The Globe. TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1879.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1578, 11 March 1879, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1879.

Of all men we should think the honorable member for Akaroa has most cause to exclaim fervently “ Save mo from my friends,” from such friends at least as aro represented by our evening contemporary the Star. That brilliant satellite of the greater planet, taking up its tale, proceeded, Inst evening, to comment on the speech recently delivered by Mr. Montgomery to his constituents. But, unlike its groat leader, the Star, so far from bespattering Mr. Montgomery with fulsome praise, and singing pa.‘ans*f welcome to him as the champion of a people’s Government, proceeds incontinently to take the honorable gentleman severely to task. At the same time it also puts strongly before any one of the now fast recoding majority who aro tied to tho chariot wheels of the groat ProConsul what is expected of them by their party. Our contemporary must indeed have boon in a most candid mood when the article referred to was penned. Ho must, like the hou. member for Akaroa, for once have made up his mind to “ speak right out,” for a more truthful exposition of the tactics of tho Grey Ministry and its tail, of the humbug by which they have cajoled the electors of this colony, has never appeared oven in the most rabid opposition journals. It is, however, some*

what strange that, while condemning in no measured terms the candor with which Mr Montgomery pointed out the sins of omission and commission of the Government. the Star should have fallen into tho same fault itself, in so far as regards its complete exposure of tho little game which Ministerial supporters are expected to play. Bret Harto’s Heathen Chinee on Bill Nyo's expressed determination “• to go for him” could hardly, wo should think, have been more astonished than the great pro-consul and his followers must bo by this revelation, under inspiration, of one of their trustiest henchmen of the press, one too bound to them by ties of strongest gratitude for favors extended and to come. On no less an authority than the Star —which, of course, is our morning contemporary in a minor key —wo hud the course prescribed for Ministerialists in speaking to their constituents to bo dissimulation, concealment and deceit. They are enjoined, through Mr. Montgomery —who. like the drunkard at temperance meetings, is hold up as a frightful example—to keep strict silence as to the errors of the Government they are pledged to servo. No freemen they, able to speak tho thoughts that are in them, to give praise where it is deserved, and to censure incompetence, breach of faith, and wanton disregard of solemn promises. They are —so the Star puts it unmistakakcably—sold body and soul to an exacting task master, who demands from them fulsome and false adulation an incense of praise when they know full well that duty to their country calls for an outspoken denunciation of tho utter and complete failure of their idol to redeem one solitary promise solemnly made to the whole people of tho colony. This is how our contemporary puts the point of the failure of the Government during tho past session :—“ If there should unfortunately be a want of agreement in regard to one or two minor questions, then a judicious silence [i.e on the part of a member addressing his constituents], is the best wisdom.” Was it, we ask, a minor question when tho Government proposed, as so graphically detailed by Mr. Montgomery, to swamp the electors of several districts in the North Island? Could any man having left to him a rag of self-esteem, have, on such a question, observed as inculcated by the Star, “ a judicious silence ?” What is this but a complete and full confirmation of everything that has been advanced by that section of tho Press who, unbought by Government advertising and special wire monopolies, have flared to speak out boldly and fearlessly. We have told the people of the colony that the policy of the Grey Ministry has been to throw dust in their eyes, to conceal assiduously from them the real state of things. Well, here we find from an organ connected intimately with one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the Ministry, that the political catechism to be learnt and adhered to by all Government members addressing their constituents is, “ you shall say no word about the blunders of the Government.” Poor Mr Montgomery ! In his wish to appear candid to his constituents, to “ speak right out, to speak as to facts, and to give opinions as I hold them” he has violated one of the fundamental rules laid down by the party to which ho has bound himself, and ho is castigated by its organ accordingly. Ho is told that ho should have been silent on the faults, blunders and grave errors of the Government. “ If,” plaintively remarks our contemporary, “ ho could not dwell with entire satisfaction upon tho past, there was plenty of room for speech in the affairs of tho future.” Had Mr Montgomery studied well the article of belief inculcated by the Star and preserved the “judicious silence” referred to, there would have been no necessity for special reporters to have hastened to the scone. Eliminate his exposition of tho faults committed by tho Government, and the remainder of tho speech of tho hon. member for Akaroa might have been condensed into a quarter of a column. As to tho future —what could ho say with tho experience of the past fresh on his memory p Could he tell his constituents —to whom ho had just been pouring forth, in a manner evidently far more candid than pleasant to the Star, his utter disapproval of tho course taken by the Government on the important subjects of tho redistribution of seats aud the Maori vote —that groat things would bo done in tho future ? It could scarcely bo. Ho would have laid himself open to the charge of grave inconsistency, and would probably not have received the vote of confidence he did. Our contemporary, true to the tactics of the party of which it is a mouthpiece, selects the Beer Duty Bill as a point upon which to ask the question whether such a trifling gain as the rejection of this was worth running the risk of the resignation of tho Government. Well, there are some people who are heretical enough to believe that the public affairs of the colony would be all the better for such a sad catastrophe. But our contemporary bogs tho question. Why does ho not question tho vote Mr. Montgomery avows ho gave on the land tax and Maori vote questions. Tho latter was one on which not oidy tho fate of tho Ministry but tho interests of tho colony as a whole depended; tho one selected by the S tar was a very unimportant matter after all. Mr Montgomery must now see that ho has made a mistake in speaking out. Ho has entirely, it appears, misconceived the course which a member coming before his constituents should adopt. Instead of telling tho plain truth he must gloss over the failures of the Government —or to put it in tho more euphonious language of the S tar, preserve “ a judicious silence.” We ask him If he is prepared to accept such a position ? Is the honorable member for Akaroa content to sink all personal opinion as to the conduct of a Government during a session, and merely to state what is sot down for him, or what it is thought convenient should bo known ? This is what tho article in last night’s S far incontestably points out as his duty, If Mr. Montgomery cannot —as wo are glad to see ho did not —do this; if ho cannot sacrifice truth aud honesty of opinion to tho bolstering up of a Ministry which has deceived the entire colony; (hen, according to tho Star, he is doing Iho work of tho political opponents of the Ministry: in other words ho is a traitor

to the cause of Greyism. Wo sincerely hope and trust that, tho term of traitorous, notwithstanding;, many more will be found bold enough to speak tho truth and shame a gentleman who shall be nameless.