FLOTSAM.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6326, 28 September 1907, Page 8

FLOTSAM.

It must seem to pitiful onlookers that Mr Hornsby, member for Wairarapa, is not without reason on his side when he feels aggrieved by his treatment at the hands of the press.. At on© time Mr Hornsby is taken to task for turning a somersault from on© side of the House to the other,, from the side where Mr Hornsby ought to be. that is to say, to the side where he had no manner of business to be. Hardly have the reverberations of Mr Hornsby's indignation at this treatment died away, when a young scribe of the Press Gallery pokes fun at the honourable member in the "Lyttelton Times." And what is worse than these occasional assaults upon Mr Hornsby's virtue and dignity, his speeches are not reported except in the most perfunctory way—" Messrs. Hornsby, Barclay, So-and-So, and So-and-So. also spoke." It cannot be denied that these things are desperately trying, and Mr Hornsby do=terves credit for his courage in drawing the attention of Parliament to his griefs;' for there are probably, certain other honourable members who would remonstrate also if they could only face the ridicule. But what would you have? The Christchurch pressman knew that Hr Hornsby's oddities would interest the readers of his paper more thaUi Mr Hornsby's arguments, and he must necessarily select of Mr Hornsby what is most acceptable to his readers.. An aggravation of the offence seemed to lie in the fact that Mr Hornsby's critic is a young man. But, rightly considered, this is rather a palliation of the offence. Mr Hornsby, who claims to have had in his time some connection with; the press, ought to know that young men, when they do satirise, are the most 1 cruel of satirists. This is probably due to sheer defect of imagination. Like a boy .with a beetle on a pin, your • young scribe doesn't in the least know how much he hurts, and the more the beetle squirms the better he likes it. Therefore it is very probable that Mr Hornsby's entomological contortions afforded the young scapegrace, who was no doubt looking on and listening, the most exquisite delight. This is, of course, very wrong; but it is the way they are made. With an old stager, now, it is different. Years have humanised and mellowed him. His gall having turned to milk, he prefers to deal gently and apologetically with Mr Hornsby.

Mr Hornsby may hot be a saint, nor yet a Solomon (if it is not a breach' of privilege to say so), but nevertheless, like Jemu-os Yellowplush, he has his "pheelinx": and it is not to be expected that he should feel pleased to find that arguments of a certain weight avoirdupois are taken by disrespectful young pressmen for trifles light as air. I should not like it myself, and, rightly perpended,there might possibly b© grounds here for au action de omittendo et ncgligendo. For unless newspapers report a member at decent length, how are a member's constituents to know that a member has talked as valiantly and exhaustively as it must be allowed, even by his "'Lyttelton Times' critic," that Mr Hornsby has on numberless occasions talked. To be sure, there •is “Hansard.” All is given there probably that Mr Hornsby cares to have given. But you cannot send "Hansard" to every, on© of your constituents.. And if you did—why, there again, it is the old story; you may take an ox to the water, but

To make him drink as you may think, Bo sure you never can. And small blame to the ox. "Hansard" is not.intended as reading for constituents., The constituent prefers his newspaper, and it is therefore quite intelligible that Mr Hornsby should find that kind of differentiation objectionable which gives to Sir Joseph Ward or Mr Massey a column, and to Mr Hornsby a couple of lines. There seem to be only two possible ways but of the difficulty—either to increase the'size of the "Lyttelton Times," or to* raise the political equation of Mr Hornsby. The "Lyttelton Times," however, is already a large paper. Assuredly the question is One 1 of great perplexity.

Tlio views of distinguished medical men l on the alcohol question appear much in evidence now and then, no form of testimony being more prized by the advocates on either side.. To get a wellknown doctor either to bless or curse is worth a legion of licensed victuallers' advocates or platform prohibitionists, whose views are apt to be distorted in the one case by self-interest, in the other by intemperate zeal. A doctor, on the other hand, speaks as a man of science and pn experimentalist, to whom the facts of the case come home every day. The occasion which either side would choose, if they had their choice, would probably be the annual meeting of the British Medical Association, and the witness they would subpoena by preference would no doubt be the president of tue association. The meeting of this asso ciation, recently held at Exeter began with a breakfast, at which the Mayor of Exeter presided. The Mayor tooK the occasion to deliver a word in season against the use of alcohol, and invited Dr Davy, president of the association, to curse the enemy in omnibus partibus as a monster which claims more victims than even tuberculosis. The response mads by Dr Davy to this invitation, though he agreed with the Mayor on certain points, most have been, on the whole, a trillc disconcerting to his Worship. Dr Davy admitted that the evils due to the excessive use of alcohol demanded the attention of every Englishman, "more 1 especially as the drink haoit was increasing among women in -England.” That was so far well, and exactly what the Mayor desired to have said; but when Dr Davy went on to characterise the utterances of ultra/temperance advocates as "unscientific twaddle,” the president, it must have been • felt, was exceeding his brief. Acre ruing to Dr Davy,’ lessons on the abuse of alcohol should be given in every school, and the children should be taught that alcohol is not necessary for muscular work. “But to tell them, as in some American schools, that yon are morally wrong in drinking a glass of wine, and that to do so is to take poison, is unscientific twaddle and is absolutely wrong. If that is what they are going to be taught, i, for one, prefer to teach them nothing at all."

So Dr Davy, and it mart be allowed that this was "coming it strong." The Mayor might very pell think he was being wounded in the house of his friends, and some of the guests must have listened with twitching ears. Dr Davy, moreovei, proceeded to illustrate the abstract precept by the concrete instance. The doctor admitted, on his own

part, a partiality to port—not an addiction to port, it must in fairness bo noted —and told of a great-uncle of his who had never drunk less than a bottlo every day of his life. Some exaggeration here, I fancy; but let that pass* If Dr Davy had such a .great-uncle* what, it may be asked, did this prove?. That depends. If the great-uncle had died off young that might be held to prove one thesis, if he lived to a good old age that might bo held to prove another, and the evidence would probably be worth precisely the same in the ono case as in the other—worth very little, that is to say. As a matter of fact. Dr Davy's port-drinking uncle lived to within four months of being a hundred years old, if that proves anything. Dr Davy proceeded to cap his enormity by expressing tho opinion that "light beer, containing only two and a half per cent, of alcohol, token with bread and cheese* is scientifically better than the feeding of brood, tea, and jam, which now conconstitutes the dietary of so many children." It would not be quite fair to dub Dr Davy an advocate of alcohol on the strength of these utterances. Ho took car© to say that he never prescribed alcohol for a patient who did not drink, and that to those who did h« specified tho amount; further,' that alcohol was not necessary to life or bodily work, and was very rarely useful in disease; finally, that as a nation w« drank too much.

After all, in the cose of preachers a* of teachers, what they say is of leas importance than what they do. Nothing that a preacher can say counts as against what he does. Therefore when such a very important personage as Sir J. Crichton-Browne, at tho annual dinner of another association—the Medicopsychological—in speaking of the atti- . tude taken up by the medical faculty to* wards alcohol.p reposed to apply the practical test to the doctors there assembled, some of those round tho table must have had searchings of heart. However, there they were, there was wm help for it; the census was taken. There were 84 members of the association present, and it was* found that per cent, of them "had partaken of alcohol in some form, a large majority in several different forms." In the light of such statistics. Sir J. Crichton-Browne held that "it was a farce, or an obsession, or a gross hyperbole to speak of alcohol as a deadly poison." For the 94 per cent, possibly, but what about the six per cent, of just men who held no dealings with alcohol in one form oi in many? As may be. readily under* stood, the dinner at which this census was taken achieved a certain notoriety. The menu was published, but as ther* is nothing in this menu that is profitable for doctrine or reproof, more than in other menus, I decline to republish it. The authenticated wine list, how* ever, I append, without comment. The bearings lie in the application. In addition to the Benedictine sorbet, the doctors drank the following wines from, the Hotel Metropole cellars: Dry Sherry. liebfraumilch. Deutz and Geldermann, Gold Lack, 189 S, Schuller et Fils, Cuvee Royale, 1898. Liqueurs. Chateau Larose. Martinez's Port. In the course of tho dinner the doo tors and their guests consumed the fob lowing; Bottles. Dry Sherry ... ... 4 Hock (Liebfraumilch) 14 Champagne ... ... ... 50 Claret ... ... ... ... 5 Martinez's Port ... ... ... 9 Liqueurs (mostly liqueur brandy) Si Spirits ... ... ... M . ... 5 , Wines and Spirits (total) ... 90£ Mineral Waters, 50 bottles and 6 syphon* "The empire established by.force and maintained by force can no longer control the world"—so says the Bishop of Wellington, meaning thereby that n« empire can stand that is not founded on rightoommess and justice. The eaying is not now, but it is eternally true, and repeated ever so often will always be a wise and worthy episcopal utterance. Why, then, did the Roman Empire lost so long? Precisely because the Romans had some conception of righteousness ; and justice. When they ceased to have those conceptions the Empire fell. Crude conceptions, perhaps; but all things are relative. Why, for instance, had those splendid Greek States no permanency, which, even in tho course of their short meteoric 'existence, fixed ike standards of Western art and literature for all time? Because they were founded on cruelty, injustice, and bad faith. Beside the Greeks, the Romans were puritans—and, eay what you will about the puritane, they have always been a mighty force—always have been, always will be. That, howover, by I the way. My interest at present is in the Bishop's ring. , Our reporter remarks that his Lordship did not explain how he came to be the possessor of such a ring. Yes, indeed, that is an explanation, thinks the reporter, ,to which the diocese would seem to be entitled. From Pompey and the pirates to the " Eight Rev. the Bishop of Wellington is & wide chasm to bridge, but bridged it must bo to satisfy the public conscience. I possess myself Roman relics—three copper denarii, to wit, most venerably battered and illegible, but younger by several centuries than the Bishop's ring. My numismatics are faulty ; bo who is the hook-nosed fellow of Rome on one, and who is the Greek-faced woman on tho other two (some Ptolemy, for a ducat!) I cannot tell. All three coins have the eagle, a fierce creature, on the reverse. They may have been made in Birmingham, where they make the scarabs, .but 1 got them at the Pyramids, and X came by them by honest truck. M,