The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1916-08-01


that even started to come my way, and
just here l. want to encourage every
young man who starts out for wealth
and happiness to apply the same means
that 1 did. For, while I may not be as
prosperous and easy as my friend who
desires to pay street taxes for so years
to come after struggling as did for only
IA years. still have one wife and one
child. Thank the Lord.
ROB ADAMS.
Birmingham, July 81, 1916
England Needs a Change
To the Editor of The Age Herald:
Mr. P. r. Colwell of Marion denies
the correctness Of my statement that
England is not and never has been
governed by her people. Her reaction
airy House of Lords is the real ruler of
England" Also he denies that mo
matter what the House of Commons
proposes the House of Lords disposes."
Mr.. Colwell ought to know that there
never has been law enacted by the
Parliament of England which had not
to pass through the House Of Lords.
Also that no matter what the com-
mons wished the lords let pass as law
Colwell knows that the House of Lords
is not responsible to the people CT
England. They don't elect them either
directly or indirectly-like our sena-
tors. Hence the people of England
must take what they get and grin and
bear it. They have no redress, no re-
course, and must submit. Their mas
ters, the House of Lords, can do as
they please. They are irresponsible
despots, quite as much SO as the Rus
sian czar is, or used to be. They may
not have the power to chop peoples
heads off at will, like some despots,
but they certainly control the making
and execution of the laws and the con-
duct of the government in all but the
levying of taxes. Such are the naked,
stubborn facts and I defy Mr.. Colwell
or anyone else to deny 1t.
Will Mr.. Colwell please tell us which
is boss: Mr.. Meekton OF the commons
or Henrietta of the lords? II the House
of Lords does moi govern England
would like to know what Mr.. Colwen
understands by governing. Further
more, that aristocracy not only mas
the power but it uses 1t, too, on occa-
sions, with all the arrogance of an IT.
responsible despot To be sure, they
don't go staggering about 1t. Maccauly
said that even Napoleon CHS ideal OF
military despot) did not go around cut
ting peoples heads off That would not
be polite. All the same, the English
aristocracy has the power, and uses It..
too, in an effectual manner. 1 will, for
brevitys sake, cite just two instances
in illustration of that The English
people. through Mr.. Gladstone, enacted
a home rule law for Ireland about 40
years ago. and to make long story
short, Englands reactionary aristoc-
racy forbade 1t and it remains forbid
den to this day. The Irish people for
over a century-76 years, to my per-
sonal Neutrality-suspicious. and asked
and begged for "home rule" and the
English people under Mr.. Gladstone's
leadership said yes In no uncertain
manner. The aristocracy said no, and
behold. there you have 1t. Which
rules? A good juryman just looks at
the facts and lets the quibblers and ex-
cuses and the sophistries of the con-
tending jacklegs go in at one ear and
out at the other. For he knows the
truth of Nashby's epigram: "'Tain't no
use to argue agin facts" "Explana-
lions never explain" So much Tor tho
blocking Of home rule.
When I was young every officer of the
English army obtained his commission by
purchase. Promotion came In the same
way, instead of by merit. That was "A
fagrantly pernicious system, every way
you look at It. For years after the
Crimean war an old soldier, Sir de Tracy
Evans. who represented Westminster In
Parliament, worked to have 1t abolished,
session after session, until people thought
him a crank on the subject At last Mr..
Gladstone got to see the danger lurking
in the system and tried to abolish 1t,
but was defeated by the reactionary aris-
tocracy of England. However. he ac-
complished 1t in part, by indirect means.
and thereby earned the virulent enmity
of said aristocracy. For the reason that
for ages the army. the navy and the
church established by law and supported
by general taxation furnished sinecures
for the younger sons of the aristocracy,
money bought commissions regardless 81
merit and when, after 40 years of pro-
found peace, following Waterloo the Eng
fish expeditionary force in the Crimea,
led by such officers from Lord Raglan
down. became a laughing stock. and a
spectacle of failure and inefficiency be-
fore the civilized world.
1t lost to England the prestige gained
by the Napoleonic wars. Then thoughtful,
patriotic men, moreover, men competent
to Judge, like Sir de Tracy Evans, tried
TO put stop 10 bucu a pefniclOue SyS-
tenn, because the class Of army Officers
1T produced were mere drawing room pets,
greenies and mollycoddles. The first test
of war disclosed their worthlessness and
Judgment Day alone will show the value
Of the clergymen the system produced.
To do away with the purchase system
was to touch the pocket nerve of that
aristocracy. IT. provides for younger sons.
1t also laid an ak at the root of the
tree of aristocracy. In tho last analysis
force governs. and the English army is
irdissolubly united with the aristocracy-
every officer of the army is an aristocrat.
I remember Mr.. Colwells saying on this
subject. but lone swallow does not make
a summer" Men like General Robertson
are as scarce as hens teeth in the Eng
lish army-they are negiigible-and II the
House of Commons can control taxation.
the House Of Lords can come one bet
ter" as the boys say: They can control
the army; and just two years ago Sir
John French saw At to resign his commits
sion to take sides with a lot OF men who
by word and deed showed their deter
mination to oppose by force of arms a
law passed by the English Parliament.
Mora than that fha rea ctiou n -, rt~<r~.