" Progressives " and Free Speech.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14988, 8 June 1914, Page 6

" Progressives " and Free Speech.

■When tho Hon. Mr Fisher was howled down in Wellington a few weeks ago, the principal newspaper organ of the Opposition regarded the rowdyism as "a welcome fact." Our "Liberal" friends seem, however, to bo realising that one 'can have too much oven of • "welcome facts/ , and that they ha. Te nofcj been wise in letting tho public see that tho principle of freodom of spoech makes no appeal to either the Wardist

or the Semplo brand of "progressive" Wlion, owing to the incitements to disorder which wero printed by the Opposition Press, 3Lr' Massey was howled down in Christchurch on an earlier occasion, there was nothing of' regret or apology in tho subsequent references of his opponents to this discreditable affair. There was only pleasure; the incident was never referred to excepting as a proof of "what Ohristchurch thought" of so terrible a villain. And, speaking generally, our Opposition friends have rojdiced over tho contrast between the courtesy extended to "Liberal" speakers by their opponents with the cowardly and boorish behaviour of the "Liberals" and their "fellow-Progres-sives" towards tho speakers on the Reform side. Their bitterness and fury prevented them from thinking clearly. Lately, however, they have shown signs that they have noticed tho effect which these tactics could not but have upon the minds of tho general public. Hence we have tho novel and amusing spectacle of a "Progressive" anxiety to repudiate responsibility far tho disorde at Mr Massey's meeting on Friday. The "Liberals" are, of course, delighted that Mr. Massey was insulted, but they do not openly boast any longer of the "welcome fact." Officially, thoy have found it desirable, and even necessary, to condemn the disturbance, and this with a note of anger and uneasiness, which suggests that they at last perceive that the disorder which they created as a "Progressive" weapon is cutting thpir fingers. But they cannot cure themselves all at once of an old habit; and so we see them semiofficially declaring that "it is a pity "that the Government is,so unpopular " that its leader is unable to secure a "patient hearing in any of the large "centres of population." Everyone in Christchurch knows that the bad manners, stupidity, and bad sportsmanship of tho "Liberals" no more proves the '.'unpopularity' , of the Government than the decent behaviour of the Reformers at his meetings proves the popularity of poor Sir Joseph Ward. It is significant that Mr l>. G. Sullivan should' consider it nc-cessary to write to tho papers to oppose in advance, "and

' thus" (as he puts it) "nip in tho " bud,"' any attempt "to foist on to "the shoulders" of the Social Democrats and Red Feds, the responsibility for the rowdyism of Friday night. Mr Sullivan is a little impetuous, and not so polite as a young Labour leader with his good qualities ought to be: but wo have reason to believe that many Social Democrats honestly deplore the conduct of tho "Progres-

** sives" who created the uproar. At any rate, they will not admit that they eithor created the disturbance or approve of it. They feel that, their

'"Liberal" allies have this time earned the credit for the performance, and we rather fancy that they are right. As

W3 observed on Saturday, however, the question of responsibility is one which the ''Progressives" must settle amongst themselves. It is sufficient for tho prosent to noto that tho Opposition are uneasy as well as angry.