LIBERALS AND LUCRE.

NZ Truth, Issue 137, 1 February 1908, Page 1

LIBERALS AND LUCRE.

Plutocrats and Pensions.

It is the practice of ' every humbugging, • bmriium-sp outing politician m JVpstralasia to call himself a "Liberal;" The word "■Literal,? like the word "Democrat," is one of those ."blessed words" that serve some men instead of ideas. Such names are conveniently vague and non-committal, and have little real meanltig for those who use them. No doubt,' they originally had' meanings ol a sufficient! v definite nature, but the words have been so much the sport of political cheap jacks, so artfully used by men who sought to make words tal r e the place of principles, that it is impossible, nowadays, to discover exactly what a "Liberal" or "Democrat" is— except that he is R»nerally "on tone make."- "Liberalism" and "Democracy" are frequently like the patriotism referred to by Dr. Samuel Johnson, "the last re T fugo of a scoundrel." • » > *. Tie political and economic gospel of the English Liberals was the individual liberty of each man to aeettmulato ss much money by the sweating of children and the underpay las and over-working of women as oiroam6t*a«« would permit. They swore '»y ; the teachings^ of the "Manehsster Seh#ol" of political economists, w.h© asserted that it was the fciglxt and duty ci every good citizen «c buy m the cheapest market, and $• sell m the. dearest. They demanded the removal of the import duties ©n corn, chiefly because they wanted aheap 1 flour with which to "size," or m other words adulterate, the cotton fabrics through which many a {'Liberal" manufacturer was, getting rich— by unloading them upon a Htorld surprised at their v cheapness, and as yet unaware of their extremely low quality. As for the poor, they were poor because they deserved, to be poor, said the "Liberals." :;Titelatter's great authority on 'the wic-' kedness of the poor, was 'a 'parson named Malthus, a fellow with an extremely large family himself, who said that the poor had altogether too many chaldron, and that such conduct could not be tolerated. ' „ ' In accordance with their Malthusian. principles, the English Liberals, when they first obtained power (m 1832), speedily set to work to alter .the Old Poor Law, which, they . asserted, had encouraged pauperism .instead of setting to work to pluck, up the thing by the roots. The Liberals.' then passed a new Poor Law, which w^s of so drastic a nature as to, rouse the indignation of the workers throughout England, and to create an unpopularity for*4he Liberals that temporarily injured them. Men like Richard Oastler and Michael Sadlier came to the front, who declared themselves' "Old Fashioned Tories," and insisted that 4t was necessary to use theLegislative machine to curb the power of the manufacturers to pile gold upon gold while they maintained a system. ; of slavery that was more odious than the slavery existing among the negroes m the Southern States of America. We hear much" from Liberals about the horrors of negro slavery, as exposed by Mrs Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's . .Dablii" ; b>t of the horrors of English white slavery, as exposed by; Mrs Frances Troilope's "Michael Armstrbijg," "we never hear anything froriv Liberals. Michael Armstrong was a factory lad, and tHe exposure by Mrs Trollope of. the way m which factory lads were treated by Liberal manufacturers (with a Nonconformist conscience !) was complete and terrifying. The "Liberals" have not changed much since the' days when they first K«t into 'power. The evidence, hpwevcr, of. the horror that their Individualistic principles excited when r.akedlv exposed to the gaze of the people became so plain to everyone that the ''Liberals" added hypocrisy Jo their, vices, and by means of this hypocrisy they succeeded m winning hack some of the popularity they had Iqs.t ; but the workers m the manufacturing districts always regarded | the Liberals with suspicion, and it J was, consequently, never an easy matter for a Liberal to secure elec- : tioa to the House of Commons as the ! representative of a constituency m wbidi factory workers largely predotnii'iated. " • - The present liberal Government is alleKcd to contain some of the- most Kadicai members m P;?eat Btitain,

It contains two "Honest 'Johns, " John Burns and John Morley ; but both these men, since assuming office, have shown themselves recreant to their principles and as dishonest politically as most other Liberals. It now appears, according to statements transmitted by cable, that there are differences of opinion m the English Cabinet as to the appropriation of funds for Old-age Pensions. The members of the Government, wanting to pose as the friends of the working classes, propose to give: 'some paltry sum as a pension for the aged, probably not mor-3 than five shillings a week. Asquith, who is one of the pets of the finglish capitalist classes, is bitterly opposed to raising this money by the taxation of the rich, and, therefore, like a typical English Liberal, he pi'oposes to .pilfer it from the moneys that rightly belong to the Naval and Military Departments. This is opposed by s both Lord Tweedmouth (the First Lord of the Admiralty) -and* by Mr HaMane (the Secretary of State for War) . As-quith. however, being Chancellor of the Exchequer, insists upon obtaining the money for the purpose m the manner we have stated. ' * ■► • It. appears that the majority of the members of the Cabinet, being typically Liberal, would, , if they could, back up Asquith, but 'whether the English\people will sanction their cheese-paring policy is another matter. Liberals have, it is true, always grudged the expenditure of money upon the Army and Navy. Although it is chiefly the property of Liberal capitalists that would have to be protected m the event of war breaking out, the reluctance of the Liberals to. pay for this "protection has always been marked. To some ; extent this feeling has been inherited by the Liberals' from.. the Whig Party, whose places they have taken m the political life of ''England ; but, large^. ly, it- arises from the reluctance, that always seems to be ingrained m all Liberal capitalists to , pay adequately for the' advantages that they receive as members- of an organised society. In spite of the . fact that, without Army, Navy, and Police, there would quickly, be ; ah,,end ,tq the, supremacy :of the capitalist,; they are : as. ahtagonistic to '''shelling out" for the protection of their wealth— often illgptten—as,.if they were, like Isaac of Y9rk,''asTf€d.to ssubm5 submi i t to the extraction of. their- teeth. ' However, the members r of "the Party, which has compeiled Asquith and Co. to talk about' pensions- for the aged, may be expected to insist that thewealthy 1 who have reduced the workers to the necessity of accepting .State assistance m their old age, will yield '"'in taxes the money to be raised for the proper payment of the pjensidhs, ' ... , ■ "' *'