NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 858, 2 July 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

-0The' Hon. J. T. Paul is a legislator for whom most people have a largo respect. If he has no fervent admirers, there are yet many people of every, shade of political opinion who take a friendly interest in him as a member of the Legislative Council, and to these it will be rather a disappointment that he hopes that the Land Bill "will be on the traditional lines of the Liberal party and not a back-down on Liberal principles." To speak .- of the "traditional lines of the Liberal party" in Now Zealand to-day is very like talking of the invariability of the wind or the .immutable restfulness of the ocean. But. it is not so generally known that land nationalisation or State landlordism is absolutely and directly opposed to Liberal doctrine. Wo would suggest to Mr. Paul that he should study the speeches and writings of_the found-' ers and guardians of British Liberalism. Let him give his attention to Benthasi, Mill, Cobden, Beight, Macaulay, Gladstone, Morley, As■quith, and Rosebehy, and he will find that all of them, either expressly or by the implication of their firmlyheld' opinions, have condemned exactly that policy which Mr Paul has so carelessly himself to think is in accord with Liberal principles.

It is with no small satisfaction that we note that Mr. Masselt has committed himself to the opinion that the ridiculously mis-named "national endowment" lands should be sold. That makes a clear issue. As we have over and over again oxplained, the term "endowment" is a cunning petitio principii. The alleged "endowments" are not endowments at all, and the financing of education and old age pensions would not suffer by, one penny piece if the National .'Endowment Act were repealed. Before that Act was passed the cost of education and old age pensions came out of the solidated revenue. The passing of the Act did not alter the facts of the national finance in the slightest. A section of the territorial revenue ifi labelled "national endowment revenue" and poured, as it were, into the cash-box along with all the rest. The term "endowment" deceives nobody who really understands the facts, which are quite simple, but it enables the Government .'to thwart the freehold mandate of. the people, and is used by those freeholders who are anxious to support the Government as an excuse for evading their election pledges. That the "endowment" scheme is a' political trick and nothing else is clear from Me. Latjrensoh's interjection during Mit. Massey's speech, an interjection designed to represent the Leader, of. the Opposition as a robber or 'something of that sort. Mr. Massey will not have the smallest difficultj' in showing that the "endowment" is a bogus-endowment. It is perfectly, plain that it is good business to sell the lands. Tlio revenue from the lands will bo assured in .the shape of taxation, the land will be more productively used for the common good as freehold, and the State' will have ■ the hard cash for profitable investment. This is so plain that it is obvious that the bogus concern of Mr. Laurenson and others for "the preservation of the endowment" is simply a mask for their anxiety to keep the principle of State, landlordism on the Statutebook.

"Teresa Cakreno is to give her farewell conceit lit the Opera. Houst, this evening." Such an announcement made in any of the large European or American centres would be sufficient to pack the largest hall available with musical enthusiasts and • students desirous of absorbing the beauties of her interpretations. So far, "Wellington does not appear to have realised how great an artist wo have amongst us. Carreno is a pianist of the highest standing in the world.' ■ The mention of such names as- Paderewski, Hoffman;?, D'Albert, Hambourg, Pachman.n, •and Leschitizky does not dim the lustre of her fame in the artistic centres of the Old "World, and yet she is permitted to play at the .Opera House in "Wellington to a 'few dozen people, who, be it' said to .their credit, find it impossible 'to restrain their enthusiasm before the end of the programme is reached and clamorously ask for more. To the student of the classical writers for the pianoforte, her concerts should be at once a lesson of the purest delight, and to those who love good music, interpreted by an artist of inspired power, the fleeting opportunity should , make the strongest appeal. '

Whether it tho spread of democracy or Radicalism, or merely simple boorishness, may not be easy t-o determine, but the House of Representatives to-day is_ sadly lacking in those pleasing little exchanges ,of courtesy which at one time characterised it, and which assisted so much to maintain the dignity of Parliament. "When a member addresses the House nowadays ho is liable to constant interruption in tho rudest; manner imaginable—the more effective his speech the bigger the chorus of interrupters. It is not so much that an interjection is of itself objectionable, frequently it is a very propor means of correcting a speaker or of forcing him to elaborate a point. It is the tone adopted by so many of the interrupters—aggressive, sneering, blatant. Very few members trouble to address a brother member by his full title. Sir. William Steward—we mention him as the oldest member of the Bouse— affords an example/to the younger members of the courteous and dignified tone that at one time, ;nul not so very long ago, prevailed in Parliament, it used to lie i-..-co»-nised as the proper thing for a leading member of the Government, to bo put to reply to the Leader of the Opposition on all important occasions. A graceful compliment to an opponent—a courteous recognition of a foeman of worth. Nowadays we occasionally see the most insignificant members of the Govern-

ment party put up to reply—a' studied insult. Yesterday, on the Address-in-Heply debate, the position was not quite so bad as this, but the most junior member of the Government was chosen to reply , to the Leader of t.'lie Opposition, ft is a great pity that there should bo this falling away in those little courtesies which go so far not only towards maintaining the dignity of Parliament, but towards expediting business. Mr. Seddon rode roughshod over a great many venerable institutions, but when he assumed the reins of office he was too wise a man not to recognise that any attack on the dignity of Parliament was also an attack on the dignity and influence, of the Leader ot Parliament. He may not always have quite risen to the heights to which he aspired, but he ever, as Prime Minister, strove to maintain a proper standard of dignity and decorum in the proceedings of the House. With so many new members in the House to-day it is regrettable that they should have commenced their political careers under such conditions as now prevail, for they are likely to receivo the quite wrong impression that what they now see is the natural condition of things.