the clang of his twanging bow resound. Why not ? Dandolo, though ninety years of age and blind, stormed Constantinople at the head of the soldiery of Venice. Will Gladstone, who is not blind and not ninety, storm the Tory entrenchments ? The latest news is that he will not return to active political life. More's the pity. Still, tho hour of his return is a good hour for the Liberal Party.

Those entrenchments are not strong. The great sign of weakness is the unwillingness of the Tory Coalition to defend them. Even with the "Brummagem " importation at the helm of "war " they feel it necessary to appeal to the country, and they are asking the defeated enemy to help their passage. "An impudent demand " the Daily News has called it. Precisely ; impudence is always the chief prerogative of weakness.

How they reviled the Old Liberal Chief —in a manner to make the fishfags blush and Billingsgate turn pale with envy—how they outraged every feeling of good taste by their comments on his retirement, which they persisted in misunderstanding rf,nd misrepresenting ; how they hugged the belief, the other day only, that he had at last broken with his party simply because he; withdrew his pair on a particular question —all these things are too recent and too striking to be forgotten. They are all signs of weakness, and the natural developments of the impudence which is its prerogative.

The Liberals are asked to facilitate an early appeal to the country. But they were preparing for an appeal, and were caught very unfairly—in a part of the political road always held sacred from ambush —by an elaborately planned attack. There is no conceivable reason why they should hurt themselves further by precipitating the appeal for which they are not ready. It would be a strong measure to refuse supply. But it would be, under the circumstances, a very proper measure. The Tories have got into the Louse by a stratagem, and they are asking the former owners to help them hold it. It is a trick new in burglary, for we must not forget that Mr Brodrick's victory was burglary, not politics. They will complain if the Liberals refuse. What they ought to do is to regret their conduct and atone for it by giving back the keys to the rightful owners.

For the Liberal Party the occasion is momentous. The various elements have disrupted the party, or nearly so, without any definite notion of what they are to do next. That defect the constituencies will, if some preventive is not found, remove by giving the Tories an overwhelming- working majority. Liberalism is not to be served by the irreconcilability of the many sections which make up the Liberal Party. There is in every Liberal Party a main Liberal programme on which all agree, and there are the programmes of the sections. The conditions of Liberal progress are that all should adopt the first, and that every section should subordinate its particular interest to the general Liberal interest. Thus the Liberal Party confines itself to the practical, and so long as it does that it goes forward.

The "zigzag" policy is impracticable and impossible. A minority that joins first one party and then deserts to another holding the balance of power will not zigzag either -long or far. The others will indubitably combine and crush it out of political existence. That is the reason why the Catholic Party in Victoria, which only made one step upwards in a zigzag course some 20 years ago, is to-day practically without a fraction of the political power which is due to the Catholic electoral strength. This lesson that eccentric genius Keir Hardie—the " Queer Cardie" of the world of wagshas evidently never realised. But his " independent " Labour Party will realise it one day if he is not more sensible and less uncompromising. The sole condition of party progress is the coalition of many minorities into a majority of the whole House, and the guarantee of that coalition is a permanent bond of union. The party moves on by getting what it can by the use of its united strength, for its sections and the sections to keep up that powerful force gratefully support the party. It is not only the expedient but the honest course. The zigzag is not only impossible but it is dishonest. The only things really Eadical about the Radicals who deliberately choose to zigzag is their dishonesty and their treason to the Liberal cause.

One section wants to nationalise steamboats, another the land, another all the methods of production; one goes so far as community of all things, andothers stop at old age pensions, others at municipal gas and water and libraries; one puts eight hours in the fore front, another abhors compulsory eight hours; one thinks compulsory conciliation the sovereign cure for strikes, another regards it as the deadly foe of unionism and therefore an emanation from the empire of Satan; one puts one man oa© vote before everything, and there

all agree with him—but why emphasise) * the details of these things ? The interes os are diverse, but they must all work together or all are lost.

In New Zealand the zigzag has not become acclimatised. In 1891 the sudden uprising of labour to the front biought the opportunity for a decision on the subject. "To be or not to be " was the question for the zigzag. Labour was promptly wise ; labour determined to throw in its lot with, the Liberal Party to which it belongs by nature; and the zigzag was buried before it was born. How that great service came to be done to labour is a thing the story of which has got to be written. Unless the same service is rendered in Great Britain, there is no hope whatever of a Liberal victory at the next appeal to tho constituencies.