THE OLD OLD STORY.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14831, 24 November 1913, Page 6

THE OLD OLD STORY.

How old is the British habit of "muddling through" national crises? Some may think that it dates back to the eighteenth century, or to the timn of Charles 11., but few of the general public would connect it with the glorious burst of national rigour that marked "the spacious times of great " Elizabeth." Students of that period have known for some time that the preparations for meeting the Armada were not entirely creditable to the authorities, but those who may read a new book on the struggle by Mr J. 11. Hale will bo shocked to learn how much muddling and Jack of vigilance there was on the English 6ide, and how great a part luck played in the defeat. The traditional picture of tho defeat of tho Armada is of a united nation, led by a single-minded Queen and Government, rising against tho invader, and, with its tiny ships, driving him to destruction. But Mr Hale tells us that the defeat of tho Armada ,was a much less glorious affair than we have eupposed. The biggest of the English ships were quite as large, he says, as the largest of tho Spanish. The national will was there, and fine seamanship, and perfect courage, but preparation was niggardly, and the ptelligence system deficient. Burleigh cut down supplies so that the Fleet never had more than a month's in hand, and was unable to go out in search of the enemy and destroy him on the high seas. The Fleet was tied to its ports* and tho Armada took the English commanders by surprise. The ships were bottled up in Plymouth with no wind to get .out, and had Medina Sidonia, who should never have had command of such an enterprise, taken his admiral's advice and attacked with all his strength, the English might have been crushingly defeated. * The appointment of -Medina Sidonia was the greatest piece of luck that could befall England. Santa pruz, tho commander to whom the task was originally assigned, was a very able man, and had he lived

and carried out his plans, he would have attacked an unprepared England with over 500 ships and 94,000 men. As things turned ont, ifc was ouly Sidonta'e delay in starting that gave England time to prepare. When the English ships did get out, and English seamanship and courage were given full play, the advantage could not be pressed home, for lack of ammunition. As is well-known, the Armada was not de* cisively beaten in fight, as tie French were beaten at Trafalgar, ?,nd Mr Hale says that if Howard had had tho , supplies he ought to have had, the enemy would not have got away to the north. On the very eve of the struggle there was '*everlasting trouble" about supplies, and no money to pay the men. Howard, Drake, and others pledged their fortunes to keep their chips in commission.

Nothing can ever dim the fascination and the glory of that running fight upChannel and into the North Sea, but if Mr Hale has not exaggerated, it is clear that England "muddled through" the crisis, just as she has "muddled through" many another campaign. The truth about this page of history has much more than academic interest. Its lessons apply with much greater force to-day, because we may bo sure that if England tries to "muddle through" a similar period of danger, the risk ot overwhelming disaster will be much greater. It has often been said that the foe she has to fear to-day ie by far the most formidable that has ever threatened her. The Armada was defeated as much by its own weaknesses as by English virtues. If the Ihitch had crushed British naval power they could not have conquered the country. Napoleon was a military and not a naval genius. But the greatest menace to-day comes from a nation with a great navy, backed by a greater army, a nation numerically stronger than the British, overcrowded, ambitious, highly organised, and master of those sciences that play such an important part in modern warfare. To do anything less than take every possible precaution might produce disaster; to meet attack with such mean and incomplete preparations as were made for tho Armada would lead to overwhelming ruin.

In another column we print come extracts from epeeches and writings "Professor" Mills, of Milwaukee, in order that the public may realise the sort of men upon whom tfie Federation of Labour must rely. The man is entirely worthy of the cause which •

suits him to support, and which it suited him to condemn last year as one with "a bad record and a foul programme." The a ederation iias not changed, excepting for the worse. And the views of Mr Mills, whatever they may really be, have not changed. Mc has only changed his siae. Those foolish people who applauded his coarse and violent speech on Saturday night ought to reflect that the cause of the Federation is no better t/han its leaders. Tho Federation is fighting, not in fto interests of the workers, out in tfle interest?' of a little group of demagogues like.the exceedingly versatile man from Milwaukee. The extraces from His writings are more than a mere commentary upon this particular man: they are a commentary upon tne spirit of the Federation, to which he belongs; and they ought to open iuo eyes of the trade unionists everywfiere.

It may be remembered that Jir Robertson, M.P. for Otaki, declared recently in tho House of Representatives that he had heard Colonel Heard, the Acting-Commandant of the Forces, issuing orders to special constables on the Wellington wharf. This was donietJ by Colonel Heard, but Mr Hobertaon repeated his statement, and colonel Heard then wrote an indignant and spirited protest, which we printed last week. The Wellington papers now report that on Thursday last tho offending member admitted he was wrong, and made an apology to Colonel Heard. It is something that he apologised at all, but his tardiness in doing so oostroys any credit that might Jβ given to him. The incident is typical of tho readiness of the Red Fed. sympathisers to make statements which are ent.relv ■without foundation in fact. Perhaps Mr Robertson's action may induce tho Leader of tho Opposition to withdraw and apologise for the unfounded charges against the Wellington "specials' , which he so hastily circulated in the House. If it lias this result we shall all bo ready to forgive the member for Otaki.

In a couplo of lectures at University College, London, Professor Delbriick, of the University of Berlin, shattered some current beliefs concerning the enormous armies of tho past. On the day of Vionville, Moltke, although he had ten army corps at hand, could only move two into action. If it was so difficult to move 400,000 men, with ttie aid available, and with such a general, it is pretty certain that the armies of th© Assyrians, Persians, Gauls, and Huns were not very large. Attila simply could not have led 700,000 mon across the Rhine into France. Herodotus says that Xerxes' army numbered 5,100,000, but Herodotus used facts and figures more like a modern "Liberal" than like a historian, i Equally worthless are the stories of Caesar concerning the enormous hordes of Germans and Gauls, when he came and saw and conquered. The battle of Hastings which we should all like to think a very imposing affair, has not imposed on Professor Delbriick. He thinks "that William probably had no more than 6000 or 7000 men, and as for Harold, whose forces, Bishop Guido, of Amens, declared were 1,200,000 strong, Professor Delbriick thinks there were about 4000. The probability is that the proportion of warriors in any people was not greater than it is to-day. Indeed, we may be more warlike, thus measured, than our remote ancestors.

Mr McKenna has not been a shining success as Home Secretary, but if he passes into law his new scheme for keeping minor offenders out of gaol he will have left his mark as a reformer. His proposal is that people convicted of minor offences —in which he includes offences against by-laws, police regulations, and the Education Act, and less serious cases of assault—should be al-

lowed time to pay their fines. At present magistrates have power to allow time for payment, but only special legislation will secure uniformity and consistency iv this matter. Mr McKenna. in announcing that he hoped to pass such a measure next session, pointed out that of -fche total number of 151,000 people imprisoned in 1912, 80,000 were committed in default of paying a fine, and of these cases a large proportion came under the classification of minor offences. All evidence went to show, he said, that once a man wont to gaol the fear of conviction lost much of its power as a deterrent. Their aim should be to keep offenders out of gaol as long as possible, and if a fine was a fit punishment for ajt offence, every opportunity ehould be given for its payment.

The proposal has been received with great satisfaction by those in a position to judge as to its effect. Mr Thomas Holmes, whose knowledge of the criminal and crime-prevention in London is unsurpassed, describes it as "the greatest penal reform of the century." Numbers of boys and youths, he says, are imprisoned because of their poverty. They commit trifling offences against by-laws or police regulations, cannot pay the fines inflicted, and so go to gaol, to run the risk of getting the criminal taint and a contompt for imprisonment that may lead to serious recklessness. A boy of sixteen was fined 10s 6d for driving at night without a light, and sent to prison for a fortnight. Agricultural labourers go to gaol for drunkenness because they cannot pay fines and costs. "Even one ride in tho prison van, one night in prison, have a demoralising effect on any decent man or woman "who, for the want of a little ready money, find themselves undergoing the indignity." The effect of the proposed legislation will be that it will make prison the last resource of the law, instead of practically the first. It will keep many people from the downward path, and check the spread of that contempt for gaol as a punishment which seems to be produced by the present syalem.