NOTES AND COMMENTS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20621, 21 July 1930, Page 8

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

A TEST FOR ARCHITECTS. A now homo for the Royal Institute of British Architects is to lip erected in Portland Place, London. "We mav he excused if we are all feeling very nervous about it," says the Architects' Journal. "What ii we make a laughing-stock of ourselves by accepting a design which is so conservative, so timid, that none of the most original arid vigorous-minded architects in the country will have pleasure in it? On (he other hand, we may imagine an even worse situation—ono in which the lust for novelty has found a most improper expression, with tho result that a design, acclaimed this year as of the latest fashion, is, five years hence, utterly passe and condemned not only by defenders of tradition, but by the- 'modernists' themselves, who by that time will have passed on to something more 'fashionable' still. Let there lie no mistake about it; if by any chance the new building were to lie designed in a style which did not 'wear,' the Royal Institute of British Architects would retire t'roin that building broken. If, therefore, any architectural occasion demanded caution, this is tho one-. The penalties for too much caution would undoubtedly be severe, but the penalties for launching rashly upon an uncharted architectural sea would in this instance ho disastrous,"

DOMINIONS AND TRADE. Some aspects of the present controversy regarding fiscal policies in Britain were discussed by Lord Melcbett at a luncheon gathering of the Overseas, League. Ho expressed disapproval of the suggested referendum on food taxes. ".My view is you had better deal with your problems now." he said. "I am no believer in a referendum—not the slightest. I believe it is an entirely un-English way of dealing with your problems." Referring to Empire unity, he said there were peoplo who always declared it was a wonderful thing, but were finite sure the Dominions would not do anything. They were like a young man who was going to propose to his young lady, but before doing so said, "She is sure to reject me." People with such a negative complex were never likely to achieve Empire unity or be successful with a young lady. The messago they were constantly receiving was that Ihe Dominions were ready, but they wanted to know when Great Britain was going to shake off the shackles of wornout, obsolete theories which were unsuited to the present clay. They wanted lo know when Great Britain was going to remember that the world was not to-day what it was in tho days of Cobden and Bright and realise that it was being made the dumping-ground for every other country in the world. The bankrupt stock from all over the world was being dumped on the shores of Great Britain.

THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION. In a preface to a hook by Sir Maurice Amos, Lord Ilcwart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, says:—"The English Constitution as it exists to-day is the result of a continuous process of development throughout many centuries. It consists of rules and principles which are in part statutory, in part founded on the Common Law and to a hirge extent mcro usages not having the force of law*. The exercise of some of Iho most important powers of the Crown is governed wholly by conventions or usages. The Cabinet system and the piinciplo of Ministerial responsibility are also wholly conventional, as are the relations between the Crown and the Cabinet, and between the Cabinot and the Houses of Parliament. But, though the breach of a convention of the Constitution i.s not in itself a breach of any rule of law, it will bo found on examination that the law is the ultimnto sanction for the observance of the conventions. One leading feature of our Constitution is its tlexibility. In so far as it consists of rules of law, it is liable to modification to any extent by an Act of Parliament, passed in the ordinary way without any special formalities or any referendum to a popular vote. In so far as it is dependent on convention, it can bo altered by the adoption of now usages. In this important matter of flexibility it differs from written constitutions, such as that of tlio United States of America, which are said to bo rigid, and can bo modified only by somo extra ordinary process of legislation laid down in tlio Constitution itself. The comparative merits and demerits of this quality of flexibility aro a subject upon which there is undoubtedly room for differences of opinion."