THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1879.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1780, 4 November 1879, Page 2

THE GLOBE. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1879.

The vials of pseudo-liberal wrath have been freely poured on the devoted head of Mr. Allwright. That gentleman, however, will not, we hope, be moved by the petty denunciations of Opposition papers, or the loud tones of the bold patriots who hail from the shooting gallery. The views taken up in both these quarters as to the duties of a member of Parliament who may bo chosen to servo on such a committee as that one which lately ousted Sir George Grey from his Christchurch seat, are so extraordinary and so utter lack all traces of political morality that anything that may develop from them should weigh for nothing in the mind of a man whoso ideas on right and wrong are thoroughly sound. For the matter has absolutely been treated both by these journals and those burning patriots as a party question. Mr. Allwright has been accused of deserting his chief and of showing base ingratitude towards a leader who helped him during the election struggle. Motives have been attributed to him, and he has been warned that a day of retribution will come when heaven knows what will bofal him. When

a man acts above the heads of his critics, he can hardly expect his motives to ho appreciated, but still it must have been a bitter pill, for Mr. Allwright, when, haying performed, as he thought, his duty in a thoroughly conscientious manner, he found his party utterly unprepared to look at the matter in any other light than in a downright selfish and narrow-minded one. And, indeed, any impartial observer must thoroughly sympathise with the member for Lyttelton. If the attack had been made on him solely because he had been considered to have weighed the evidence and the facts of the case in an unskilful manner, if his Parliamentary knowledge had been called in question, and his acquaintance with precedents been poohpoohed—if these had been the sole grounds of attack, ho would have had no cause for complaint. Mr. Allwright, wo feel confident, does not look upon himself as a luminary in Parliamentary procedure and precedent. He would, probably, perfectly agree with anyone who stated his conviction that the proper tribunal for adjudicating on disputed elections is not a Parliamentary committee. He was placed in a position which ho was, no doubt, aware required greater Parliamentary knowledge than he could bring to bear; but having been chosen, he determined loyally to do his duty to the utmost of his abilility, and ho no more dreamed that ho was expected to make a party question of his decision than ho would dream of making a party question of any case that might be brought before him, in his character of Justice of the Peace, in which a member of the Liberal Reform Association was concerned. The member for Lyttelton has evidently a lesson to learn, and the pseudo-liberals are quite prepared to teach him that lesson. And it is this—when a man associates with a body of men he must accept the morality of that body, and if ho acts above it ho must be prepared to take the consequences. “ When a man is in Rome he must bo willing to act as they do in Rome” is a proverb that will boar more than one interpretation.

And the cry that Las been raised about tbo two petitions—tbo one in 1876 and the other in 1879—what is there in it? ‘‘ The two reports,” says the “ Lyttelton Times,” “state cases which are in all respects, save one, precisely similar, and they end with decisions which are diametrically opposite,” And why not ? Do juries always draw exactly similar inferences from the same set of circumstances ? Do the judges in an Appeal Court invariably agree, although they are thoroughly well versed in the law, and they have all the same facts to guide them ? The idea is ridiculous. Who were the committee of 1876 that their decision should be treated as if it wore a law of the Medes and Persians ? Why should the committee of 1879 have been appointed at all if it had been only allowable for it to register the decision Jof its predecessor ? The gentlemen who composed the committee of 1879 wore sworn to judge in the matter placed before them to the best of their ability. They wore not merely sworn to see if there was any difference between the case placed before them, and that placed before the committee of 1876. And the late committee acted presumably to the best of its ability, .honourably and without fear. To think otherwise would bo- paying a very poor compliment to the public men of New Zealand. The pseudo-liberals in attacking Mr. Allwright, are not acting fairly towards the three gentlemen who voted for Sir George Grey retaining his seat. It is to be trusted that they did not vote from party motives. All men who wish well to public life in New Zealand should be prepared to accept this without question. The surest way of lowering the standard of political morality in any country is to suspect the motives of its public men without proof.