THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1893. FREE NEW ZEALAND.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2574, 28 October 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1893. FREE NEW ZEALAND.

There is no country on the face of the earth where men and women are so free as they are in New Zealand. Not even a shadow of slavery, in the sense in which the word is generally understood, darkens the brightness of human existence in this fair and beautiful land, for every one is free since all have been placed on equal terms under an equal franchise. Where men and women exist under laws in the making of which they have no voice, there still lingers the last links of ancient thraldom, but here in New Zealand we are absolutely free, and our own destinies are in our keeping. But it is useless to boast of our freedom and continue to make slaves of ourselves, for there are other kinds of slavery besides that to which we have referred. There is for instance the slavery of evil habits, of gluttonous appetites, and of a craven spirit, and, worse than all at the present time, the slavery of prejudice. One of the illustrious dead has asked, " 0 Prejudice what art thou ?" and no one has ever since answered the question. Perhaps the poet has gone as near it as possible when he said " I do not like thee, Dr Fell, The reason why I cannot tell, But this I own, and know full well, I do not like thee Dr Fell."

Now there the poet was influenced by a prejudice again at Dr Fell, which that amiable gentleman did not deserve. Dr Fell must have been a model of human perfection when the man who started with such a feeling as that against him. could not find an excuse for his dislike to him. He disliked him, and that was all he knew. There are many other kinds of slavery to which we would like to refer, but the slavish feeling which engendered dislike of Dr Fell is the aspect of the question to which we desire to draw attention. In all human probability the man who disliked Dr Fell would not have voted for him had he been a candidate for election. He could find no fault with Dr Fell, whose political programme and social standing were blameless, but he did not like him, and because he did not like him he would rather give his vote to the candidate whose politics he disagreed with. What was the use of that man having a vote when he gave it in favor of things he did not believe in, just because of his dislike to Dr Fell. In order to illustrate our meaning we shall suppose that Smith and Jones are candidates and Robinson an elector. Smith believes in settling people on the land, aud is an ardent supporter of the Liberal Government, but Jones is a Conservative and believes in large estates and capitalists. Now Robinson believes in the Liberal Government, and would like to see large estates cut up, and he would gladly vote for Smith only he does not like him, for the same reason as the poet does bot like Dr Fell. He is opposed to Jones in politics he knows that it is against his interest to vote for him, but he likes Jones himself, and votes for him. There is the result of a slavish prejudice. With his vote he might have cut up large estates, and benefited humanity, but because of this unreasonable feeling he casts that vote to injure himself and his children, and perhaps his children's children. That man is a slave. He is not a free man who cannot exercise his freedom rationally. This is the point to which we desire to draw attention now. We Ciiall all be called upon to exercise our votes before Iwg, and it is as well for ua to think over these thicgSj Shall we throw off the thraldom of prejudice and act as free people, or shall we allow ourselves to act as the grovelling slaves of prejudice. The law has made us all free; shall we make slaves of ourselves. A conscience has been given to us to tell us right from wrong. Shall we vote as that conscience dictates, or shall we yield to paltry feelings, and despise the Voice which speaks to us through our conscience. If we do we shall do wrong, but wo trust that very few will be so slavish as to do it.

PARTY GOVERNMENT,

StR Robert Stout has spoken, and we have heard it said that he is altogether opposed to the present Government. This is altogether a mistake. There is nothing in his speech that can be construed into antagonism to the policy of the present Gay,ernmant. He deals with a different subject ; he deals with changing the constitution under which we are working, and not witfi the Government policy measures. He pronoses to destroy Party Government, and set up iu * <s an elected .cabinet. He will find a number to sympathise with this idea, altho':j h we P™' pared to accept them until we more

about it. Party Government is certainly bad in many respects, but the question is Does the good counter-balance the evil ? We favour Party Government on the principle of “ setting a thief to catch a thief.” Under Party Government, one set is continually watching another set, and keeping them straight. We consider that is an advantage which must cover a multitude of evils, and that the people should not give up this system without serious consideration. Party Government is a recent development of civilization. It is practically a present century institution, and previous to its development, the greatest, the foulest, and the most monstrous corruption existed. Proper Party Government, as we understand it, does not exis t in America ; there corruption runs riot. Russia is now governed somewhat on the same lines as England was at a former period of history; their corruption is the curse of the land. This cannot be under our system, for one party is always watchingthe other. There is another reason why Party Government is preferable, and it is that it is the progressive form of Government, ’j'he two parties occupy rival positions,

and if one makes a bid for public favour the other is sure to bid a little higher bo as to secure power. They are just like two people bidding for a horse at an auction sale. One offers £2O and unless the other offers £2l he Vont get it. There is thus a rivalry between the two parties, and progress is the result, but if no such thing as party existed, we should have nothing but dullness, corruption, and indifference. Let any one read McCarthy's History of Our Own Times, and see what party rivalry has done; it is since Party Government came into evistencethat the world has progressed, and we believe it would be a great mistake to do away with it. However, we shall reserve our final decision until we have read the full report of Sir Robert Stout's speech on the subject.