"SILVERN SPEECH."

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1235, 18 September 1911, Page 4

"SILVERN SPEECH."

As the days pass the evidence accumulates that our Ministerialist friends have been thrown into a state of real alarm by Mb. Fowlds's frank summary of the condition of official "Liberalism" in this country. Even the Christchurch organ'of the Government, which is usually cleverer than most of the party's press in glozing over unpleasant facts, is unable to cope with,the situation or oven with its feelings. It discussed Mr. Fowlds's_ statement in Auckland in an editorial on Wednesday last under the heading "Silvern Speech." _ The implication of the heading is, of coursc, that Me. Fowlds's silence would have been golden. Our contemporary says that Mr. Fowlds is "in danger of allowing his fluent tongue to run away with his sober judgment" and that he "displayed less than his usual discretion" in laying bare the real state of the Government party. We can guess what is the Ministerialist view of "sober judgment" and "discretion"; the Christchurch paper no doubt means that Mr. Fowlds has been indiscreet enough to make public an unpleasant truth, it is not our_ purpose, however, to dwell upon this point, but rather to turn to the very singular and pathetic direction that our contemporary gives to its rebuke. Mr. Fowlds's implication that "the Liberal party" is not democratic is referred to as "a comment which very well might have been reserved until his Ministerial responsibility was a little further removed from his personal independence." It is possible that the suggestion is that Mr. !Fo\vlds is still in a measure responsible for the condition he condemns, which is perhaps in the circumstanccs a reasonable enough retort. That, however, is a small point. The real point to be noted is that the grievance of these distressed "Liberals" is the failure of Mr. Fowlds to keep silence until he was "a little further removed" from the termination of his . Ministerial career—until, in other words, the election was over and done with. That, wc assume, would have been pro.perly discreet and would have displayed sober judgment: it is because he has unburdened his soul just at a time when the truth is the last thing the "Liberals" want to have revealed that wc hear these lamentations in the party's camp. Quoting further from tho ex-Minister's statement, the Christchurch paper says that "most of this has been said quite as earnestly, and much more appropriately, by Mr.. Massey"—a delightfully naive confession, which is open to the construction that to our "Liberal" friends truth is inapwhen it comes from anyone who is not a supporter of Mr. Massey. The conclusion of our worried contemporary h that, Mn, Fowlds will damage the official "lab-,

eral" party "if he docs not take a little more care to make his inclining quite clear anil to distinguish between his admirable ideals and what he knows to be practicable politics." To make his meaning more clear! Could it be more clear 1

It might perhaps bo unfair to press very strongly against the distinction that one of the leading "Liberal" organs makes between "admirable ideals" and "practicable politics." But there need be no confusion as to what the ideals are in this case. They are thoroughly practicable ideals, being nothing more nor less than honesty, purity, and sincerity. Ifc is not altogether surprising if twenty years of power have made those three qualities appear _tp be visionary and unattainable ideals to the eyes of some of the "Liberal" party. "Honesty! Sincerity !" we can imagine them saying—modernising the young man m Friendship's Garland—-"where have we heard those words before ?" Neither the newspaper we have been quoting nor any other newspaper or person has attempted to supply what, after all, would be far better than reams of censure and gallons of tears —namely, a_ disproof of Me. Fowlds's major statement of iaeo. If they were able to refute the exMinister, to prove that the '"i/'ibcral" party has not apostasised, that Ballance's principles are still its life-blood, that it has not attracted to itself place-hunters and privilegehunters and concession-hunters of overy sort and kind—if they were able to do this, would they not do it?