THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1893. THE OPPOSITION LEADER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2571, 21 October 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1893. THE OPPOSITION LEADER.

The Hon. William Rolleston, leader of the Opposition, has spoken, and laid down the platform of the Opposition. There is nothing new in his speech; there never anything new in any speech delivered by Zl? Rolleston. They all bear a family likeness to other, and consist chiefly of finely rounded sentences on the preparation of which he expends much of the midnight oil, platitudes which no one can take exception to, and deliberate and misleading attacka on opponents. There is no man in his position in New Zealand less scrupulous as regards what he says of his opponents; he is not fair nor accurate, nor more truthful than is necessary to conceal misrepresentations. He has played for high game, and has lost. He might have been the Liberal Premier of New Zealand long ago if he had only followed the dictates of his own sympathies; but he is too respectable to b§ the leader of the masses, and has chosen the leadership of the classes. The result is that he is out in the cold, that he is likely to be pushed farther out shortly, and consequently he ia angry and ill-natured. His platform is and is made «p as follows ■ m all classes before th* f u q T 7 , 3 the Government aw ; the Legislature anu • ele . hould represent all the const.^

merits of the nation, not merely a numerical majority of the inhabitants, not town versus country, nor labour versus capital; equal rights should be accorded to all classes, and fair and equal, not punitive, taxation. (2) Individual freedom as distinguished from socialistic views ; freedom of trade as opposed to selfishness of protection; freedom of thought; freedom of action so long as no injury is done to a man’s neighbours. (d) Avoiding the degrading influence of paternalism. (4) Setting up a strong system of local government, with, so far as possible, local endowments, (a) Land revenue brought into capital account and devoted to developing the land. ((i) An elective Legislative Council.

Let us take all this and analyse it, >ut who can do that 1 Let us take the irst clause in the first plank, that is iquality of all classes, etc. Who can leny that that is correct ? But when Mr lolleston’s party was in power they ttompted to corrupt the fountains of ustice in the case of Judge Ward. It dll be remembered that Judge Ward iassed a sentence on an Oatnaru fraudusnt bankrupt, and possibly would have ueen punished for it only that Parliament stood by him. The fraudulent bankrupt was influential, and that was the reason the Atkinson Government attempted to punish Judge Ward for having punished him. There was equality of all classes. Then again, Mr Rolleston says in effect, that a mere numerical majority of the inhibitauts ahovil} not govern; that

minorities should have representation, but how he proposes to give effect to this idea is a mystery. It is plain he does not believe in Government by a majority, and so far as we can see what is behind this delightfully vague utterance is the giving of two votes to the wealthy classes and only one vote to the poor. This is a plank in the Conservative programme for Mr Watson said the same thing in his Ashburton speech. Then Mr Kolleston does not believe in punitive taxation; that is graduated taxation. Punitive means awarding or inflicting punishment, and the Conservative idea is that the wealthy classes are being punished for being wealthy. This is untrue. The wealthy classes are made to pay graduated taxation because they enjoy a manoply of land, and are able to pay the tax. The second and third planks must be read together. They are only a new rendering of “ God for us all and the deuce take the hindmost,” a political maxim which all modern political economist have scathingly condemned. Put in simple lauguage, Mr Rolleston says let men get as much land as they can, and become as rich as they can, and let others become as poor as they may, but the Government must not interfere. The Government must not prevent men from gaining a monoply of the land, and it must not help a poor man. to make a home for himself. This is freedom indeed, but it is freedom which is altogether on the side of wealth. We are ready to accept any improvement in local government, and as regards the land revenue, it is already spent, and a great deal more, in developing the land. The mischief is that it is not sufficient for present requirements. Mr Rolleston is in favour of an elective Legislative Council, but who would be the electors '( Would he favour the Legislative Council being elected on the same franchise as the as the Lower House ? Most certainly not. Mr Rolleston believes in a Council elected by men of property only, and if we agree to this it will be impossible to carry Liberal measures. Mr Rolleston’s programme is certainly meaningless and stupid, and will not appeal to popular sentiment.