The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1910. POLITICAL HIDE AND SEEK

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7056, 18 February 1910, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1910. POLITICAL HIDE AND SEEK

Two detached items . of news in our cable dispatches this morning illustrate with delightful humour .the troubles of the politician who has fallen into a hole. One relates to an Englishman, the .other to an Australian, and it is a nice question which" of the two cuts the more futile figure. Taking the' most distinguished personality first, we find Lord Rosebcry, a lifelong free-trader, speaking at a dinner tendered to a man of the samo faith, whose -independence of thought and political' action he . extolled, suggesting that one. of tho great political issues of 'the day—-a question which places a yawning chasm between parties and goes to tho very base of political philosophyshould "be referred to a Royal Commission." Turning to Australia, we read of Mr Doakin, Prime Minister in a land of tremendous distances, yet harbouring but a comparative handful of people, shrinking from tho problem of immigration, because of insufficient courage to grapple with the antecedent question of land settlement, and Y, groping :'Y about ; for a "policy" .which will bring more babies into the woYld. Like Lord Rosobory, Mr Deakin is an antiSocialist, but it really seems as if he were on the" down-grade, for it is surely the crudest Socialism this profession of faith that, the community should regulate families by Act of Parliament. The difficulties in the way of carrying a hare-brained notion like this into effect are enormous. "Without going into the recondite and delicate aspects of the undertaking, it may be hazarded that a.." policy." on this matter would take time to show its worth—several generations, per-haps-—and there would always be the danger of the Act being wrongly amended in clauses, or being bowled over in the Court of Appeal, or repealed by an unsympathetic [House. Meanwhile Australia's great vacant spaces would remain unfilled and untilled, waiting for the young Australians w"Eo had not materialised. It would bo more interesting, of course, to have Mrßeakin's policy in print than in the air, but in the absence of detail it seems, fair to conclude that he is either having a joke at tho public expense or is'trying to dodge tho great responsibility that rests upon Australian statesmanship of populating tho country. Afraid of the labour unions on the one hand, and therefore disinclined to advocate immigration, and not willing to go to tho root of the matter by such a courageous attack upon the land problem as would place the country in a position to absorb new arrivals, he is trying to put the best complexion, pas* i

sible upon his quandary. Mr Deakin is in a hole. Lord Rosebery is in no bettor plight. How would it be possible to appoint a Royal Commission which should give an acceptable reply to such questions as ho suggests? They aro problems of government and taxation which it is the rightful province of tho people to adjudicate upon through their representatives in Parliament. The people have the power to decide—why should it bo delegated to a Commission when it is obvious that its recommendations would convince no one? Such a proposal as Lord Rosebery makes is a ludicrous commentary upon the sincerity of his attachment, to independence of members and voters, for it means robbing tho Legislature of its independence, and asking the people to surrender their privileges. Lord Rosebery sees tho hated Budget drawing nearer the statute book,' and wants further breathing time for his friends. The House of Lords has asked to have authority over Commons in. finance. A Peer who not long ago was advocating the Referendum .now suggests that Commons and people should hand over their rights to a Royal Commission! What need for independence among members, then?