“ALIEN’S” LETTER FROM ENGLAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 3500, 12 April 1921, Page 49

“ALIEN’S” LETTER FROM ENGLAND.

{Specially Written for the La-dies' Page.) TOPICS OF THE HOUR. ’ February 8. The suggestion that the Act concerning women jurors should be modified has been hotly contested during the week by the feminist leaders. The provision in the Act which empowers a judge to order a jury of men obviously refers to a certain class of case only, and wherever there is a. woman or a young girl involved in a case she has a right to be tried by women and not solely by a sex who do not understand her point of view. And the majority of those who have expressed their views are of opinion that the embarrassment of barristers and jurywomen alike must yield to justice. It is, it is claimed, with an earnest desire for the study and reform of existing social conditions that-earnest-minded women are making a growing practice of attending the courts, “and it is the defect of tile indiscriminate qualification for jurywomen that those called are occasionally of a type that as yet have not developed a social conscience.” If women are to be carefully guarded from any further knowledge of life than that learnt in the schoolroom, it is ridiculous to expect them to serve as jurors in a court of law where absolute impartiality and justice in judgment require a real knowledge of the world. Innocence and ignorance are often confused in a woman. Writing in the Sunday Pictorial, Mr Bottomley savs : “To many oldfashioned people the innovation is a startling and even a shocking one, but I do not believe that the embittered protests which have appeared in the public press reflect the average opinion upon this important theme. . . . As regards divorce cases in general, I am certainly not prepared to subscribe to the view that women are unfitted to adjudicate upon the issues involved, and where it is simply a plain tale of misconduct on the part of wife or husband I see no real reason why the mixed jury should he barred. After all, there was never yet a divorce tangle in which a woman did not figure in one capacity or another, and as long as there are no features in the case likely to cause undue embarrassment to clean-minded men and women I see considerable advantages in having both sexes represented on the jury. Our ideals of womanhood have changed considerably since Mid-Victorian days. We no longer exalt ignorance of certain matters as the chief of feminine virtues, anil, whether we like it or not. we have to recognise that the average woman of to day is as well acquainted with the facts of life as men are. It is this fundamental social change that lias at length been reflected in the law courts. - !he important thing is that those who have to administer the new law should do so with a reasonable measure of common sense and decent caution. Then I believe, the experiment will work smoothly and well. . . . Rut I do think it might be well in I iv down certain special grounds upon which women might, claim exemption from c, . g •! in v jury service. This theme, more in A province of the doctors than the Inv\ • !>. is one upon which I need not enlarge; but there is a further demand which seems to me to have behind it the whole force of reason and logic. Since ■women are to serve on juries, it is simply absurd that the only names to go on the ’panel’ should he those of women householders in their own right, mostly «n-

married, and including some of the bitterest opponents of the new departure. A system which deliberately shuts out wives and mothers from the administration of the law can be regarded only as a temporary expedient, which must very soon give place to a broader scheme embracing the whole of the sex.” Very many women who are both by intellect and experience best fitted for jurors are not householders, or only householders in their husbands’ right, while many of the woman householders are unmarried and of the “sheltered ’ class, who have inherited their property with their “convictions.” Shrinking maiden ladies, some of them, to whom a law court is a chamber of horrors, and the evil and mistakes and problems of the world a nightmare or an abhorrence from which they shrink in fastidiousness or fear. Life to such women is a sealed book. But, as it has been pointed out in this controversy, in a little time woman will not make her appearance in the lawcourts only as spectator, plaintiff, defendant, or juror ; she will be there as King’s Counsel, oerehance as judge. And will she refuse a case when it is not nice? Or will women magistrates refuse their duty unless the case is fit for drawing room conversation? That the most effective appeal to the brute is through the brute is evidenced by the terror of the “cat,” which a certain class of ruffian (who does not shrink from inflicting physical pain upon defenceless women) displays when it is his own body that is to be hurt. Of late this brutality has been so much upon the increase that the criminal court has stiffened its measures of dealing with the brute, and recently two of a gang of city burglars who tied up a women caretaker and gagged her with great cruelty were sentenced to 24 lashes with the cat, in addition to five years’ penal servitude. And they went whimpering to the Court of Criminal Appeal that whipping was cruel! But the Court, of Appeal upheld their sentence. That old saying that “hanging is too good for them” could certainly bo applied in some of the recent brutal murders of inoffensive women. Grey and Field, who were executed a few davs ago for the murder of the young typist Irene Minnow on the lonely stretch of pebble beach at Eastbourne, known as the Crumbles, evidently covered her with stones before she was dead and only unconscious from the terrible blow that was struck, for one foot had been pushed through the shingle, which led to tlie discovery of the body. And at the.. Court of Appeal each youngman. trying to clear himself, told a bale against the other one, saying that the other had “confessed” to him that the girl was struck down and buried while alive under the atones. Grey came to England in the Eouth African Contingent. Field, who was only 20, served in the navy. A sentence which struck me was: “To nu n predisposed towards a loose and lazy life and to weak youngsters in the most impressionable stage of their career, habits of dependence on others too often had a demoralising effect. Their minds became unsettled when thev should have become established, and thev drifted on return to civil life into vicious habits.” Here appears to be a solution of the problem how men capable of heroic deeds have drifted into criminality. But the latest brutal murder has been committed by a boy of 14. the victim being an old lady of 70, who lived in one of a row of cottages on a quiet village green, where she had lived, well liked, for the best part of her life. A married daughter, who lived with the murdered woman, had occasion to leave her mother for several hours one afternoon. She left, her in some anxiety concerning her health, advising the old lady to lie down as usual in her room, and locked the back door before leaving, as money had been previously stolen from the cottage. When the daughter returned a couple of hours later she found her mother in a corner of the kitchen with her head terribly injured, just dying. There were traces of blood from the foot of the bed down the stairs and into the kitchen. But when detectives came from Scotland Yard all these traces had been washed away by kindly neighbours, who had “cleaned down” the cottage, and the case defied detection or trace of the murderer, and promised to add one more to the many unsolved mysteries of recent years, when to the astonishment and horror of everybody, a boy named Litton, who lived in one of the row of cottages, confessed to the crime a few days ago. Here is bis written statement: “I wish to clear my mind, it commenced. “On January 27 1 walked up the garden of our house just after two o'clock. My mother had just gone out and had locked the door. “1 wanted some money to go to the Zoo at Easter. t went to the farm and got 0 hammer and put it in my pocket. “I went to Mrs Seabrook’s back door and found d locked. 1 pushed un the window and leaned in and. pushed the bolts back. Then 1 pulled the. window down and looked in the kitchen and front room. There was no one there and I found no money.” The hr went on to say that he wont ue.stairs and looked in the hack room. There was no one there. He opened the other dm r slowly, and saw Mrs Scahrcok lying on the bed. tie went in and looked on the table. Mrs Sc.ibmok then woke up and saw him. “I v.'i:.-' very frightened,” lie continued, “and struck at her with the hammer. This was in the front room. She was standing in front of the door, and ran to the window and tried, to open it. “I caught her wrist and pulled her hack to the floor. She knocked over a small table, and 1 hit her with the hammer. ' “Then 1 ran downstairs and lmricd the ■ hammer in the garden. ] wont hack and saw her coining; downstairs. “I unshed her over, ami. I struck her with the poker. A < hair fell on the lire and T ran out and got down the well. “I did not know what I was doing. 1 thought 1 would drown myself. “When 1 got to the water I let myself fall, but as soon as 1 got into tt.be water I struggled and got my feet against one wall and my- hack against the opposite wall. 1 got up like this and went into the hoaiso. 1 took off my clothes and put them in a

small pail. I put them in the kitchen. Then I sat in front of the fire. “At 3.30 Mrs Freeman came and knocked at our back window. She called Mrs Litton. I said ‘Mother isn’t in.’ She then went ana called police. She then w-ent into the house and ran past our gate. Then she came back with Mr and Mrs Bradshaw. Then a lot of neighbours and schoolchildren came round and stood outside. Then a motor-car came and took Mrs Seabrook away. “My- mother came home at five o'clock. I told her I had fallen down the well. “Nobody knew anything about it except me. I don't think I had any blood on my clothes.” Detective-Inspector Crutchett said the hammer had been found at the spot the boy had indicated. This is more of the aftermath of the war. This second crop is proving more terrible in some -ways than the first reaping. It was notorious during the war years how the absence of the fathers and the iaek of discipline and the general trend of thought affected the boys, especially in the small towns and villages, where police control was scarce, the rough, unrefined element got completely out of hand, assumed the airs of men, and copied their worst manner without the redeeming virtues—bullying, smoking, swearing, insulting those whom they dared, and flouting feminine rule. All their games were the brutal games of war, played without obedience to rule; their animal vigour venting itself on children smaller than themselves. Even school discipline was relaxed at the country schools; and the mothers, engaged upon men’s tasks, were unable to keep the home reins. Many of the boys were receiving wages as large as their fathers had earned, and set a false value upon theselves (which present conditions are correcting). They spent money boastfully, attending the picture shows in snoals, and took the vicious and lawless for their models, and the younger boys followed the elder. The spirit of anarchy and greed which the war let loose has been the domestic atmosphere of hundreds of thousands of Ironies of the labouring masses. Ibe old spirit of reverence and proud dependence upon work for dailvbread is fast dying among the semi-edu-cated classes, who have imbibed the doctrine ot “equality’’ without understanding what the state of being equal signifies, iti- likeness of tradition and uniformity of thought and equalncss of culture and education. Ihe children of Bolshevic environment have no respect for the old landmarks, and take, if chance affords, "hat they do not possess. Note at the picture shows the applause of children for the popular outlaw when he escapes punishment. The barriers of the Ten Commandments are down in this age of individual freedom ; but those who are not educationally or spiritually- on a level, whore they give instinctive obedience to the highest and work towards a lofty ideal, abuse the freedom, which they mistake for license, in contempt for necessary control. Laws were made by the wise for the control of tools and evildoers, but juvenile contempt for law is not the wisdom that is a law. to itself, but rejection of discipline. How line a part discipline plays in the formation of character is typified, in the public schoolboy, who. yvliatever else he may not learn, learns that an honourable man, a gentleman, “plavs the game.” Ihe public schoolboy of to-day is “all right, sav those who know—a product in great mca-nro of example and training. His environment during the war was of patriotism and devotion to the ideal. “As a man thinketh so is he” : and through his masters he was lifted above the brutal a-pect of the struggle. His father, his brothers, the men he knew, "ere leaders of men to do or die. His thought was keyed to the heroic, and the atmosphere of his daily life is discipline. Most of Britain’s finest and greatest men were public schoolboys, trained by the greatest scholars and disciplinarians of the land, men of high moral as well as mental attainment. It is said that the wartime public schoolboy is more thoughtful than was his father at his age. The war-time left its mark upon him also, but not of lawlessness—rather the restraint of mental obedience. Even the enthusiasm of his sport is controlled by the laws of the game. It is useless to deceive ourselves with the notion that the children of to-day will be content that the book of life should be closed to them. They have had lurid glimpses of its war pictures, read exciting and tragic sentences. Its pages should be interpreted and explained, its facts revealed with truth. For, all alike, these children will be the makers of the future and the unholders or destroyers of empires ; and the patriotic citizen or rebel outlaw is made in childhood, although science Ims not yet determined which of tlie two forces, heredity or environment, is the greater factor in maturing character. Some are of opinion that environment and education have the greater influence on the younger and more active years, and heredity on later life, but the sage tells us to “train a child in the way ho should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” There has been a storm of indignant prote t; against Miss Ivy Sanders’s suggestion in the Daily Mail that it was unfair of women to retain their work while men were unemployed. The following letter is a sample of the majority : M>ss (!. Ivy Samlets writes that in her daily occupation as » journalist «ln> hears endless comment- on the decision of Barclays Bank shareholders to retain their women clerks. It vi .wild give me great satisfaction if she could! give me one valid reason why they should not retain them. Ait tiie male members of the staff who have returned from servico have been taken, back, in the majority of cases to better positions than they left; also temporary men up to the age of 25 who were from various, causes unable to serve in the Forces have been placed upon tlie permanent staff. In add it i< m to this, numbers of ex-Service men and officers between tlie ages of ]R and 25, not one oi whom was a bank clerk before the war, have been taken on tlie staff during the last- three years. The banks are now reverting to their prewar practice of engaging junior clerks front the ranks of boys of leaving-school age. A woman who gave up her post would know that the vacancy thus caused would bo

filled by the promotion of another member of the staff, ancl the consequent ■'•aeancy at the bottom would be filled by one of these boys. If Miss Sanders can see any reason why a woman should throw herself cut of work, thereby increasing the ranks of the unemployed, to attain this end, I shall be glad to have it pointed out. There, are 50 women clerks in the district in which I am domiciled, every single one of whom would have to seek another post if she gave up her work in the bank. Men of the better classes—by that I mean the cultered classes—do not share in the animosity of a lower mental order of younger men towards the women who work. At the present hour in England there is a very real, and remarked upon, ungallant and ungenerous attitude of the men between 20 and 40 towards women. Apv day and everv day this is illustrated in the trams and the trains, where they use their ♦physical strength ungently to obtain the seats, where they sit, not unconscious of the weariness of the women strap-hangers, but callous to it. As I have said before, the gallantry is from woman to woman or from the elder men. There is a class of boor, not “a rude peasant, a rustic, or a clown,” as the dictionary designates him, but socially a little above him and better dressed * and schooled, who has returned from fighting the Hun to make civil war on the women who devoted their lives to filling the gaps—unpleasant gaps—left by the men, and to nursing them and soothing their sufferings. The fact of the matter is the women spoilt those men, who do not wear well. They mistook the natural sympathy of women for suffering and their devotion to the sufferer for a personal tribute—in other words, the woman’s subjection to man. And there was (among this class of male) no realisation that it was the woman’s tribute to man’s heroism —a very different thing. The war over, the soldiers healed, nurses

and patients are scattered. Many of the nurses are the invalids now, their vitality drained by their devotion. All have returned to the normal life under the old or new conditions. But while some men carry mi lying gratitude in their hearts for the won ,i who volunteered —they were not conscripted—for all they received at woman’s hands, there are others who went on their way unthanking ; r.ot only so, but now that the woman’s individual petting has ceased with the occasion, these “temporary gentlemen” have lapsed into sullen resentment of the courage and capability of the sex who served them. Is that the trouble? Will that always be the trouble between the man and the woman—that when she is not absorbed in him and by him she is in the wrong? If so, then, .at the moment, she is very wrong indeed, for the (man-made) conditions of life afford her little shelter here. Let her try her hand at builiteig a social fabric that will not absorb all that is the best of her, and still leave her out in the cold. The young men resent her effort because it makes her more independent of (dm IViedmi of W ■ tr, subdue; but the elder men, the men of experience ami judgment, honour her struggles, for they know life, and they know that the women who do not shirk its labour are not the. women who sell their ideals for ease and pleasure. So it, is the grey-headed men who give up their seats to the workwomen of to-day and yield them place with courtesy. The death of Mrs l’nrnell (Kitty O'Shea), widow of the late Mr Parnell, at her residence in Brighton on February 5 has recalled a great romance and tragedy of file political world. One wonders how far the love of Parnell for “Kitty O’Shea” affects Ireland to-day ? So nearly do the destinies of individuals affect the destinies of multitudes that a chance meeting may influence not only the lifetime of those

who meet but communities and A woman’s influence over one man has changed the whole course of history for more countries than Ireland. In the Gladstone era the famous Irish leader Charles Stewart Parnell was a notable and brilliant figure in Parliament. Mrs O'Shea, the beautiful wife of Captain O’Shea, first met Parnell in the House of Commons, when a rose she wore fell from her breast, and Parnell picked it up and kissed it and put it in his buttonhole. Long years after when he died the rose was found among his most treasured possessions. And it is recorded that his last words were, “Kiss me, sweet wife.” But 'he and she paid to the full their penalty of defiance of social law. Parnell defied all obstacles to his love. Mrs O’Shea was divorced for his sake, and he married her with joy, but the world was lost to him for ever. The rigorous social code of Queen Victoria’s day never overlooked a public scandal, and the divorce broke Parnell, although Mrs O’Shea said in a book that she wrote that Mr Gladstone had known of the intimacy for 10 years previously. After Parnell’s death Mrs Parnell (or “Kitty O’Shea,” as she was best known) continued to live at Brighton, but in great retirement, and during the last 12 months she had been living with her daughter in a villa at Kemp Town. «But through all her widowed years she mourned Parnell, and was rarely seen in public, and was called eccentric because she would get up before the dawn and walk along the sea front. Few know of her identity, for her seclusion was absolute, and she would receive no one, and was supposed by her neighbours to he a hermit. But so true is it that no man liveth or dieth to himself that Parnell’s love for “Kitty O’Shea” probably changed the whole history of Ireland.