LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1778, 17 June 1913, Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

A HYBRID UNITY SCHEME. ME. M'LAREN'S REPLY TO "THE DOMINION." Sir,—Aftor reading your article of Saturday' last on tho subject of "Labour Unity," I felt that life had its compensations. Tho sense of humour has not yet departed from us as a people, oven although it is at limes "unconscious." The spirit of harmony and good-fellowship being at present displayed between the ''Reformers" and the "Revolutionists" is a very interesting sign of the times. It is not the first time, however, 'that this most strango alliance has shown itself in public, indeed, considering what the Reform party owes to their comrades of tho "Maoriland Worker," it is remarkable that the alliance has not found expression oftcner. To the great body of workers in general it will oo of deep interest and concern to find how much sympathy The Dominion has with the Unity of Labour. Your paper seems to have been wholly misrepresented and misunderstood in tho past, and it is pleasing to find that you aro at last succeeding in putting yourself right with the public. Your real desire, apparently, is to see firmly established in New Zealand a sound Independent Labour party. Strange, that wc Jiad not noted that fact before. If tho I'ederationists, for instance, had known that this was your purpose at the time of the uauii incident what great difference it might havo made. There were harsh words spoken by the I-W-W-- m<? n against liie Dominion over the little affairs at ii aihl and Huntly, which surely would have never been uttered had Messrs. Senmle, Webb, Frazer, and others but realised that you were most anxious for the Unity of Labour, and that tho Labour party, or Social Democratic party, should be entirely independent and free of all others. The whole of these past incidents now read as an unfortunate ' comedy of errors." Tho attacks you made upon the Red Baggers. ths Tit:riollo Tctorts of the Red comrades and the general mix-up ot bad feeling and uastmess. was all an error. "Not understood is the clear explanation, and at lost the "Reformers and tho "Revolutionists" aro reconciled. Tho one little fly in the ointment is that, in witnessing this curious drama, one is troubled with doubt as to whether the proper thing to do is to laugh or cry. Politics brings strange bed-fellows ■at -times, and surely no stranger sight lias beeu seen of lato than the heads of The Dominion newspaper and the Alaonland Worker" resting together upon the pillow of .reconciliation, and in peace and amity discussing tho tender topic of how to politically murder the arch-traitor to the cause of Unity—D. M'Laren. Hare lot mo turn from contemplating this picture of rural innocence in sweet repose to pay my debt to your (paper lor the deep interest taken in my affairs. Your ooncern about my future is almost pathetic. You first affirm that Iwm stand at the next Parliamentary election, then you seem to havo doubts as to whether I will or not, and finally, with naivo humour, you ask me to pledge myself not to stand. What doss it all m»an? This event, like many others, is in the lap of the gods, and who can say anything definite, about it? Why trouble tho ears of Fate with this vain appeal of yours, it is so very futile. I can only assure you -that your concern upon my account is really touching, and i shall store the memory of it as something most precions. Were an election close at hand,-1 might fear that some of my colleagues wonld charge me with bribing The Dominion to publish the article you print because it is so full of M La-ren, M'Laren, M'Laren. As yon well know I am not used to so much laudation, ana you can understand how nervous. I am m consequence. The sin, or virtue, for which you name me so often is stated by you to b9 that I have "suddenly blossomed out as an advocate of a LiberalLabour Allianoe." If I remember rightly you named mo for much the same thing at the -time of the last Parliamentary election, and before that, so my 'T>lossoming out" cannot be described as "sudden. Of course, everybody will recognise that you can have no other object in protesting against co-operation between the Laoourites and. Liberals than an earnest desiro for the good of Labour. It is no doubt yoiir high aspiration, after the purpose of having an Independent Labour party for New Zealand, that moves you all the while. With this conscious spirit of rectitude animating you, one .can see that you could not well do otherwise than protest mildly against tho idea of removing M'LaTen from the executivo of the United Labour party. What particularly affects me is the fact that so many good men are moved by the same idea (all, of course, quite disinterestedly): Mr. W. T. Mills, the 'Maoriland Worker," and The Dominion all move in unison to the one great end. It is, indeed, sad to think of an alliance with tho "discredited Liberals," but an alliance with the triumphant Tories you would no doubt regard as reasonable. It ij an unquestionable fact of British political history, and this covers the entire British Empire, that, whereas there have been many instances of alliances established between Liberals and Labourites, there have been no instances of alliances between a Labour party and a Conservative party. Personally, I am not in favour of any alliance which would involve a sacrifice of the principles of the Labpur party, nor am I in favour of Labour sinking its identity in that of any other party. The fact of your joining with the "Maoriland Worker'' to disparage the idea of cooperation between the Liberals and Labourites to effect a common purpose will rather commend the idea to a large body of the workers. It is a case of the extremes meeting when we find you thus in harmony with the Revolutionists, and the moderate people will be but the stronger inclined .to adopt tho course which I have advised. The cunning attempts at commitment indicated in your article can have no avail. It is the same trick that is being played by the Revolutionists. - You show so much in common, both in purposo and methods, that if the Reform party and the Revolutionary party havo not defined the terms of their alliance they ought, m honesty, to do it as early as possible. The Reform party owes a debt to tho Revolutionists fot having placed them in power, and I take your article as an indication that yon are" anxious to recognise and pay the debt you owe. From this standpoint, your -writing is really commendable.—l am, etc., D. M LAREN. [This letter is referred to in our leader columns.] THE CHANCELLOR AND FACTS. Sir,—The Press Association , report of tho Chancellor's address at tho graduation ceremony in Christchurch contains the following "The eminent professors in New Zealand. who have borne the heat and burden of the day in founding our University system, not only have not complained of external examination, but they were actually members of the Senate who established the system. Need I mention tho names of Professors Cook, Sale, Shand, Macgregor, and the two Browns amongst others?" This statement affirms that the professors named (1) Were members of the Senate when the external system was first adopted. (2) Have never complained of the system of external examination. In regard to the first point, the facts are that the external system of examination was in operation before any of the professors named took their seats on the Senate. In 1875 the Senate instructed the Chancellor to write to the London University about the appointment of examiners in England, and this was done again in 1878. In the meantime, in 1877, the Senate appointed examiners in Australia. None of the professors mentioned by the Chancellor was on the Senate till 1879, in which year Professors J. M. Brown, Shand, aud Sale took their seats. Professor Macgregor joined the Senate in 1880, Professor F. D. Brown in 1883, ami Professor Cook in 1884.

So much for the accuracy of the Chancellor's first statement. In regard to the sccond, Professors J. M. Brown, Cook, Sale, and Shawl were members of the Commission of 187!> which inquired exhaustively into the system of external examination. All of thorn, with the exception oif Professor Sale, recommended "that the prpfessors of the university colleges should be professors of the University, and be ordinarily its examiners." Even Professor Sale, who dia. i§pted frcaj this liw* km MjMSSKfii

to advocate external examination in physical and natural science. To includo the lato Professor Macgregor among thoso who founded and never' complained of tho external system of examination is to do a gross injustice to his memory. Tho wholo of his evidence before tho Commission of 1873 shows how strongly ho was opposed to the system, ami 1 know from conversations with him t'lmt ho held the same views in tho last yoar of his life. The following are two c-xtrucls from his evidence;— "Tho wholo tendency of that mode of university education is to foster cram,' aud to discourago freo learning—that is, learning whoso object is to master a subject instead of making a good appearance at an examination," "1 also think that the system of examining iu New Zealand must, in the nature of things, he incapable of really examining in science. In fact, tho whole system of examination by papers alone will produce most mischievous effects on the education of this country. My conviction for a long experience is that education in scienco is not only useless, but mischievous, when conducted by suoli examinations as those of thu New Zealand University." And yet the Chancellor is prepared to include tho writer of theso words among thoso who established tho system, and never complained of it. , This is not tho first time that the Chancellor has made these statements about Dr. Macgregor. He did so before tho Education Committee of the House in 1911, and then said, referring to a division on tho Senate in 1899, that "he (Dr. Macgregor) had voted for the external examiners being retained." I subsequently pointed out to the Chancellor that ho had not been fair to Dr. Macgregor, as the motion referred to involved the appointment of English examiners for one year—a restriction likely to exclude good men. The motion was; "That the appointment of examiners in England be limited to one year, in order to reserve to the Senate the right of determining next session whether tho tirao has not now arrived when the examinations should be wliolly conducted by the professors of the affiliated institutions of the University." If, as the Chancellor unfairly suggests, this is to be considered a test case on this question, it is interesting to note that ho himself was one of the two that voted for the motion. So much for the accuracy'of the Chancellor's second statement. No good purpose can be served by discussing the general question further, but it does seem necessary to correct errors of fact, like tlie above, where the evidence is not easily available to the public, but can bo found in the minutes and proceedings of the University.—l am, etc., THOS. A. HUNTER. Wellington, Juno IG, 1913.