The Star. MONDAY, JULY 31, 1916. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11764, 31 July 1916, Page 4

The Star. MONDAY, JULY 31, 1916. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE DYING SESSION. The session which will probably conclude its deliberations during the current week will scarcely be regarded by private members as satisfactory in any respect. , Their privileges and opportunities regarding the promotion of useful legislation and to do valuable work for their constituents have been seriously curtailed, indeed, in many respects the private member has been reduced' to ' the status of a cipher, whilst the powers, privileges and prerogatives which should belong to members collectively and individually have been appropriated by the Government of the day. The excellent practice of conducting the country's business on the floor of the House, with free discussion, has in a great measure been abrogated, .and now the members are simply asked to. signify their consent' to arrangements made in the Cabinet room, and are afforded little opportunity to amend or modify measures. - To us this appears a, retrograde step, since it places the . power in the hands of about a dozen members, 6ome not even the elect of the people, while the other seventy members axe as pawns on a chess board. This ia a departure from democratic principles which should be watched with the greatest suspicion, and should not, except under abnormal circumstances, ■- he accepted by members, since it is "their sacred duty to see that none of their hard-won privileges are filched from the people under any pretence •whatever.

The War Regulations Bill proposes to invest Ministers with powers almost as unlimited as those exercised by absolute jnonarchs, and although there is no reason to fear that the Government will abuso the abundant trust which members are prepared to repose in it, the innovation is not one that will be welcomed by a free people. Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary measures, and we are at present passing through such a time. The people of the country, realising the awful alternative, have never wavered in their determination to make the greatest sacrifices to 1 win the war—they are prepared to go forth, to the last man and to expend the last shilling to achieve that end, but there appears to be no valid reason why i they should not retain in their hands the full control of the Government—no reason why the privilege of guiding the > country's affairs should be in the hands of one-eigbth of the members of the House, to the almost entire exclusion of seven-eighths. The people's representatives have a right to be heard* on every question, and it is certainly not proper that any member who rises in his place to criticise, to honestly criticise, a measure should be accused of lack of patriotism. That is an unworthy and slanderous aspersion, entirely without ■Justification. It is much better that the voice of the people should be freely expressed in the Legislative Chamber than that members should dumbly give their assent to measures in which they do not believe. The right of free speech •within our parliamentary halls is not on© which a proprgessivo people should forego under any circumstances.

THE PARKINSON CASE. Since Alice Parkinson was sentenced to imprisonment for life at Napier on a charge of manslaughter, the facts of the caso havo been given wide publicity, and the most strenuous efforts have been made to secure the remission or reduction of what has been described' as a cruel sentence. There is no need to recapitulate the evidence—the case was one where a trusting young woman was basely betrayed .by her pretended lover, who, callously refusing to make the only reparation in his power, gcorned his victim, and cast her off with cruel taunts. In a frenzied condition of mind, brought about by illness and brooding over her wrongs she took the foolish course of seeking revenge, and in a moment, when it is clear she did not fully realise the enormity of her action, she shot her betrayer. She was tried on the capital charge, but the jury, brought in a verdict of guilty of manslaughter only. Under the statute the Judge has wide discretionary powers, and the jury probably anticipated that a nominal penalty would ho inflicted, since there were unquestionably extenuating circumstances, although, of course, no provocation can justify tho shedding of human blood. The Judge, Sir Robert Stout, however, did not take this view, and inflicted tho heaviest sentence in his power to impose, a sentence that' was clearly Draconian in its severity.

The severity of the sentence caused a sfcock. Huge petitions praying for a reduction of the sentence failed, Ministers refusing to advise the Governor to use his prerogative. But the woman's friends were not discouraged, although necessarily disappointed that the clem- , jencj of the Oiwn was j"»t exercised.

As soon r.r- ibo Homo met an influential petition was lodged. The caso was investigated by the Public Petitions Coinnutteo, but that body iti its report stated that it could not see its way to make any recommendation, thus absolving tho Government from taking action. The commit too had before it a report from tho Chief Justice in which ho said in part: "I would not accept tho recommendation, becauso the killing was deliberate, having been previously threatened. It was planned. There was, iu fact, no provocation. If tho jury acted according to tho strict Jaw and evidence, they ought to have found her guilty of murder." After devoting some space to an analysis of tho evidence, Sir Robert proceeds:—" To allow a person, male or female, who thinks ho or she has been wronged to inflict punishment, without trial, by private assassination, would be a violation of law and order that no civilised communty would submit to. It is far worso than lynch law, where there is an informal jury and trial." Much of this savours of special pleading to justify an almost vindictive sentence, and it appears incomprehensible, considering the whole circumstances of tho caso, that Sir Robert Stout still contends that there was "no provocation." It seems to us that tho provocation was great, and although that cannot he urged as a justification for killing, jt should at any rate bo taken into consideration as extenuatory in a slight measure. Alice Parkinson's friends undoubtedly have a good caso, and they should not allow things to rest where they are, but continue their agitation for a substantial remission of the sentence.

THE WAY OF THE SAVAGE. It is perhaps unfair to some of the dark-skinned peoples against whom Britain at various times has engaged in campaigns to draw a likeness between their war methods and those of th 0 Germans. The term savage indeed may bo much more justly applied to our present enemies than to any of the uncivilised tribes, black or brown, with whom we have been at variance. The eaper-civilisation, the educational and technical skill, of the German have been devoted to ends more criminal, more callctoly brutal and taiore indifferent to human suffering than anything in the history of our wars. The mental crookedness which conceives and excuses such acts of horror as those of which we read today is essentially the characteristic of the habitual criminal. The Prussian heads who authorised the shooting of Captain Fryatt and the authorities who conducted, the shockingly cruel raids upon women and 'girls in nortern France apparently rest their defence upon the barbarous dogma that everything is justifiable in war. The only relief in the black story of the enslavement of girls in Lille and other French towns is the statement that even some of the German officers were disgusted at th e brutality of the business. The old slave trade in Africa excited tho horror and indignation of the civilised world, but in .foulness and savagery the Kaiser and his men have far outdone the worst Arab or negro raider, and the Eastertide tragedy which befell the French towns under Hun government will go down in the long bill of offences against humanity for which a fitter and unrelenting revenge must bo exacted when the time arrives.

The judicial murder of the master of the British steamer Brussels for an act that was purely one of self-defence has shocked public feeling not only in British countries but in America and Holland. The United States, indeed, semiofficially 'condemns the deed and vindicates the right of a merchantman's commander to take defensive measures as Captain Fryatt did. In the light of the instructions given to masters of merchant vessels it is impossible to discover a shadow of rightful excuse for so ferocious a punishment. The Germans pretended to regard Captain Fryatt as a franc-tireur and a pirate, but it is perfectly clear that ho was justified by Admiralty orders as well as by the common right of selfprotection in attempting to ram the German submarine. The official opinion expressed in Washington that the master of a mercantile ship has the right to assume that a submarine is liable to attack him and consequently has the right to forestall the attacker by ramming or shooting, is based on the ordinary procedure of war and is also explicitly warranted by the rules under which the British mercantile marine has operated since last year.

In October, 1915, the Admiralty issued a series of instructions governing the actions of British merchant vessels armed for self-defence. These instructions, which were drawn up as the result of the issuo by the German Government of a memorandum on the treatment of armed merchant ships, defined the status of British 6hips so armed and explained the methods to be observed in the exercise of the rig*it of self-defence. The Admiralty in the first place insisted upon "the right of the crew of a merchant vessel forcibly to resist visit and search and to fight ia self-defence." This principle, it was stated, was well recognised in international law and was expressly admitted by the German Prize Regulations in an addendum issued in June, 1914, at a time when it was known' that numerous vessels were being armed in self-defence. A clause in the Admiralty regulations empowered British merchant ships to open fire first, not waiting for the enemy's actual attack; the master had the right to assume that the enemy was about to torpedo him or sink him by gunfire. In the caso of the Brussels the only mcan3 of defence lay in sending the steamer full speed at the enemy and endeavouring to ram, and it was this perfectly legitimate act of seliprotection that sent the brave captain to the firing-squad. The murder is but one of a terrible list of crimes for which the Kaiser and his officers must bo held to account. Britain is not likely to descend to reprisals upon captured crews of enemy vessels; the final reckoning must be with the murderers higher up, and when that day comes the Allies must not soften in their purpose but must grimly remembor tho ghastly crimes of tho last two years ashore and afloat.