The "Progressives."

Press, Volume L, Issue 14921, 20 March 1914, Page 6

The "Progressives."

A week has gone by since the Jocai leaders of the .Social Democratic PartT expressed with engaging frankness their opinion of the "Liberal -, Party and of the local members of that Party, Hut w<; have not yet heard a word of commei:t from those Opposition apologists who, for several menths past, have been concerned to tell the public almost daily ihat, apart altogether from their desiro "to oust Massey," the "progress- " ive" parties hold most principles in coiiinon. We ourselves, haro had many hard things t>aid about us owing to our natural interest in the little game of "getting together' (to use. the "pro- ,: " own phrase), having been mistaken for a desire to keep apart the two loving hearts which were bursting to beat as one. The unusual sUence of the people who took the most prominent part in the work of organising an alliance, or an understanding, between the "Liberals" and Social Democrats, ia emphasised by the fact that in other Opposition quarters the Social Democrats are now being assailed with uncommon rancoar. The sudden change, from endearments ana importunate flattery to chilly silence varied with revilings, is a phenomenon of which others besides the Social Democrats may be permitted to take some notice. Wβ may take it that our "Liberal" friends see no longer ajiy usefulness in seeking to concoal, what was obvious enough to everyone who is interested in politics, that the concern of the Opposition for the aspirations of Labour and the ideals of the Social Democratic Party, was rea'ly only concern for the "Liberals." Xo doubt this cynical change of front by the Opposition strategists will not make the Social Democrats any less ardent in their hostility to the (iovernment, aithoush it will giro them further eauso for repeating that, at any rate, the lleform Party is honest, in tho meantime, having found the ijocial Democrats impracticable, the Opposition are looking round tor some other a:id easier party upon which to play its confidence triok. They have evidently found, if i. oi> vi-iims, yet, at any rate, confederates, for iliey have got the length of forming a "Provincial Com- " mittee of the Progressive Liberal and "Labour Association." We do not complain of that, by any means. Everyone will understand that this imposing title means merely the "Liberal" Party. And we may be allowed to hope that a policy of some kind will present itself to the organisers as rather a necessity. If there are any genuine Labour elements in the body with the long name, a policy will be insisted upon. Hut it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that the "Labour" part of the nev venture is purely theoretical.

In the courso of a speech in Wellington on Tuesday evening Sir J. G. Ward spoke very strongly in favour of Home Rule, as, of course, being no longer tho head of a Government, ho is quite entitled to do. It is a pleasure to be able to say that tho speech was in good tnste, and could give offenco to no reasonable- friend of the Union, although Sir. Joseph was very sadly astray in his references to Irish finance. Wo had thought that nobody an y longer denied that Ireland, unlike Scotland or Wale.?, is a burden upon tho Imperial Treasury. Nor is it correct to say, when all the taxes apply equally to Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotchmen, that tho Irish taxpayer pays more than his share. A great part of tho speech was devoted "to a recital of the achievements of great Irishmen, and Sir Joseph included amongst the Irishmen who had served New Zealand in politics both Mr Massoy and himself. Irishmen have, of course, achieved great renown in evendepartment of life—renown great enough, to bo quite frank, to be allowed, like the renown gained by great Englishmen, to speak for itself. In particular. Sir Joseph AVard referred to Irishmen's achievements as soldiers and commanders, and on this point more than on any other Irishmen are entitled to display a deal of pride.

But ifc is an unfortunate fact that the Annv, which evjjccs for good Irishmen and good Englishmen high and brotherly memories, is the last .subject of all which would lend itself to comfortable discussion with a Nationalist M.P. It is but the other day that the news of the British reverses in South Africa, in the dark days of the war. was received with cheers and veils of delight by tho Irish Party in the House. Throughout Ireland, local bodies dominated b'- Nationalists passed motions of rejoicing at the Boer .successes, and of hatred for the British Army. More rei-entiy the Irish Party was busily issuing leaflets with the object of persuading young Irishmen not to commit the crime of joining the Army. We may bo sure that the average Irishman, that every Irishman worth his salt, is proud cf tho Army to which his countrymen have contributed their full share of courage and genius. But it is not unnatural that the iron of Ulster, and the Unionists generally. should feel uneasy when they remember the spirit of the political leaders of the Irish people.

Journalists are well aware of the danger of attacking impropriety in fiction, painting, or drama. Often the attack is a fine advertisement for the thing attacked, and an offensive production winch might otherwise have remained in somi-obscurity becomes an object of the public's interest. One leading English weekly has solved the difficult v which confronts critics anxious to do their duty, by ignoring books that it considers objectionable. The- tendency of criticism to have an effect opposite to that desired by the critic has been rather amusingly illustrated in Sydney. Dr. Kelly, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, declared that some of the works exhibited in the Xationai Art Gallery were indecent. He was prompt-

ly answered by the director of the callery. who. beside? contending that there were no pictures in the gallery at which anyone need be ashamed to look, pointed out that of 300.000 visitors to the pal.'cry la.-t year, not one hinted that there was anything objectionable in tho art there. An immediate effect of the Archbishop's attack was a decided increase in the attendance. When the Archbishop returned to the attack and particularly singled out for criticism a certain picture in a certain corner, the attendance at thr* gallery increased still further, and the attendants noticed that the coiner mentioned was especially well patronised. When the mail left no oilier complaint , ; had been made to the authorities. It would be unwise at this distance to express an opinion on the controversy, but it is worth while drawing the attention of would-be reformers to the effect of the Archbishop's criticism.

It will bo remembered that in his ■speech at Nelson the Prime Minister referred to, with the object of correcting it. a reported statement by Mr Atmore that ho was the head of a house that had been left £165,000. Mr Ma.ssey explained that his father, who. he presumed, was referred to, had died two years ago, and left him £2000. Mr Atmore then said that ho had been misreportcd. and that it was Mr Herries's father to whom he had referred. Wo are not concerned now witn exactly what Mr Atmore said on that occasion, but with the positively painful comments on the incident made by tho official organ of the "Liberals/ , "It is a fair thing," says this journal, "to say that Mr Massesdid not presume anything of the kind"—in other words, that the Prime Minister was not speaking the truth. '"It wa.s well within his knowledge that the father of Mr Herries died several years ago, leaving £165,000, and it ought to have been equally within his knowledge that this was the house that Mr Atmore had referred to —not in one speech alone, but in every speech that ho has delivered recently." In every speech, let it be noted.

Sow, first of all, there is no justification for saying that Mr Atmore's lapses from good taste ought to have been within Mr Massey's .knowledge. They were not within ours, and it is 6afe to say that they were not within that of ninety-nine out of every hundred people. But tho most significant point in this deplorable defence and .attack is tho light it throws on the methods of the member for Nelson, and on this newspaper's standard of political conduct. If tlie organ of Mr Atmore's party has not done him an injustice in this respect, wo have tho spectacle of Mr Atmore going about the country making party capital out of tho private n(fairs of a Minister. Reformers are quite justified, when they hear tho silly taunts of "ijiberals" about tho connexion between wealth and Reform, in saying in general terms, as ''The Press" has more than once pointed out, that there are crowds of rich men on the "Liberal" .side, but they would not be justified in discussing, with a view to creatine; party prejudico, the details of arv individual's weaJth or family. This kind of thing is not done by decent people. The "Liberal" journal's defeuco of tho member for Nelson is even mores appalling than that member's methods.