The Globe. SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1098, 5 January 1878, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 1878.

The following Melbourne telegram was published last night:—“ The general opinion is that war between England and Russia is imminent. Colonel Anderson, who commands the land forces, and Captain Mandeville, of the Cerberus, have been consulted at a Cabinet meeting as to the defence of the colony." How long is the New Zealand Government going to adhere to its present course of action F When is Sir G. Grey going to consult the best authorities within his reach as to the defence of New Zealand F Is it to be said of us that we are quite willing to spend millions in developing our resources, but refuse to consider even what it would cost us to protect that property F In a former article wo suggested the propriety of the people of Christchurch, Lyttelton and neighbourhood, undertaking the task of defending Port Lyttelton against the visit of a privateer, and every day shows the growing urgency of the case. Some of our volunteer officers might well take up the question. It is purely one of cost. Will it be cheaper for us to run the risk of the visit of a hostile ship, and have a heavy contribution levied upon us, dr go to the cost of defending Port Lyttelton by means of torpedoes. Some information from a reliable source would settle the question at once. On more than one occasion before? now Canterbury has set an example which the colony has been glad to follow. A little judicious pressure might bring our would-be autocratic Premier to his senses, and induce him to pay some little regard to the interests of the country lie professes to serve. But. if the Government will do nothing, it may be in our own power to help ourselves. At any rate the question requires attention. We hope some one will take the initiative, and get a meeting together to discuss the subject.

In a former issue wo quoted the remarks of the Australasian regarding Sir G. Grey’s conduct in connection with the proposed visit of Sir W. Jervois. The conduct of the Premier with regard to the Laud Bill calls forth equally strong condemnation from the same journal. The following is what our contemporary has to say on the subject:—“There is a peculiar quality in the politics of New Zealand at the present time which differentiates them from those of any other Australasian colony, or indeed from those of almost any civilised community. In these colonics manifestations of faction, violence, and uuscrupulousuess are unfortunately by no means rare. But the politics of New Zealand, under the regime, of Sir George Grey, besides these qualities appear to exhibit another peculiar to themselves, which we may mildly describe by a negative epithet as irrationality. The conduct of the Premier in regard to the Laud Bill is not reconcilable with any sane motives or intentions. It has a character of sheer Bedlam. The facts as stated by the telegrams are that Sir George Grey, after taking up and carrying through both Houses the Land Bill, attempted to defeat it by inducing the Governor to veto the measure. That is to say, that the Governor was asked to use his personal prerogative of the veto upon the advice of his responsible Ministry to destroy a measure which the Ministry was ostensibly supporting. It is not necessary to point out how false a position the Governor would have occupied had he allowed himself to be thus entrapped. He would, without apy pretence of Imperial interests, have stood before the country as negativing, on his own personal responsibility, a measure supported by his Ministry, and passed by the Legislature. We are now told that ‘ Sir George Grey lost his temper when the Governor refused to veto the Land Bill on Sir George Grey’s advice. He said he woidd go round the colony and induce everyone to denounce the Governor.’ Undeterred by this threat, the Governor insisted not only on adhering to constitutional law and practice, but also on compelling his Ministry similarly to conform to their demands. When the Appropriation Bill was submitted to him, his Excellency refused his assent until the Land Bill had been presented, and the Premier was reluctantly compelled to sign the recommendation for assent to the Land Bill. In this course his Excellency was upholding the rights and privileges of the Legislature against a Government which was unscrupulously endeavouring by his agency to make a solemnly-passed Bill of fh,e Legislature mere waste paper. The telegrams inforpi us that people are generally shocked at the ( uuennst>t ; i,itioua]’ action of Sir George Grey. But really it is a serious question, whether this phrase is not altogether too feeble for the occasion. Unless Ministerial responsibility is a mere obsolete figment such action should be designated a political crime, and dealt with accordingly.”