"LIBERAL PRINCIPLES."

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 826, 26 May 1910, Page 4

"LIBERAL PRINCIPLES."

We have noted here from time to time the curious.things that are" said on the subject of "Liberal principles" by supporters of the presentGovernment. One .of the most extraordinary statements on this point comes from our evening contemporary in a discussion of the wobbling of the Ministry on the question of land tenure. The refusal of the Ministry to stand definitely for land nationalisation by sticking to a thoroughgoing leasehold policy all round prompts our contemporary to say that the Government "has been swayed by the country vote in a direction quite opposed to' thp traditions of the Liberal party." Our contemporary also hopes to see "the true leaven of Liberalism in the party" preventing the success of the freehold movement. Really, it is time that our leasehold friends spent a few minutes in looking up the authentic) principles of Liberalism. They will find that they are essentially opposed to State landlordism. Liberalism means nothing but liberty and freedom of exchange. Not only are the founders of Liberalism j powerful witnesses against the ere- i ation of a State tenantry: their modern descendants in Britain,, the present British Government; though backsliders' in several particulars, are yet firmly opposed to the idea of J;he State as a landlord. It is particularly curious that our contcm•porary, which is a devoted admirer of Mr.. Asquith and his colleagues, should make the astonishing error of describing as "the true leaven of Liberalism" a gospel that has no place in the policy or regard of the British Liberals. As for "the traditions of .the Liberal party" in this country, what are they? What arc their principles in the matter of land tenure? The Christchurch Press asked this question on March 11 last in a passage that is worth quoting: "Are they those of Mr. M'Nab's Bill of 19011, or the Act of 1907, or the pro- ' posals of last year? Aro they tho views of Mr. Millar, who said it would be far better if the Government settled all tha available; Crown lands before buying any more land; of Mr. T. Mackenzie, who said that laiids-for-settleniont tenants ought to have the freehold if they 'wanted it; of Dr. Findlay,- who expressed the opinion that the Government party were making a fetish of tenure und placing it before tho main purpose of land settlement? Or are they the views of llr. i'owlds or of his late colleague, Mr. Hogg, or of Sir Joseph Ward himself a year or two ago, when lie declared that to grant the Crown tenants the option of tho freehold would be 'cancelling a sacred contract'?" To appeal to "the traditions of the Liberal party in this country," obviously, is even more absurd than the laughable mistake of calling the Socialistic element in that party "the true leaven of Liberalism." It would not bo a greater mistake to call the Tariff Reformers at Home tho tnic guardians of Free-trade.