The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1910. DECADENT BRITISH JOURNALISM

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7078, 16 March 1910, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1910. DECADENT BRITISH JOURNALISM

There was a very engaging tone about a short cablegram from London published in the newspapers yesterday. It had reference to the unopposed return of Sir Rufus Isaacs for Reading. Sir Rufns, a distinguished barrister and ardent Liberal, Las just been -appointed Solicitor-General, and in accordance with law had to offer himself for re-election by his constituents. As it happened there was no election, the Conservative Association refrained from putting a candidate in tho field. In acknowledging this graceful act Sir Rufus said it afforded "a striking example of friendship between the poKtioal parties in Reading." It seems hardly conceivable that oven in tho most arcadian electorate the differences'winch divided parties in fierce controversy ootdd be so soon composed. Reading must;' indeed, be a seat envied by many a hard-pressed parliamentarian. How friendly tho rival parties are in that delightful spot may not perhaps be quite accurately represented by the SolicitorGeneral, and one may search in vain through the newspapers and magazines of the moment for indications that tha warring sections of society elsewhere are consumed with anxiety to accept the olive branch and patch up their quarrels. As a matter of fact all over the country they seem to have been abusing one another so roundly that lunless -the language employed in political discussion is to, be regarded as devoid of meaning it would appear as if,. Sir Rufus Isaacs stands upon the ono green oasis in a desert of mud. -.■•■'•' * « *

Taking as a typical exponent of tariffmongering and Tory doctrine "The National Review," it would require a powerful microscope to find In its pages evidence of friendship or, indeed, anything but the most venomona intolerance. Wo all know the kind of language used by the enraged Radical of the street-corner. Let us for the sake of fairness see the espletives used by the most powerful organ of Balfourism. To commenos with Messrs Churchill and Haroourt are pleasantly referred to as a "triumvirate of traitors," one of them "animated by a passionato hatred of England," another "a Tammany Hall politician," the third "animated by an inherited bias against hif> own country." Could the mob-orator go one better than tlris? We have our doubts, and when we find the Ministry referred to as "avowed enemies of the Empire" and "traitors who spout their treason sneaking about the purlieus of.town halls," one wonders what has happened to Englan-3 that a once historic party in the Legislature should require to have the printed pages of its most notable organ smirched with such phrases as these. Apparently it has come to this that everyone who is not a food-taser is a scoundrel, and all who are not provocative jingoes are rascals. Can the country "swallow"' that sort of thing? It may perhaps be insane enough, but even were it accepted as the common view the retribution would be ter rible. Passing on with the "National Review" wo find Admiral Sir Jolin Fisher referred to as an individual who owed his peerage to his dexterity

in "nobbling the press," an insult to one of the most distinguished servants of tlio Crown, too brutal we should imagine to be anticipated from any other source. Mr Asquith is spoken of as a "disastrous" person who has allowed traitors "to endanger the state and precipitate that flight of British capital abroad which causes him such unholy glee," and found support in "a poisonous Parliament of infamous memory" from " a vas+ posse comitatus of German jackals." • » « « »

After this a reference to Sir Henry Norman as "unspeakable" and to the Cadburys, who own the "Daily News," as ''an unctuous family who made a fortune out of slavery" fits the picture very well indeed, and it is no surprise to find the Irish members spoken of as rebels and certain unseated Liberals aa "ruffians." "We need Energy!" exclaims "The National Review." An emetic would seem to bo the first requirement. Even the noble duke who not long ago referred to Ministers aa "a pirate crew of tatterdemalion" would hardly be pleased to think that his opponents owed defeat at the polls to the employment of such weapons as are used by "The National Review." There can be no permanency in a victory gained by an assassin. British opinion professes, and very rightly, to be outraged by the violent, inflammatory language hurled at the ruling authority in India by the native; press,' but wo take leave to doubt whether oven the, most abandoned of these prints has circulated more outrageous charges against the British Government than this "National Review." The educated Indian reading its venomous personal reflections upon the character and political honour of men who happen to stand for an, opposing policy must surely wonder that what is advanced as rational argument in London should be deemed treason ir Calcutta. «"' ■ ■