Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 13100, 5 November 1908, Page 4

Mr A. B. Barclay has somehow come to bo associated in tlio public Diinrtln m \nd w ith advanced opinions Sortli. aiul Tather aggressive methods of utterance, but his epcseh at Howe Street Hall last night contained little that could bo termed revolutionary ami nothing strikingly militant in tone. It may be «B»pect«d that Mr Barclay does not find the circumstances of the present contest very inspiriting. The opposition which ho has to face is too serious to be ignored, and yet not formidable enough to excite the stern jov which he may well have felt three years ago in meeting Mr Bedford. Mr G. M. Thomson trill doaUlws receive the votes of a l.rrge number of Con**rvatites and personal friends, wbflu Mr Isaac Green may expect som* measure of support from those who are impressed by his interesting and rather startling claim to have originated eeme of the legislation passed during the- hat forty years 6F So. Over-confideHce on the part ot his friends ifi alone likely to oblige Mr Ba relay to make trial of the Second Ballot system, to which he was anything but generotid, since, like all experiments, it must be put to the test of a reasonable trial. The mildness of the contest may be partly responsible for the unexpectedly pacific character ,of his speech, but he may also have wished to deprecate the notion (prevalent but, not wholly reasonable) which represents him as a reckless political firebrand, more anxious to destroy than to build up, and not unwilling to become tho leader of a third party in. tile House of EepTeflentativee. tVe

have always felt that Mr Barclay's wide and close acquaintance with constitutional and general history was a safeguard agamsl hi* v&rulgenco in the work extravagance! of Radicalism or Socialism; afld tfiottg?] he holds some views which we dp nol snare; the main trend of His speech las! irjglrt was decidedly reassuring. Those people who supposed that he was about tc wave the red flag of a third party, to abjure the Liberal-Labor allkfice, and to denounce Sir Joseph Ward and his colleagues as the enemies of Labor and Progress, must have been considerably surprised. It is true that Mr Barclay entertains some misgivings—more or less fanciful, as we think—regarding the progeesive intentions of the Government, and that he seems to place a wrong interpretation on a recent remark of the Prime Minister, which has perhaps become too notorious; but his general treatment of the situation was not unfair. 1 Whilst there had been an alliance between the Liberal and Labor parties New Zealand had made more progress than any of the Australian States where the ' three-party system obtained. With three parties there was no progress. Ho did not like the throe-party system, and neither did he like the " etand-still" policy . . . and as far as he (Mr Barclay) was concerned 'he intended to adhere to the Liberal party until tho very last moment. But assuredly, if the time cam© when ho found it was absolutely impossible to get any further reform or progress from the Administration, then he must take that course which appeared to him to be be<-t to ensure the achievement of some progress, j some reform, some advance. ' Mr Barclay need liave no fear that a time will come when it will be impossible to get reform or progress from the Liberal Government. Ministers are already pledged to a largo amount of fresh legislation, and whatever Sir Joseph Ward may have intended to convey by tho remark which has been so widely quoted, he certainly did not mean to disclaim any of Ids Ministerial engagements. We cannot agree with Mr Barclay on the question of a State Bank ; hi 6 references to public finance were, for the most part, sound and shrewd; and on the whole we are able to compliment him upon a practical, unexpectedly moderate, and fairly convincing deliverance.