NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 902, 23 August 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

There is perhaps no economic fallacy more common in this country than that the mere employment of labour is in itself a good thing. It is the fallacy at the root of the doctrine of the "right to work," and it has showed itself over and over again in recent years. We have oiten exposed the error, but it cannot be exposed too often. This is our excuse for recording a very good comment upon a recent curious staiemeiit by a member of the British Government. . Answering a question as to the cost of restoring the front of Buckingham Palace,' Mr. Harcourt, to placate some interjectors on the Labour, benches, said that almost the whole of the proposed expenditure, "except the contractor's profits and the cost of material and carriage, would be expended in one form or another." In a moment of remembrance of the sound doctrine of free exchange so brilliantly perfected by Bastiat and made the working policy of British .Liberalism by Cobden and Bright, the Daily Ncivs commented on Mr. Harcourt's statement as follows:

AVe should like Mr. Harcourt to tell us for what form of expenditure as much could not be claimed. If the money ttere spent in employing men to dig holes and refill them, or break windows and repair them, most of it would be "expended in one form of labour or another," but the investment would not be pronounced very satisfactory. Mr. Harcourt completely ignored the distinction between productive and unproductive expenditure, between expeuaitnre which is the end of capital and expenditure which is a stage in the multiplication of capital.

There will be plenty of occasions in the future. _in , New Zealand when those who like sound politics will be able to quote this effective distinction between ' useful and useless work.

The mail brings us full reports of the remarkable debate in the House of Commons during, the second week of July on Mr.' Shackleton's Women's Suffrage Bill. The debate was remarkable, not only for the excellence of the speeches and the splitting of all the parties when it came to a vote, but for the fact that everybody spoke as an advocate. Everybody sought to convince his fellows: the House was, in fact, a jury. Me. Asquith was opposed to several of his colleagues. Mr. Balfour spoke in opposition to his brilliant young lieutenant, Me. F. E.. Smith, who, with Me. Asquitii, provided the most destructive artillery against the Bill. The Prime Minister admitted that there was a large-neutral ground, which men and women might jointly occupy, but he drew the line at the franchise. His objection was not based on "any abstract theory," but "on experience and on our knowledge of human, nature and of what would seem to be the consequences of any of these proposed new departures to the sex and to the Slate—injurious to the real interests of the one and not without peril to the stability of the other." Logic, he pointed out, required that if Woman were granted the suffrage she must be eligible to be voted for, to become Speaker, to become Prime Minister. "'Grant the suffrage to women and all these things must follow and ought to follow." Moreover, since the feminine vote might dominate the' men's vote, an election might result in a decision that neither the Empire nor the world at large could accept as a decision "having behind it the requisite moral and physical authority." He concluded his speech with a passage of lofty eloquence and deep insight: '

We know, on the highest authority, that "they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," and I venture to say in all solemnity and earnestness that the promoters of this movement—high-minded chivalrous men and women as I know tho great bulk of them to be—l venture to say to them that a cause which cannot win its way to publio .acceptance by persuasion, by argument,' by organisation, and by peaceful methods o£ agitation is a cause which already and in advance pronounces upon itself a sentenco of death,

Dr. Findlay's public addresses are always interesting, however much one may at times disagree with his conclusions. His lecture last evening before the members of the Arts Club on "The Stage—lts Uses and Abuses" comes at a time when the public is specially interested in the subject discussed, and his remarks will in consequence receive close attention. Those who had hoped for a lead from the learned Doctor on this difficult question will probably experience some disappointment at the clever manner in which he has balanced the risks and the possible benefits of interference with existing conditions without arriving at a definite conclusion. Everyone will applaud the sentiments put forward, but wo are afraid that the public will find itself very much where it was before, so far as enlightenment on any proposal for changing the existing conditions of things is concerned. Possibly, after all, this was Dn. Findlay's design. He makes it clear that tha law au at yrcEent is ver.y.

.inadequate to deal with a certain class of undesirable plays;' but he also sees the dangers which confront anyone attempting to devise a means of remedying this state of tilings. Therefore he declines to commit himself. We think his discretion commendable. Anyone who has troubled to read the evidence, or any considerable part of it, eallcd before the Joint Committee appointed _ by the. British Parliament to inquire .into the censorship of plays will gain some idea of the difiiculties which surround the question. The report of the Committee itself will supplement this knowledge; and if any further evidence is required, the diverse opinions expressed by the press and the public on that report should supply it. The time may come when action must be taken, and it is therefore a good thing to have the subject discussed, especially as it may enable those who would rush in impetuously to cure existing ills to see the. dangers which confront them.