CURRENT TOPICS.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 482, 21 June 1890, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS.

BY Z AMI EL. Human nature is still much what it used to be. There is a lot of talk about social ini. provement and the advance of culture, but after all there is precious little of it. What there is, is mostly veneer; admirably polished, perhaps, bub still veneer. Every now and then some force of circumstance strips it off and we see the plain, ugly wood underneath. We do not, as our forefathers did, take it as the mark of a gentleman to get drunk every evening, nor do we think it the best of manners to bo coarse in our conversation and swear in the presence of ladies. But in dropping these little pleasantries have we not perhaps made a great mistake? Are we not depriving our womnnkind of something they appear to enjoy? Let us try and solve the question. We are all of us anxious to please; let us see what most amuses them.

Twice during the last week we have had scenes of drunkenness represented on the public stage, and young girls and old ladies have shaken their sides laughing at it. Surely it is a pity that we should oblige them to go to a theatre for this sort of amusement; it might so easily be provided at home. In one piece the father of the heroine comes home in a state of beastly drunkenness and staggers about the stage in' front of bis eighteen-year-old daughter and the man she is engaged to. Finally he tumbles helplessly into a chair, and nodding his head with sottish hilarity, bids his daughter come and kiss him. What humour is here ! what delicacy ! What delightfully high-toned feeling ! and how the girlß in the audience enjoy and laugh at it all. It is so thoroughly cultured, so refined. It is such a lovely thing for a presumably innocent and well-bred girl to see her father drunk, to have her fiance make fun of the shameless old man before her eyes and ape the antics of his bestial drunkenness! Later on there is such delightfully dreadful profanity that it makes people rock to and fro in their seats. At each fresh oath the ripple of feminine laughter increases till the girl’s mother brings out, under circumstances of unparalleled vulgarity, an expletive so low that few men would use it even when alone. Then the laughter swells into a wave of frantic hilarity and admiration.

How it raises our ideas of woman and womankind to see them cackling over such sights ! What a grievous mistake we have been making. Let us repair the errors we have fallen into while there is yet time. Let us swear freely in the presence of girls. They seem to think ib a rare joke on the stage. Our prospective fathers-in-law may nob get drunk, so we cannot provide a charming little drawing-room scene like the one which tickled so many girls in the audience the other night, bub we may yet do something.

They were equally amused by the drunken man in “ Dorothy.” If the staggering eait, the humorous and refined hiccup and vulgar witticism of drink are what they find so excruciatingly funny, surely we can provide them with this. We may not feel equal to the exertion of getting tight ourselves for their delectation, but instead of hurrying them away from the presence of a drunken man in the street, we can take them near so that they may laugh and giggle at the exquisite humorousness of the sight which they applaud so whenever they see it in counterfeit.

We can do more. We can say damn at their tea-tables and watch to see them thrown into the same convulsions of merriment which the word appears to produce whenever they hear it on the stage. But we must not do them an injustice. They can also appreciate the niceties of humour. In “ Dorothy,” Lurcher pretends to catch an insect out of somebody’s head. He kills it between his finger and thumb. Now, here is something almost aesthetically cultured in this, and how wellitisappreciated. How the girls do laugh ! The exquisite taste displayed charms them. Was there ever anything so chastely comic ?

Here is a joke that we can all practise in our drawing-rooms, and with which dancing men can divert their partners in the sitting-out time betwoen the dances. How delightedly amused the girls will be as their Swain pretends to catch the harmless but unnecessary flea behind their shell-like ears, and proceeds to pretend to kill it! They will half-die with laughing—why nob? Surely unless they liked it they would not applaud it on the stage ? What! Our Auckland girls clap anything that was else but ultra high-toned and proper—of course not!

“ Wanted, a Boy.” This is the leading advertisement now-a-day in the “ wanted ” columns of the daily press. Men appear to be going out of fashion, and, as a natural consequence, the age of boys is extended. For instance there have been several advertisement 3 latley for strong boys from seventeen to eighteen years of age. I notice that one wants a boy about the latter age who is able to do ordinary farm work and also cook. As 10s per week and found was the remuneration offered for a fai’m hand and cook combined, the advertiser thought this would bo better than paying 30s a week for a cook alone. Things appear to be rapidly approaching the time when we shall be able again to read : “ Wanted, a strong boy who fears the Lord, and is able to carry two hundredweight.”

Everybody in Auckland went to see “ Chums ” on the evenings of its production here. People looked upon the visit as a duty they owed in consideration of the fact that the play saw the light in Auckland. The criticisms offered by the public did nob all agree, naturally. Some thought it very good indeed, other b thought it very bad bub the majority pub it down in the middling list verging towards good. I saw it on Saturday evening, and on the same evening I met some Scotch friends, who were also at the performance. When we came out after the second act they were loud in their condemnation of the piece. “ The worst thing we ever saw in Auckland. Ridiculous rubbish !” My friends appeared very much excited. Christie Murray was anathematised freely.

At first I could nob understand the reason for such violent dislike, but at last it waa made clear. “ The idea of making the villain of the play a Scotchman, and such a mean villain. Christie Murray deserves booting. He might have made him an Englishman or an Irishman, a German or a Jew ; but to make him a Scotchman, with a red head, it’s awful !” At first it was determined to waib on the author, and give him the option of a beating or of changing the villain’s nationality; but this course was eventually abandoned in favour of a proposaltbat at next meeting of the Gale-

donian Society a vote of censure should be passed on Christie Murray. Let us hope that “Chums” will nob go forth to the world with that awful ban on it.

Lawyers, as a rule, take good care that their fees for attendance at Court are secured, in the event of any case in which they have been retained calling for the intervention of the judge, bub jurymen do nob appear to have their interests so well looked after. A case in point has been brought under my notice. On Monday last the Civil Sessions of the Supreme Court commenced. The list of cases set down for hearing was a lengthy one, and included no loss than live jury cases, one to be tried by a special jury of four, and the others by a common jury of twelve. Forty men, chosen by lob, in the ordinaryway, had been summoned to attend as jurymen, and, under the risk of incurring very heavy penalties for absenting themselves, they put in an appearance for the purpose of immolating themselves on the altar ®t duty, for their country’s good. The majority, if not the whole of the jurymen had left their ordinary occupations much against their will, and at considerable inconvenience, bub there was one redeeming feature in the prospect of their being paid for their services. Vain delusion ! Every one of the jury cases fell through—some were settled out of Court, others were adjourned for the convenience of the parties—and the whole forty jurymen were informed that their services were no longer required.

By this time half the day had gone, and this to the majority of the jurymen so summarily disposed of meant the loss of a full day’s pay, but never a word said the learned judge about expenses. As a matter of fact, the jurymen, nob having actually served on any particular case, were entitled to nothing, and it is just here that the injustice comes in. The cases for the trial of which they had been summoned were all private cases, and if the parties succeeded in settling such actions out of Court, after jurymen have been summoned for their benefit alone, surely the least they could do is to recognise their liability for the lost time and inconvenience caused by their not having arrived at some such amicable settlement of their disputes before the Court was opened. If jurymen are not required after they have been summoned, surely the least that can be done is to make them aware of the fact that their attendance will nob be necessary. This is one of those matters that require the strictest supervision by the Court, and I was somewhat surprised to learn that Mr Justice Conolly had made no comment upon the situation.

The relative position of the Church and the stage have formed much matter for discussion everywhere in these days of rapid advance in thought, and perhaps it is in the colonies that the striking change of views, of late years, amongst many of the white-chokered fraternity with regard to the drama and theatrical representations in general, is exemplified more than elsewhere. A few years ago the average parson would have been quite dumbfounded at the idea of taking a conspicuous seat in a theatre or such place of amusement. Ib wasn’t proper, those terribly immoral 3tage people should not be countenanced by anyone, least, of all by a minister “ of the Gospel,” and their plays were directly averse to moral and religious teachings. Perhaps there was another reason—the church collection plates might suffer on the Sabbath from the expenditure on the theatre during the week, bub that doesn't matter.

No doubt the great majority of ministers and religious teachers, who have set their faces against the stage, did so conscientiously, but if those of the body who to-day countenance the drama by their presence do so in as much earnest, then the change within a few years has been very great. We have heard of parsons at Home warning their docile flocks not to go near a theatre on pain of damnation, and a lot of other equally nice things. In many Methodist and Presbyterian populations, the prejudice against the stage still exists no doubt as strong as ever. Bub in the main, people have long begun to see that there is something of the antagonism natural to two diametrically opposed “ trades ” to do with the parsons’ outcry against the theatre and Opera House, and even the ministers themselves have turned round, many of them, and frankly acknowledged that a good play is as beneficial to men and women, and as ennobling in its influence, as many a sermon.

Now, in Auckland, if we except some Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian circles, ministers of religion are, I think from what I have been able to observe, unusually liberal in this regard. No matter what the style of dramatic representation, so long as it is presentable—which is invariably the case, I may say—a person attending the Opera House is nearly always sure, if he keeps his eye “ lifting,” to spy a local clergyman or two composedly and comfortably enjoying or criticising the play and the performers. My readers will remember the “rush” of parsons to see “Uncle Tom’s Cabin ” at the Opera House some time back. The men of black attire and reverend mien—some of them—were regular drugs in the market then. They were there in shoals, heaps of ’em, looking nob a whit better or more sanctimonious than ordinary sinners. And they seemed to enjoy it, too. Then “ Little Lord Fauntleroy ” brought another shoal into the theatre. Every now and then there is something on the boards that gives a sorb of fillip to the attendance of ministers, bub under ordinary circumstances there is generally a fair sprinkling of the disciples of orthodoxy at reputable places of amusement. They undoubtedly benefit by it. At least, that is my idea. They must go away from the theatre with their eyes opened to more than one side of life, their ideas widened and rendered a little more liberal and tolerant, and with a greater respect for hard-working actors and actresses whose life work it is to pub these living pictures of life and manners, of good and evil, before the public. The clergyman who said that he could always preach a better sermon after seeing a good play was, I think, about right.

I must admit that the stage has not always been what it should be, nor is it yet in every case. A great deal is required' to be eliminated in the drama. But what is the use of portraying the virtuous side of life without the other, of the good without the bad and unlovely? The picture is incomplete. There is a good deal more of bad, false and vicious in this world than there is of truth and goodness, according to Zamiel’s view of things, and no good end can be attained by merely presenting a false and one-sided picture of life on the stage. The stage should be a mirror of human life and doings, idealised somewhat perhaps, but still a faithful reflection, and all classes of people, parsons and all, are coming round to recognise that in the majority of cases what is seen on the stage la a true, an entertaining and a refining representation of phases in everyday life* portraying the joys and sorrows,

the trials and triumphs of mortals like themselves.

The author of “ Chums ” appears to have gob a very fair idea of colonial life. For instance, it is by no means an uncommon thing for largo farmers to be presumably rich and actually involved in consequence of the speculating mania. Ned Fellowes may also be found on many a digging in New Zealand, whilst the tricks in connection with the Great Expectations Mine are nob without parallel, though of course such things never happened in Auckland. Still we have known sharos in mines to fluctuate wonderfully without any apparent cause. When they rise those in the ring sell, and afterwards buy again in the fall of the market, and thus dividends are obtained although no crushing may have taken place. This state of things seems likely to increase in the future, for of late sharebrokers have been elected as directors in many companies. Now, these gentlemen may be strictly honest, bub none the less their living is earned by the commissions resulting from sales caused by a fluctuating market, and that alone should be sufficient to make shareholders careful in the matter of choosing directors.

This subject naturally leads to the question of letting mines on tribute. It has often occurred to me that the system is unwise. In the first place it appears unfair that companies should lock up large areas of auriferous land, and only let it be worked on the condition that 25 per cent, of the net return is paid to them. Why should this be the case ? If companies do not want to work the land, then it should be forfeited, and be thrown open to small parties of men who are willing to man it. Another objection to the tribute system is that it offers a premium to the men engaged in the mines to act unfairly to the companies. What is more natural than that a good thing should be passed in the hopes that by-and-by the mine will be let on tribute ? In many instances it has happened- that portions of a mine have been taken on tribute by past employees, and good returns obtained. This may have been luck, or,what is just as likely, these men may have knowingly passed these places with a view to taking them on tribute. Thus, the companies merely pay wages for men to learn which is the best block to take upon tribute.

There are some lazy men in the world. Perhaps this is not news, but it is mentioned fo introduce a circumstance of recent occurrence. The man in question was a small settler in a country district, and was generally considered to suffer from achronic disinclination to work. One morning he was seen quietly strolling about, whilst his wife was vigorously chopping at a large log to get some firing. That same evening his family was increased by the advent of a little stranger. Even this did not seen to arouse his working faculties, for the next morning the poor fellow was noticed sitting smoking in the sun, trying to get warm. There was no firewood cut, and his wife was unfortunately nob in a position bo work, being in bed, and therefore incapable of chopping more wood, so he could nob have a fire. That man reminds me of a coloured individual in the States who gob attacked by ague. It left him the next day because the fellow was too lazy to shake. •s- -it * * * ■••• -«• -- That delightful Caledonian pa time, a “ heresy hunt,” is from all appearances thriving beautifully in the second edition of auld Scotia bonny Otago. Nob long ago Dr. Salmond and his new-fangled doctrines scandalised the douce folk of Dunedin, who were quite in their element in a good old heresy hunt. Now we have news of another little bib of recreation of this sorb, so dear to the Scottish heart. The Rev. J. Gibb, of Dunedin, is becoming alarmingly liberal in his theological views, and of course his congregation are rising up in wrath. At the meeting of tne Presbytery, one of Mr Gibb’s flock rose up in great sorrow and virtuous indignation and lifted up his voice in lamentation. Mr Gibb had said some terribly heterodox things, evidently. “In the course of the morning service he made use of language to the effect that he did not agree with the statement of the doctrine of election as set forth in the Standards of the Church ;• that the words were an emphatic declaration from the pulpit of the falsity of one of the cardinal doctrines of Scripture, and of the Presbyterian Church ; and that such a statement in such circumstances was calculated to unsettle the miods of the members and adherentsof the congregation, and generally throw doubt upon the doctrines of the Church.” *** * * * ■W -fir M. No wonder the Kirk people were shocked. The idea of a minister venturing to assert his right of conscience and preach what he honestly believes, and not what sundry “ fathers in the Church” may have believed in bygone times, is too much for any orthodox God-fearing body of Scotties. Ib will be interesting to watch the development of this particular heresy hunt. There are indications that the Rev. J. Gibb will “get it hob.” In some other Scottish localities in the colonies, by the way, there are indications of a surprising spread of liberality in regard to kirk matters which are quite alarming. For instance, we read that at Manly Beach, Sydney, the Presbyterians have actually gob luxurious sofas and cane - bottomed arm-chairs in their Bethel. Mein Gotb ! and this in a Scobs’ kirk. No one can tell what luxuries they’ll go in for next. And then we hear that even in auld Scotland itself the meenisters are venturing some dangerously unorthodox opinions. One actually recommends the young people of of his flock to go in for foctball on the Sunday afternoon. After that, wbustling on the “ Sawbath ” is nowhere.

The Government, Police, and Charitable Aid Board seem to have been playing a three-handed game of euchre with regard to the unfortunate woman Mrs James. The Board and Government are of course fighting on principle, whilst the police are merely acting as a matter of necessity. In all this, however, there is something pitiable in the affair. Can anything be more sad than to see an unfortunate woman whose very necessities should excite compassion, passed on from one to another until at last she becomes stranded at the final resource of human misery—the Police Station ? Perhaps the Government were right in discharging her from the Asylum, but if anything is calculated to send a person back again to madness it would be the facing of such a “ peck of troubles ” as it has been Mrs James’s lot to encounter.

Landed in Whangarei, she, with a mother’s instinct, at once takes possession of her children, and has to face the world again with neither home nor money. Her own mother states that she is too poor to keep her, the local constable cannot let her wander about at will, and therefore he passes her on to Auckland. Here again the police are at a loss how to act, and as it wag night when she arrived, she was passed on to the Samaritans at the Prison Gate Brigade

Home. Then fresh troubles occurred, as the Home is nob fitted up for women and children. The Auckland Charitable Aid Board refused the responsibility, and ultimately the four unfortunates were landed in the Police Station. Truly, “In a whole city full, friends she had none.” The police provide for her, as they do for many others who havo nob been guilty of any crime. The fact is, that the old text might be altered, to read. “When thy father and mother forsake thee, then the police will take thee up.” We really want another Costley who would leave some thousands to assist the poor and needy, irrespective of the burning question as to whence they came.