THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1907. THE VIEWS OF PEACEMAKERS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8410, 26 April 1907, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1907. THE VIEWS OF PEACEMAKERS.

In an article in the newspaper Nation, on "The Hague Convention and the Limitation> of Armaments," Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Prime Minister of Great Britain, gives reasons why, in his opinion, the raising of the question of limitation of armaments at. the approaching Hague Conference will not be, as some have urged, ill-timed, inconvenient, or mischievous. The original Conference was, he points out, convened for the purpose of raising this very question. Since the first Hague Conference was held, the points of disagreement between the Towers have become less acute; they are confined to a smaller field; the sentiment in favour of peace, so far as can be judged, has become incomparably stronger and more constant; and the idea of arbitration and the peaceful adjustment of international disputes has attained a practical potency and a moral authority undreamt of in 1898. These are considerations of which the least that can be said is that they should be allowed their due weight. In face of them Sir Henry considers that only upon one hypothesis can the submission of this grave matter to the Conference be set down as inadmissible, viz., that guarantees of peace, be they what they may, are to be treated as having no practical bearing on the scale and intensity of warlike preparations. That would be a lame and impotent conclusion,, calculated

to undermine the moral nosition of the Conference and to stultify its proceedings in the eyes of the world. It would amount to a declaration that the common interest of peace, proclaimed for the first time by the community of Nations assembled at The Hague, and carried forward since then by' successive stages, with a rapidity beyond the dreams of the most sanguine, has been confided to the guardianship of the Admiralties and War Offices of the Powers. "It has been suggested," says Sir Henry, "that Great Britain's example will count for nothing, because our preponderant naval position will still I remain unimpaired. Ido not believe ' it. The sea power of this country implies no challenge to any single State or group of States. I am persuaded that throughout the world that power is recognised as nonaggressive and innocent of designs against the independence, the commercial freedom, and the legitimate development of other States, and that it is, therefore, a mistake to imagine that the naval Powers will be disposed to regard our position on the sea as a bar to any proposal for the arrest of armaments, or to the call ing of a temporary truce. The truth appears to lie in the opposite direction. Our known adhesion to those two dominant principles—the inde pendence of nationalities and the freedom of trade—entitles us of itself to claim that if our fleets be invulnerable, they carry with them no menace across the waters of the world, but a message of the most cordial goodwill, based on the belief in the community of interests between the nations."

MR MASSEY ON THE FREEHOLD.

Speaking at Hamilton, on Monday last, on the Land Bill, Mr W. F. Massey, Leader of the Opposition, said that, in regard to limitingt private ownership of land, the Government's proposals continued to give opportunities to the man with capital, but not to the man who had limited means, the latter having to take up the C 6 years' lease, starting as a tenant, and remaining a tenant to the end of his days, working and struggling on, Without the slightest prospect of independence. The freeholders' wished to extend to others what they themselves enjoyed, but on the Government side of the House they contended that while they were themselves freeholders, leaseholds were good enough' for the other fellows. He did not object to limitation, so long as it was moderate and reasonable, and not against the interests of the colony. Discrimination should be shown between the man who properly used his land and the man who held it for speculative purposes only. What was the use of submitting limitation proposals over private land when there were from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 acres of Native land lying idle and overgrown with weeds, together with 17,000,000 acres of Crown lands, about 3,000,000 acres of which was fit for occupation?