iieview of Reviews, lOI-IOiS. 



Leading Articles. 



391 



ORDERS OPEN TO WOMEN. 



In the Girl's Rcalnt for March Mr. George A. 

 ^\'ade h.is an article on the Orders to which a girl 

 may aspire. 



Only five English Orders are available tor women 

 — three wholly reserved for them and two open to 

 lioth women and men. 



The oldest Order for women, the Royal Order of 

 Victoria and Albert, know as the "V.A.," was 

 founded by <^ueen Victoria in 1862, and was intend- 

 ed to commemorate the Prince Consort. The first and 

 second classes are reserved for Koyal ladies, the 

 third is open to peeresses, and the fourth to peeress- 

 es and ladies of lower standing. The decoration is 

 usually awarded for personal service at Court. 



The Imperial Order of the Crown of India 

 ("C.I.") was instituted by Queen Victoria in 1878. 

 Tn 1883 Queen Victoria honoured St. George's Day 

 liy founding the "R.R.C.," the Royal Red Cross, 

 for women who had shown zeal and devotion in nurs- 

 ing sick and wounded sailors and s:>ldiers. 



in 1902 the King* founded the Imperial Service 

 Order, available for both sexes. So far only two 

 women have won it. The only other Order open to 

 women is the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, " for 

 senice in the cause of humanity." 



"THE CASE FOR THE LORDS." 



Under this heading Mr. D. C. Lathbury contri- 

 butes to the Fortnightly Review a clever — an almost 

 sardonically clever — plea for the reform of the House 

 of Lords, under the guise of a stout championing of 

 its merits and functions. He argues in favour of 

 the Lords' rejection of the Comi^ensation for Dis- 

 turbance Bill in 1880. of the second Home Rule Bill 

 ill 1893, and of the Evicted Tenants Bill in 1894. 

 .After much that will rejoice the heart of the Tory 

 peer, Mr. Lathbury proceeds to insist that the real 

 fault of the House of Lords is not that it occasionallv 

 rejects Liberal Bills, but that it never rejects Con- 

 servative Bills. For example, it would probably 

 have passed, not without a murmur, hut without 

 serious modification, the Unemployed Workmen's 

 Bill as it was originally introduced. " This com- 

 placent acceptance of measures of one party without 

 regard to their contents is a very grave defect in a 

 .second Chamber." The real grievance against the 

 Lords is not that they do one half of their work 

 too well, but that they do not do the other half at 

 all. It is not Liberals who are primarily the suf- 

 ferers : — 



Tlie Conservatives have a more serious ground of com- 

 plaint. Tliej- are left to lesislale without an opportunity 

 of ascertaining: whether public opinion is with^ them or 

 a£!:a.inat them. It is to their share, therefore, that the 

 work of reforming: the House of Lords oug:lit by riglits to 

 fall. It needs to be made less of a party Chamber and 

 more of a Senate, less read.v to accept the measures of a 

 particular Government without investisation, and more 

 disposed to subject all the measures submitted to it to 

 impartial examination. Towards this kind of reform the 

 Liberals can contribute almost nothing. The addition of 

 a few more Liljeral Peers cannot materially alter the 

 character of the Chamber even if there were any means of 

 ensuring that their successors in the title would be of 



the same political colour. What is really wanted is a large 

 addition of life Peers, and it is very doubtful whether 

 such a scheme as this would have a chance of success 

 unless it caiiie from a Conservative source. On the other 

 hand, it would be so greatly to the advantage of Con- 

 servative ideas that it mijht well originate among the 

 Lonls themselves. It would be too much perhaps to ex- 

 pect the leaders of the Conservative Party to make the 

 passing of their own measures more ditttcult, but a pro- 

 posal which tended to make the House of Lords more in- 

 dependent and therefore stronger ought to have attractions 

 for those of the Peers who are intelligent enough to 

 understand what the present function of a second Chamber 

 ia. 



Thus has Mr, Lathbury laid upon the Conservative 

 Party, and still more on the Lords, the duty of 

 reform. After referring to the revision of the Bills 

 that come up from the Commons so as to make them 

 legally consistent and intelligible, Mr. Lathbury 

 concludes thus judicially concerning the Lords: — 



I submit that when their place and action are calmly 

 looked at thev will be seen to play a part in our con.<ti- 

 tutional machinery which needs to be pla.ved by someone, 

 and. on the whole, is not likely to be better played \\y.\n 

 by those to whom it ia now assigned. 



THEOLOGIANS AND THE THEATRE. 



The Sunday Strand has a symposium on Christians- 

 and the Theatre, edited by Leslie G. Brown. In 

 reply to the inquiry whether Christians can conscien- 

 tiously support theatres and music-halls, the Bishop 

 of Kensington thinks what is needed is more discrim- 

 ination, not wholesale condemnation. The Bishop 

 of St. Albans thinks it quite pc/ssible that two men 

 equally conscientious may come to different conclu- 

 sions. The Bishop of Durham's deliberate convic- 

 tion is that the theatre and music-hall under the 

 present conditions should he regarded as " out of 

 bounds." The Bishop of Bath and Wells says. 

 " Everything depends upon the play, and the per- 

 sons who put it on the stage." The Bishop of Exeter 

 disapproves of all places where objectionable plays 

 or songs are produced. Archdeacon Sinclair advises 

 good jieople to complain to the ])roprietors of any- 

 thing objectionable in music-hall or theatre, and 

 thinks it would be unreasonable to condemn Chris- 

 tians for going to decent and proiier plays. Father 

 Adderley would deplore anything like a wholesale 

 desertion of the theatre by Christian people. Rev. 

 Prebendary Webb-Peploe says the evidence before 

 him is sufficient to convince him of our duty as Chris- 

 tians to abstain from what would otherwise be law- 

 ful and even improving amusement. Rev. F. B. 

 Meyer says that as a Christian he cannot conscien- 

 tiously support theatres and music-halls. Rev. R. 

 J. Campbell thinks we should never kill the stage, 

 or wish to do so. Pastor Thomas Spurgeon is 

 strongly of opinion that truly consecrated Christians 

 cannot sanction and support the theatre. 



As a pendant to the foregoing are two answers 

 by laymen. Mr. Beerbohm Tree thinks that the ques- 

 tion whether Christians can conscientiously support 

 theatres and music-halls answers itself. Mr. Ber- 

 nard Shaw says, " People who ostracise theatres and 

 music-halls are neither Christians nor pagans; they 

 are idiots." 



