“REVOLUTION IN THE AIR!”

Waipawa Mail, Volume XXXVII, Issue 7917, 11 August 1917, Page 1 (Supplement)

“REVOLUTION IN THE AIR!”

By HAMILTON FYFE.

“Yea,” said the little main on the couch next to me—and he said! it darkly, with a pompous, prophetic utterance—“yes, there is revolution in the air.” We were cooling down after a Turkish bath. He had begun by asking me whether I did not think “it was time we made ‘some’ changes in England. I inquired what sort of changes. “ What sort, eh?” he repeated. “Well, look at Russia. And I happen to know there are people on the same tack in France. A clean sweep, that’s what we ought to have. And' I believe it’s coming. Yes, there’s revolution in tne air.”

This little man was clearly not only an ass ilnit a silly ass, to employ the distinction once made famous by a' popidar play. But there are others, not altogether asinine, who have been talking in the same strain. The Revolution in Russia not only upset the mental balance of m small but noisy section of the Russian people: it nan the same effect upon a certain number of people here. Since I came back to England a few clays ago I have henru ’’revolution” whispered and even cried aloud in a (dozen different quarters. T have seen it mentioned, as a possibility, in print. What on ear till dtoe* it all mean ?

I did not argue with my Turkish bath acquaintance. He was not worth it. But with a person of more substance I have tried to thresh out this false grain. “ What is there to ‘revolute’ against?” I asked. “Not the monarchy, I suppose?” “No,” he admitted; “the King does Dc haJrm.”

“No harm?” I said. “The Sovereign is a most useful part of om-r Constitution. He is lifted above politics. We have far too much politics already; don’t you agree?” Yes, ho agreed to that. “What is it you .want to abolish, then? Is it Parliament? What would you nut in its place? A Committee of Soldier.* and Workmen? Very good. But in a week the soldiers and workmen would be indistinguishable from the old M.P.s. Not many years ago Vie cry of the reformer was ‘Let us have working men in Parliament. Then all will be well.’ We have had them. With what result? That they are declared hv their fellow working men to he ‘no good.’ ” “That’s so, and it’s true,” said the revolutionary.

“ But all that you need to get rid of them is an election,” I told him. “The obect of revolutions is to alter Constitutions. How could we alter ours with any advantage? It is the freest in the world.” ‘ Ah,” said he, “but the country isn’t well governed.” “ Whose fault is that? It is the fault of the People. The revolution we need is in the thinking habits of the manhood! and the womanhood of the country. If electors want good government they must think before they vote. They must watch their representatives. They mud stmV’ public policy as thev study their own private businesses. ‘Haven’t time,’ you reply? Then the country must continue badly governed. “I could understand a revolutionary movement which aimed :;t the trial and punishment of the Ministers whose lack of foresight, energy, and decision led us into disasters. That was one object of the Revolution. But in England we are so forgiving and so slack-hearted that we allow the*e men to he at large and even to take part in public affairs. We shall never he well governed' so long as that indulgence towards criminals prevails. A naval officer who hazards a ship is instantly court-martialled. A Prime Minister who hazards the Empire is called to no account whatever. It is nrdnine to expect that ‘revolution’ would improve matters while we refuse to make our servants responsible for thetir acts.

“Now tell me,” I said, “why you want a revolution.” But the revolutionary had never a word to say.