DEFENDING THE KILTS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 12, 13 January 1913, Page 7

DEFENDING THE KILTS.

A CRITIC CRITICISED

(‘Sydney Daily Telegraph.’)

On New Year’s Day several hundred people sat down to the official luncheon on the Agricultural Ground, Colonel James Burns, president of the Highland Society, occupying the chair, supported hy Mr. Trefie, Mr. Dugald Thomson, and most of the society’s officials.

Speech-making was commendahly short, the one subject of outstanding interest being dealt with being the recent attack on the kilts as an Australian Scottish uniform.

In proposing “Parliament,” Mr. Dugald Thomson referred to the fact that the society knew no politics, and never discussed political questions, though it might be urged against them that they had made an exception with regard to the kilts. “But,” continued the speaker, “that was not a question of the Highland Society interfering in politics. It was a question of politics interfering with a national sentiment.” (Loud applause.) He was glad to know, however, that those who had tried this interference had discovered that, hard as it might be to take the breeks off a Highlandman, it was much harder to dispossess him 'of his kilts. (Laughter and hear, hear.) In responding, Mr. Trelle declared that it would be a bad day for any nation il politics or religion were permitted to prevent an expression of national spirit. (Hear, hoar.) He was glad to know that the difficulty regarding the kilts’ had been settled, and that the Scot who was engaged with the English and Irish in the development of Australia would have no reason to hide his light under a bushel, or forget the land from which he was sprung. When either Scotch, or English, or Irish did that, national disintegration would have commenced, and the death-knell of the Empire would have sounded. '(Applause.) “The Garb of Old Gaul,” was proposed by Mr. VV. Cowan, who made a strong attack upon (senator Stewart for the part he had taken during the debate in the Senate on tlie retention of the kilt. Senator Stewart’s allegations regarding the Highlanders in the British Army, and those from whom the Highland regiments had been recruited, were, he said, very incorrect, 1 that it would be cowardly on their part to permit them to pass unanswered. Senator Stewart was opposed to the retention of the kilt, and, whilst they had respect for an honest opponent with honest views, but when any man, even a Senator, touched them as they had been touched, or traduced his country, they had for him a name that was neither parliamentary nor complimentary. In the report of the proceedings in the Senate, Senator Stewart was said to have declared that “the English had probably to a great extent lost the fighting spirit, and the Government decided that it would be wise to resort to that part of the United Kingdom, where the people were savages, cut-throats, and thieves, to secure more fighting material. I wish honourable Senators to' realise that the Australian army will be quite a different position from that ‘of Gre.lt Britain. Our army is to lie used for the purpose of defence only, and will not be required to he made up of cutthroats and thieves.” Senator Stewart subsequently excused himself by saying that the words were not his; but. added Mr. Cowan, upon him rested the responsibility of having used words which were never intended tc apply to the Highlanders in the British array, or to the men from when; the Highland regiments .were recruit od.