Topics of the Day.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLVII, Issue 20, 15 May 1912, Page 61

Topics of the Day.

By Our London Correspondent.

END OF THE COAL WAR. I LONDON, March 29. VYT 0-DAY the Coal Mines Minimum |I I Wages Bill received the Royal 1 Assent, and interest now centres on the result of the ballot of the miners, which is being taken to discover whether they are willing to return to work on the strength of the bill, ex wait until the Joint Boards have completed their task of fixing the minimum for the different districts. The news that a ballot was to be taken was generally welcomed by the men, and there can be little doubt that a majority will vote for a resumption of work. Most of the miners’ members of Parliament are now in their respective areas advising that the bill shall be accepted. There are, of course, extremists who give the opposite advice, but the fact remains that the reports show that the bulk of the men are anxious to return to work at once, and not wait until the Joint Boards have completed their task. That would .mean another three or four weeks’ idleness, and, as the strike has already lasted much longer than either the leaders or the rank and file expected, it is all but certain that the ballot will be in favour of an immediate resumption. Up to the end of this week the strike has cost the various miners’ associations throughout the country £1,043,250, and there must be another week’s strike pay, which will mean another £250,000 drawn from the union coffers. Several associations are already without funds, and others will be without at the end of another week. The amount already lost in -wages by the miners themselves for the four weeks they have been out, and by other workers connected with collieries, has been over £5,000,000, and there must have been nearly as much lost by other workers who have been thrown out of employment through the shortage of coal. The total cost of the strike to tho -community at large cannot be estimated with any’degree of accuracy, and thus far none of our statisticians have attempted to do so. The only reliable figures which can be ascertained for the time being are those dealing.with the miners’ loss on wages, and the loss sustained by the railways, whose takings as compared with the same period last year show a decrease of a million and a-lialf.

NO VOTES FOR WOMEN. The House of Commons last night divided on the second reading of what is generally known as the Suffragists “Conciliation Bill’’—a measure which would have enfranchised about a million women —an.l reje ted it by a narrow majority of fourteen on a poll of 430, 208 members voting for and 222 against, the, measure after a striking debate. , There was no semblance of party feeling, either in the debate or the division. The second reading was moved by a Unionist and seconded by a Liberal. A Liberal moved, and a Unionist seconded, the motion for the rejection. The Prime Minister made a strong speech against the bill, while Sir Edward ‘ fSrey spoke as strongly in favour. The division lists showed that the “Ayes” included Mr. Balfour, Mr. Honor Law, Sir Rufus Isaacs, Sir Edward Grey, Mr. Lyttelton, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Wyndham, and Mr. Lloyd George; and in the “No” lobby Mr. A--quith and Mr. Winston C hurchill found “strange bedfellows” in Mr. Austen Chamberlain and Mr. F. E. Smith. The Labour party voted for the bill, but 41 of the Irish party followed the (Premier into tho “No” lobby. , 10 vote on the second reading of the ‘ Conciliation Bill” was really the first serious division on tho suffrage question. The significance of tho vote and the debate arose from the fact that the Government last year gave a promise th.it if this bill passed the second reading they would give a week of Parliamentary time, so that the remaining stages of the measure would be afforded a chance of passing. That chance is now gone. The debate last night was in sharp contrast to tho free and easy and offtinics irresponsible discussions during

the past few years on the problem. An air of approach to seriousness and reality lay over the House, members realising that there was at last a glimmer of hope —or fear—of ”b otes for Women” (some women) becoming a legal enactment. This was the bill in brief: — About one million women would have the vote. They must be inhabitant occupiers of houses or tenements separately rated. No married woman to have the vote unless her husband consents to forego his vote, or unless she has a property qualification in some other constituency. No votes for women lodgers. No votes for women who have only a freehold qualification. Mr. Asquith denounced the measure in a brief but vigorous speech. He admitted that there might be some gain in granting women the franchise, but (he gain would be more than neutralised, by the injuries consequent to women and to the stability of public life. Parliament had in the past always properly regarded the special interests of women ail'd children, “neither of whom, are directly represented in this House. He added: “I am bound to take what I believe to be the only sound and prudent attitude with regard to this question. That is to vote against any proposal of this kind, which in the long run would prove injurious to women, and is fraught with the greatest possible peril to the future of good government in this country.” Sir Edward Grey, in supporting the bill, referred to Mr. McCallum Scott, an opponent of the measure, who had talked about everything resting on force. “If the argument of physical force is to be pushed to its logical conclusion,” he said, “why not decide on votes to-night by physical force? Why shouldn’t Mr. Scott come outside with me—(laughter)—for a moment—(loud laughter)—so that when we return—(very loud laughter)—wo may both go into the same lobby?” (Loud laughter.) He was emphatically not of opinion that to grant women the vote would draw them from their homes or lead them to neglect their husbands. It jvould neither injure the State nor the home, but would greatly benefit both. Where it had been granted the effect had been marked by good in just those directions which those who oppose the vote said it would lie bad. The bill was killed to the accompaniment of a full-blooded demonstration of joy. When the tellers came from the division lobbies and marched to the table a roar of pleasure burst forth. Members stood up in rows, waved hats and handkerchiefs, and shouted gleefully, and the Prime Minister's face was wreathed in smiles. M hen the figures were called out, another demonstration took place. Hats, order-papers, and handkerchiefs were waved, and the scene was one reminiscent of the downfall of a Ministry.

TWENTY-ONE WITNESSES AT FAULT. The grave responsibility resting upon persons who give evidence of identification, and the fact that there are many people who do so without due regard to that responsibility, was never more clearly brought out than in the Court of Criminal Appeal the ’other day, when two convictions, with heavy sentences, against an innocent man were quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. William Thompson, an elderly man, had been sentenced at Essex Sessions to 18 months’ hard labour for alleged false pretences, and at the Middlesex Sessions he 'had been sentenced to three years penal servitude, also for alleged false pretences. He appealed, and liefore the Appeal C'ourt his innocence of both olTonves -was conclusively established. Yet in the Courts below no less than 21 ■witnesses had identified Thompson, ■whom they mistook for a man named Russell, whose career and description and photograph were in the hands of the police, and who is badly “wanted” by

the authorities in various parts of the country. His movements were actually known to the police until the day that si hint of Thompson’s innocence and of Russell's guilt found its way into the newspapers. That sent Russell into hid ing, and he is still at liberty. Tlie Crown offered no opposition to Thompson’s appeal; indeed, on its behalf Air. Muir freely admitted that a mistake had been made. There is. it was agreed, some likeness between Thompson and Russell, certainly a sufficiently strong resemblance io justify an ob servant and conscientious man in swear ing to Thompson as Russell, or vice versa. (Apparently several of the wit nesses found the likeness greatly strengthened by the fact that Thompson wore a watch chain of the same pattern as one affected by Russell. The chain, how ever, was of quite a common pattern, such as may be seen adorning the waist coats of hundreds of men! Apart from the admission of the Crown that a mistake had undoubtedly ■been made, it was established before the Appeal Court that the documents known to have been written by the person guilty of the false pretences were written by an educated man. well spelt, fluently written, and obviously the work of a man who found no difficulty in writing easily and grammatically, whereas Thompson, as was proved by letters written by him at various times, evidently found writing a formidable task. As one of the Appeal Judges remarked, it was impossible that he could have written the other documents. “It would have been as impossible for him to have written them as it would be for a man of no education to have written letters in Greek or Latin.” Thompson was released forthwith, after having spent four months in prison