The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, JUNE 3.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume V, Issue 510, 3 June 1881, Page 2

The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, JUNE 3.

Two important, intersossional utterances have been m'ado':during tho past week, viz., thcß'ieechlfmailo by the Premier at Leestbn/iihdUKat' ■qiVM'r at Akaroa/ Ami here we may remark prirenthetically that these speeches during the recess promise to become an intolerable nuisance. A practice appears to have grown up of expecting every legislator, down to the honorable member for Mudfog, to "address his constituents." Now a man may be a very useful member ; he may have a grand capacity for silence, and be like the First Lord, who— " Always votad at his party's call, And never thought of thinking for himself at all," - ; • and it is cruel'to drag such a man on to a public platform, and compel him to make a public exhibition of himself. The ipractice is cruel to the member, to his hearer's, to the members of the Press, who have to put his imbecile utterances into English, and to the long-suffering public who are tempted into trying to wade through unnumbered columns of twaddle which repeats itself. With men in the front rank of political life, among whom of course we class Mr Hall and the member for Akaroa, the case is very different. They speak, not to their immediate hearers, but to the country at large, and the country naturally wants to know how the members of the Ministry and tho leaders of Her Majesty's Opposition propose to deal with the questions of the day.

Of course the Premier opened his speech by having a tilt at his old antagonist, Sir George Grey. We are glad to find that on this occasion he did not descend to the use of vituperative language, The point at issue appears to us of very little practical importance, and we are quite willing to accept Mr Hall's version for the sake of and yet to acquit tho Government of Sir George of any malpractice. Frcm the circumstances, however, the Premier deduces a moral from which we entirely dissent. He snys :—" During the last session of Parliament tho Public Accounts Committee passed a resolution recommending that the trust funds should be invested in Government securities only. This would obviate any possibility of giving them away to Town Hoards or Harbor Boards. Although this resolution was not binding on the present Government, they had strictly conformed to it ever since." Wo are aware that the practice hero indicated by Mr Hall has beeen followed by all Governments as yet, but we venture to assert that it is not at all in accordance with the interests of those interested in the trust funds, or of the public at large. It is a convenience to the Government, because " investing in Government securities " is only a euphemistic way of expressing " sticking to the money." As wo said before, all Ministries have followed the practice, but Mr Hall is the first who has formulated it into a doctrine. On a future occasion we may deal with this subject more at length.

With regard'to retrenchment, it was not unnatural for Mr Hall, to claim credit for what had been done in this matter. Facts, however, are stubborn things, and there is no getting over the fat that the Government had a whole recess between tho sessions of 1879 and 18S0 in which to mature a scheme of retrenchment, and yet failed to do soThere is no ignoring the fact that such retrenchment as has been effected was carried out at the bidding of a majority of the House, a majority composed of supporters and opponents ot the Government alike. Let all concerned have their share of credit for their actions in the matter, and to the Government may be awarded the merit of a becoming docility to the wishes of the House, and a loyalty in carrying out an unpopular programme.

There is a charming naivete' iv MiHall's reference to the time wasted by discussions on the motion for going into Committee of Supply- No doubt a similar complaint has been uttered-by all rulers from the Plantagenets to the Stuarts, but the Premier knows perfectly well that Representative Assembly would not be worth its name, did it not embrace these opportunities for criticising the actions of the Government, and expressing the opinions if only of a minority of its members on them.

Mr Hall's remarks as to th.; past arc, however, comparatively unimportant. An-' man of intelligence can form his own opinion on facts which are -capable of being established by evidence, His utterances as to the intentions of his Government for the future are the most important part of his -speech. Mr Hall

enumerates several measures which the Government intend to bring before the House next Session. The greater number of these, however important, arc in no sense of the word party questions. Bills for the regulation of elections, the prevention of bribery, Licensing, Fencing, Charitable Aid, Chinese Immigration, etc., will receive careful consideration from members on both sides of the House. On the main principles they are tolerably agreed, and any difference of opiniot that exists as to details will be pretty evenly distributed among supporters and opponents of the Government. But there arc two questions of a broader nature, in the discussion of which the old, old struggle between monopoly and men will have again to be repeated, and we regret to find that on both of these questions the Premier gives forth no certain sound. In fact we fear, when it comes to the point, that he will be found attempting the difficult feat of " running with the hare and hunting with the hounds." The first of these is tho redistribution of representation. Now in this matter of representation we are no violent theoiists. Salus populi supremao lex is our motto. If it can be shown that this is likely to be brought about by a benevolent despot, we would support a dictator to-morrow. If it conduce to the interests of New Zealand, that she should be ruled by Nelson and Taranaki, by all means let the ruling families reign on undisturbed. But experience has shown, that, human nature b?ing what it is, the duty of the philanthopist is to seek tlie distribution and not the concentration of power. Now in distributing the representation, the Premier promises that population shall be the first consideration, but he objects to "precise, rigid equality." Now, what does this mean? Read in the light of the Bill of last year, we are afraid that the only interpretation to be placed upon it is that a thousand electors who can be depended on to support Mr Hall's Government, are to bo entitled to double the representation accorded to a similar number who oppose him. Again Mr Hall says that his Government will do their best to pass this measure. He does not say that they will put their foot down and insist en their Bill being carried at least in its essentials. No, so far as his

Government is concerned, it appears they are quite willing to allow another Parliament to be elected on the present basis, though it is acknowledged on all sides to be grossly unfair, rather than to risk their seats.

But the question of questions, the one on which the whole future of this country depends, on which hangs the fate of our childreu and their descendants ad infinitum, is that of the tenure of land. This question Mr Hall does not even condescend to argue about, but dismisses the fears that have been expressed by thoughtful men as to probable evils resulting from a policy which encourages the aggregation of land in the hands of a few as " pure moonshine." Really, a man who occupies the position of Premier of New Zealand ought not to lay himself open to the charge of crass ignorance which such a manner of attempting to snub out of existence the question of all time would seem to indicate. Wo can fancy the successful land jobber, with his brains in his breeches pockets, making use of such an expression : we can imagine a Podsnap putting the subject behind him in this truly Philistine manner; but Mr Hall is a gentleman of culture. Ho has probably heard (not to mention, the agrarian laws of Ancient Rome) of such subjects as a Feudal System, a French Revolution, a Prussian land system, to say nothing of Irish Land Leagues and Coercion Acts. If he tliinks he can sneer do Am men like Grey and Stout, he is not unaware that a Bcntham, a Mill, a Ricardo, a Chalmers, a Carlyle, have thought out the great problems involved in this question, and that among thinking men the opinion is rapidly spreading that our whole system of land tenure is artificial, unjust, and inexpedient fn the extreme, and tiiat they are not afraid of all the sneers or hard names that may be hurled at them from'the opposite camp.

But this is far too important- a subject already sufficiently lengthy. We hope to be dealt with in the tail end of an article to return to it on a future occasion. Meanwhile we commend to our readers' attention that part of Mr Montgomery'a speech in which he shows that though Mr Hall's Government did introduce a measure for dealing with Native lands which would have the elicet of promoting settlement, yet at the bidding 01 their supporters of the Land Rings they dropped it, aud left those lands at the mercy of tho speculator.