The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1878.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1243, 1 March 1878, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, MARCH 1, 1878.

One of tiro groat merits of the present Administration, wo are told by some, is that they have infused new life into the country; that they have stirred up the Flood of the people and sent it hounding through their veins. We question the accuracy of the assertion, for we doubt very much whether, notwithstanding all the exertions of the Ministry, any real interest is taken in the measures, upon the carrying of which they profess to have set their hearts. There may perhaps be indications in some quarters of greater activity in connection with public questions ; but is such a state of things the result of healthy vigor, or is it the unrest of feverish excitement, which is far from indicating a healthy condition of the body politic ? The latter, wo are afraid, is the true explanation. The appetite for startling changes was created and encouraged by Sir Julius Yogel. and Sir George Grey is evidently determined to follow his example. Instead of giving the colony time to rest after the excitement of the last few years, measures are to be proposed which will give rise to even greater turmoil than the Public Works Scheme, and Abolition produced. These measures were, no doubt, beneficial, but we could well afford, did not the exigencies of party decide otherwise, to wait for a year or two before entering upon the discussion of fresh changes. What the country requires is a few years of political rest, a period of honest earnest application of her rulers to administrative reform. Under the present Administration it is perfectly useless to hope for such an unheroic line of policy. Unless the applause of the multitude was constantly ringing in his ears, the Premier would lose heart at once. His health would give way, and he would retire in disgust to the solitude of the Kawau. We have just said that it is the boast of some that the present Government are stirring up the young blood of the country, and we are called upon to congratulate ourselves upon the fact. Granting that this assertion is true, we are far from being of opinion that the action of the Grey Cabinet has been of a beneficial character. Tested by effects upon the House of Representatives, we are led to believe that the very oposite will be the effect. One of the most striking results of the growing influence in the House of the Grey party, has been the lowering of its tone. With such an example set them by the Premier, his followers have not been slow to adopt a style of discussion hitherto entirely unknown in a New Zealand Assembly. The time was when our representatives wore looked up to, throughout the colonies, as men who maintained a higher standard of debate than that displayed elsewhere. But of late all this has changed. Men who knew bettor, and who in their calmer moments were ashamed of the weapons they had been employing, were betrayed at times into the use of violent abuse', as a means of defending themselves against the outrageous charges brought against them. If this shite of things continues, and to all appearance it null grow worse before it begins to grow better, our best and most trusted men will disappear from the Assembly altogether. Indeed there are signs already of a disinclination, on the part of our leading citizens, to enter the representative House. The seat for Timaru, for example, has been offered to at least one prominent and trusted Canterbury man, and he has declined to stand, we believe, chiefly on the ground that he felt that he could not take a prominent part in the business of the country without subjecting himself to a kind of abuse entirely unknown a few years ago. Such is one of the first benefits which the infusion of the so-called young blood into the body politic has brought about. Another result is an undisguised contempt, on the part of the ma jority of the House, for the opinions of old and experienced politicians. Even the Speaker, a few days before the close of the session, had to apologise, with cutting irony, for attempting to give the House some advice on an important question before it, “Considering,” he said, speaking on the Consolidated Stock Bill, “the frequent admonitions which have been addressed to the old politicians of this country that they should not presume to give utterance to their opinions in this House, nevertheless I am bold enough to say that I think there are times when we may, prudently, and without being charged with egotism give advice in this sense.” That it was necessary to administer the above rebuke shows the existence of a state of things quite new, till lately, in a New Zealand Representative Chamber. Rehoboam lost the greater part of Jits kingdom through forsaking the counsel of the old men. We in New Zealand may suffer from a similar cause.

The Star lias taken upon itself to lecture the Council upon the course they have taken in objecting to Mr. Cult’s valuation of the city. As long as our contemporary confined itself to an expression of opinion merely, we took no notice of its rather incoherent ravings, but when it resorts to misstatement to support its cause, it is time to call public attention to the fact. In last evening’s issue the following passage occurs: — It is not; our place to pronounce upon the valuers’ work, but granting it to be as bad as the Council allege, we freely admit that when they did discover its condition on the 15th of February, there were only two courser open —either to object to the whole work, or to lodge the objections as they have done. We think they have taken the wrong course, but at the present stage that branch of the subject need not be considered.

Now there were not two courses open to the Council on February 15th, as the edition of the Star, if he has read the Hating Act at all, must know. Clause 18 says, “If the local body object to the wbolfi of t)ie valuation lint, they shall give public notice of their objection thereto, in the form in the fifth schedule on or before the seventh day of February.” We point this out in order to prevent any further misconception. Hut wo also take the opportunity of assuring our contemporary that we will not believe, while another hypothesis is open, that it deliberately misrepresented the case. It is far more pleasant to assume, provisionally at least, that the writer of the article was in the most childlike igwiice c£ wtet wit.