NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 679, 2 December 1909, Page 6

NOTES OF THE DAY.

. The speech delivered by. ViscouNT iloßley in tho'great debate in the Lords may not be tho -best ; of the 1 speeches.' . 'That Loud Rosedejiy's contribution: was a finer example of oratorical art is deduciblo even from .the, unfriendly comments upon it, and' in tactical effectiveness' the Lord Chancellor probably surpassed :his : great colleague. -But the good cabled summary supplied to us yesterday makes it certain that Lord Morlest's speech will be found to overtop all the others in weight, in thoughtfulness, and in the'.perfection of its - tone.' The art of the demagogue is tho oneaccomplishment, beyond the conipass of the great intellect of ' tjhe Secretary, for India, He is one' of the':greatest! of living men of letters, perhaps the very greatest: of all the special historians of. the time,: a profound philosopher, the most richly endowed'of modern scholars, ; and, in. his. present high offide,':a states-, man of rank. The Budget is fortunate, indeed in having such an advocate): however . 'great' its: misfortunes miiy be j and not "the: least,part., of its fortune is the fact that it caii bodefended in. language of> as : much dignity 'as vigour. Hitherto its- defence ha? been conducted chiefly in language both vulgar and violent; the. language of the reckless and incendiary;':demagogue.'!; Of course, the tone of the . Limchouse and' Newcastle speeches, and the _ speeches 'of Mjt. Churchill, was decided upon- with deliberation,-. as a tone that would, in the opinion <j)f the speakers, greatly help a policy they have at heart. To call them violent demagogues is quite Wrong: :they merely adopted the manner of Jaok Cade as a matter of tactics. IWe really. ;do not blame them, for they had to meet ■ violence with violence; but the .weapon they chose was a dangerous ohe,-, and their' responsibility -'for choosing it. is very: heavy. It is with relief, therefore, that the! British public must have, read Lord Morley's speech—such a relief as, William Watson describes: . Your Marlowe's page I close', my Shakespeare 3 : ■ opo. . ::. . How, welcome—after drum .'and , trumpet's ■.! din—_ ' -■;..• ■;; .v r- '■ The continuity,'the long'slow slopo' ; . And .vast'-curves' of tho ctadual violin. ' .Some months ago' : \yc' had .an article upon the extravagance of the : Govern-: ment in..the matter of -publishing' '.Par-.] liamentary papers. . An appalling number of these papers arc published' every year, and it is rarely that less'.than- 1000 or 1200 copies of each are ritn off. The waste consists (1)' of what may be called excessively largo." editions,"': (2) of the printing of stuff that . nobody wants printed, and (3) of' verbosity aind irrelevance in. the compilation of ■ reports.: Reasonable sub-editing, and a little work in condensing the. vast and confusing tables of 'figures. to a compact and clear brevity, would save' a deal of money. In Britain/a: Committee has for three years had under itsoare the question of tho cost of producing Blue •books arid Parliamentary- publications generally, and ;thc mail brings the interesting , news ■that.: the Controller of the : Stationery Ofiico admits that the net result has been an annual saving of about £35,000.; "To a large extent," it is pointed out, " the sayings have been'effected in ways that t can be most readily understood by a man versed in the mysteries of: the; printing office; but thc t bald fact stands out that, without curtailing the usefulness of the publications, it has been-possible: to savo as much each year as the cost, of a torpedo boat." AVe aro interestcd in this illustration of what economy can do, . for we long ago pointed out .that if Sir Joseph \VARD"had not inflated the cost, of administration beyond the figure at which Mr. Seddon. left it, the mere saving that' wonld -have been made in the past'three yearß would • havo amounted to ' over £2,500,000 —or tbo cost of a Dreadnought.

.and-fourteen torpedo boats.'_■: The: waste on Parliamentary papers iri Britain is oiv a much smaller scale than the waste here, and there should therefore bo _ a very largo sum to be saved by the exercise of an intelligent economy in publishing these documents. .'■;■ ':■

■ Both sides in the political, struggle in Britain have been displaying 'wonderful energy in resurrecting old speeches delivered by present-day statesmen!',and those of an earlier time. John Bright has been more useful than anybody to the friends of the Government, but the London Daily) Telegraph has reprinted, a statement by Beioht, from a'letter written in 18S2 on Henhy Geohge's land doc-

trines, which must he rather hard "for the Liberals, to explain away. * Wo quote it here, since it has an actual interest for the New Zealand public,' and it ought to be interesting to any genuine Liberals who may bo misled by the lalx;l used by the Ward Administration: ■ If. you think, (wrote Bright) it can be just to soizo all tho property of landowners without compensation,-I will not lose time in debating tho. matter with you. If you think the scheme practicable, I can onlV say that of English■• opinion: and of the moral sense of Englishmen is to me astounding. • •„• -.Tho -way to make tho land serviceable to all is to mako it free to all, on the same terms that nil other .property is free. If yon think to.rcliovo the nation by robbing 'the landowners,, you admit that any class may be robbed if tho nation ;or tho poor require relief. , .. .1 would adviso you to keop to tho commori-sen.so and moral senso of our own people, and not accept the ideas of wandering theorists and dreamers like the author of the bonk of /which yon, have asked, my opinion. I always reject tho notion? of men who begin thpir systems of relief and general prosperity by .robbing somebody. This is advice that is not superfluous,today. But, no doubt, our "Liberals "will say that-Bright was not.a Liberal. They have already said it, if we remember aright, of' Cobden himself..;'