THURSDAY JULY 18, 1878

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1380, 18 July 1878, Page 2

THURSDAY JULY 18, 1878

The speech deliveved by Mr. J. Evans Brown at Amberley cannot be regarded as satisfactory. Considering the consequences to Canterbury of the advent to power of the present Ministry, the electors must naturally have expected a more exhaustive defence than he appears to have made, of the conduct of those Canterbury members who placed them in power. •' He had a word to say," he said, " on tho independent or middle party, which was form«d of the holders of moderate views between the Atkinsons and the Greys. With its assistance Sir G. Grey's party succeeded in carrying the want of confidence motion, and, although contrary to expectations, Sir G. Grey had undertaken the lead in the Government, ho was favourable to allowing hini a reasonable time to make himself understood, and the party gave him a support on those grounds. It was in no way committed to him or his policy, but no doubt, would continue to hold the balance between the extreme parties, preventing charlatanism, fossilised conservatism, and legislating prejudicially to tho interests of the colony." From the above statement Mr. Brown evidently is of opinion that the Middle Party has played and will continue to play an important part in our Parliamentary history. We are afraid there are but few in the colony who share this view with him. That party certainly had, last session, a splendid opportunity of doing New Zealand a groat service. Had the gentlemen who composed it been content to place the interests of the country steadily before them, had they not all been individually eager for power, and had not nearly all of them boon anxious for office, tho present Premier would not have had an opportunity of undertaking the lend in the Government, and the evils which have in consequence befallen Canterbury would have been averted. Nor do we think that anybody believes for one moment that the members who composed that party will have tho slightest influence for good in the future. The Middlo Party of last session lias disappeared, and to speak of it still holding the balance between extreme parties is to talk nonsense. It is all very well for Mr. Brown to assert that they wero in no way committed to the Premier or his policy. Their action placed him in power, and they must be held responsible for the consequences. As regards tho colonialisation of the land fund, Mr Brown talks equally wildly. Because the former Government proposed to tako some £58,000 of the Canterbury land fund during tho financial year, he said that it was trenched upon unfairly, and so ho supported a Government which proposed to take it all from tho Ist of January, and appears determined to retain a largo proportion of what had accrued before that date. His argument really amounts t 0 t],i ß —The Atkinson Government proposed to take £58,000 of the Canterbury land fund during the last financial year, and intended also—so at any rate Mr. Curtis had said—to (joloni&Use it during

tho approaching session. Tlie Grey Government treated the fund far more fairly. They proposed to take it all from the Ist of January last, less twenty per cent. The consequence is that about half a million of money goes into tho Colonial Treasury, which, undor the pi'Oposals of the late Govcnimont, would have been the property of the Counties and Road Boards. Yet Mr. Brown asserts that the land fund was unfairly trenched upon by the Atkinson Government. Tho conduct of tho Ministry regarding tho surplus land fund, Mr. Brown characterises as " inexplicable,'' but refuses to believe that they are so lost to a sense of decency as to attempt to practice a " sham," and he goes tho length of saying that when the House meets "an explanation will bo demanded." Of course it must bo rather humiliating to Mr* Brown and the other Canterbury members who voted on tho same side to discover that they have been deceived by the Government. Ho says ho gave tho Premier his support to allow him a reasonable time to make himself understood. Is ho satisfied with tho result of his work? It is exceedingly difficult to comprehend the position taken up by the hon. member for Ashley. Ee is opposed to manhood suffrage as announced by Sir G. Grey and Mr Stout, but ho said Mr Ballance's qualification of the Premier's system had much to recommend it. He opposed the readjustment of representation on the basis of population, and condemned tho land tax of the Government. But for all that his constituents need not be astonished to find Mr Brown a thick and thin supporter of tho Cabinet, when the House meets. We sympathise with those Amberley electors who refused to express confidence in their representative. His political career has given thorn but too good grounds for coming to such a conclusion.