The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, February 24, 1912. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1011, 24 February 1912, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, February 24, 1912. NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Speaking in the House last night, Mr Robertson said : “He could see a way to vote for the Government and still keep his pledges.” If that is so he is a fairly clever contortionist. In his opening address at Koxton, Mr Robertson referred to the Government, under whose wing he is now endeavouring to shelter, as follows :

We have two great political parties, one of which has been a long time in power. In the initial stages of its career it possessed an enthusiasm for reform and brought about considerable betterment, but failed to get at the root of the evils. We find to-day the energy of the party spent and it is ready to be the tool of any section which enables it to hold place and power, but it is wholly unable to proceed any further in the reforms for the betterment of the people. The speaker likened the party to a chameleon, which changed colour in accord with the substance on which it was placed, but when placed on tartan which, being of so many colours, the poor little reptile ‘ ‘ passed out,” and this would be the fate of the present party in power.

On another occasion Mr Robertson, in the Coronation Hall, in answer to a question as to how he would vote on a uo-coufideuce motion, said ; If he had any confidence in the Government, he would not be before them that night

as a Rabour candidate. A rabbit off its beat is not in it at present with our Rabour member !

Commenting upon Mr Payne’s, Labour M-P. for Grey Lynn, speech in the House during the debate on the Address-in-Reuly and Mr Massey’s no-confidence motion, wherein Mr Payne stated that it was his intention to vote with the Government despite his platlorm pledges and condemnation of the Ward Administration, the Dominion of yesterday states, inter alia : “We are not very much concerned with Mr Payne as Mr Payne, but Mr Payne, in his capacity as a Labour member, is another matter, tie is assumed, broadly speaking, to represent the ideals and the aspirations of Labour. What, then, will the public think of a party, which, it will be generally assumed, has so little regard for its pledges; so little concern for promises made and upon the strength of which the support ol the electors was extended to it, that at the veryfirst opportunity the chance is seized to act in exactly the opposite way to the pledge given ? What reliance can be placed on anything Labour promises to carry out if Labour members break their pledges in the flagrant way the member for Grey Lynn has done ? The unworthy action ol this member must do immense harm to the cause of Labour. Such conduct must speedily wreck it or any other political organisation and make it a by-word and an object of contempt in the eyes of all decent men. We believe the dishonouring of his pledge by the member for Grey Lynn will be condemned by all right-thinking people in the ranks of Labour, whether or not they disapprove of the Ward Administration. A pledge to one's constituents is a pledge—it is a bond ol honour —and what decent man can view the breaking of such a bond without a feeling of resentment and disgust ? Those professing friends of Labour, therefore, who have been urging certain members to break their election pledges, are like the member for Grey Lynn, doing more to injure the cause of Labour than all the criticism heaped on the Labour policy and platform is ever likely to do. The more thoughtful section of the Labour party knows this well enough. They know that the possibilities for Labour in politics lie in the future rather than in the present, and that that future is largely dependent on the honourable and capable discharge of their Parliamentary obligations by the small band of Labour members just elected to the House of Representatives. They are, for the moment, the

hope of labour —by their actions Labour will be judged by the mass of the people-”

The Auckland Star suggests that the refusal of the four Rugby Unions to invite a New Zealand fifteen to tour the United Kingdom and Ireland this year aims a serious blow at the game in the Dominion. From whatever cause, or combination of causes, it may have arisen, there is no question that the “All Black” team of seven years back was not popular with the Unions at Horae, more particularly those of Scotland and Wales. The Welsh and Scottish players openly said as much towards the end of the tour, and, although the English were less outspoken, there was no evidence of cordiality. At to the Irish, the visitors came iu contact with them but little. Examining the causes of a growing dislike of this team, the Star concludes that it was based on aversion to the inroads that its methods seemed likely to bring about on the conservatism that has left Rugby iu England where it stood a generation back. The wing forward was a rankling thorn in the side of the British teams, and it is noteworthy that the South Africans, who have been again asked to tour the United Kingdom next season, play the eight in the scrum formation, the same as the majority of the teams that they will meet. The disinclination of the Home Unions to even consider any alterations in the governing rules was shown when the New Zealand Rugby Union approached the paient body with suggested modifications. Despite the irritation that the comment on ” All Black” methods occasioned and the subsequent abruptness of the Union iu the matter of the rules, those who control the fortunes of Rugby in the Dominion have remained loyal to the Home authority. BuL in the opinion of the Star, this final discourtesy leaves no grounds ior hoping that our Rugby Union can expect any help from the English authorities iu the fight against the growth of the Northern Union.

If Mr Robertson, Labour M.P. tor this electorate, accedes to the the request of his nominees, the Flaxmills’ Employees Union, to vote with the. Liberal Party against Mr Massey’s no-confidence motion and thus breaks his platform pledges, he will earn the supreme contempt and ignominy not only of the Relorm Party in this electorate, but all who prize honour in our public men. We have reason to believe that it was Mr Robertson’s intention to vote against the no-coufi-dence motion prior to the mass meeting of flax workers, but the latter cleverly-engineered move, will make such an ugly somersault less difficult. It will be futile for Mr ' Robertson to explain that Labour’s only bar to the reforms it desires is Sir Joseph Ward, therefore in view of Sir Joseph’s self abnegation the way is clear for him to support the Government. That excuse will not square with bis platform speeches. Is not this the same parly Mr Robertson railed against which has brought down the present Governor’s speech? If Mr Robertson could not trust it before the hustings what has induced him to so suddenly change hisimiud? Mr Robertson’s public utterances clearly implied to the biggest dunderhead, that he was out to smash up the Ward Administration—lock, stock and barrel, and that was the cry of the party which supported him. If Mr Robertson dishonours his pledge he will stand condemned by every honourable elector throughout the constituency, independent of party.