NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 980, 22 November 1910, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

It was a little inconsiderate of Mr. Fisher, the Prime Minister of Australia, to dwell so strongly, at a banquet at which Me. Fowlds was

present as a fellow-guest, upon the Australian Navy. "They had to take measures for defence," Eaid Ms. Fisher, speaking of the Australian people, "and for the inculcation of a national sentiment.' That was the reason for their navy. If it cost ten million it would have to be provided. Hβ believed the people of Australia were prepared to pay tho price." Mr. Fowlds's speech, so far as this point is concerned, is condensed by the cable agent into three lines. He

"said there wero many reasons why New Zealand should maintain a position of splendid isolation." Since the combined intelligence of the Ministry has failed to furnish one good reason why New Zealand should continue the policy of a small subsidy, we cannot expect that the full report of • Mr. Fowlbs's speech will throw any fresh light on the "many reasons" that ho spoke of. But what we want to write about is that magnificent phrase of Mr. Fowlds's—"splendid isolation." Our position is certainly one of isolation —New Zealand has taken up tho firm and manly attitude that she will'hire the British Navy, at a peppercorn rental, to defend her in time of need. She is distinguished above Canada, and Australia by her determination—under the Ward regime—to lean upon the Mother Country. Australia and Canada may go and build ships, but New Zealand is in the proud position of borrowing money from Britain with which to pay, Britain to relieve New Zealanders of the business of developing a naval sense, 'and then borrowing more money to assist to pay the interest on the loan. Now Zealand's policy is certainty one of isolation. But splendid isolation?

No speech of Lord in a day when the Mojueys have withdrawn from a stage that is more than filled by . the Lloyd-Georges, can bo passed over without notice. And, in point of fact, no speech by Lokd Rosebery ever is left unnoticed, either by his bitterest enemies or ' his warmest admirers. Whatever the occasion, however unpromising in appearance the subject may be, he has always some light, penetrating and as .radium emanations, to throw, upon the state of public affairs. A few weeks ago ho was the principal'guest at the annual dinner of the Incorporation of Hammermen in Glasgow, and he wound up a delightful speech with some references to the Radical campaign, against land-holding. "We hear," he said, "tho sweet sounds and tho same .truths —that, for example, all taxation should' be placed on land, which would- relieve everybody else of taxation. As ■ a; matter of fact it would not find-a quarter of what was wantedj and having ruined one industry you would bo compelled to ruin another." He proceeded to say that ho was "becoming somewhat impartial to the question nationalisation":

"Meed, I am beginning tq.be rather in favour of nationalisation myself. This is not a confession of a great change in viow. I am becoming in favour .of nationalisation, but I should not begin with land. That may bo thought to be a selfish view on my part, but I will proceed to show you that it is not. Before I begin nationalising land I should try to begin by nationalising something else.. J should try and begin by nationalising somo moral principle. Let us begin by nationalising a little honesty, for example. Let us begin by nationalising fair dealing between man and man. Let us try to begin by nationalising our duty to our neighbour. If wo began by nationalising these moral principles I, for one, shall not bo afraid of any legislative or financial proposals which may bo brought forward "by any Government." It may be • safely • left to the public to find that upon theso suggestive sentences will end in a sharpened. sense of the fact -that honesty, fair dealing, charity, and justice are conspicuously absent from the activities of Radical demagogues everywhere. \

We trust that the Anti-Gambling League and the public generally are keeping a close eye upon tho Gaming Bill. Tho character of the Attorney-General's reply to our criticism of the amended Bill ,has been shown, by our local evening contemporary as well as by ourselves, to bo quite unsatisfactory and irrelevant. As we, recorded yesterday, an attempt by one of our representatives to obtain from Dr. Findlay an assurance that the Bill as amended by the Council makes it illegal for a bookmaker to bet on any racecourse was fruitless. Dr. Findlay would say no more than that the Prime Minister would in duo course, explain "the full effect 'and meaning" of what has been done. It is' fair to assume that if Dr. Findlay could have shown our reading of the amended Bill to be faulty, he would have done so at once without being asked. It must therefore be concluded that the Bill does not give full effect to _tho unanimous public sentiment against tho bookmaker. There is a very strong suspicion abroad that the Government, if it can, will give effect to tho wishes of Messrs. Carroll and Millar, rather than carry out the mandate of Parliament. It will not be very difficult, at this stage of tho session, to arrange for tho passing of adefcetivo_ measure or for the passing of no Bill at all. There should be no need to tell those members who fail to fight for the passage of an honest Bill that they will stand ry very excellent chanceof never ■seeing Parliament again after the next elections should their neglect of duty lead to the betrayal of the nublio interest.