SNAPSHOTS.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19147, 2 November 1927, Page 10

SNAPSHOTS.

[By Scrutator.] The first thing Bishop Cleary did on his return to Auckland from his trip abroad was to denounce the Bible-in-Scbools Bill, and lie did it with the emphasis and incisiveness to be expected from a prelate of his standing. Our one and only Mr Isitt replied with corresponding alacrity and emphasis, and everybody expected a lively and blood-curdling contest between such eminent combatants. The faithful o.u both sides were of course of sober and serious mein, as befitted them!, whilst the profane looked on muah sa people in the backyard look over the fence at an impending dog-fight- But all were disappointed—for the Bishop made no s irrn. His adherents said he was too proud to fight. His opponents said he was crushed. But both of them were mistaken. Though it didn't appear in the local Press, or if it did it escaped me, there was a proposal on the Bishop 'a side for a conference, and a reply on Mr Isitt's declining the conference and containing matters that the prelate considered defamatory. He therefore publicly challenged Mr Isitt to waive all Parliamentary privilege and prove his words in Court. Not content with this, his Lordship delivered himself to a crowded congregation in St. Patrick's Cathedral, Auckland, last Sunday. He was in his best polemical form. But he was courteous withal, and, unlike his Cardinalate superior in England, who refers to tho Archbishop of Canterbury as a member "of an Elizabethan establishment," he mentioned "the present Anglican Primate," though with grim satisfaction'he mentioned him as having once described the Bible-ih-schools scheme as "an emasculated caricature of Bible-teaching." The Bishop emphasised the gross unfairness of a Bill which would promote one class of religion at the public cost to which all must contribute. In this many who are not Catholics will agree with. him. He then repeated his challenge to Mr Isitt to withdraw his imputation or waive his privilege and prove his charge in Court. Jt is difficult to see how Mr Isitt can avoid both alternatives without suffering in both dignity and prestige- In like manner, if he waives privilege and so accepts the challenge, it is not easy to see how the Bishop can avoid an action. We may expect shortly to see in the legal columns of the Press an announcement: "Cleary v. Isitt. —Action - for defamation of dharacter. —Damages claimed £——. Mr Blank for plaintiff, Mr Swank for defendant." Scarcely ecclesiastic this, but better tham nothing, say the profane. We shall see what we shall see.

It would seem from the Editorial Column of this journal the other day that our trousers are in danger. Apparently they have been attacked, though by whom does not clearly appear- Anyway, a Mr Lynd in a. recent essay has rushed to their defence. . Man, lie says, has an. instinct to drape and coyer him-! self so far as the climate permits, in all sorts of clothes, and for that trousers serve a specially useful purpose. They conceal the calves.. Not the calves agricultural be it understood, bu 1 the calves crural —the calves of the leg. The calf has character, he declares. It marks a man more clearly than his countenance, bringing out Ilia virtues and vices as does nothing else in his anatomy. Wherefore the calf must be "concealed, and the only effective concealment is the trousers. That I think is the logic of it as expounded by Mr Lynd. Maybe the attack on this garment is less on the garment itself than on its present form.. The trpjisers. of .t.o-day hav.e .no individuality of style. Prom top to bottom they are mere funnels, differing one from another only by their material or the stripes and checks that mark them. Aforetime it was not so. There was the pegtop,.for example, tight at the ankle and expanding to the waist, till the wearer resembled an animated pegtop—whence the name. Then there was the other extreme, much affected by the young bloods of our grandfather's day. The trousers were so tight that to get them off at night the wearer had to be peeled by his valet. But this dissertation on trousers is leading me too far afield. So it stops, merely expressing the hope and belief that, whatever befalls, we shall not be compelled to go abroad without them.

In his attack' ou calves Mr Lynd sprinkles them with adjectives—mostly bad. Plainly, in his judgment, the man who wears them is bad. All men are bad, and differ only infthe degree and variety of their badness. Unless he excepts himself from this , all-embracing condemnation of his kind (and he doesn't in teras), surely his digestion must be at fault. And the calves he .rails against are masculine calves. Of the calf feminine he has nothing to say. Wo in Christchurch could' help him. Let him go into any tram-car here and he will find himself in. a perfect, atmosphere of feminine calves. With skirts a little (just a little) above the knee, the sweet young things display calves that to the masculine mind are perfect poems. If adjectives are wanted he is tempted to burst into poetry. Beautiful, sublime, and glorious, Mild, majestic, foaming freo—

and so on and so forth. These adjectives are perhaps not all as apt as they might be. • Granted, but there are plenty of them, and the occasion does not lend itself to discrimination. The question of modesty arises. Strait-laced and white-chokered ministers have protested from the pulpit, but all in vain. And here let me make an exception in favour of our Mayor, the Rev. Mr Archer. He may be white-chokered, but ho is not strait-laced. He knows the distinction; between modesty and prudery, and only the other day, when speaking at the Girls' Sports Club meeting, he expressly praised the legs of the competing girls. Modesty is'largely a matter of convention and custom after all. Tell one of these girls that of her grandmother in the bloom of her youth and beauty it was said or sung: Her feet beneath her petticoat Like little mice ran in and out,

and the reply would probably be: "Good gracious, how did her petticoat eome down so low?" Be that as it may, you and I, dear reader, are quite satisfied that the modesty of our girls is no whit less than that of their grandmothers.

The painful episode in St. Paul's, London, when the Bishop of Birmingham (in the pulpit) was solemnly denounced (in the ohancel) by the Rev. Mr. Bullock-Webster and his acolytes as a heretic, has had its rumblings in Christchurch, as witness the local newspaper correspondence. The Bishop is a man of eminent scientific attainment. His denouncers are not. He had said from his pulpit in Birmingham that man was related to the monkey. This was his heresy- Tennessee is the shining example of what a State Legislature can do in defence of Genesis. By Act it forbade the teaching of evolution in any State-fed school. But Tennessee does not stand alone. In half a dozen other States the Legislatures have done, or attempted to do, the same thing. Nay, in one of them it was solemnly moved (and narrowly -defeated) that the word "evolution" be struck out of all dictionaries within the State. Very absurd all this, but the case of the Bishop shows that in England, if not there is nq to laugh at