THE GLOBE. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1879.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1690, 21 July 1879, Page 2

THE GLOBE. MONDAY, JULY 21, 1879.

Sib W. Fox's speech on his resolution that tho present Government does not possess the confidenco of tbe House is, with one or two exceptions, a skilful and tolling onslaught oa the past policy of the Ministry. To take the exceptions first. The allusion to the Wanganui poitmaster was not a happy one, not becauso it was unfounded on fact, but becauso this official lived in Sir William's own neighbourhood, and it is never desirable for a leader in a Dational movement to drag into a discussion on general questions some small parochial example which has come under his special notice even as an illustration of a general truth. Again, the accusation against Mr. Sheehan, with regard to his want of morality among the Native population was in doubtful taste, fcr, although the facts on which the accusat'on was based are without any doubt true, that spec'es of attack is but seldom desirable. Nor, thirdly, do we bold that Sir William wae sufficiently exhaustive, for, though doubtless the brevity of the speech was with an object, yet, had he gone further into his subject, tho impeachment would, in a rhetorical point of view, have been more effective. But, with the exception of these three defects, wo hold that Sir William Fox's speech was a masterly expose of the utter rottenness of the system pursued by the orovernment in eveiy department. The idiotic persistency with which Sir George Grey, himself the most autocatic of moD, repeats the parrot cry that his mission is to save the people of New Zealand from serfdom; his insincerity, and tho complete hollowness of all his promises ; tlie failure of his Government with respect to the Native question ; his attempt to jockey the late Governor re the Land Bill; his conduct with regard to the Thames-Waikato railway; his attempt to rush tho Loan Bill through the House; his abuse of Civil Service patronage; all theso points were treated succintly and with effect, and, although much remains behind, and the subject is only, as it were, tapped, yet enough was said to form one of tho most damning impeachments that was ever launched against a Government. And whon wo turn to Sir George Grey's reply what "do we find ? A repetition of those statements of which the pub v c are becoming utterly sick and distrustful. Ho reiterates his old accusations against tho people of Canterbury, and lays the blame of the present attack against his Government on their shoulders. He cannot seo that the colony at large has lost all confidenco in him, and absolutely considers, or pretends to consider, that tho Canterbury squatter is the individual who is tho ileus ex in the present movement. Why, in the event of an attack on Lord Beaconsfiold's Government, that wily Peer might just as well accuse the ancient Briton of being at tho bottom of tbe affair. Then, with regard to the ThamosWaikato railway, Sir George Grey falls back on an alleged understanding come to in the House, the plain letter of the law containing the appropriation ho chooses utterly to put on one side, and pins his faith to some verbal statements which probably no ono will recollect except himself. Respecting the Cabinet scandals he is almost totally silent, and the Ballance fiasco is completely passed over. Coming to tho treatment by his Government of the Native question, his main point seems to bo that lie thought tho " proper course on the West Coast was to divide the land into lots, and allow it to bo settled by agricultural settlors instead of being handed ovor to land speculators," and for bringing forward such a proposal, ho considered that ho " desorved tho thanks of the colony instead of tho abuse that had been heaped upon him by tho hon. gentleman that evening." Has this policy been invented by the present Government ? Of conrso not. And what has Sir George Grey dono during his tenure of office towards placing agricultural settlers on tho land on tho Wost Coast ? Nothing. Bnt this much ho has succeeded in effecting with regard to the settlors—their lives and properties ai'e now a thousand times more insecure than on his first entry into power. And then his assertion that, when a liberal franchise was to bo introduced, ho knew that ho would have opposition to contend with. Who throw out tho measuro on this very subject but Sir George himself ? In tho matter of his conduct at tlio To Kopua meeting, the Premior's explanations are equally unsatisfactory. Ho answered by a more ill, qiioqiic. Ho assumed that the head of tho Opposition went on .-ill fours for his knighthood, and practically argued '

that therefore he was at liberty to go on a' l fours at To Kopua. In the first place, whatever opinion may bo held about Sir W. Fox's acceptance of the honour, it is very certain ho nover lowered himself in the slightosfc to beg for it, in the second place his acceptance of the honor was after the To Kopua meeting, so that even the most ardent searcher after a dirty precedent at the time of the meeting would have been unable to assume that he had succeeded in bis search, and thirdly, if the example had existed, it would not form tho slightest excuse for tho mannor in which Sir George Grey lowered the prestige of his Government and of tho European population at large on tho occasion roforred to. Bat the climax of absurdity was reached when ho accused Sir William Fox of wishing to set up an aristocracy in Now Zealand, an aristocracy which would trample on tho people and create dreadful distress. Anything more ridiculous than this assertion it is impossible to conceive. Is knighthood hereditary? does it confer any Legislative powers ? Is there anything at all analagous between a Knight of St. Michael and St. George and an English Peer ? A man must bo in his dotage to make an assertion of such a nature. If a keeper of a lunatic asylum wore to endeavor to persuade his patients that such a parallel existed, ho would fail dismally. It may or may not bo advisable that colonists should accept Knighthoods, that is not the question. But as for there being any danger to tho State in the process, it is beyond credence that a sane roan should hold such an opinion. Ho m'ghfc as well say that tho Stato would be endangered if a man wore on his breast the medal that his horse or his bull had won at the last agricultural show. In point of fact, Sir George's speech will not for an instant bear analysis. There is the same old cry about his " fighting to the last for the privileges of the people," and that same old pseudo-humanitarian twaddle which the public luckily now know how to appreciate at its true value. Tbe only bright spot on tl • speech is where he eulogises his Mr. Sheehan. It is ploasing to see that Sir George has found ono man with whom he can pull, and equally pleasing to learn that Mr. Sheehan's lovo for the Native is of so transcendent a character. If what the Premier has unfolded is the most that can bo said in defence of tho action of tho Ministry, the sooner the conntry is rid of such an incubus tho better.