The Evening Star. SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2879, 11 May 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star. SATURDAY, MAY 11, 1872.

Mr Macandrew’s speech at Port Chalmers has stirred up the editorial' bile of our contemporary, because the name of Sir David Monro has been associated by him with Mr Stafford, Mr Richmond, and others who steered the vessel of State into tile Maelstrom in which she was foundering when the present Government took office. Our contemporary sets out by asserting that “ the ex-speaker of the House of Representatives was never a party man.” This is indeed something new to those who know anything about the past history of New Zealand. All we can say is that we have the authority of more than one of those who were members at the same time with Sir David Monro of the first New Zealand Parliament, for saying that if he was not steeped to the neck in party up to the day when he succeeded Sir ' Charles Clifford in the chair, the term “party” must mean something totally different from the definition usually attributed to it. It is notorious to all who have watched the proceedings of the House of Representatives that while Sir David Monro has filled the chair with great personal dignity, he. could not divest himself of his leanings toward the political party with which he has always associated. Any one who has access to the division lists of the House prior to Sir David’s election to the chair, and subsequently, to the division lists in committees of the whole House, will be able to test the truth of what we state. Reference to these lists will show that Sir David has stuck most religiously to his party; and that, on numerous occasions on which it would have been both move prudent and more seemly . for him, being Speaker, to have retired to his room. In fact, hut for the influence and partisanship of the Speaker, the Stafford Ministry would have given up the ghost much sooner than it did, and the Colony would have been saved a very heavy amount of the war expenditure. We wish it to be distinctly understood that we do not blame Sir David Monro for having both spoken and voted according to his conscientious convictions. However much we may think that a Speaker by so doing lay s himself open to doubt of his impartiality, he had a constitutional right to vote as he pleased. What we demur to is that, in the face of the facts of the case, Sir David Monro is paraded in the columns of our contemporary as “ no party man.” As regards Otago, we do not know any public man in New Zealand—with, perhaps, the exception of the Richmond family—who has a greater “ down ” upon this Province ; nor who, whenever any question affecting its interests was under considera--1 tion, more invariably both spoke and voted against it than Sir David M onro. Of course, as Speaker he could only speak in committee; and as speeches in committee are not usually reported in “ Hansard,” and very rarely in the public journals, there is no record whereby the public can verify our assertion. We have often been told by the Otago members, that when any division took place in committee adverse to Otago, Sir David was seldom or never found wanting. He invariably emerged from behind the Speaker’s chair, and voted on the wrong side ; yet this is the man whom our contemporary holds up as the most fit person to represent an Otago constituency : we suppose on the principle that the less the public know about a man, the more they ought to trust him—a new doctrine, if entertained—but one that will hardly find acceptance with the common sense notions of the electors of Waikouaiti.