THE “CONCILIATORY PROPOSITION.”

Auckland Examiner, Volume 1, Issue 11, 26 February 1857, Page 1

THE “CONCILIATORY PROPOSITION.”

When the English Whigs were in more than ordinary trouble they asked the late Sir Robert Peel what he would do if he were minister—“ Gentlemen,” said Sir Robert, “ I decline to answer your question —the physician does not prescribe tiil regularly calledin.” Less reserved than that ever-cautious statesman, and not expecting, at least for some time,. to be “ called in,” we will prescribe at once without waiting to be called in, and without (to their shame we write it) being invited to prescribe by the state doctors, who, with pill or potion, or both, have well nigh physicked the life out of that much bequacked and most patient of patients, rhe Public.

Our undiplomatized Body Politic physicians have in Truth exhausted all the resources of their art —such as they are, or •rather were—with no other result than that of making their patient worse —

And here we’ll let a secret out between us, In that old Institute, hight Nature College, There are some heads not overstocked with knowledge. The State Doctors three who now call themselves Executive, we grieve to say it, are much bewildered, and remind us of the three grey old women who figure in a fable which like those weird women is grey with old age. According to that ancient and true fa-‘ ble, Perseus on his way for the head of frightfully-formidable Medusa was by Mercury introduced to three grey old women who had but one eye amongst them which they, “ looking not like inhabitants of the earth and yet were on it,” used by turns as occasion required. Losing their one eye, or rather we should say, being robbed of it by Perseus, in his helmet of invisibility, tl ey were furious, and, not knowing what else to be at, fell to abusing each other in very ludicrous way.

We, of course, do not with to insinuate that the Provincial Executive are grey old women, or that they have only one eye amongst them, or that having only one eye they lost it ; but what we wisn direetly to state and maintain is that one eye seems to serve them all; that to see through it they take it by turns ; and that if by any chance the one eye should be lost, or seriously damaged, our State Doctors three would be as blind politically as were the three grey old women bodily. Their latest act is incomparably their richest. After groping, muttering, gibbering, and cursing, for whole days, as the three grey old women did after their one eye was carried off by Perseus, they softened apace, talked less than ever like hags, “ drew it,” in fact “ quite mild,” and made their last “ conciliatory proposition.”

Lawyer Merriman who has lion’s share of the one eye, after an elaborate exposition of his own good intentions, proposed as neplus ultra of Executive “ concession” that himself, Graham, and Daldy, should resign, all three being eligible for re-elec-tion, though, of course, two only could be re-elected.

Xerxes, the Persian, on his airival at Thermopoloe magnaminously proposed to three hundred Greeks that they should “ resign” their arms. The only answer given to that magnaminous nincompoop was by a Spartan who freely invited him to “ come and take them.”

In point of magnanimity Lawyer Merriman’s proposition is fully equal to that made for Spartan advantage by Xerxes. These tw'o magnanimous propositions do in fact resemble each other very much. Lawyer Merriman would have the Progress Party resign many nuggets for the glorious chance of getting a “ shicer.” He burns to face his constitutoney, although for their opinion (upon law) he cares not one jot.

To save Rome Quintus Curtius, a cheval and armed capt a pie, leaped into a gulph. To save Auckland (perhaps New Zealand entire) Lawyer Merriman will “ resign” his seat if Messrs. Graham and Daldy agree to follow his sacrificial example.

These gentlemen were unpatriotic enough to refuse ; being as reluctant to deliver up their seats as Sparta’s sons were to deliver up their arms— Give up our seats ? no, come and take them. That was the practical sense of their answer, which all must allow is not only classical but rather Greek. Lawyer Merriman seems, to have counted upon a favorable reception for his “ conciliatory ’ and positively last proposition, but he reckoned without his host. On discovering his mistake, he, at first, did nothing, but presently, for the hundreth time repeated himself.

So strong upon him is the quitelegal but very bad habit of saying with some slight variation of phrase the same tiresome thingover and over again that we seldom listen long without thinking of that Scotch oddity who had jflayed one tune upon his fiddle for such a length of time that not only had he forgotten to play any other tune but, what is more extraordinary, only that one tune could be got out of the fiddle.

We believe the rejected proposition was made by Lawyer Merriman in sincerity of spirit, and we know it was made ati if the proposer was unduly excited. Indeed, we trembled lest the Council should be horrified by a legal case of spontaneous combustion.