The Cambria Daily Leader

Svn Sises 7 21, S;1 Sets 5.9. Lighting-up Time, S.13. High Watr, 13.21.

THE AMAZING "iiNQUiRY." The Swansea Council Inquiry" into the statements made in the Elec- tive Auditors' Report to the ratepayers was held yesterday afternoon. We imagine that there has never been any- thing quite like it. The Mayor showed early in the proceedings that it was hopeless to expect from him the dispassionate im- partiality of a chairman; he pi i»- nounced judgment quickly and heavily. "The evidence is overwhelming against the public auditors" he ruled after the investigation of the Ystradgynlais business. It only required the sapient question of a Municipal Reform coun- cillor. not a member of the inquiry— Do you think you are going far cnouga, Mr. Mayorr"—to round oil this part of the proceedings. "It is closed now," he replied. W e do not think it is. The Auditors may have, a word or two to say. Perhaps the most amazing point -? t iniazing point about the "inquiry" was the contusion that prevailed as to its limitation to certain items. The Free Church Coun- cil requested an inquiry into the He- port generally; the Council determined that the inquiry should be "restricted to the mat teas included in the report of the Borough Auditors." The commit- tee met (privately), and the official re- port denoted plainly that it had re- solved upon a serious limitation-the Cray bills were not to be investigated. There can be no quibbling about this; the evidence is quite clear. When we raised the question of the limitation here, an attempt was ma de e lsewhere to justify the exclusion of the bills, "The Investigating Committee is ad- vised," said our contemporary, "that tho terms of reference as adopted by the Council did not embrace this bill." The Free Church Council saw that. the "inquiry" was made to order, and it rightly refused to be any party to pro- ceedings in Ni-hicit ihe most sensational, and, from its point of v iew the most scandalous, items had been deliberately excluded. The" inquiry" was not the sort of investigation it sought; it was not to be the thorough one the rate- payers had a right to expect. We forced the question of this limitation to the front, and, after having first said "No," yesterday the Committee graciously brought the bill into its scope. The committee gave way—of course it had to give way. But the measure of its keenness to get at aU the facts may be seen from this one incident. It can definitely be estab- lished that the intention of the private meeting was not to discuss this signi- ficant bill. The value of such a dis- section of the bill as may be impractic- able now," said our contemporary. is not very evident." We are not going to find causes for the queer and in- excusable attitude, and the ratapnyers may be quite wrong if they jiltlip to any conclusions. The items of the bili, to sec'iie which such needless pressure had to be exerted, we will refer to again- What transpired with regard to the Cigars (for 4)?" We think we-can, fairly, summarise the facts thus: The Auditors, pursuing their work, came upon a Dili, upon, hotel paper, and I marked" Cray lunch," giving certam particulars. On it was an observation luncn for four —an observation thac had evidently passed the scrutiny oi tho chairman of committee and the official or officials who signed it tor payment. It is important to note that the words" lunch for lour." and the signatures, ive, e lie biL when if canio to the auditors. They had a duty to the pub- lic, and, according to their lights, they fuiiiued it. It struck them that Ll 2s. was an inordinate, amount for cigars ivt- a luacli for lour, and their offence—the ouence ior wnac t-ney were so vigorously assailed at the "inquiry" by some of its i.infers—was that they emphasised the cigar bill by inserting the for 4" against the one iGem. It is th? merest ) I moonshine to-state that they misled the in(iol; sill 11G? bliat tli(,v rtjt?;led t-lo i ment. said for four • it now ap- pkai's l 1 >t was >;o marked by a clerk ',110 saw oil I- c the Guildhall in a j ta): i-t;) b. It is also the merest moon- S, LY that words "for 4 put against one hem affected the course of the elections. The electors can read; and goodness only knows the Municipal Reformers amply demonstrated that the cigars were for more tiliii four. IV say that they did not is to acknowledge that their organ's influence is very limited, for, ill ample time to convince that" cigars (for 4) w ere cigars for a lot more, it gave another version of the notorious incident. For ourselves we can say that the revised version of the Reformers had due prominence in our columns. If-the inference of the auditors was wron.g-and the bill gave them no indication that it was wrong- the correction was ample, and it was made in good time. We knew before the elections that the cigars were for any number between ten and twenty. It is established now that the box of 60 was for nineteen. And a a pretty story also we know I "They I were there for anybody to help them- selves," said one of those who were I present. "After the luncheon, the majority of people were smoking cigars." "Whatever we had there," said Councillor Corker with a frank- ness that docs him crcd)!, was taken indiscriminately. Everybody was wel- come to what was there. Everything ■seems to have been delightfully mixed. ii, was not, apparently, a question of c. n the .Brcconshire people, for Councillor Corker said that | whether we had some of the Ystrad- jgyniais luncheon, or whether they had i sen to of ours, I can't tell you." The cigars at any rate seem to have gone well around. The "nark inspection" cigars found; j a willing culprit in Councillor Lee. J He confessed that "there have been some cigars smoked"—"some" was, at one inspection, a box of a hundred; "and perhaps they have been paid for by the ratepayers." Twenty-five to thirty went to this inspection, and in light-heartedly pleading guilty, my lord," Mr. Lee said "We may not do HL again," We do not fancy they will! A box of cigars for a round of the parks is not an item over which to rend the heavens, but we do not think the Parks Committee wiU risk it in the immediate future. The only real value of the "inquiry" came from the investigation of the item meant at first to be excludod-w-the item which would have been excluded had we net successfully fought the point. The wines and spirits account of the Cray trip was produced. Let us set it out: 16 bottles of c!aret, 23 j1 j hifik, 11 whisky, 5 brartGy, 6 cioz. "Schweppcs, 6 1 Ginger Ale. 34 pints of Bass's beer, 36 -pin Zs of Rziss' beer. 16 bottles of rl ei c i-, 300 cigars, and an ¡ Unnamed quanti y of cigarettes. Counting in the chaffeurs who drove the party to Cray, there were sixty-six who took purt, in the trip, and, making no allowance for the total abstainers who indulged in the less expensive non- intoxicants—and they were a goc-ny number—the bill is said to work out to something under 6s. a head. Mr. I'd. Wat-kins questioned the wisdom of en- trusting the valuable lives of our coun- cillors to drivers who had this fine choice of liquid refreshments before them; we prefer to believe that the i-b.iffours, tlilnlzlpg of the long journey home via Llandovery, restrained their hands, and concentrated their atten- tion upon the dry ginger ale and thoi table waters. What defeneo can be offered of this bill—the bill that would not have been produced had not the Leader" in- sisted. after the limitation of the in- quiry had been announced in an official report, that the "inquiry" was farcial without an investigation of the Cray fancy that the ratepayers are profoundly thankful that the Elec- tive Auditors can bring their atten- tion to such items.

WHO MADE THEE A II JUDGE. Lord Kenven sits in the House oN v Lords in virtue of the fame of a lawyer who lined a century and a quarter ago, named Lioyd Kenyon. He was Master ) of the Rolls and Lord Chid Justice during George TH.'s reign. His descen- dant has exerted hiniseil more than any of bis peers for Welsh education, but we venture to say that, holding the views he does, there is not a constituency in Wales in winch he could secure election to the representative House of Com- mons. Yet it is Lord Kenyon who rises in the House of Lords to move the re- jection of the Disestablishment and Din- j endowment lJiH, and to oppose the will oi the Welsh people. It is this peer, representing only his family, who sub- mits to the Lords that "the Bill should i)e I- c ?, IiO, unwar. be rejected because it is unwise, unwar- ranted, and unjust" who declares it to be "the unanimous opinion of the laity of VVales that tne bill should be thrown out." If Welshmen do not show some of the spirit of Swinburno, and say with him, "Out of the way, my lords and lackeys they have lost their ancient disposition. Who made Lord iieuyoc a prince and a judge over usf By what 1'jg'H does he speak in the name of the! elsh iaity f His speech was distinguished by its ignorance of Welsh Nonconformist life. "The Nonconformists of Wales," he said, "were split up into several bodies, and except when they joined tu- gether in an attack upon the Church of England, they were as divided among themselves as they were divided from! tho Church of England. Tne Church of; England was everywhere, but these' Nonconformists were only somewhere. Does not tne reader catch tne note of contempt in Lord Kenyon's voice?; "These Nonconformists I" What a crowd they are What a rabble! They, are only "somew here." Ah, but wo an ten Lord Kenyon where they are. j They are to be found on the lonely hill- sideh of Wales. Their Bethels face the: bleak w inds and tbe rain of the mouti-j tain slopes; the Church spire rises in j the sheltered valley. And there is greater co-operaiion among "these Non- i conformists," despite their doctrinal differences, than among the divisions or the one State Church. j My Lord Bishop of 't. Asaph also spoke in the House of Lords "in thei name of Wales!" He does not seem to:1 have accepted tho odd definition of the! ministerial function, pronounced by Lord Kenyon, that "preaching is the least essential of a parish clergyman" I he probably bad iii certain words written to tho Corinthians by the Apo-fle to the'Gentiles. But he wailed over the severance ot the Welsh dioceses from the main body of the English Church—-a severance, of course, in ad- ministration only, and not touching tbtJ, main work of the Chuich. The Bishop i seems to be unaware of a point brought out by Mr. Griffith Jones in the "West- minster Review." In the reign of Wii- liam IV." the Ecclesiastical Commiia-I sioners reported in favour of the dis-i estab:is;lm<mt of the See, of Lhnddf,! ,I nd rl -cfse and its bishop, and of adding the diocese' to the See of Bristol. They reported 1 also in favour of the union of St. Asaph a',i Bangor iiioer one bishop, thus dis- establishing one of the North Wales bishops this with a view to the forma- ticj of a -new see at Manchester! "The fact that a majority of the Welsh people might desire disestablish-1 ment did not make ?t right or just th;?t? disesta?ishmGnt should take place," I said the Earl of Plymouth, also, we sup- pose, speaking for Wales. No! The Kenyons, the St. Asaphs, the 'Ply-I mouths, these he the conscience of Wales ? ??ey decide—or they used to dc-Idc. Tb' y cannot to-d?y, for tho Parliament Ad has answered the old question: Wlfo made thee a judge ovcr US )

¡; ,y 1 Ch "Lord Charles. I a The Sailor' s Visit. Some Land Incidents in Fi-is I, Political Career. w E love Lord Charles Beresford, the oreezy sailor who is to speak at bwansea to-morrow evening. A\ e j love him in spite of his imperfections. We love him because of many of them. Therefore, we weicomc him to Swansea, We shall listen to him carefully, but ho must excuse us if, beforehand, we state that we do not expect much enlighten- ment upon naval policy. "If I have a fault," he said in the House of Commons last December, "I beiie/ve it is that I am too blunt in speaking my mind clearly, regardless of consequences to myself." lie has an- other, and in the same debate it was pointed out by Mr. Churchill, who said: I am not one of those who take the noble lord too seriously. I know him too well. He does not mean to be as offensive as he often is when he is speaking on public platforms. He is one of those orators of whom it was well said: Before they get up they do not know what they are going to say; when they are speaking they do not know what they are saying; and when they has e sat down they do not know what j they have said." In this country, and I think on both sides of the House, his mea- su?e has been taken, not nntaii?y, but harm is done and has been done often abroad in other countries by the reckless statement which he makes about the Navy and about naval a-dmiristration, which he has not. only made against me, and the Board of which I dill a member, but which he has made against my predecessors of both parties, and of all the Boards, includ- ing those under which he has served and of which he was a member. There was some excuse for the bitter- ness of Mr. Churchill, a.s he declared, "When I was fit appointed he said, 'Give him a fair chance" but within a fortnight he had made a speech in which he said I had betrayed the Navy." Everybody Was Wrong. I Lord Charles often refers to a conver- sat,ion between himself and Lord Salis- bury, in 1886, when lie (Lord Charles) was Junior Lord The whole of the Board, he said, was against him-that is Charlie's nor- mal complaint—and said he was an "up- start." Lord Salisbury asked*whether he was expected to consider Lord Charles's colleagues, and those who had preceded him, as wrong, and Lord Charles as right, and Lord Charles re- plied; "It may seem egotistical, but I want you to believe that!" There is an old French saying to the effect that when every one is in the wrong, everyone is in the right. It is not Lord Charles's motto! The Beresford muiry. lu A.prU of 1909, Lord Charts Beres- fod addressed a letter <m Admiralty- policy to Mr. Asquith. It contained, a? Mr. Asquith s?ud In his repLy ? stut'? ments so grave upon matters vit;il to tiro national safety," as to call for prompt and thorough examination. Mr. Asquith accordingly at once set up a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, consisting of himself (as chairman), Lord Crewe, Lord Mor- ley, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Haldane. Their report was issued on August 14th I The Allegation. -1 -11 -1 ? -11 sm-oadly, J/oru diaries's allegation was that from A?rii, 1001, when he assumed command of the Channel Fleet up to his letter to Mr. Asquith, and at that d ate, the Admiralty's organisation "nd preparations for war were totally inadequate for national safety. "During that period the fleets in home waters lia-ve not been organised in readiness for war, and they are not organised in readiness for w ar to-day" (April 2nd). He viewed the strategical and tactical situation arising from the Admiralty's scheme of organisation with the very j gravest apprehension." The "deficiency in important units of small craft and destroyers constituted a grave weak- ness," and he had been able to obtain from the Admiralty "no strategical scheme or plan for the disposal in war of the forces under his command." The Admiralty admitted that the or- ganisation in home waters during Lord Charles Beresford's period of command had not been from a strategical point of view an unimpeachable arrangement," but they pointed out that it had been merely a necessary stage during a transitional period of exceptional diffi- culty in the development of the Home Fleet, and the Sub-Committee accepted the Admiralty view While the Committee are cf opinion that the Admiralty would have been better advised in adhering throughout to the principle of placing the chief command in Home waters in the hands of a single officer, they think that the exceptional difficult i s which confronted the Board during this transitional stage in the evolution of the Home Flaet justified the dispositions made. They are fnrthermore of opinion that no danger to the country in fact resulted from these dispositions." A ssioiisncsiion. I The Committee wsro satisfied that there was no such deficiency in smaii craft and destroyers "as to constitute a risk to the safety of the country," while they were of opinion that there was no substantial foundation for Lord Charles's "apprehensions" that ow ing to the alleged dangerous short- age or ci uisers the Admiralty were not in a position to make adequate provision for the protection of trade. As to Lord Charles Beresford's ori- ginal statement iu his letter to the Prime Minister that "upon assuming command of the Channel Fleet he was unable to obtain any strategical scheme or plan for the disposal in war of the forces under his command," the Com- mittee stated that it was modified under cress-examination, and they "are satis- fied that he had no substantial grounds for complaint in this .matter." I A Word to Lord Charles. I The Committee stated their general 1 conclusions in the following terms:— In the opinion of the Committee, the investigations has shown that dur- ing the time in question no danger to the country resulted from the Admir- alty's arrangements for war, whether considered from the standpoint of the organisation and distribution of the fleets, the number of ships, or the pre- paration of war plans. They feel bound to add that arrange- ments quite defensible in themselves, though not ideally perfect, were in practice seriously hampered through the absence of cordial relations between the Board of Admiralty and I the Commander- in-Chief of the Channel Fleet. The Board of Admiralty do not appear to have taken Lord Charles Beresford suffi- ciently into their confidence as to the reasons for dispositions to which he took exception and Lord Charles Beresford, on the other hand, appears to have failed to appreciate and carry out the spirit of the instructions of the Board, and to recognise their paramount auth- ority." When the Sub-Committee was ap- pointed, Lord Charles Beresford himself said of it: "I do not think that you could get five more able men, or men with more judicial minds, than those who have been appointed to conduct that inquiry." I What the "Times" said. As to tne pan, Lon] Coarles Beres- ford played in the Master, the following comments were made bv the Times' (August 14th):— ac,. These conclusions will be satisfac- tory to the country; but tuey MILI alo I tond very appreciably to lower the high. ostimate which many of his countrymen have hitherto been wont to form of Lord Charles Beresiord's judginent, dis- cretion, and sense 01 naval discipline. "Nothing but the sternest and most urgent sense of duty should lead uu officer in Lord Charles Beresford's posi- tion to prefer such an indictment as he preferred against the policy and pro- ceedings of the supreme rulers of the Navy. Nothing but the complete proof of his charges could justify his having doilo so. "Both parties are here (i.e., to the general conclusion of the Sub-Committee given above) impartially, but assuredly not equally, blamed. There can be no equality in this respect between the supreme authority of the Navy and an officer subject to that authority. We regret that. an officer of Lord Charles Beresford's wide influence, high. distinction, and eminent services should not have interpreted these regulations (i.e., the Service Regulations) in the sense in which we are quite sure he would require any officer under hia direct authority to interpret them." His Book and His Scares. Lord Charles not long ago blossomed out as an author. It was an unfortu- na.tl3-;dav for him when he ventured into this unfamiliar field, for his book on naval policy, and upon the shortcominga of our naval system was unmercifully trounced, not only by journals and re- Viiews of opposite political views, but by such an influential journal as the Times." His political career has been one long succession of alarms. Some time ago, speaSing at Portsmouth, he alleged that during a great international crisis: (1) Our FIt lacked organisation and was divided; (2) Wa had no reserves of coal, and thousands of tons were sent from Waies to Scotland. (3) We had no military guards over magazines, nor over aock gates, or railways; no mine clearers in our parts or fairways; and oil supplies in tha nortn. What was tue truth? Mr. McKcnna said in reply: "There is no foundation of any kind for the allegations there contained. At the time of tiie crisis there were ample reserves of oil in the North, and what he eavs about hurrying the coal trom Wales admits of the simplest explanation. It is the prac. of the Admiralty 1.0 transport coal by sea. There was a desire to vary this prac- tice as an experiment by taking the coal over the railways in order to find oiit whether tratliQ would he dislocated. Thfl experiment had nothing whatever t/) do with the crisis, but was a mere matter of administration. The sentence about there being no guards for the magazines or the dockyards dots not, of course, concern the Admiralty, biii. the War Office. Obviously it is not brne, and should not be accepted without and sli,,)iild nct Le w,? t hc,t k Winston's Judgment. Lord Cnarles is very genial. Tn- morrow evening doubtless we t'hall be treated to the old, old tale. But we must remember t!ie warning of Mr. Churchill: Cuder a genial manner-and I warn the House of this—which is very attrac- tive to the House at large, aiid winch the House very wisely and rightly re- sponds to," he said, "the noble lord nourishes many bitter animosities oix naval matters. He is the last man who ought to make the Navy cither a party or a political question, and, as far as I can make out, lie is about the only man in *the House on either side whL. does it."

OUR SLIPPERY STREETS. To the Editor. Sir ,-I shall be much obliged if yotf will call the attention of those respon- sible to the slippery state of our paved roads. Owing to insufficient gravel be- ing used on them, dnvers of horse9 have a great difficulty to get along, es- pecially in High-street and the Strand. I rotice you record one accident owing to this in Oxford-street. In fair- ness to the poor animals who cannot get a footing, the authorities should put down a better supply.—Yours, etc., A Lover of Horses.

THE SHOP HOURS ACT 1 o the Halt or. Sir,—N ow that we have the Shops Ach in force, I should like to know whether a tradesman is allowed to work his assistants on the half-day holiday- Thursday afternoon? A case in point: A grocer's clerk (who is a shop-worker) is kept at it until fiv, or six o'clock on Thursday afternoons, also one of his assistants is employed soliciting orders. This man says tiiat they (his men) do not come within the meaning of the Act!" If so, what is the Act for?—Yours, etc., Fairpfay.

FOR WALTER-ROAD ? l'o the Edi,or. Sir,—The statement made at the Edu- cation Committee that the High School lor Girls is provided for, and attended only by girls from the neighbourhood of Walter-road is not correct. Anyone coming from town at 1.30 to 2 o'clock cannot help noticing the stream of children coming from the school through Walter-road a,,i(i -Nlinsel-street, and making for the centre or the town; which is proof, in itself, that the state- ment, 011 the face of it, is not true. It is full time in the best interests of the town and the children, that thia Committee should be composed of prac- tical men and not cranks. As a large ratepayer, and one inter- ested in the education of our children, I wou l d c(,i-'I lri l v &a t 1 would certainly say that Miss Bertger's sa.lary should not be reduced and I trust that the Council at their meeting, will als-o say so.-Yours, et., Ratepayer.

"STEEL TRAPS FOR RABBITS." To the Editor. Sir,-Advertip, to Mr. Joseph Col. linson's letter in your issue of Friday last, perhaps I may be allowed to sup- plement his humane remarks, and to emphasise the truth of the gruesome and cruel practice to which he refers, by quoting the following words of Thos. Hardy, than whom I think it will be readily admitted no other writer has so eloquently and pathetically championed the cause of those who cannot speak :— He was aroused by a shrill squeak thjfi had been familiar enough to him when St lived at Mary green. it was the cry of £ rabbit caught in a gin. As was the littJIt creature's habit, it did not soon repeat ita cry; and probably would not do so more than once or twice, but would remain, hiring its torture, till the morrow when tSj trapper would come and knock it on its head. —Yours, etc., W.A.S.P. St. Helen's-plaoe. [Other correspondence is unavoidably held over.—Ed.J