LORD SALISBURY’S SPEECHES.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4408, 15 July 1901, Page 7

LORD SALISBURY’S SPEECHES.

SOME IMPORTANT STATEMENTS

THE LIQUOR QUESTION,

Lord Salisbury has, during the past few weeks, treated the world to two of his occasionally remarkable speeches, and one of them Lord Rosebery remarked that it gave evidence that the Premier lives in tho clouds, possessing no knowledge of the aspirations, the struggles, the joys, and the sufferings of the people. This was in relation to his deliverance in the House of Lords upon the licensing question.- Lord Salisbury then deprecated the introduction of Bills by privat e members on a matter of such importance; and when the Government had n©t come to any conclusion on the subject he held that it was not their duty to introduce some sort of measure to placate and satisfy a blind and indefinite desire on the part of certain members. He continued: “My own opinion is that we have wandered too far from the doctrine of free trade, and we have attempted to©’ much the functions of a paternal Government, and we have found all the difficulties which usually fall as an- obstacle in the way of a paternal Government. We have not the force to carry out that which some of us desire, and we cannot avoid the necessary differences of opinion which arise from any attempt to hammer out a scheme of policy by simply listening to the criticisms and conflicting recommendations that are made. We have to deal not only with private interests, which on any equitable system require the most careful consideration, but we have to deal with that inability which any Government, and especially such a Government as ours, finds in attempting to impose upon the people a matter so entirely within their own judgment, and within the guidance of their own knowledge, as the course that they shall pursue in satisfying their own individual tastes. We are stepping out of that which ought to be ■ the wisely restricted sphere of Government action. We have before us a great example. We know that the class with which we ourselves are most familiar, 100 or 200 years ag© were as deeply affected by this evil which you lament now as any of the lower class at the present day may be. .We know that it was not by the attempt to set up paternal government—it was not hy an attempt to substitute in that particular matter our judgment for that of the people themselves, but by allowing the gradual growth of intelligence and education to guide them t© make the choice which they can make, and which we oannot, and by that wise liberty to obtain the freedom from this evil which no paternal Government can over attain for you. That is the example which we have before us. We see the use of the principle which w© have applied in every other part of our policy. W e se e wherever it has been tried it has been brilliantly successful. On the ©ther hand we have been,induced in the past by advisers -who, I think, were not wise to tak© upon the shoulders of Parliament a responsibility which belongs to the individual and the community themselves. Can any one say we have been successful, or that we have any prospect of. success? Are we not hindered by that hopeless conflict between divergent opinions and th© interest and the feeling and prepossessions of the various members of the community P The present state of the matter I believe to be this, that with regard to the vast body of the people the matter has not deeply attracted their attention, and they will not join us in- any effort we may make. There are, on the other hand, highly organised bodies—organised by ethical or religious opinion —who are trying to enforce the views they take —no doubt they are great and noble views—upon their neighbours.”

LORD ROSEBERY’S CRITICISMS. Lord Rosebery, who followed, . confessed that such utterances filled him with despair, and remarked that it was impossible to catch the noble marquis on the question. He appointed a royal commission; it reported in two-fold form giving him either option; he disdained both and oast contumely on report and reporters. Then the bench of right reverends had a try, and brought forward a resolution-. The noble marquis would not have a resolution—what he wanted was a Bill. The fathers of the church take the hint and submit Bills for his approval, and h© then said—“l don’t want Bills; I want a Bill—a limited Bill on a certain subject.” Then his own agent, Lord Belper, objected to th e Bill on the ground that it was too limited. He (Lord Rosebery) snatched one crumb of comfort from the King’s' speech, which made a promise, though a qualified one. It said—“ Legislation has been prepared, andl if the time at your disposal proves to he ’ adequate will h e laid befor©-von for the prevention of drunkenness in licensed houses off public places.” And yet, continued Lord Rosebery, the noble .marquis had made a speech of the strongest’kind against any legislation.—This the Premier denied. asserting that his speech had nothing to do with drunkenness.—Then what became, asked Lord Rosebery, of the argument to leave drunkards id .the development of their ©wn education and intelligence ? ♦ , THE TEMPERANCE PARTY. The Licensing Boards Bill, over which the debate _ arose, proposed tp create a new licensing ■ authority, and also a new court for deal> ing with licensing appeals. It was rejected on the second reading by 51 votes to 30. The speech of Lord Salisbury has been a general topic of conversation in nolitical and temperance circles. It appears to have irritated all who have sympathy with temperance principles, one ©f them remarking—with an evident allusion to the Premier’s .proneness to speeches of the fireworks and surprise kind—that the" temperance party was “butchered to make a Salisbury holiday.” ENGLAND’S GLORY. Another Salisbury oration—made prior to that just dealt with—has caused much discussion both at home and on th© Continent. It gives evidence of a restoration of the Premier’s old-time vigour, and the “Berlin Post” remarked that it was “more confident and selfassertive than we had been accustomed to hear from English lips during the past two years." The occasion was a banquet of th© Nonconformist Unionist Association. Lord Salisbury, in replying to the toast of His Majesty’s Ministers, in referring to the South African war, said: “We have been able to show that the old spirit of our countrymen bums as bright as it did in any period of cur history. When I was at the Foreign Office I used to hear suggestions that our time had passed by and that our star was set, and that if we meant to keep our place in the world, new exertions would he necessary. There has spread abroad the impression that w 0 should never fight again, and that every adversary had only to press hardly and boldly upon us to he certain that we should ultimately yield. This was a gross miscalculation. But I have no doubt that the converse is true, and now that we have shown what powers we can display, how truly we can copy the brilliant example of those who have gone before us, the empire of England is not ©nly illustrated by the example, hut it

is safer, and the cause of peace is now more secure from attack than it was before the strength of England was conclusively shown. There is no Power in th© world who does_ not now know that if it defies the might of England it defies one of the most formidable enemies it could possibly encounter. FRENCH COMMENTS.

The Paris “Temps” points out, in referring to the speech, that Lord Salisbury represents aristocratic hut not public opinion in England. For three centuries the Cecils have been, more o_r less th© governing race. And the optimism of the Prime Minister’s utterances even, if impolitic, would, from an English national standpoint, have a good effect. The “Debats” observes:

“Lord Salisbury was not altogether wrong in uttering a song of pride on the tenacity of the British nation. Assuredlv many other nations would have persisted, for there is generally no shrinking when th© honour of the flag is at stake; but it is difficult to imagine a sing!© nation which would have persisted with the same fine calmness, without internal shock, and with a certainty inspired by a prodigious sense of its infallibility. Not one, without doubt, would have the Government in the hands of men who have shown so much presumption off such an ignorance of the strength of the obstacles to b° overcome. Yet the English do not yet seem to hear a grudge against them, or else it is that they are resolved to defer a settlement of accounts till the end of the difficult times. They have carefully remembered, as regards their rulers, the proverb against changing horses while crossing a stream. This is a political spirit, perhaps rather sluggish, but at least natural t© a powerful race, and generally effective when backed by great strength. Lord Salisbury was right in congratulating his country upon it.