“SILLY SEASON” SUBJECT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18998, 20 October 1923, Page 7

“SILLY SEASON” SUBJECT.

MORALS IN li Viii; PARK. INDICTMENT BY THE BISHOP OF LONDON. TEN NIGHTS’ OBSERVATION. (From Our Own C‘or.rt-:Brondknt.) LONDON. September 7. Last week the Bishop of London uttered a scathing indictment of (he morals of those who frequent Hyde Park. It was nu unfortunate time to choose for his statement. for being the "Silly sea|pu”,in J-’leei: street it was immediately seized upon by newspapers as a useful subject for publicity. Be it said to begin with, the unprejudiced observer who is minding his own business might spend many days in (he park without observing anything to offend his sense of decency. However, the London Council for the Promotion of Public Morality have been more successful. In his report the Bishop says: “. . . Ten nights' observation in Jlvdo Park disclosed ”46 coses of impropriety, indecency, or immorality. It is with a feeling of burning shame that I hear from time to time the comments made, by distinguished visitors to England' on Tlfe conditions obtaining in Hyde Park.” A It transpires that in consequence of a communication from the London Council for the Promotion of Public Morality the allegations in regard to the condition or Hyde Park .were the subject at a conference a few weeks before the publication of the Bishop of London’s letter last Thursday. The conference was held at. the Office of Works, and was attended by the First Commissioner of Works, the Commissioner of Police. Sir E. Blackwell, representing (he Jicrno Office. Sir Lionel Earle, of the Office of Works, and by (he Bishop of London himself. Sir Lionel Earle then explained the difficulties with which' the office was confronted, and there arc indications: in the Bishop's letter that ho realises them. The regulations applying to Hyde Park, made under an Act of 1872, are not deemed to be unsatisfactory, but it is suggested that tljere has been a variation on magistrates’ interpretation of (hern. The chief difficulty is that magistrate*, will not convict on the unsupported evidence of the police, and in cases of an unsavoury character independent evidence is not often forthcoming. Before any alteration could be made in these regulations fresh legislation would be required.

A SENSITIVE VICAR. A sensitive vicar from South Shields rushes to, the bishop’s support: “The last holiday I spent in London,” he writes, “was utterly spoiled 'by what 1 witnessed in Hyde Park ope Sunday afternoon. 1 returned home with a feeling of relief, after witnessing more immorality in one brief walk through Hyde Park than I had seen m 40 years in the North of England. The robust people of the north would never tolerate such disgraceful anil degrading conduct in their public parks. I was informed by the friends with whom ] stayed that the reason was that the municipal autoritics have- not the control of the police in certain areas of Londonw Whatever the reason may he, the decent-minded people of the capital should insist on immediate and drastic measures of reform.” AN ; ' AMERICAN RETORT.

“From my own observation of the activity of paid private investigators of vice in tlie United States,” writes an American citizen, “I can give but small credence to their reports so long as their salaries depend upon their discoveries. The Bishop of London fails to state in his letter the exact division of the 748 cases reported to the council during the 10 days of observation in Hyde Park into acts of impropriety, indecency, and . immorality respectively, and ho likewise omits the apportionment of the 2615 causes of complaint by the professional investigators in five other parks. One would like, —indeed, it. is very necessary—to know just what dees constitute an act of impropriety in the eyes cf an unofficial vice-detector, and when, in his judgment, such an act of impropriety becomes one of indecency and immorality. “Uan the bishop inform ns if the susceptibilities of a paid private detective are any keener than (hose of the police or ol the general public? He refers to the shame felt by himself on hearing the comments made by ‘distinguished visitors’ to England on conditions in the parks. As a •Canadian born, raised in the U.S.A., and a resident for many years in foreign countries, I should he glad to meet some of the foreign critics of London’s morals, for I can guarantee to furnish any of them with sufficient details regarding conditions obtaining in the lands of their birth to make them anxious to undertake sonic hon?c missionary work before attempting to bestow upon England any of the blessings of ‘uplift.’' With all deference to the bishop, nnly I suggest that the London public is able To, protect itself against the abuse of its parks unassisted bv the London Council for the Promotion of Public Morality or "any other body of reformers, however wellmeaning?”

NO CORROBORATION. Special correspondents were sent out fcy various newspapers to spy out. the park, and to discover exactly what the bishop complained o£. I lie result of their search was that the statistics did not. square with the facts unless there had been a curious misapprehension as to the class of act.which comes properly within the category of serious behaviour. One writer observes: “On Saturday I remained in the part until long after dusk. I walked along its chief thoroughfares and I went to such spots of seclusion,as were likely lo be selected by offenders against public good taste and morality. And the' satisfactory result was that, on that occasion at any rate, little, in fact nothing, could be found in corroboration of tho charges that . have been uttered. It was quite true that couples sat on benches—it is for that; purpose that the benches exist—and that a few others reclined, on the grass; but there was nothing in their conduct that offended me. Some were obviously young folk in the early stage of love. Yet their manifestations, if you were sufficiently curious to engage in prolonged observation, were harmless and natural: they are as old as the world, and will last as long as the world. A kiss stolen or given, should- not bring the blush to the cheek of the ordinary observer. I saw a lover with his arm eta the shoulders of his girl, but is that indecorous? Allowance surely must be made for grades of life. What would be regarded as improper in one sect ion of society does not possess I hat character in the view, of another. The broad-minded, after all, arc inclined to regard such acts as venial. At any rate, one cannot place what I observed on Saturday evening in the category of either immorality or serious misdemeanour. It must be remembered, too, that several social conditions have a close relationship to this subject. For instance, there arc well-regu-lated homes where courting—the prelude to happy marriage and the progress of tho State—-is conducted with full regard to pro priety indoors. There are countless others where these conditions do not exist. The park or other open space is for such lovers, and I did not regard it as unnatural to find them where I did on Saturday. Thev were quiet and orderly, and I did not extend my hands in pious protestation as I passed on. leaving behind young hearts that were in unison in the presence of helpful and natural .surroundings, Tn such an affair it is impossible to have a sternand unbending code.” LONDON’S COURTING PLACE.

Another observer endeavoured to regard the Park with the eyes of a “distinguished visitor-” What he saw ho confesses did not cause him to blush, though he admits he might be a hardened ruffian “I had scoured the Park pretty completely.,” ho concluded, “and had failed to register one single shock. Had I been a paid Sleuth 1 might have combed the by-ways till ] had been able to make at least one entry in my notebook; for naturally 1 should want to justify my position. No scandals in the Park, no need for Sleuths 1 But if I wanted the job 1 should not know where to apply for it; for, Londoner horn and bred as I am, I have never before hoard of the London Council for the Promotion, of Public Morality. A strange fact, but true.

“1 strolled out of the Park, disappointed with myself as a ‘distinguished visitor,’ but rather pleased as a Londoner. Immorality. indecency, impropriety (here may he in Hyde Park, hut they take a deal of looking for. Rather I had seen working London in its courting place; T had seen (he unsophisticated, genuine affection of those people who had not been conventionalised into the concealment of their emotions. Will the Bishop of London. T wonder, lake an evening from his many dunes and walk through The Park himself?”