THE POST AND MR KEIR HARDIE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 3782, 9 January 1908, Page 2

THE POST AND MR KEIR HARDIE.

Commenting on Mr Keir Hardie’s speech which he delivered on Sunday last, the Post says;—“As we anticipated, Mr Keir Hardie refused to make the categorical denial in regard to his foolish speeches in India. It has been alleged by Socialist sympathisers desirous of maintaining his prestige that no foolish speeches were made. Mr Hardie, however, does not deny the facts; he evades them. Asked to say whether he did or did not draw his famous parallel between English and Russian methods of administration. Mr Hardie replies that New Zealand editors are “cads.” Asked whether he did or did. not compare atrocities in Eastern Bengal with the Turkish horror in Armenia, Mr Hardie replies that' Reuter’s correspondent is a liar. There is, of course, nothing else for Mr Hardie to do, for he has already admitted the facts — with qualifications. Interviewed by The Englishman, of Calcutta, of 3rd October, and asked about the comparison between Eastern Bengal and Armenia, “Mr Hardie frankly admitted that he had made the comparison.” In the London Tribune of 7th October, Reuters correspondent reports an interview accorded by Mr Hardie on his return to Calcutta, to representatives of all the English papers. “Mr Hardie owned to having used the expressions imputed to him, but modified them in certain particulars on cross-examination,. The original reports from Bengali sources failed .to show any trace of reservation or qualification. As accepted and understood by the native press, the statements were unqualified and accepted literally.” Has Mr Keir Hardie contradicted the report in The Englishman ? Has he contradicted the report in the Tribune? If not, does he think it is manly to take refuge in abuse ? We cannot see that Reuter’s correspondent is to blame. He quoted the Bengali newspapers tor what they are worth. When Mr Hardie made his qualifications, he reported the qualifications for what they were worth. And Mr Hardie admits using the expressions, though not in the widest sense given to them by his auditory. What, then, has Mr Hardie to complain of in the commentary of the New Zealand press ? On Sunday night he is reported as saying, in regard to his sayings and doings in India, that “ the people of India and the officials, from the Viceroy downwards, and the public press there, knew nothing about these things.” As Mr Hardie vouches for the correctness of the Tribune, the Post points out that both the Calcutta Englishman and the Indian Daily News are reported in the Tribune of 3rd October, to condemn Mr Hardie’s tour as “ very mischievous,” The Englishman is quoted as advising him to ‘ ‘ keep watch and ward over his own mouth.” On 7th October the Bombay Gazette is quoted in the Tribune as referring to Mr Keir Hardie’s tour as “the painful spectacle of one of the ruling race playing the mountebank.” His tour and speeches were the subject of columns and pages in the Indian press. Yet he says the press knew nothing about those things! To his scorn of the British press, he admits the Tribune as an honourable exception. The Post has said in Wellington, regarding Mr Hardie, almost precisely the things which the Tribune has been saying in London. The Post has admitted his sincerity and honesty, so has the Tribune; it has doubted his good sense and judgment, so has the Tribune. The Post has characterised his utterances as dangerous, so has the Tribune. The latter journal, in its leading article of sth October, took almost exactly the view of Mr Hardie’s conduct that was taken in the Post of October nth, and expressed its views in terms strikingly similar. The Tribune says of Mr Hardie, that ‘‘ he did institute comparisons of a qualified kind between the conditions of Bengal on the one hand and the condition of Russia and Turkish outrages in Armenia on the other.” “It is scarcely fair,” points out the Tribune, “ to charge the London press with responsibility for the exaggeration of Bengali journals”—uor the press of New Zealand. “The truth is,” proceeds the Tribune, “ as English papers in India have seen, Mr Keir Hardie is a thoroughly honest man, entirely well meaning, and a friend of moderation—as he understands it. But these same papers have condemned his tour as mischievous, and he must begin to think so himsetf.” The Tribune goes on to refer to “ those unfortunate comparisons,” and “their dangerous character in the circumstances.” “The great fault to be, laid to the account of Mr Keir Hardie is the overweening confidence that encouraged him to talk at large after so small an acquaintance with tne country.” “If he has any care for the reputation of his own party and himself, he will cut short his stay; and this experience should serve, as a warning ” —for what? “To learn quietly, instead of airing his own hasty impressions : more especially at such a delicate juncture as the present.” These are the opinions of the Tribune, the paper upon whose correctness and friendly attitude Mr Hardie avowedly relies. Unmistakably these opinions sup- j port the general attitude, of the ! New Zealand press. Unmistakably they condemn the folly\of Mr Hardie and the fence of his partisans. 7