"A WARNING FROM NEW ZEALAND."

Press, Volume L, Issue 14889, 31 January 1914, Page 10

"A WARNING FROM NEW ZEALAND."

We feel that we owe on. readers an apology for reprinting from the "Nottingham Daily Express" a letter which has been sent to that journal from Christchurch, and which is to-day transferred to our columns. The mendacities which it contains will cause the blood of every honest citizen to boil within him. yet it is only a sample of the malicious 6landers regarding this country which aro being circulated in the Mother Country, chiefly by the antimilitarists, by opponents of the present Government, and by Socialistic extremists and agitators. We know nothing of the writer of the letter in question, but from the tone of his communication he would 6eem to combine in his own person a choice blond of at least two of tho classes to whom we have referred.

It is not necessary for ns to rebut in detail the gross exaggerations and deliberate misstatements with which this letter abounds. It is dated before the recent- strike, and the statement that in October last there wero ''hundreds: " of men out of work and without the "slightest hope of getting work, in J " every city in New Zealand," is obviously untrue. Thc further allegation as to the appalling changes brought about in eighteen months by tho advent to power of the Massey Government, including a plentiful crop of thriving pawnshops, never seen before, and " hideous all-but-banished poverty "stalking abroad." is simply a frigid and calculated lie of tho most grotesque and fantastic, description. Wo do not know that these disgraceful attempts to malign and vilify New Zealand were ever made until the antimilitarists appeared on the scene. The obvious inference is that not only will thoy shirk by overy means in their power thc duty of defending the country against a foreign invader, but they are eager in tho meantime to do the work of its enemies by maligning it wherever they can get an opening for their slanders. Tho editors of the English provincial newspapers, in many cases, print these letters in pure ignorance, not knowing tho facts of the case. There can be no excuse, however, for any man earning his living in New Zealand scheming to tako advantage of their ignorance and to slander New Zealand wholesale. Tho Defence Act has tho support of the vast majority of •••o'>le of this country. If it wero not so, it would be easy in this country of adult suffrage to repeal or amend it. To circulate falsehoods and slanders about tho country one lives in is the act of a contemptible person. We repeat that it is a gravo defect in our law that whilo it is. actionable to libel an individual, an entire, country and its people may be defamed and villifiod with impunity. •

Tho other day our "Liberal" fp'ends were complaining that we "missed the point" of the Opposition criticism of the Reform Government's finance, and they sought to make the point clear by setting out once moro, deliberately and in detail, tho incorrect figures upon which they rest their case. Now the Wellington organ tif tho Government explains that "it is not tho expenditure that the Liberals object to —it is the political hypocrisy of those responsible." So far as wo can see, the "hypocrisy" of Mr Massey and his colleagues consists in the fact that their administration is inconsistent with what tho anti-Reformers predicted it would be. The public were assured by tho "Liberals" in 1911 that if the "Tories" got in they would starve the national services, abolish old age pensions, and do over so many more surprising things. And now the Government are hypocritical because thoy will not fulfil the predictions of their opponents.

Our "Liberal" friends ought, -of course, to be glad that their predictions have been falsified, but reasonableness is not tbe conspicuous mark of people who are determined to pufe'their opponents in the wrong whateverhappens. A few weeks ago somo of tho British Radical journals were angry and nonplussed at the steadfast' refusal of Sir Edward Carson to permit tho Ulster Unionist movement to be; tainted by religious' bitterness, and they, complained, in effect, that he was a hypocrite. "Tho Tablet" pointed out that this was not a very creditable line to take, and that the Radical journals would do better to feel glad that Sir Edward Carson was adopting so admirable a policy. But that failed, of course, to pacify the angry Radicals, whom "The Tablet" had once more to rebuke, pointing out that they were risking the appearance of wishing to.see the evil which they professed to abhor. The anti-Reformers, similarly, ought to reflect that if the Government's method of expenditure is not objectionable, angry criticism of it is out of place, and likely only to create a suspicion that they would dearly love to see the country in trouble, "just to 6pite" the Government.

On the last day of January, three hundred and eight years ago, Guy Fawkes was hanged. The dramatic story of his famous conspiracy, the picture of the tall cloaked figure, torch in hand, stealthily preparing to blow up the King, Lords, and Commons of England, is known to, or used to be known to every schoolboy. Fawkes's character has been somewhat whitewashed of late, and it appears that the bogey man of three centuries was in real life "of a mild and cheerful demeanour, of exemplary temperance, and an enemy of broils and disputes." He was, in fact, a sincere and earnest fanatic, aud honestly believed that the Gunpowder Plot was to the glory of God and in the service of man. His cool courage when the conspiracy was discovered, and his stubborn fortitude on the rack, compel a certain measure of admiration. The plot was baffled on November sth, 1604; on January 27th, 1606, the conspirators were condemned "to be drawn, hanged, and quartered" ; and four days later, Guy Fawkes was taken to the scaffold. "His body being weak with torture and sickness, ho was scarce able to go up- the ladder." He "made no long speech, but after a sort seeming sorry for his offence, asked a kind of forgiveness of the King and the State for his bloody intent." He was hanged immediately after.

Mr Wade's denunciation of tho Sydney Labour Conference's proposal that the Holman Government should swamp the Legislative Council with Labour nominees is not likely to impress tho caucus at all. Apart from other considerations, the Uovernment must do something to appease the horde of union leaders who cannot see that political Fower is worth much unless cake goes with it. As Mr Wade says, swamping the Second Chamber is a measure of last resort, to be used only rarely and in extreme cases, when the Second Chamber obstructs a measure required by the nation. This is not the sort of fact that appeals to a political party whoso boast it is that they have come to upset ail the existing theories and all tho rules of experience. Mr Holman himself, whose undoubted ability has been reinforced by experience as a responsible Minister, knows

well enough that rA_om is not with thoso crude and iil-informed men who regard as folly what generations of statesmen have agreed upon as the teachings of experience, but he can do littlo personally with the caucus.

The day has long gone by when it was customary to treat journalism nnd journalists with di_rcspect. Even the ancient dichotomy, "literature and journalism," has been abandoned by people who know their way about. The other day Anatole France, in an address to London journalists, claimed with some pride that he had been a journalist, and was one still. Journalism, he said, had taught him something. It had taught him a great part of the art of writing, and it taught particularly well the virtues of ease and simplicity. In the course of his address, the great Frenchman made an interesting observation upon impartiality in journalism. Everyone knew, he said, that tho foreign correspondents in England had moderation without losing that great quality of the journalists, partiality, for an impartial journalist would be a monster. This appears, at first sight, to bo ono of thoso things which ought not to be true; but it is quite true. To say of a man, whether he is a journalist or not, that he is partial is only to say that he has a soul, and this is what M. Anatole France clearly meant. The strong partiality of somo journalists for Sir J. G. Ward, and their strong bias against Mr Massey, are nothing against them. Partiality becomes matter for censuro only when it breaks into injustice.