NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 779, 31 March 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

In the course of an article on the development of British Nigeria, appearing in a British journal to hand by this week's mail, we note a fact that is certain to fill with regret and dismay the "leaseholders" and landnationalisers of this country. It appears that in the colony of Lagos, tne English land laws apply, and "the. old native system of, land tenure has given place to a system of individual ownership, with the buying and selling of land as a natural consequence." In the hinterland, however, the country- is only under. British protection, and English law docs not apply: In those protectod areas the native system of land tenure has. always retained tho force of law. Under that system the ownership of tho land is vested in' the community, and its distribution is controlled by the chief as the .representative of the community. Holdings are allotted to individuals who, so long as they obey the laws of the country and pay their, proper tribute to ,the chief, are by custom entitled to remain in occupation, but have no right to soil or otherwise dispose of the land. Gradually, however, tho practice of buying and selling has. extended from th'o colony into the protectorate, and so many difficulties have been created by the conflict- between native law and custom and the new practices which have crept m that the Al&ke has been induced to recognise a system of individual ownership of the land by its present occupant. It is certainly rather hard on the land-nationalisers here that they should learn of the existence of a Nigerian argument in their favour only to. learn also that the Nigerian potentates have relapsed from their high civilisation, into freehold harbarism.' Still, they can point their arguments with references to "Nigeria before the fall."

The other day the Ohristchurch organ of the Ministry expressed the opinion that Mr. G. A. 0. Habdy, M.P., is at heart, "a good deal more of a Liberal" than ''party exigencies" allow him to admit. Wβ suggested that if Mn. Hardy does not proclaim himself the Liberal that, in 'the/true sense of the word, hi.certainly is,; his reason is probably that the meaning of the' word has been so corrupted that no believer, in the tnio principles of Liberalism can in this country say "I am a Liboral" without being understood as ■merely a Waiidite.'- And Wardism," if,we may use the word, is the negationof Liberalism. A "Pagan" was originally only a countryman; but anyone can , see that the Farmers' Union cannot very-well call itself the Pagans': Union without .supplying its opponents; with a useful theological brickbat. Our Christchurch contemporary, is displeased with our explanation, but it very wisely does not attempt to justify tho claim of Ministerialists to; the title ,of > "Liberals." Instead, it wants to, know, "why Me. Hakdy and his friends object, so strongly to _ being called Conservatives." If this objection exists, we should say that one reason for it may bo that if they did so the people for whom our.contemporary speaks would talk at once of "Eelf-confessed Tories," and of "relics of feudalism," and all sorts of things, like'that.. The meaning of "liberalism"*is specific, indeed technical and'oxacjb. "Conservatism," on the other,. hand,'. is a term that is hot purely political.' A/Conservative in,politics is.-one who wishes to conserve the existing fundamentals of society and govern-: "merit; and obviously, tho,rofore, the moaning of .'iConspnjatiyc ' is not fixed, : but depends upon conditions. As it happens, the conditions in New' Zealand are snch that •■/the things to be conserved are less: urgently important than the things that need reforming. v : The Christ-' church paper, observes, that the Conservative Associations in Britain have* never attempted to "disguise themselves" as' "Reform ■" Associa-, tipns," arid,it adds, "we can think of no reason why they should. 1. Nor can we, for the.moment.... Biit that, is because there do not : exist in Groat Britain ' tho- abuses that flourish' under.' Wardisji.- Thero is every reason why the.Beform party should call itpelf tEo Reform party.' Our "Liboral" friends, however, dislike the suggestion of political reform; and their; resentment at its name should be regarded by the Reform party as an excellent sign. : :

A very good point is made by a correspondent oithe London Stand/ ard in discussing the "terminological inexactitudes" of the Radicals. Ho points out that the use ..of the term "the Lords' veto" involves a flagrant petitio principiL "If," he says, "instead, of 'the Lords' veto' we. had insisted upon 'the Lords' right of reference to the people , as the true statement of the case, what a different aspect would have been given to the controversy!" For, as he points out, the Lords neither possess nor _ claim' a, veto, but they havo the right to amend or refer in the interests of the pcoplo and realm. Other"_ examples of the petitio principii which are 'quoted by the Standard's correspondent aro not unfamiliar in this country. One of these is the term "land monopoly." , "Monopoly," of course, has only pno meaning in the English language or in the original.Greek, vis., the exclusive right to sell possessed by a single individual. With many thousands of landowners—a 'million,. in the case of Britain—there, cannot,' obviously, bo monopoly' in land. On the other hand, the term "monopoly" exactly applies to the profitable "patent." "Unearned .increment" : is another question-beg-ging term. Land ia only one of many things the valuo of which increases with the mere growth of the community. Indeed, there is hardly anything that does not derive its value from the community. The Standard's correspondent points out that the correct term is "capital appreciation," but of course this does not contain the insinuation that commends the other to the Badicals. " The term "national endowment," as we pointed out some time ago, has the same misleading quality, and the friends of the freehold must be on their guard in tho coming struggle on the land question and lose no opportunity of disposing of_ the fallacy in this term. To do so is perfectly easy, but the freeholders must remember to do so, for, as tho Standard's correspondent says, "givo a political question an inaccurate and trite pseudonym, and it is difficult to obliterate from tho mind the wrong impression it conveys."

A paragraph published in our evening contemporary yesterday.affords an excellent illustration of how repugnant it is to . a certain class of worker to partake himself bf the sauce whioh he so insistently forces on the employer of labour. A Labour Conference now sitting in 'Wellington wishing tc hare its'.pro-

ceedjngs reported in full sought the servioes of a shorthand writer. It desired 12 copies of tho transcription of his notes of the proceedings, and these were to bo handed to the Conference each morning following the days of sitting. For this work the Conference offered the sum of 15s. per day. Seeing that the Conference sits from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily and that the transcription of the shorthand notes would, even with expert assistance with the typewriting, occupy at least another 12 hours of the unfortunate man's time, the liberality of the Conference of Workers towards -its' employee can be estimated. Plainly put these denouncers of sweating and advocates of the eight-hours day and a living wage- expected their employee to work something like 24 hours per day for a wage of 15s. per'day. Even then he could hardly hope to cope with the work singlehanded and would have to pay away some portion of his earnings to-se-cure assistance. Obviously the case is one for the Trades Council, or the Labour Department, or some other of these institutions which exist to safeguard the interests of the oppressed .worker.