UNDERCURRENTS.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18344, 2 June 1931, Page 6

UNDERCURRENTS.

HERE, THERE & EVERYWHERE. (By "Gleaner.") COMEDIANS ON THE BENCH. When Mr Chaplin visited an English court of law recently he sat among counsel, though other famous jesters have aspired to a higher place. It was at Derby that Mr Justice Hawkins saw among the crowd in court at Assizes no less a person that J. L. Toole. He made inquiries, discovered that he had not been mistaken, and had the comedian on the Bench beside him after lunch. The more picturesque of our reporters announced that Mr Chaplin did his best to keep all signs of emotion hidden, and, rather in tha same, way, Toole is reported to have assumed on the Bench “an air of great gravity which would have become a judge of the greatest dignity. There was never the faintest suggestion of a smile. He looked indeed like Byron’s description of the Corsair — And where his frown of hatred darkly fell, Hope, withering, fled, and mercy signed farewell. “A turkey cock in a pulpit could not have seemed more to dominate the proceedings." Even when Hawkins began to crack jokes and to excite the easy laughter of the courts, “Toole knew his position and dignity too well to join in it; but he did what any respectable citizen would be expected to do in the circumstances —tried to suppress it, yet made such faces in the attempt that the whole house came down in volleys." It is curious to think of these eminent jesters doing their utmost to suppress the least approach to anything resembling “judicial humour." # * * * FALLING VALUES. One thing seems tolerably certain if the new India, as outlined in Mr Gandhi’s resolution that wrs unanimously adopted at 'Karachi, ever comes into being—there will, be no violent "gold rush" of eager and self-seeking carpet-baggers to that new land of promise. “Total Prohibition” and no Government salaries of more than £450 a year ought to keep the political landscape singularly free from “climbers" of the convivial or self-interested kind. Mr Gandhi made it clear that not even the Viceroy himself would draw more than £37 10s monthly, which would scarcely keep him in elephants. One can only hope that if he ever had to entertain a few rajahs he would be allowed to put in a modest expense account. Would the salaries of all other civil servants come down in proportion, one wonders? It would be' a bad look-out for some of them. If the Viceroy drops to £37 10s per piensem, Chancellors of the Exchequer would probably be rated about thirty shillings a week, heads of departments would stand easy on nothing at all —and too village postman would owe the Government several hundred a year.

THE ANT'EXPOSED.

The Royal Sooiety of Sluggards ought to make Sir J. Arthur Thomson an honorary mertiber and present him u. with a richly-inlaid bedroom suite in return for his valuable remarks about the ant at the annual dinner of the Eugenics Society. Anyone with half an eye can see that the ant is a nasty little acquisitive Insect whose example is wholly unsuitable for representatives jof an enlightened civilisation, and Solomon’s advice on this subject has made all the moral running for far too long. Now Professor Thomson has exposed the creature; it makes* war, it acquires slaves, its family life is simply dreadful, and obviously Its habit of food-hoarding would be condemned by any responsible economist of to-day. Sluggards are quiet and altruistic gentlemen .In comparison with this energetic little brute, which would be up before the insect League of Nations for oppressing subject nationalities if there were any such body known to entomology. To tell inoffensive idlers to "go to the ant" is.like advising them to model their behaviour on slave-traders and war-mongers, whereas by quietly consuming without producing they ftiust, be striving most usefully to adjust th 3 world’s balance of trade. It was high\ time that the ant was presented as an awful warning instead of a pious example—a thoroughly ugly customer both in appearance and behaviour. * * * * "GOD SAVE THE KING” AGAIN. It is wonderful what an unchristian effect our National Anthem seems to have on all the enthusiasts who start discussing its merits or Imperfections. Once in every two or three years someone ventures to inquire whether confounding "knavish tricks” is a very edifying or ennobling exercise—and then all the crossness and derision starts all over again. Somebody invents nicer and more polite verses, and then stern supporters of tradition begin to see red at the ' thought of such namby-pamby innovations. One of the supporters of the “hot and strong” school is now arguing that "God Save the King” must be all right because its sentiments are no more vindictive and bloodthirsty than thoso of many of the Psalms—which is beautifully to overlook the fact that many of the Psalms themselves are most unchristian productions and represent one of the biggest burdens witli which tradition has handicapped the churches. However, those who do not like certain verses of the National Anthem as now' accepted may be grateful that still more distressing ones have passed into obscurity. There was a good Whig fourth verse, given by the “Gentleman’s Magazine" at the end of the eighteenth century, which ranj Lord grant that Marshal Wade May by Thy mighty aid Victory bring! May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush Rebellious Scots to crush: God Save the King; If our ancestors could discard stanza* like that there seems no particular reason why suggestions for improving the present Version should provoke so much ill-considered Indignation.