NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1258, 13 October 1911, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

From time to time we have noted various libel actions arising out of the last two general elections in Great Britain. They have been quite the most notable fcaturo of the Law Records. The London Star has tabulated the results of these actions, which number no fewer than 30, and as a good Radical paper the Star is angry and argumentative over the unhappy fact that of the 22 suits that were successful, sixteen were brought against Radical newspapers or politicians. Moreover, the British juryman found that the Radical offences were by far the most serious. The total damages against the slanderers on the Radical side amounted to £25,000, and against the slanderers on the other side to only £•550. Naturally the Radical press of Britain is very angry, and imputes bias to the Courts, but the damages were after all fixed by the jurieß. As a matter of fact, the figures need surprise nobody. It is an essential characteristic of the Radical that he tends to be recklessly defamatory, for he usually holds to the doctrine that the end justifies the means. So believing, he naturally runs to excess, and in his enthusiasm he often forgets to be careful to make his slanders general. There is safety, but little credit and no real profit, in slandering a political party, as by saying that it will abolish old age pensions, or ■_ reduce wages to 3s. a day, or that it has circulated a damaging retrospect of a politician's career, but there is—in England at any rate—serious danger to the libeller who comes from the general to the particular, from the party to the individual.

In blaming some obscure clerk for tlio self-contradictory statements in his Budget, pointed out by Mr. Jas. Allen, the Prdie Minister got out of difficulty for the moment. He did not see that his admission of the mistake, arid his explanation of it, simply discredit all his figures in all his statements. But we should like to remind him of another important discrepancy that he may seek to explain without dragging in the clerks. In his speech in Duncdin in May as Acting-Minister for Finance, Mr. Millar said that when the "Liberals" took office 56 per,cent, of the debt was unproductive and 44 per cent, reproductive. In his Budget the Prime Minister said that at that time 51 per cent, was non-intercst-bearing and 49 per cent, interestbearing. As to the monev borrowed since then (£42,000,000 "odd) Mr. Millar said 77 per cent, of the money was returning more than the interest paid on it, while only 23 per cent, was not directly reproductive. In the Budget Sir Joseph Ward said 86.7 per cent, was interest-bearing and 13.3 per cent, was non-intercst-bearing. In his Budget the Prime Minister (page viii) gave a table in which he said that amongst the loans that were "self-supporting, earning interest," were those for "loans to local bodies," "Reserve Fund securities," and "New Zealand Consols." In _ his May speech Mr. Millar plainly stated that there was a deficiency in respect of each of these. "Loans to local bodies" showed "£12,469 loss" and the other two smaller losses. If we turn to nansard wo -find that Sir Joseph Ward not only can contradict Mr. Millar, but can contradict himself. We find him on September 20 (Hansard, vol. 155, p. 795) talking like this regarding the £5,000,000 loan: _ Tho Eight Hon. Sir J. G. Ward: Docs the honourable- member say tho rate of interest was not 31 per cent. ? Kr. Massey: I say the real rate was nothing liko 31 per cent. Tho Right Jton. Sir J. G. Ward: The lion, gentlemen are. quibbling again. 1 say that the ra,te of interest for that loan was 3J per cout. ■ Yet ton minutes later (page 797) ho said: "Sir, if the hon. gentleman sits down and works out the rate of interest on the amount he will find that it comes to £3 12s. Sid." We need hardly say both statements are incorrect. The fact is, Sir Joseph Ward has a very unfortunate habit of suiting his opinions to the political needs of the moment, which naturally gives rise to such variations as recorded.

A little controversy that has an interest for New Zealandcrs lately took place in the London press concerning the position of democracy in relation to titles. The.London Star, a Radical organ, had an article objecting to the present methods of bestowing titles and proposing a new and better way. _ The writer docs not find titles discordant with democracy—titles, that, is, of the right kind. The love of distinction (we quote from the Spectator's summary of his article) is almost universal. "The finest type of man, it is true, may be above this feeling." The love of being distinguished by some external mark above the unmarked crowd is a motive that appeals to the majority of mankind, and the practical statesman will do well to make use of it. The really mischievous element in titles will disppear when those who bear them are simply "those members of the community whom the community has thought fit to honour by gratifying a very human liking for 'distinction.'-' Wo could not admit the Star to be an authority, on anything else,

but it certainly is an authority upon Radical doctrine, just as Mr. ICeir Hardie is an authority upon Socialist doctrine. And the Star is indubitably right in its presentation of the democracy's view of the titles question. We arc afraid that at least two Knights of our .acquaintance arc Knights in defiance of the democratic creed. Neither of them is one "whom the community has thought fit to honour by gratifying a very human liking for distinction.'-' Their community had no voice in the matter — until after the event; and we _ all know the tone of the community's voice when it did express its opinion. They may still be democrats. They say they are. We offer no opinion here. But democracy, it is painful to have to realise, thinks they are not.

The Reform Party has been fortunate in securing as its candidate for the Suburbs seat a representative of the younger generation of New Zealanaers in the person of Mr. H. Bell, a junior member of the wellknown legal firm of Messrs. Bell, Myers, and Bell. Mr. Bell, who is a son of Mr. H. D. Bell, is, as befits a comparatively young man, one of the "progressives" in his _ views on political questions, to which he has given a good deal of attention both in England and in the Dominion. Although his opponents have had a considerable start in the election contest, Mr. Bell is no kggard, and the Reform Party are quite satisfied that by polling day he will have covered the scattered electorate very thoroughly and have given a good account of himself. There is .no doubt that he will have a very busy time if he speaks in every part of the electorate; and it is equally certain that if his organisation is to be perfected by polling day he and his friends and supporters will require to get to work at once and with _ enthusiasm and energy. There is little doubt that there is a majority in the Suburbs electorate opposed to the present Government, and their forces must be concentrated on the task of winning the seat for an opponent of the present Administration. The electors of Wellington and the surrounding districts are in too close touch with political questions not to have realised ere this the great need of displacing the present Administration in order that a complete investigation and overhaul of the country's affairs may beinadc by the new set of men who have nothing to conceal regarding what has been going on during the past twenty years. The only way that change can bo brought about is by returning men pledged to vote against the Government. The usolcssness of the socalled Independent member, such as Mr. J. F. Luke, the present member for the Suburbs, as a means of remedying abuses, is only equalled by that of the pledged follower of the Government, such as Mr. Fitzgerald. Both no doubt are very estimable gentlemen, but there is nothing to hope from cither if returned to Parliament in the way of effecting a change in our political dife or in our political methods. Mr. Bell,, on the other hand, will vote against the Government. Moreover, ho is an excellent platform speaker, a man of scholastic and legal attainments, is stated to be broad and clear-cut in his political views, and possessed of a proper pugnacity and fighting spij.it.,-,.JEis appearance in. the field should have a stimulating influence on the Suburbs contest.