The Evening Star MONDAY, JUNE 24. 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2916, 24 June 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, JUNE 24. 1872.

It is very difficult to arrive at the true state of public feeling in Victoria from the articles published in the newspapers and the letters of correspondents. According to the Australasian party spirit scarcely exhibits itself outside the walls of Parliament. There is no great question before the country now, although there are several difficult positions to be resolved. In fact the three Australian Colonies nearest to us are each in the throes of curious political complications. The Governor of Queensland has been asked to appeal to the country, in order to secure a redivision of electoral districts; and a minority in Parliament wish to vote supplies for not more than two months only, in order to give time necessary for the distribution of representation in proportion to population. This somewhat extraordinary request has of course been refused. The malcontents contrived to have their memorial inserted in the newspapers by the last outgoing mail so immediately before its departure as to render the insertion of the Governor’s reply impossible. His Excellency, however, was not to be “ sold ” in that way. He could not, it is true, overtake the Queensland papers; but he forestalled them by telegraphing to the Melbourne Argus, in which paper his answer appeared in full, and would reach England at the same time as the memorial. The gist of it is that the majority must rule : that he cannot dismiss Ministers who have the confidence of Parliament, nor accept accusations against them which they deny. He reminds the memorialists that representation is not an inherent right, and that the share an individual has in it must be determined by legislation. He points out that it is no part of the duty of his office to assume that the law is unjust, and that the Ministry have proposed to reform the system, but were prevented by the action of the legislature. So the matter stands. The memorialists are twelve out of a house of thirty-two; so that beyond the amusing race between the petitioners and his Excellency for the “ first word ” Home, there is little in the matter save an exhibition of unfitness for Parliamentary duties not at all uncommon in the Colonies. New South Wales has had a new election. A failing revenue and a quarrel with Victoria about the border duties are the main causes of the change that has been made. Among other novelties that characterised the contest was an attempt to array the “ natives ” against the “ foreigners.” We must beg our readers not to bo misled by the terms employed. If they were used in New Zealand, visions of a “ Maori war ” would immediately present themselves, espe-

cially if the natives were counselled bysome red-hot patriot to “ wade up to their necks in blood ” to keep the Premier from re-election. But these “ natives ” are not Maoris, nor aborigines—they are simply “ cornstalks,” to use a colonialism —descendants of Britons, convict or free, born in New South Wales. We believe this is the first time in the history of Australasia that the sons have been called upon to array themselves against the fathers, as if their interests were separate; and, as might have been expected, the “ dodge ” proved a failure. The Mail, commenting on the folly of the movement, after a few quietly witty remarks, says that “ The meeting of « natives ’ was composed to a certain extent of * foreigners.’ It was therefore, perhaps, not so inconsistent as it appears at first sight that they should have chosen to select for their suffrages a gentleman who was not born in the Colony to represent East Sydney.” So far as Victoria is concerned the change in the personnel of the Ministry has not been strictly speaking a political matter. Whatever may be behind it, has been directly brought about by abuse of patronage, of which it is alleged that both Premier and Treasurer have been guilty. The Melbourne papers are not enthusiastic in their from the new Ministry; but, as no very important principle is just now pressing upon public attention the change is not regarded as of very much moment. Even the Australasian considers that it would be unwise at this moment to interfere with the taris, protective though it is. The truth is recognised that however inconvenient and restrictive it may be, “ any change in it or even the proposal of a change, by introducing a new element of uncertainty and insecurity would be productive of more harm in commercial affaii-s than would be compensated by the relief a change might afford.” That immediate harm would result, none will doubt, for interests have grown up under the system that the Colony cannot afford to play with and the people have not yet felt the restriction unbearable. Mr Langton, a most clearheaded free trader, evidently takes this view, or he would not have accepted office with Mr Francis, a dogmatic protectionist. We certainly consider the new Ministry an improvement on the old one, although it is to be feared their advent to office will be the death blow to the arrangement with New Zealand respecting the San Francisco Mail,