The Daily Telegraph. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3085, 17 May 1881, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1881.

The telegraphic summary of Mr Saunders' speech, that we published last week, gave but a poor idea of what he said. Not the least interesting portion of his address referred to the delusive cognomens of political parties in this colony. It is obvious that in the present state of the colony it cannot be advantageous to keep up what Mr Saunders termed useless and obsolete dissensions, or to ignore tbe services of the best men of any class. Neither can the colony afford to put men in power who, for selfish purposes, are trying to perpetuate animosities for which there is no longer the slightest justification. To sow suspicion while the country needs so much of mutual confidence is "to render impossible what is so urgently demanded to repair the blunders and omissions of the past. Speaking of the claims of the socalled Liberals to tbe confidence of the people, Mr Saunders said:—-Very soon after the close of the approaching session a general election must take place. It was highly probable that in the course of the session something might turn up to furnish ajkind of war-cry for that contest, but whether it did so or not it was most likely that the greatly abused word "liberal" would continue to be claimed by those who had lately driven all the real Liberals in New Zealand to join tbe Conservatives rather than take part in their wild and reckless attempts to seize power at any cost to the country, and under the name of "Liberalism," to govern without a Parliament, to incur unlimited debts without the consent of the people's representatives, to conceal entirely the true state of the colonial finance, to corrupt and demoralise the Maori race, and to pay both members of Parliament and high executive officers large bribes from sums which the House of Representatives had voted for entirely different purposes. In nutters of this kind it was most necessary, he said, that they should not be deceived by mere names. A thief could cry "Stop thief!" as loud as the best policeman; a Quaker's coat could be assumed by the most dangerous cut throat, and a bishop's garb by any pickpocket. Marat and Robespierre called themselves Liberals, but history judges them by their actions and not by the names they chose to apply to themselves, and when they saw the name Liberal claimed by a party which had never passed one Liberal measure, which had never economised one shilling of public expenditure, which had never prevented one act of oppression, but which had been proved to obstruct liberal measures, to bring tbe colony to the verge of ruin by its reckless extravagance, to greatly increase the nominee chamber it promised to abolish, and to bribe newspapers and candidates and members of the House of Representatives with the public funds, it was time that the electors of New Zealand should look beyond mere names and judge its public men by what they have done, and not by what they called themselves. His ideas of a true Liberal were very simple and old fashioned. He called that man a Liberal who simply took the golden rule for his guide in politics, and endeavored to do to others as he could reasonably wish others to do to him. That was the rule which if simply and faithfully carried out would do more than anything else to promote the happiness and prosperity of any country. That was the liberalism of Hampden, of Elliott, of Pym, of Washington, Wilberforce, Clarkson, Cobden, Bright, and Gladstone, and it was a wicked perversion of a good old word when it was assumed by those who are seeking to profit by the propagation of animosities and perpetuation of prejudices. The men to bo trusted were the men who really nought the greatest good of the greatest number through good report and evil report, and often sought it in a way for which they got no thanks from any one. These were the true Liberals, and such men could always be depended on to support any reform that is worth having. The sham Liberals were men whom all classes should distrust—they were easily known in any community. They seek popularity at any price ; they profess to support whatever seems to take the fancy of the majority for the time being; they hold out false hopes to the ignorant that they know can never be realised. One of them had even gone so far as to tell a large audience'in Christchurch that what he proposed would so change the condition of the colony that " there would be no discontentent, as everyone would have whatever they wanted." But, worst of all, they appeal to the lowest and meanest

passions of our nature, and too often try to make us believe that instead of the golden rule they ought to regard the good of others as their own misfortune, and the prosperity of the community was to be promoted by each one tr>in« to injure 1m neighbor and by setting one class of the community against 'some other class. For ihe purpose of sucb men it is of course necessary that the class to be pointed out as the object of envy, malice, and hatred must be the class that commands the smallest number of votes.