OUR LONDON LETTER

Otautau Standard and Wallace County Chronicle, Volume IX, Issue 428, 22 July 1913, Page 2

OUR LONDON LETTER

[By W. L. George.]

May 31, 1913,

Governments are proverbially unfortunate m by-elections, and this one is no exception to the rule, though their career has not so far been as bad as that of the Balfour Administration m 1905 j yet the last two results at Newmarket and at Altrincham give further reason to fear that the sentiment of the country is becoming anti-Liberal. At Newmarket a Liberal •majority of 400 has been converted into a Unionist majority of 850, while at Altrincham the Unionists have increased their plurality of votes from 119 to 1,262. These two seats afford a fair test, for the first is rural and fch<* second urban. Curiously enough, the Newmavket election was fought entirely on an increase m wages which the Liberal candidate proposed for agricultural laborers, most of whom m Cambridgeshire received only 13s a week, which harvest money, beer allowance, and allotments cannot bring up to much more ' than 16s. Ono would have thought the Liberal would win, but he did not, any ; more than at Altrincham, and that be- , cause the two elections have been fought, on the Insurance Act. The fiercest / .oppo- ; sition to the Act exists everywhere, and m ! tho country I am inclined to think that the masters have not tried to make its application easy; notably, a few! have compelled their men. to pay the master's contribution, which is quite illegal ; and others have allowed low-paid men to submit to higher contributions than is demanded by the law. Add | to this the hard cases inevitable where 13,000,000 people are concerned, and it is not wonderful that the Government should lose seatß. We are promised an amended Act wliich may do some good, but the people ai'e swayed less _ by facts than by prejudices. I doubt, ■ therefore, whether the Liberals will be able to make up their leeway before the next election. It is a pity, foi* it is a. good Act, but this will not be the first time when men suffer because they have done right. <' l -******* j A section of our ""Press has been concerned all this month with the Sellar case.-, of whioh you have no doubt heard more than enough, already. A steady agitation has bejen 'instituted round the Sellars by the anti-militarist party of England, and a fund opened on behalf of. the family has attained over £80. I have nothing to say against this, for the Sellars seem to have conscientious objections to military service, but I thought it right to try and adjust the sentimental attitude of the sympathisers. To this effect, I wrote to the : * Daily News ' and ' LeadeV ' the following I letter : — NEW ZEALAND AND CONSCRIPTION. IO THK EDITOR. Sir, — Opinions may vary as to the merits o,f ooncsription, but I oannot ac- { oept that a man may emigrate to a coun- ; try which lives under the Union ' Jack and consider that he should enjoy the privileges of residence without being subjected to the duties of his new "country-, men. Mr Sellar was, m a sense, taking up a position recalling that of the Uitlanders m the Transvaal who wished to live m the country and yet be above the law. The Sellar family should have known that conscription exists m New Zealand ; . the law has been very fully advertised m all the newspapers. If they did not know I can saj* only that they ai'e to blame for not having informed themselves more fully before undertaking so long a voyage. i T'he most, elementary principles of ' self-government show that an emigrant must accept colonial regime^ on the particular count of tyrannous Militarist methods I think the New Zealand Government is entitled to leave without a stain on its character the court of pub- i lie opinion. W. L. Gkobge (London Correspondent of the ' Evening Star,' Dunedin, N.Z.). Pembridge crescent, W., May 17. Mr Sellar's answer was : — CONSCRIPTION IN NEW ZEALAND. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — In reference to W. L. George's letter, may I ask that gentleman to furnish me with the 'names and dates of newspapers fully advertising this tyrannous Conscription' ,Act ? ' , As to the position of the Uitlanders m the Transvaal, I quote my letter to New Zealand's Prime Minister, which should fully convince 'him upon that matter: — "Patea, Taranaki, N.Z., August 30, 1912.— T0 the Right Honorable W. F. Massey. — Dear Sir, — In placing before you my position as an Englishman and a father of four sons, who have lately come to reside m New Zealand at considerable expense, to find that compulsory military service is m vogue, I beg leave to inform you that, had I known that my sons were required as soldiers, I should not have sold my home and business m England to come out here. We were and are prepared to work; and I herein state that if m our case an exemption from such compulsion cannot be made, we shall return to England, as under no condition can we countenance such an Act. Three of my boys are already summoned to appear* at the Patea Court on September 5, 1912 — one actually before he had reached the age of 14 years— and doubtless/will be convicted and a fine jmposed/ I and mine were prepared to accept all existing laws of New Zealand, as I was informed by your Commissioners -when m England, but not this Compulsory Military Act. Hoping this will have your due consideration, as I 1 really do not wish to be driven out of the country, — Respectfully yours, J.' Sellar." Again, I made very exhaustive inquiries respecting the laws and customs of New Zealand at the High Commissioner's Office, 13 Victoria street, where one should get full information upon such a serious matter. Here is the information I received from the Emigration Office respecting militarism m New Zealand :— " Militia, Volunteers, and Police.— Besides a small permanent militia, there are several thousand volunteers. The ages between which males m New Zealand are liable to serve iii the militia, if required, are )17 and 55 years. For admission to and pay m the Police Force, see the professional handbook, issued annually by the Emigrants' Information Office, price 3d. By Act 4 No. 9, of 1909, the Dominion provides £2,000,000 for the gift of a ship of war to His Majesty the King, to form part of the Royal Navy."— l ani, etc., \ j. Sellar. Ivy Cottage, Ranleigh Road, East Ham. ' May 22. -...'.* I finally replied :-rCONBCRIPTION IN "NEW ZEALAND. TO THE SUITOR. Sir,— With reference to Mr Sellar's request that I should),; tell him m what i newspapers and on what dales was ad- < vertised "this tyrannous Conscription. .Act," <ill I have to reply is that all the - newspapers, including the' Daily News 1 , and Leader, ■> have taken notioe of the

Act. To ask for dates is neat debating, ' but I no more feel inclined to search files than I would be if Mr Sellar asked me to prove by dates that the newspapers took notice of the Crippen case. Everybody knows they did. As for the alleged neglect of the New Zealand Office to give Mr Sellar particulars of his sons' obligations, I do not think that alters the position at all. He could not expect the Commissioner to recite the New Ztaland Statute Book : on doing anything so radical a6 emigrating he ipso facto implied that he knew part of the laws and accepted the others. If his principle is established, then he had better not pay a visit to Montenegro, for instance, until Sir Roper Parkington has given him an idea of the liabilities a week m Cittinje may entail. , W. L. George. 3 Pembridge crescent, W., May 24. I have very little to add. Whether Mr Sellar's allegations as to the treatment he experienced m New Zealand are exaggerated or not, I cannot say, but I thought it well to make the point that a man who emigrates into a new countay and claims the right to make a living there should be ready to obey that country's rules. As ! a pronounced conscriptionist myself I may I be biased, but I do feel that this is a case where too much sympathy may amount to crankishness. On the other hand, the I New Zealand Government might be well advised to devote a little more attention, when interviewing emigrants, to the responsibilities of these emigrants, instead of concentrating, as it veiy humanly may, upon the privileges. There is at present an idea ih England that New Zealand .is inclined to obtain by fraud emigrants with which to feed its armies : that idea, I think, ought to be fully dispelled. ******* The report of the Departmental Committee on juries has at last come into our , hands. It is very interestihg, as it suggests that we .should introduce drastic changes m our jury system. One of its main objects is to extend the jury list and to make it work more evenly, to prevent men being m some cases called once a year, and m other cases not once m 10 | years: these are details. The main sugg estion of the majority report is that trial by jury should cease to be a right; that is to say, that m common law actions other than those affecting personal character the Judge shall decide whether there is to be a jury or not. I do not suppose the proposal has any chance of acceptance; The jury are infallible, sentimental, and even uneducated, but still they have a rough common sense, and we are not likely to give up that" virtue to hand over our fortunes to the academic and unsympathetic lawyer class. I have ; seen British justice at work m court. It I is a slow, clumsy affair, but, on the whole, takes some account of human motive and human passion. We shall be unready, most of us, to allow it to be dominated by men whose passion is less for the fact than for the" legal appearance of the fact. j The minority report has a better chance ! of acceptance, for it proposes the abolition of the special jury. This jury comprises persons paying £100 m rentj^it is therefore a class jury. In poor districts threequarters of the panel is made up of publicans; as these are the only people who pay £100 for their premises. These are • hardly the persons whom we should " specially " distinguish. Notably m political cases the special jury is open to objection ; political libel, for instance, for most rich men m this country are Conservatives. A large number of political libel cases have been settled during the last four or five years by special juries. In 22 cases out of 23 against Liberals .the, plaintiffs were successful, while only m 9 cases out of 18 were the Liberal plainI tiffs awarded damages ; and while the suc--1 cessful Conservatives secured £3,710, the successful Liberals only received £670. There is evidently something wrong, and Mr Winfrey, M.P., quoted the curious case of Greenwood v. Lygon. There were 48 jurymen on the panel (35 Conservatives, il3 Liberals) ; each side could object to 12 names; the Conservatives objected to 12 Liberal names out of 13 ; the panel was therefore reduced to 23 Unionists and 1 Liberal. Comment is superfluous m such a state of things. One witness advocated the inclusion of women on ie jury list, which found no favor with the committee. This is hardly a plaoe to discuss so complicated a question as feminism, but I should like to put onr record that there :s a growing body of opinion m England which believes that women should sit when women are being tried, especially m " moral " and divorce cases. * . * *, * * * ' * The Bill for the reform of the divorce law ha^.at last been introduced. It does not provide fdr any cheapening of divorce, but it increases tlie grounds therefor. It {*roposes to "establish as grounds the folowing six circumstances: — Misconduct, desertion for three. years, cruelty, insanity (after five years' confinement), habitual drunkenness found incurable after three years, and imprisonment for life under commuted death sentence^ The provision to make misconduct alone a case lor divorce merely redresses inequality between the sexes — that is to say, exempts women from proving also desertion or •cruelty. Aj-gument on details such as .the time limit which should be 66t to/desertion, insanity, or drunkenness /may be possible, but there, ought not to be very much objection to the principle of the clauses, for it is against common sense that a married person who is deprived of the society of the other partner fo.* periods which may be lifelong should be held bound m marriage when marriage has practically ceased io exist, yet I do not suppose the Bill ' has any chance iof success. The churches are solid against any extension of divorce. They maintain the fiction that persons enter the marriage state until death do them part, quite oblivious to the fact that the frequent dissolution of.. marriage has brought that doctrine into ridicule. They are ready to lay down with very bad logic that something of a principle endures so long as the whole of the principle has not been shattered Ths Bill can therefore not be a party measure, for no party will take the risk of offending chuvenmen and nonchurchmen alike for the sake of a. few score thousand persons whose gratitude might not even command their "votes. In the couiee of years, when tho Bill has been presented 20 or 30 times,, as was the case with, the .Deceased WifeVs Sister Act, some liberating measure may be passed, but th 3 time is certainly not yet. * # * * * # * The rejection of the Bill for Women's Suffrage did not develop a debate of any interest. We all know what *we think of women's suffrage, /md some of us a.i*e now influenced solely by the quite irrelevant question of the outrages committed by tho women. These outrages certainly lie at the root of the rejection of the Bill, for a similar Bill has several times passed the House, and if it has this time suffered defeat it is because a number of members fear the opinion of their constituencies, and, breaking their pledges, absented themselves from the debate. Certainly public opinion is against the militants. The steps which the Government have taken to break down tho militant organisation — ths rearrest of Mrs Pankhurst, the raid on the j Women's Social and Political Union offices, ' the arrest of Mrs Drummond and^of the

whole staff of the ' Suffragette,' the ter- | porary suppression of that paper — all this has been well received. Even the action against the 'Suffragette,' supposed to infringe the liberty of the Press, aroused very little comment except from a few Labor men, for it ie quite impossible to defend that a Government shall allow a public organ to continue inciting its leaders to destroy property. Indeed the feeling is so violent that I am inclined to believe, after mar.y conversations with men aud women, that if Mrs Pankhurst were. allowed to starve herself to death m prison public opinion would be unmoved,, and a large section of the people -.yould sum up the business m a single phrase : "Serve her right." This is a brutal state of things, but it is hardly lo ba wondered at m acovntry where the mental level is not high, for the militants are doing nothing to gain popularity. During ihe last month we have had a serieb of outrages — bombs m theatres -and *K>st offices, another at St. Paul's ; one bomb exploded at the Edinburgh Observatory, doing serious damage, while another was cent to the Bow Street Magistrate by post. Nobody can be surprised, then, because the public have lost their sense of proportion. Violence calls for violence, and however normal I consider these outrages to be I cannot help seeing that the public cannot be expected to sympathise. They are faced with a conspiracy against the peace, and they fully approve the energetic action of the Government. I do not suppose that action will have any effect at all, for martyrdom makes martyrs ; but the future is very dark, and it would not surprise any of us if political assassination were to become part of the suffragette agitation. A curious feature of the business is the attitude of the Liberal women. At a. recent meeting of the Women's Liberal Federation «•■ resolution was passed censuring the 76 Liberal members wlio voted against the Bill. "Passed unanimously." And there the matter ends. The Liberal women are making themselves ridiculous. Either they are not m earnest about the suffrage — m which case their resolvtion was sheer waste of time — or they are m earnest but merely futile, for they do not say that they will refuse to canvass for the incriminated 76 members, nor do they level any threats at the Liberal Government. This powerful body of women have therefore stultified themselves completely ; afforded to the opponents of the suffrage the excellent point that women are fitter, for words than for deeds. ******* The Canadian Senate have rejected Mr Borden's Navy Bill, which means that the Canadian Dreadnoughts, cannot be delivered before 1917. Canada knows ito business, and this is entirely a private dispute between Mr Borden (who wishes to incorporate the ships m the British fleet) and the Liberals (who wish to form a Canadian fleet). Unfortunately he has increased the British panic, so much so that the ' Pall Mall Gazette ' has been trying to make our flesh creep by informing us that m 1915 the British Empire will only have 42 Dreadnoughts to 36 of the Triple Alliance. Once upon a time we talked of a two-Power standard ; nowadays a 3^-Power standard is not enough. If this means that yet more ships will be required of us, it surely allows us to garble the old saying into "Those Avhom the gods wish financially to destroy they first make mad."