Casual Impressions of Colonial Life and Character

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 26, 29 June 1907, Page 24

Casual Impressions of Colonial Life and Character

E EMPHATICALLY NO is the answer one proposes to give to the query here set. Why, it may he urged, is the proposition put forward, and who ever said that we were? Well, as to the latter, a good many folk have been doing so lately, and papers in various parts of the colony have bristled with effusions from a certain class of writers, who appear to think we are in a parlous state morally, and who desire to blazon forth the fact to the world aS if it were something to be proud of, a not uncommon trait amongst those who, supremely satisfied as to their own salvation, derive a melancholy joy from moaning over and trumpeting forth the delinquencies of their neighbours. We seem, indeed, to be passing under one of those periodic waves of hysterical self-denun-eiation, which are common enough amongst the English-speaking peoples in all parts of the globe, but to which we in this —to my mind—eminently respectable and well-behaved community seem particularly susceptible. The subject is not altogether a pleasant one to handle (although the conclusions one hopes to deduce are of the pleasantest), for it moans a certain amount of plain epeech on delicate matters, which, and very properly, are usually alluded to in more guarded terms than will be here possible, if the article hopes to prove its point, which, of course, rs the only reason which can justify one speaking at all on things of which, as a rule, "the less said the better.”

However, to remove the gloves and begin. The peg on which much of the outcry of colonial immorality is being hung is no doubt the erop of cases of a disagreeable nature at the Supreme Courts, where the delinquents have been of unusual adolescence. It is not proposed to mention these eases individually or collectively, nor to attempt to deny their serious nature, but we do not think they represent any standard of immorality common amongst our youth, or are anything more than rarely occnrrent and abnormal instances of depravity, such as are to be found in •far worse sort, and more plentiful degree elsewhere. It is just because such cases are abnormal in the colonies, or rather in this colony of New’ Zealand (for New South Wales has an unenviable record), that they attract the attention they do. Take any of the criminal assizes in England, and you will find that the proportion of such crimes between the sexes are infinitely larger than even the enormous difference in population justifies, and that, taking climatic conditions and the early age of puberty into consideration. New Zealand is singularly free from licentiousness or juvenile viciousness. In a sub-tropical climate, with exceptionally well fed and exceptionally early developed youthful bodies. a certain percentage of regrettable incidents, social and moral are inevitable. but it is foul and unjustifiable slander to attempt to make out—as many seem to wish to do—that our lads are more libertine and our girls more lax than those in the Old Country, or anywhere else, for the matter of that. Nay. one goes further, and a good deal further, for save only the Old Country and AmTriea. there is no country in the world where, given similar conditions and similar liberties, the youth of both sexes would bo found so free from laxity or licentiousnes- as they are here. The colonial lad is no libertine; he lacks much in the way of manners, consideration. veneration for age, and respect for anything in particular, but he is not given to seduction, and his one respect is probably for the honour of a woman. Nor can one agree that, sc many writers have recently urged, our girls need more careful watching

than they get. Strict chaperonage, amounting indeed to an espionage absoilutely insulting in character, has been strongly insisted upon in many of the letters appearing during the last few weeks. Surely this would be a vast mistake; the greater the liberty convention allows the better, and the broader and more elastic the conventions the better. It is in countries where the

chaperon is strictest and most in evidence that the crime of seduction is most condoned (for the man). Amonst decent people, and more especially amongst the English-speaking races, it is in the eyes of most men the one unforgivable sin. Make it so absolutely, let nothing and nobody excuse it, and let the social blame and drastic consequences fall equally and more heavily’, if possible, on the man (and be as enduring as life itself), and you need not fear the practical abolition of the chaperon. In Spanish South America, where the writer once lived a year cr so. the daughter of the house would under no circumstances whatsoever be allowed to receive a visit (even when engaged) from a lover save in

the presence of an elder relative, and if the lady mother (let us suppose) was called from the room for five minutes, a paid chaperon or literal duenna would take her place. But to have evaded vigilance, and to have succeeded in what would there have been termed “an affair of gallantry” (significantly detestable phrase), would not have meant social ostracism as it would with us, I trust. Quite otherwise, as long as one had avoided the knives of affronted relatives —an amused and admonitary shake of the forefinger would have been about all the punishment meted out by society at large.

In England, young people take long walks together for miles and miles without chaperons, and in America it is permissible to take a lady unattended to supper after- the theatre: yet how often does one hear of any unfortunate consequences? When it is a matter of trust and honour, the safety of a girl’s good name may be placed implicity in our lads’ hands, provided the trust is wholehearted. and is given and received “with both hands,” as the French have it.

As regards the general morality (social problem) of the colony, I can say with certainty’ that it is the most cleanly and innocent place amongst those parts of the world that I have visited. Let a man fossick and dig out dirtiness and vice. and no doubt he will find it; but nowhere in New Zealand does it obtrude itself upon you, as it does and most emphatlcaiiy and unmistakably in Britain’s own proud metropolis, and that at four or even

earlier in the afternoon, in the royal thoroughfare of Regent-street. As one observed in another of these papers, where the matter of colonial sobriety cropped up, it is a peculiarity of our

youth that they like to pretend to viced which they happily have not, and the boys and girls have a knack of “putting all their worst and ugliest goods in the

windows,” as the saying goes. Therefore, they assume the fastness which they don’t really possess; but behind all this stupid and unattractive pretence they' are exceedingly straight, with a singularly sound idea of the value of virtue and their good name.

So much then, for the years of indiscretion. But how about the morality of

the elder ones? Do we grow worse as we grow older? Except from those who are bent on a pessimistic outlook the answer must again be in the negative. Philandering with other men’s wives, and intriguing with other women’s husbands is not fashionable in New Zealand. Nor are such “carryings on.” as servants would put it, condoned amongst us, and if the plays, novels, • and ser-

mons of the day are to be believed, colonial society differs wholesomely in this from the smart set at Home. According to Pinero, Sutro, Henry Arthur Jones amongst the playwrights, half a dozen fietionists, and Father Vaughan amongst the more blatant of the clergy, it is rather bourgeois and stupid to prefer one’s own wife to someone else’s in the social world at “Home,” but this taste has not yet reached the colony. Nor is it likely to. We are too busy, our life is too strenuous for us to be wicked or vicious for want of something better to do, as is apparently the case at Home —(in one single set of society be it understood). But what about our Divorce Courts? will query the pessimist; are they not kept busy? No, not in proportion to the population, and, what is more important, such cases as there are, are those in which the parties, while frail, are yet, if one may term them so ‘fust-class misdemeanants.” There is never the evidence of shockingly casual and indiscriminate misconduct, or of depravity almost past belief, which stain the annals of the Divorce Courts of the Old Country year in and year out. But enough of the unsavoury subject of sex sinning. It has been shown I venture to hope, that we are not worst, but really rather better than the Old Country, Europe. and some of our neighbours in this respect. Therefore, while continuing to try and hold a high altitude in regard to this phase of morality, we are neither wise nor just in allowing casual statements to give a contrary impression outside. Self praise, we all know, is no recommendation, but canting self-deprecia-tion is certainly none either.

Men and women, especially in new communities such as ours, are very like children, and those who remember their childish days dearly will recollect occasions when each of us. with “a fearful joy” and a gloomy relish, endeavoured to make out we were wickeder and naughtier than the other, and far more predestinate to that literal burning lake of fire and brimstone, which nurses and even pastors taught us to believe had been prepared for us by a beneficient Creator.

Well it seem to me that some amongst us are going back to this “ betese ” of our childhood now grown up though we are, only the difference is that we do more mischief nowadays, for, depend upon it, if we insist long enough that we are desperately wicked, we shall wake up disgustedly some day to find someone believing it.

As a fact, there is already an uneasy impression in England that the colony is a bad place to which to send lads from Home because it is a hotbed of gambling! Certainly gambling is one of our most prevalent and besetting sins, and there is little use in trying to disguise the fact, but it is more than foolish and mischievous to grossly exaggerate what is bad enough, but not really as bad as our jerrimiads would have outsiders believe. Betting is unduly pre-

valent amongst all circles of colonial society, but it is not a circumstance, not an iota to that whieh prevails all over England, more especially in the large towns. The newsboys , the match-sellers, the wretehedest of humanity will at Home gamble with their last coppers —they will gamble rather than eat, even rather than drink in not a few eases. I have now before me a cash bookmaker's advertisement from an East End paper, which offers to bet from sixpence up. and whieh announces that “for smaller punters” a pool, or guessing competition o» the day’s racing is organised! A penny a guess is the tariff, and the total goes —minus a percentage to the two who guess winners of the most races. It will be admitted that, foolish as we are, we do not yet allow our youngsters to be tempted to bet in this fashion.

Let it not be understood from the foregoing attempt to answer NO to the query, “Are We Immoral?” that the writer believes colonial society perfect, or is disposed to sit down content to worship our own particular virtues and to see nothing that is disagreeable. Altro—as the Italians say—by no manner of means, but it does appear to me that we are assuredly not as black as -some of us would like to paint ourselves. And it is. I strenuously maintain, wrong, altogether and entirely, to thrust so false and erroneous an impression upon the world at large. This New Zealand of ours is not yet the Utopia of old Sir Thomas More, and the milenniuin has yet to arrive, but it is to my mind, and I have seen many men and not a few countries, a lawabiding, kindly, good natured, good tempered, and well dispdsitioned community, certainly not worse in the sins that afflict humanity than other communities, but on the whole more than a trifle better! Therefore why go about to foul our own nest? Let us rather make it better, purer, more beautiful if we can, but, if not, let us leave well alone.

DO YOUTHFUL COLONISTS DRINK TO EXCESS’

The Editor, “New Zealand Graphic”: Sir, —I am directed to forward you the undermentioned copy of resolution unanimously passed at the committee meeting of the Auckland City Prohibition and Temperance League, on the 17th inst., as follows:—

“That we express our surprise and regret that the Editors of the ‘Graphic’ and ‘Star’ should state, as was done in the article on ‘Casual Impressions of Colonial Life and Character,’ that the hotel census taken on Saturday, 10th September, 1004, under the supervision of the League, was. ‘not to put too fine A point on it, untrue’; also that ‘had the returns been divided by, say, 90 per cent, even then the watchers would have been wrong.’ The workers who took part in that census included some of the best-known men in the community, the result of whose tabulation cannot successfully be impeached. The returns made were in every way verified, and cannot truthfully be stated to be ‘absurd.’ Instead of provoking such unjust criticism nearly three years after the publication of the census, the results should have moved the community to lessen the terrible evils whieh were so painfully manifest on that occasion, and whieh certainly have not decreased since. We request the same publicity to be given to this resolution as was given to the article of which! we complain.” I have the honour to be, Yours truly. W. J. MACDERMOTT,

Are We Immoral?