The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1882.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 6501, 16 February 1882, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1882.

A tekt interesting and instructire book might be written on the subject of Communism. Its phases are so numerous and varied that very often it is called by some totally different name. If a person of average intelligence and information is asked what it is, he will probably refer to what took place in Paris in 1848 and in 1870; to the egregious failures and public scandals of Louis Blanc’s national workshops for 1500 tailors in the Luxemburg Palace ; to the burning, twenty years afterwards, of the Tuilleries and other public buildings by the petroleusesjto General Clusbeet’s reign of terror, and the overturning of all law and order by a gang of men, almost every one of whom afterwards denounced every other member as a worthless scoundrel. Yet, if we turn to the encyclopedias and other text books, we learn that Communism may be mildly defined as being that scheme of economics under which trade is not left to the working of the natural principle of free competition, or domestic arrangements to conjugal or parental affection, but both are arranged by artificial laws made by the Government of a country. This definition errs in not being exact enough, because it does not state w ( hat the “artificial laws” referred to are. Strictly, Communism is that scheme under which the Government incurs the liabilities, more or less,, of partnership in all industries which in any way conduce to the benefit of a country; and consistent Communists carry out this principle so far as to include the plan of a community of wives and the adoption of all children by the State. The latter part of the communistic creed, however, though avowedly adopted by Owen in Great Britain,and by St. Simon and Fourier in France, is usually repudiated by those who adhere to the former part of the communistic proposals. This doctrine, is not-a new one. In ancient Sparta the State so far regulated what wo should consider the .private affairs of the citizens that they were compelled to take their meals at the sysitia or public mess. The mau who, not being sufficiently strong or good looking; himself, possessed a' healthy and beautiful wife, was liable, as we learn from Gbote and other authorities, at any time to her abduction, that she might he handed over by the: State officials to a stronger and betterlooking citizen, in order that she might become the partner of his table and couch ; and children were adopted by ]tbe State, if. healthy, but if sickly or. deformed were publicly, exposed and left to perisb. The apparently-, harmless r principle we, have, enunciated as v being that of Communism has thus led obviously _ to queer consequences in both ancient and modern times.' And it is not a mere accident that it has done so. The germ has produced what science would have foreseen to ihej the. s necessary flower and fruit of its kind.

But of what practical interest, it may be asked, is all this to us in, New Zealand, in a young colony, ’at other end of the world ? Well, it is of a great deal, seeing that the most numerous political party we have here is essentially a Communistic' one. .Liberalism, in both Victoria and New : Zealand, is nothing more or less than Communism in disguise. The rose of colonial Liberalism, under that other name, would not smeUf as sweet. • The thing itself is almost everywhere present? though- the name is absent,-be-cause long ago it became one of opprobrium-, on account of;the French eccentricities in connection' with it—■ and so it was discarded. It is very, i certain that -Australasian Liberalism, is nothing like the same thing as what is called in England by that term ; in fact, in many respects; it is’exactly the opposite. Thus, for inf stance,; the, artificial, and State-made rule of “. protection to native industry’’ in trade, one of the cardinal points in the Australian Liberal’s programme, is just that to which Mr Gladstone, Mr Bbight, and:the, whole -Liberal party in. England are: most vehemently opr posed.' >■ So also, sympathy with the Irish Land League, and the avowal of the communistic principle of appropriating, the, land by force drom the landlords of the country—noble .virtues here, ;if ,Sir ; l Geoe6E: Geet and Messrs Ldndon, -Feldwick, Joyce, and the New Zealand Liberals are to ; Fe, believed—are with Mr Gladstone, and the whole Liberal party at Home, crimes. .Either the English Liberals do: not. know the meaning of the term’, dr the-New Zealand Liberals' do ;not, For’ put.own-'part, .we believe, .that the, English'Liberals term .themselves "so correctly, and that ; the New. Zealand Liberals term themselves so ; erroneously.' Forthe latter make. no cpn- : cessions on behalf of’themselves or the:class to which they belong, and that iswhat' reallyconstitutes Liberalism or’liberality. They Would them-, selves repudiate. ’any such ' intention, and ’ only , propose to give away what' belongs to’ >.; other people, to bribe the .artisans - who support them , by protective duties levied on other people’s industry, and to ,“ burst: up ’’ the largo estates because none of these belong to themselves.' Their liberality is apparently of, that kind shown by the farmer in the did story to Eichabd._Bjbindsdke_ Sheeldxn. The great orator and statesman, who wasr.a. bad. shot, was one, day returning home when .he saw, a jollylooking; farmer , at the door of a farmyard; • where' numerous ..fowls, ducks, turkeys, &c., were tunning about. Sheexdan— asked_the.. farmer' if he would do; the liberal thing,: and let him have, a'shot'at ithe;birds, and, on being told - that : he mighty/.took a pot shot,-’ - blazed away with 'his double-barreled . gap, and brought down. v ,haJfd-d6zen : ‘ birds at once'. “Eat Ker a good shot, that,” he

exclaimed triumphantly, as he was marching off with his birds. “Yes,” replied his undismayed friend, “ very good; but I fancy .they are none of them mine." The fact was the man was quite a stranger to the place, and could afford to be philosophical about his neighbors’ poultry. . Now, that is just the sort of Liberalism which finds favor in Victoria and New Zealand. Most people elsewhere would call it Communism, or some similar name. “ How do you all make a living at your part of the world 1” wrote Charles Lamb to a friend at Sydney, at the time when New South Wales was a convict colony. “Do you all live by thieving from one another. One would fancy- that no amount of property could long stand against such incessant depredation.” Well, we do not all of us live by what is commonly called thieving; but a great many of us would like to confiscate some other people’s property if it could be done respectably, because a ; good many of us agree with Proudhon that “property is theft,” and that it is, therefore, not criminal to restore it to society at large or to ourselves. It was noticeable at the last election that those candidates who professed themselves Liberals were very careful to say as little as possible about what Liberalism is. They denounced the present Ministry in unmeasured terms, and condemned or carped at almost all their measures: but they were very reticent as to their own schemes and policy. Prom amidst the dense fog of wordy eloquence, however, two measures of constructive policy were really announced —one, that they would put heavy taxes on the propertied classes, and the other, that they would burst up the large estates. Yet, if these are not essentially communistic measures, the term Communism has no meaning whatever. They are the proposed measures, however, of the New Zealand Liberals, Can any one tell us, therefore, what is the difference between Communism and colonial Liberalism ?

The question of the precise nature of Communism is one of vast importance to us. According to what we think of it will our policy be framed with regard to Free Trade, the suppression of pauperism, the adjustment of taxation, the ; rights and responsibilities of property, and many another burning subject. In all probability it will openly come before the Legislature for discussion before many years are over. It becomes us therefore to consider well whether we are prepared to sink so low as to he the State paupers of any communistic scheme, no matter how much disguised under the specious title of Liberalism; or whether we shall decide to preserve that individual independence, “ Lord of the lion port and eagle eye,” which has marked, and still marks, our countrymen in England above all other nations ; which has given us a litei'ature more original than any other in the world and better worth preserving ; which has made us, by the admission of all foreigners, the best inventors of the comforts and luxuries of life; which has constituted England the asylum for every exile from foreign soil who had thought and spoken freely what he has believed to be for the public good; and which, in spite of all opposition, has increased the mercantile navy of Great Britain until it is now far greater than that of all the rest of the world taken together. Between these two principles, lies our choice, and it will be indeed folly if we fail to decide rightly in which direction it shall be.