The Globe. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 779, 19 December 1876, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1876.

We hope the example set by Mr. Donald Eeid in his address to his constituents on Thursday night, will bear fruit in other parts of the colony. Coming from an Otago man, there was a tone about it quite refreshing to those who look forward to the day when petty provincial feeling will to a great extent cease among our public men; and when questions will be dealt with not alone as they affect this or that part of the colony, but as they 1 influence the whole community. The vote of entire confidence which he re- ( ceived at the close of his address from i 200 of his constituents is also worthy of special notice, as showing that all the electors of Otago are not influenced by the petty motives Mr. Macarujrew and his followers would have believe they are. It is not our intention to discuss the speech at length, but only to refer to one question touched upon by Mr, Eeid—viz., the conduct of the Canterbury members during the late session Our readers will, np doubt, remember the' tone a . do P t f. d tbe leaders of the prow ol^ P when they discovered that aofc even the bribe of having the seat of the Government of the Middle Island at Christchurch would induce our members to accept separation. They were charged with selling their votes to the Government in return for the secure tenure of their runs. Of course the accusation was quite unfounded. The opinion of the majority of our Canterbury representatives was perfectly well known at the time of

the elections, and consequently long before it was known what tactics would be adopted by the Opposition. They were nearly all pledged in favour of abolition and against separation ; and because, like honorable men, they were true to their convictions as well as their pledges, they were branded by a certain section of the House with having sold themselves to the Grovernment. Mr Donald Reid’s remarks on the run question are straightforward and distinct. After explaining to his hearers the position of the Canterbury runs, and stating that in his opinion they had been improperly dealt with in the first instance, he went on to say that, having been granted and frequently renewed, to alter suddenly the tenure upon which they were held, might be to bring ruin on those men, and he for one would never be a party to an action which was unjust and unfair. It is evident from Mr. Reid’s remarks, also, that the cry raised by the Opposition regarding the question had no foundation in principle. The Opposition were quite prepared to grant what they characterised as jobbery and corruption if the Canterbury contingent would aid in separation. But, as Mr. Reid says, the Canterbury members scorned to have their licenses extended on any such terms. This defence of the honour and integrity of our members by an Otago representative is a healthy sign, and is an indication, we hope, that a higher view is beginning to be taken of colonial politics.