The Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1871.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2688, 28 September 1871, Page 2

The Evening Star. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1871.

Nineteen members of the House of Kepresentatives have formed themselves into an opposition—so our Wellington correspondent inform us. We should imagine nobody will be sorry to hear it—no doubt some will be glad. It seems to be a recognised part of a representative system that there should be two sides, albeit merely a right and a wrong one. In this instance, however, the country would like to know what bond of union there is in the new organisation—what they mean to oppose and what to advocate. We hear

occasionally of some writer, utterly ignorant of the meaning of the words, trying to get up a Whig or Tory cry, apparently quite indifferent as to whether the terms point to any analogy whatever to the distinctive principles held of late years by the two great parties at Home. To those who know the history of party at Home, such terms have hitherto conveyed no meaning as applied to Colonial politics. Henceforth they will be more applicable, for there is at least something akin to the spirit that gave birth to the distinction between Whig and Tory in that which seems to have led to the formation of Mr Stafford’? opposition. It may not be generally known that the original term Whig was given to some believers in the truth of a charge similar in spirit to the Telegraph Libel case. This affair took place nearly two hundred years ago, and is briefly told by Haydn thus : Meal-tub Plot, against the Duke of York, afterwards James 11., contrived by one Dangerfield, who secreted a bundle of seditious letters in the lodgings of Colonel Maunsell, and then gave information to the Custom-house officers to search for smuggled goods, 23rd October, 1679. After Dangerfield’s apprehension, on suspicion of forging these letters, papers were found concealed in a meal-tub at the house of a woman with whom ho cohabited, which contained the scheme to be sworn to, accusing the most eminent persons in the Protestant interest, who were against the Duke of York’s succession, of treasen. Upon bringing up the meal-tub plot before Parliament two parties were formed. Those who doubted the truth of the plot styled the believers in it “ Whigs,” and they retorted upon their opponents by calling them “ Tories.’’ Hume tells us in view, of this plot that no great weight could be laid to the testimony of this Dangerfield, but great clamor was raised. “It must be “ confessed,” he adds, “ that the present “ period (1679) by the prevalence and “ suspicion of such mean and ignoble “ acts on all sides, throws a great stain “on the British annals.” We quite coincide with Hume’s opinion, and fear that some Colonial KtuME may write for this period of New Zealand history in similar terms. "We do not advocate any Government being left unwatched. The very end and purpose of a deliberative Assembly is that every question should be thoroughly sifted and examined, so that when it is proposed to carry the principles embodied in it into practice, there may be no necessity to alter or amend. Were this the custom of Parliament, very much would be left unsaid that is uttered, and very much time would be saved that is wasted. If the course followed by, we may, we suppose, say the newly fledged opposition, and the character of some of its known elements are considered, he would be a very superficial thinker who would affirm tha.t the only object of the organisation is the country’s benefit. The members of it will not even dare to say so to their own consciences. An opposition to be really useful should be an army of observation, ready to keep their opponents in the right path, or if they refuse to travel in it, to drive them from office. It is unfortunate that leaders cannot do without the help of many with whose motives they have little sympathy. Sometimes, as in the present instance, the leaders have but one feeling in common—disappointment. Rumor has it that Mr Stafford has been forestalled by Mr Vogel, and that the plans proposed by the Government are substantially those which he intended to have brought forward. Amongst the file of the Opposition are men who, we know on their own confession, made time after time, are actuated not by political motives, but by personal animosity to the Treasurer. As yet the Opposition have not deigned to give to the world the grounds of their organisation, nor have they specifically declared why they dissent from the views of the present Government which they have agreed to • oppose. With many of our Otago men faction seems their whole notion of political life. They must oppose something. It is not that they know more than others, for unfortunately those are the most dogged in faction who know the least. We very much doubt if their own party went in, and left them out of office—humble followers of their leaders’ orders—whether they would not turn upon them and oppose for opposition’s sake. The country will wait and see what new light they can bring to bear upon the great questions of the day; but until clearer and wider views are propounded than have yet been expressed by them, it will not be in haste to sanction change.