The Week in Review.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIV, Issue 10, 9 March 1910, Page 1

The Week in Review.

NOTICE.

The Editor will be pleased io receive for consideration Short Stories and Descriptive Articles, illustrated

■with photos, or suggestions from contributors.

Bright, terse contributions are wanted dealing with Dominion life and questions.

Unless stamps are sent, the Editor cannot guarantee the return of unsuitable MSS.

Our Cadets. TF“X O one who was present at the I ■ ,? rea t eadet parade in the Auck--1 f land Domain could have failed / to be impressed with the large muster of cadets, the largest inspected by Lord Kitchener in the Dominion, and with the fine military bearing of the boys. Major McDonald, the officer commanding the parade, was specially complimented on the manner in which the boys bore themselves, the Field-Marshal remarking that it was the finest parade of cadets in every way that he had seen. This should be a sufficient answer to those who would have us believe that the rising generation Is lacking in physique, or rhat our boys are not amenable to discipline and drill. The figures quoted by Dr. Purdy at the recent medical conference prove conclusively that the average New Zealand boy is Loth taller and bigger in every way than his English brother of the same age. And if our lads have never been brought under discipline as stringent as that which prevails at the large public schools at Home, that is not to say that they make any the worse material for soldiers. The bane of the German Army is its cast-iron system of ma-chine-like drill and military regulations. The German soldier lacks iniative. He knows’ what to do if nothing occurs to

upset the absolute precision of his carefully thought-out plan of eompaign. Let his plans be once upset, however, and he is immediately at a loss as to how best to retrieve his position. German officers themselves admit this, and cne of their leading generals stated that had the German Army suffered a few reverses in the early part of the FrancoPrussian War, their military system was so inelastic that they might never have recovered themselves. The New Zealander, on the other hand, is full of resource. Life in a young country trains men to rely on themselves, and to think for themselves. Such men make the best possible soldiers in a campaign where there is any irregular fighting to be done, and they will often win a battle when by all the rules of warfare they ought to have lost it. It may be that we lack the unquestioning obedience of the German; but we possess enthusiasm, a keen spirit of rivalry and emulation, and a resourcefulness and self-reliance that more than make amends. We have some of the best material in the world, and probably led and organised, we ought to have an army capable of resisting any attack. The pity of it is that hitherto we have indulged a spirit of apathy towards questions of defence, and allowed muddle and mismanagement to rule unchecked. Let us hope that Lord Kitchener’s visit will inaugurate a new and better order of things. The Spirit of Militarism. While most people view the cadet movement with favour as being an excellent thing for our lads and a guarantee for the future defence of out country, there are others who view with apprehension the imbuing of our youth with the spirit of militarism. The whole world is rapidly becoming one vast armed camp. The financial burden of huge armaments is crippling even the wealthiest countries. England is under the necessity of raising some IS millions

extra annually hy taxation, Germany is faced with a deficit of 25 millions, France with eight millions. In modern warfare the victor fares almost as badly as the loser. Japan was reduced to the verge of bankruptcy after her war with Russia and England added 300 millions to her debt as the price of her victory in South Africa. The mad race for supremacy, however, continues unabated. Social reforms are hindered, crushing taxation is imposed on the people, feelings of hatred and suspicion are engendered amongst the. nations. The same Christmas that ushers in the birthday of the Prince of Peace also ushers in the spectacle of all the Christian nations armed to the teeth for mutual slaughter. It is necessary that we should be prepared for selfdefence, and we must take the world as it is and not as we would like ft to be. We must also remember that weakness provokes attack. At the same time, we believe that, though slowly, men are beginning to perceive the folly of war. Peace societies are looked upon, perhaps, as somewhat impracticable and utopian in their aims; but they are spreading, and are daily gaining more and more adherents. One society which ten years ago did not number a dozen members can to-day beast a membership of 15,000. We also believe that even if our belief in dogma is decaying, our belief in the spirit of Christianity is more -active than ever. This spirit, has seldom in the past

been a guiding principle amongst the nations. Rather would it be tnie to say of them, in the words of the old Buddhist priest, that they have neglected the maxims of Christ for those other maxims which fire three hundred rounds a minute. But the future is full of hope. The King, who has probably done more for the peace of the world than any other man living, assures us that rarely in history has the idea of war seemed more repulsive, or the desire for paace more widely cherished throughout the Empire. If this is so, and we believe it is, de-

spite appearances to the contrary, we owe it in no small measure to the tact and diplomatic ability of Edward the Peacemaker.

Pieton as a Naval Base. Should it ever be deemed necessary to establish a naval base in the South Island, there seems much to be said in favour of Pieton. A commercial port is not always either suitable or desirable. As a writer in the “Dominion” remarks: “Matters so diametrically opposed to each other as peace and war should certainly be kept apart. The conditions necessary for the advancement of the one must necessarily hamper the other. The experience of the work! teaches this lesson. Germany is not using the port of Hamburg for such purpose. Englund, with all its experience, has not made London, Liverpool or Glasgow, Southampton or Cardiff a naval base. Certainly not. They chose Rosy th for most excellent reasons. Can we afford to ignore such’’* In other respects also Pieton offers many advantages. It is recommended by its centrality, its sheltered position, its ample depth of water, its accessibility from various points of the Dominion without exposure to the enemy, and the

fact that ft can be negotiated qmt-e irrespective of tides. A railway line up the Wairau Valley would give access to supplies of the very best coal along a line of communication secure from attack from the sea. There is much to be said in favour of Mr. Duncan’s endeavour to secure the admiralty’s recognition of Pieton’s claims. Jt Ancient and Modern Imperialism. The Union of South Africa is a crown ing instance of the success of British Imperialism. After one of the greatest and most relentless wars in history, Briton and Boer dwell side by side in perfect amity and unwavering allegiance to the British flag. Imperialism itself is no new thing. There existed a Cretan Empire contemporaneously with the eighteenth Egyptian dynasty. What analogy of motive force is there between all Imperialists’ The answer is probably to be found in the fact that each step forward impels to further venture. The first Punic war inaugurated the Roman conception of aggressive Imperialism, and the “little Romans” were forced into a polity of conquest and subjugation by each successive war. But how small, comparatively, was the Roman Empire to our own. In the days of Trajan the population of the Hemau Empire was at most HID millions, spread over 2J million square miles, as compared to the Hi million square miles under the British flag, and our 410 million subjects, l oth Rome -and England made use of their conquered people as auxiliaries —which must lead to two conditions: either the conquered race is raised to the footing of an equal or else the subject race acquiesces in its subjection, and loyally cooperates with its alien rulers. As this is largely the problem of Empire, so it is here that the analogy between Roman and British Imperialism ceases. The Romans absorbed their conquered in a remarkable manner. Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Seneca were Spaniards; the poet Martial was also a Spaniard, and Terence was born of a Carthaginian slave. Rut the fact remains that Roiiv’ was destroyed by her very subject hordes, whereas we, at any rate, have every cause so far to regard our conquered subjects, even in India, as loyal and friendly. The most remarkable instance of the loyalty of a conquered race is, as we have pointed out, to be found in the Union of South Africa. The essential difference between the Roman conception of Empire and ours lies in this: The Roman went out to subjugate, to Romanise the world, not to autonomist, to humanise it. No Roman would have dreamed of conquering a country and then granting it auto nomy, leaving it to govern itself as a self-contained dependency, as we have done in Africa. The one exception to this policy is, of course, India. When it is rememliered that 147 distinct languages are spoken there, and that tlm country is split up into religions sects and beliefs from Animism to Pantheism, more intolerant the one of the other than ever Catholicism was in the days of Alva and Torquemada, it is obviously absurd to consider self-government tn

India. The difficulty with India is rather what would happen if we left it than what will happen while we hold it. The strength of English Imperialism has been demonstrated by the loyalty of her dependencies and their readiness to assist the Mother Country in time of need. Buddo and the Beasts. Quaint exceedingly, delightfully innocent, and exquisitely unconscious of the humour which makes them a precious possession, are the “explanations” offered by the Hon. Mr. Buddo for refusing to allow certain animals to be landed in New Zealand for a zoo near Wanganui. The undesirables—as. alas! we must call them—were two leopards (who are obviously NOT allowed to change their spots), two pumas, two cheetahs, and two foxes. With ponderous circumstance Mr. Buddo observes “that he had to prevent the introduction of any beast that might prove a danger to our local industries,” and opines that if the foxes and leopards and pumas, etc., "got loose in inaccessible country, they would become a great acourge to our sheep flocks,” Marvellous! W hat wisdom is not given to our legislative magnates. It was, however, surelv an oversight to have allowed landing privileges to a lion and a tiger, for is it not unquestionable that if they got free in a congested city area they might possibly form a "scourge” to the inhabitants, even Ministers. How grateful we ought to be that we have in authority over us persons more enlightened and up-to-date than those who in the Old Country allow even reptiles to be imported, and who house them royally in the very midst of pne of the most accessible of the people’s parks. The legislative experiments of this Dominion keep the eyes of the world upon us—so we tell ourselves—and doubtless now Mr. Buddo has set an example, some legislator at St. Stephen’s will insist on closing the famous zoo in Regent’s Park, for just imagine what would happen if the animals got loose? But seriously the thing is rather a pity. The refusal and the explanations —'with their Dogberry-eum-Bum-ble, aroma, may provoke a smile, but the re■ult of the prohibitive order issued, is really rather grave, for it means that IWe can never have even the most moderately equipped Zoological Gardens in the Dominion, and also, we presume, that SiH-.li travelling menageries as have heretofore visited us will have to leave all •nimaU—under certain bulk and avoirdupois. at Soames Island or some other quarantine station. And to have no Zoo and no possibility of ever being able to form one is something of a calamity! The educative value of such collections >a universally recognised now, and wherever such exist children are systematically taken and encouraged to ask questions. The practical knowledge of geography— (alone) thus acquired, is enormous, and other items of useful information—quite apart from the animals—are by association picked up, and as is always the ease with knowledge so acquired never forgotten. We hope Mr. Buddo will reconsider his decision. J* Divorce in England. The anomalies existing in the English Divorce laws are under consideration by an exceptionally strong Royal Commission. 'The Commission is constituted as follows: —Lord Gorell (ehairman); Archbishop of York; Earl of Derby, G.C.V.0., C. 8.; Lady Frances Balfour; Right Hon. Thomas Burt, M.P.; Lord Guthrie; Sir W. R. Anson. Bt., M.P.; Sir Lewis T. Dibdin, K.C., DjC.L.; Sir Geo. White, M.P.; Mrs. H. J. Tennant; His Honor Judge Tindal Atkinson; Edgar Brierley (Stipendiary Magistrate of Manchester); Rulua

Isaacs, K.C., M.P.; J. A. Spender, editor of the "Westminster Gazette.’’

The Commission was set up in consequence of a resolution moved by Lord Gorell in the House of Lords, declaring that it is expedient that jurisdiction to a limited extent in divorce and matrimonial cases should be conferred upon County Courts, in order that the poorer classes may have their eases of that nature heard in these courts. He instanced a case where money had been saved for twenty years in order to get a divorce in which there was no defence at all. The costs in many cases presented insurmountable difficulties to the poor. He took the law as it is in England, and showed that it was so administered as to give the well-to-do what it denied to the poor. Debarring the latter from divorce, it offered: them the freest of facilities for judicial separations, with results often highly detrimental to morality. Six or seven thousand are made every year. The cost of an undefended divorce suit now runs to £3O or £4O; that of a defended suit may be, and often is, several hundreds of pounds. It is contended that in divorce there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, and that this injustice should be remedied. Mr. Justice Bigham, in giving evidence before the Commission, strongly opposed legal separation, and Lord Justices Bargrave and Deane declared that . separation orders were a living death, were wrong altogether, and led to immorality. There are naturally many who view with alarm any tendency to grant increased facilities for divorce, and Lord Gorell’s proposal met with strong opposition from the Bench of Bishops. But the question is not the wisdom or unwisdom of granting divorces. The law already grants them at a price. The question is whether the rieh shall enjoy the privilege of freedom through the courts while the poor shall be denied that privilege. Most people will feel that equal rights should be granted to rieh and poor alike.