"Liberal" and "Conservative."

The brazen journalistic footers who trumpet the praises of Seddonism are always proclaiming the liberalism of the Government, and declaiming against the crusted conservatism of the Opposition. Let us look into this question of "Liberal" and "Conservative," and see what are the special merits about the name the Government lavs claim to, and what demerits attach to the term "Conservative."

The other day a labour candidate for a Wellington seat declared in his address that the passing of a certain number of Acts, more or less liberal, was no proof that the Government was Liberal. He mentioned that the Conservative Government at Home had passed such Acts as the Irish Land Act, enabling the Irish tenantry to buy their farms, a measure "more liberal than one Liberal Government's similar legislation."

But the terms Liberal and Conservative are purely arbitrary. There is nothing in a name. One of the most industrious advertisers of the Liberal party, Mr. H. G. Ell, in his speech on the Financial Statement, describes Canada as the best governed country in the world. In Canada there are two political parties, Liberals and Conservatives. In his book on "Canada as it is," Mr. John Foster Fraser, in the chapter on Canadian politics, says that "the Conservatives were the extreme Radical-cum-Fabian-cum-Socialist champions; the Liberals were the upholders of private ownership, and the denouncers of Government monopolies." At the last general election in Canada, when the Liberals, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, were returned to power by an overwhelming majority, the main issue was whether the new trans-continental line was to be or not to be a State railway. The Liberals in Canada are in favour of private ownership, they grant the freehold to settlers, and are opposed to Government monopolies. The Conservatives' policy on the other hand is not unlike the New Liberal platform in New Zealand.

A party must be judged by its acts. What are the acts of the Seddon Government? In its desire to be liberal has it reformed the Upper House for instance? Has its anxiety for progress caused it to make provision for the long-promised superannuation for civil servants this session? Has it produced a single progressive page 18 measure except the workers' homes proposal, which it stole from Mr. Bollard, an Opposition member.

We know, on the other hand, what it has not done. It has again refused to allow Parliament to properly scrutinise the Estimates; it has refused to produce papers and returns that were necessary for proper criticism; it has declined to repeal the Public Revenues Act; it has not restored the audit system to its original basis, or extended the supervision of the Auditor-General to all the departments of the State; it has not reformed the industrial school system; it has not made the Magistrates independent of the Cabinet; it has declined to bring down local Government reform; it has refused to establish a Civil Service Board; and finally it has not restored the rights of Parliament, or curtailed the enormous powers of the Cabinet.

Yet this is the "Liberal" Government; and the reform party, led by Mr. Massey, is "Conservative"! Were ever terms more extraordinarily misapplied?