NOTES AND COMMENTS.

West Coast Times, 12 June 1912, Page 2

NOTES AND COMMENTS.

It seems scarcely credible that all the members of the MacKcnzie Cabinet save two made themselves so ridiculous as to support the appointment of the Hon. Roderick Mackenzie to the important position of High Commissioner, but reliable information from Wellington makes it pretty clear that

had not the Premier threatened to resign sooner than be a party to such an jamazing appointment, Air, Roderick Mackenzie, whom one of the newspapers nick-named the Minister of Delicacy, would have now been our High Commissioner. Only two members of the Cabinet supported the outstanding claims of Sir John Findlay ! However a deadlock ensued and at the present moment New Zealand has only an acting-Higb Commissioner. A northern paper thus discusses the position which has arisen. It says: “I'he Hon Roderick Mackenzie, ex-Minister of Public AVorks, is making a bold bid for the High Commissionership. Fancy, says the writer, fancy the Hon. “Roddy” Mackenzie in silk breeches and Stockings representing New Zealand at a State ball, or dining o(f gold plate at AVindsor. “Roddy” as a courtier, would be worth going miles to See. Ho has his own chance (and Buckley’s) of getting the job.”

Tiif- miserable display of the South African cricketers against tho bowling of Barnos and Foster in the test match at Lords yesterday only serves to demonstrate what remarkable feats the:® two groat bowlers are capable of accomplishing, when tho wicket lends them any assistance. On every hand it is admitted that tho South Africans'are not an over-brilliant batting side—and weaker still in bowling—but to go down like nine pins without offering tho least resistance is not test cricket form by any means. Tho only inexplicable feature of tho match so far, was tho decision of the South African captain to make first use of a very treacherous and drying wicket.- So much usually depends upon the spin of the coin and when fortune did favour tho South Africans, it seems incredible that tho skipper should have handed his side over to tho tender mercies of Barnos and Foster when the wicket suited them. More especially when it is borne in mind that ho had at his disposal the services of such a tricky bowler as Schwarz. Probably the choice of innings made little or no difference, for Barnos and Foster arc capable, of great feats.

A: tho beginning of the present year, while in Australia, Barnes knocked all the howling theories and predictions to smithereens. He was tho chief actor in the greatest bowling tragedy in tost cricket. In the second test match between Australia and England, Barnes simply massacred the cream of Australian batsmen. Ho dismissed Bardslcy, Armstrong, Kelleway, Hill, and Minnctt and only had six runs made off his bowling. Five wickets for six ! Was there ever such a tragedy P Never ! Bosanquet, who bowled the “ googlio ” first, in deciding a game with Warner’s team eight years ago, t( ok six wickets for twelve runs at one stage, and in the first match of Warner’s previous tour, Trumper, Hill, and the late Reginald Duff, were out for cght runs in the first innings, but there tho disaster came to an end. Tho graceful Foster, who bowls so beautifully eclipsed even Barnes in the present match. They make a combination of attack which will compel the Australians to go warily. England is represented by a good team in the present match. Veterans some ? Yes ! But groat cricketers nevertheless. The match will not give much indication of the probabilities of the result of the lit st match between England and Australia which will be played on the historic ground at Lords on June 24, 25, and 26, but it will serve to demonstrate the wonderfully high standard which has been reached by English cricket.