NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1433, 7 May 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The advocates of a minimum wage and of the doctrine embodied in "llighfc to Work" Bills will not bo grateful to Mr. Keir Hardie for his outspoken declaration at Swansea of what he and his friends arc aiming at. He proposed, according to a cable message printed to-day, "that instead of a minimum daily wage there should be a yearly salary, paid whether it made for good or bad workers, idle or not. Stated in these terms the full "Labour" ideal is visible to everyone as an absurdity. Mr. Keir Hardie simply proposes that a large section of the community shall be given an inducement to cease being socially'useful, and that out of the barrenness resulting everyone shall live in fatness and content. Palpably grotesque, of course; but where is trie difference in principle or even in practical working between this scheme'and the scheme of the Socialists, Fabian or Revolutionary'! None whatever. The aim in each case is to provide means for discouraging effort, enterprise, and production in the vain nope of increasing the productiveness and changing the nature of man as a social unit. The only difference is that Mr. Keir Hardie, . out of the heat of his enthusiasm, goes right to the heart of things, and stripping away all nonessentials, shows us exactly what it is that is the aim of the people who in one way or another are furthering foolish schemes for the securing of what, borrowing the phrase of the raucous American demagogues, thcr call "social justice."

To judge from numerous telegrams in the newspapers, the conference on the Local Government Bill is likely to . treat the Bill rather roughly. From all parts there have been coming ardent condemnation _ of the Bill by men with experience in local government. We afforded the Hon. G. W. Russell some _ space yesterday to state the position taken up by the Ministry. He scorns rather more concerned to try and convict Mr. Massey of having advocated a conference of upwards of 600 delegates than to-meet the real difficulty of representation. It is impossible tliafc at a comparatively small conference all the branches of local government can be fairly represented; but perhaps Mb. Eussell. may be excused for not having considered that point. The Bill has some real merits, but it is full of weaknesses too, and we have no doubt tjiat the conference will prove to be of some value. But it is difficult to understand how the Minister can really believe that in a revised form the Bill will be ready for submission to Parliament at the end of next month. We may be quite sure that it_ will be impossible to get a makeshift measure through the new Parliament, however. Mr. Eussell has apparently not realised that the political conditions have changed. There is nothing to prevent him from bringing in any sort of Bill whatever, of course; but his complacency concerning the conference and the introduction of tho Bill at the end of next month suggest very strongly that the whole thing is a piece of make-believe.

The mail bringß us the full reports of the debate that ended with the rejection of the Conciliation (Woman's Suffrage) Bill in the House of Commons, and although the speeches on both sides were mainly a repetition of' threadbare arguments, there were one or two new turns of dialectic. Sin Edward Grey. retorting against the claim, urged by his chief as well as by others, that the issue is one of ultimate responsibility, said: "If the argument of physical force is to be pushed to its logical conclusion whv not decide our votes to-night by physical force 'I Why should not the member for the Bridgeton Division come outside with me in order that when we return we might both go into the same lobby !" This is pleasant fooling; but it is fooling. One might as well say to Sir Edward Grey, the next time he talks of deciding things by a majority of votes: "Why do you not decide your foreign policy by a joint poll of the population of the globe 1 Mr. Asquith, who delivered oneof his powerful and uncom-. promising speeches against woman's suffrage, discovered what we arc bound to say appears to be a crushing reply to one of the favourite arguments of the suffragists: "There is no answer, I quite admit, to the old question that lias often been put: Why shoulclyou deny to a woman of genius like George Eliot the vote which you would give to her gardener 1 It is equally difficult to answer the Question, ii it were relevant: Why do you give the same number of votes anil only the same number to Siukksmsakk ur Bacon as yon do lo his properly man or train! bearer / ' Neither of (host' iiueslions,! lie added, was relevant. Probably not; in any event, for good or ill, Parliament hae laid the suffragist yiflffl&ada jjft tma aida» I