Rangitikei Advocate. MONDAY, JUNE 1. 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9160, 1 June 1908, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. MONDAY, JUNE 1. 1908 EDITORIAL NOTES.

IN a leading article dealing with labour legislation iu Australia and New Zealand the Loudon Times makes the following remarks:—“As long as both sides are willing without demur to accept an arbitrator’s award, the system of State arbitration can have little to be said against it. But.the moment dissatisfaction arises, as it has in the Blackball and several previous cases both in New South Wales and New Zealand, the mere fact that the State has given the decision introduces a new element of difficulty into the question, since it makes the State seem to be a party on one side or the other in a matter where it is essential for good government that it should preserve an attitude of impartiality. It is difficult enough iu any case for the State to keep order and to see that economic disputes are settled without infringements of the law; but when it has also pronounced a judgment on the merits of the dispute it loses much of the prestige required for standing by to see fair play.” Lookers-on, it is said, often see most of the game, and the Times appears to have pointed out one of the most serious defects in our Arbitration Act which has, to some extent, failed to attract notice in this country owing to attention being directed chiefly to the details of disputes. Tiio defect in our legislation which became so apparent at the time of the Blackball strike, is due to the fact that the initiative is left so largely in the hands of the Government. It was the Minister of Labour or the Cabinet which decided to prosecute ‘ the Blackball Miners instead of the men and refused to take action against |tho aiders and abettors of the strike. In Auckland it was the Secretary of the Labour Department, Mr Tregear, who, by the instruction of Government no doubt, suggested the new Conciliation Board to which the strikers might refer their case when the natural course would have been to prosecute them- for breach of an award. No wise Government would take up such an attitude as this and it is to be hoped that the new legislation to be proposed by Mr Millar will make it impossible for temptations to interference to occur in future.

A REMARKABLE fact about the present British Government is the comparative youth of its members and that so few of them belong to what iias long been considered the ruling class. Most of them may be called self-made men, not that they 1 have actually risen from the position of wage earners, but that they have attained their positions without any assistance from wealth or birth. It was supposed that competition in public life in Britain was so severe that no man could hope to attain Cabinet rank until his hair was white or his head bald, but experience proves that this is by no means the case to-day. Taking the Cabinet iu order, the Prime Minister, Mr Asquith, is 56 years of age. Lords Loreburn, Tweedmouth, Ripon and Fowler, it is true, all belong to an older generation, but they are chosen rather for ornament than for any practical work that is expected from them. Viscount Morley, who has just retired to the House of Lords, though still acting as Secretary of State for India, is also 70 years of age. The men, however, who hold office and sit in the House of Commons are all in the prime of life. Sir Edward Grey, Secretary, for Foreign Affairs, is 48 years old, Mr Gladstone, head of the Home Office, 53, Mr Haldane 53, Mr Lloyd George, Chancellor of the Exchequer, 44, Mr McKenna, First Lord of the Admiralty, the same ‘age, Mr Sinclair, Secretary for Scotland, 48, Mr Ohurohill, President of the Board of Trade, 33, Mr John-Burns, 50, Mr Runcimau, President of the Board of Education, 38, Mr Birrell 50, Mr Buxton, Postmaster-General 55, Mr Harcourt, 45. The other members

'of the Government who do not sit in the Cabinet, as might be expected, eve yil younger than their fellow In uew Zealand WQ lo ,ok iu vain for rising young in the House of Iffiprer-onta-s, if in England umh-r far more 1 difficult conditions men like Mr Lloyd George can make their way with absolutely no advantages and attain the coveted position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, at 44, it should be comparatively easy for merit to come to the front here where members are paid and election expenses trifling. But most of the youngest men in our House to whom we must look for our future Ministers, can only be.l described as “cranks,” and show a total lack of that balanced judgment which is essential to secure the confidence of the public.