A NORTHERN VIEW OF MINISTERIAL DOINGS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1740, 17 September 1879, Page 4

A NORTHERN VIEW OF MINISTERIAL DOINGS.

The correspondent of the “ Daily Times” telegraphs the following extract from a leader in the “ Auckland Herald,” a journal ■which is generally considered a supporter of the Grey Government : —“ Brief as has been the period between the rising of the Assembly, the Opposition will be able to find that the dissolution has supplied them with several weapons of attack against the Ministry. For these they will have to be thankful, pqrtly to chance and partly to the necessities of Ministers. For instance, the Opposition will make the most of the fact that the Hinemoa and Stella have been used since the dissolution chiefly in accommodating Ministers in connection with their elections. They will be entitled also to say that the Hinemoa had not been used even for legitimate electioneering business, but if she bad, they will not come off scatheless. After the abortive efforts to capture the perpetrators of the Ohinemutu outrage, Native aid is called in, and the whole affair —a crime involving life and death, and the peace of the country—dwindles into a korero about Maori ancestry, out of which very little is likely to come. There is another point of which a battery of artillery will be unmasked against the Ministry. This is the Bay of Islands election, by which John Lundon is to take his place in the House. It is curious to compare the figures of the polling just in and the statistics of the state of the roil given by Mr Bryce. Mr Lundon preferred 273 claims, of which, according to Mr Bryce’s opinion, fourfifths had not legal qualifications. Mr Lundon has received 289 votes, while his opponent, Mr Williams, had 159. It would therefore appear that Mr Lundon received few votes, except from those persons whom he had put upon the roll. The Government will unquestionably be blamed for not taking some steps to purify the roll, and if there is any fault they are responsible. Their action, if not a crime, was most certainly a blunder. For the Executive to interfere with judicial officers is always a mistake, and it will be remembered that at that time it had not been proved that Mr Williams had been guilty of any misconduct. He was called upon to resign, and his guilt was assumed without any inquiry or investigation, leaving it open to be said that what influenced Ministers were the accusations of Mr Lundon made privately. We had hoped that the inquiry at last election would have obliterated the whole affair, and cleared it from further scandals and trouble, but we fear that the election of Mr John Lundon will raise a subject which threatens to become one of the most disagreeable personal questions of next session.”