THE WANT OF CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 13, Issue 694, 24 June 1869, Page 3

THE WANT OF CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

(Wellington Independent, June 17.) The first great, battle of the session com menced on Tuesday night, when Mr Fox hi ought .forward his motion of "no confi dence" in the present Government Judged as a spectacle of great intellectual ability, the opening of the debate was both grand and imposing. Mr Fox made one of those vehement attacks upon the Government for which the hon. member for Rangitikei is so much distinguished. But although he struck powerfully, and sometimes effectually, at the policy of the present Ministry, those who listened to his speech were disappointed to find that il contained no definite declaration of what lie and his party had to off r in its stead. We could with very great ease point out the many shortcomings of which the Go vernment have been guilty j the failure of much that they have attempted ; the disasters which have occurred during the war, and the lament tble position into which the country has gradually drifted j and all this in truth Mr Fox did. But however damaging many of his statements may have been to his opponents, he failed in this one cardinal point—that he did not show how ruin was to be averted, disasters retrieved, and the country atricated from its terrible difficulties. The ship is almost sinking, and what the people of this country want is for some brave and skilful men to man the life boat which shall bring succour and success. We want a clear defined declaration of policy from the Opposition; we want them not so much to tell of the irretrievable blunders of the past, as to point out their possible remedies in the present. There was very much of truth in what Mr Fox said, but Mr Stafford's reply, in its main points was both brilliant and conclusive. He sh wed that even if the country had drifted into war, that was not a thing for which the Government could be held to be entirely responsible. And if any person were to take a perfectly impartial review of the history of this colony during the last four or five years he would he forced to the conclusion that tlie failure to put down the rebellion is due less to the fault of any particular government than to the inconsistent and selfish action of the General Assembly in refusing to give sutiicient means to put the rebellion down once and for ever. It' all the money which has been spent in intermittent and comparatively fruitless efforts, to put down this rebellion, had been used in carrying out a coherent and definite scheme of native policy, the difficulty would have been overcome before this. That is a lesson which the Assembly has got to learu in its dealings with the present or a future government. Lt must not be niggardly when economy would be rank folly ; it must not grudge a few thousands more or less for defence purposes, at a critical time, when the grudged outlay would probably result in a tenfold expenditure afterwards. Mr &taf ford spoke out good and true words when he told the members of the House that they must put down this rebellion ; that there was no alternative but to do so, and that if the work were not done by means of one immediate and comprehensive effort, not merely the North Island, but the Middle Island as well, would be driven into a condition of hopeless bankruptcy. There is no evading or disguising the profound truth of this assertion. Both parties—both Government and Opposition —unite in agreeing to it. Their only point of difference is that they would each employ different means. Mr Stafford firml} adheres to the policy of Self-reliance, and in a reci-nt able memorandum pointed out his reasons for doing so. What need is there to recapitulate those reasons ? Every New Zealand colonist knows how wretch edly and how inefficiently the system of double government in military affairs worked during the latter portion of Gen. Cameron's ea npaign ; and how impossible it was found to continue the adoption of a system whereby the colonists would be first led into the expense and danger of a great contest, only to find at a critical moment that all aid was withdrawn, and that their siicrificts had been made in vain. We have had quite enough of that sj stein. The Opposition propose to get Imperial troops On what terms are they proposed to be got? If nor to be under colonial control, they will be very much worse than useless, because the old system of Imperial interference would be experienced again. Even if we did get troops by paying £SO a head for them, and stipulating that they were to do fighting in the field instead of gar: ison duty in barracks, should we have any coherent and persistent plan for settling the rebellion rendered impossible by imperial interference? Altogether, we do not recognise in the tactics of the Opposition any policy which will really meet the difficulty. The Opposition may gain the day ; but what then ? We believe, in thtt case, if the defeat of Ministers were a decided one, —a defeat which showed that the Opposition had a fair working majority,—then, in that case, the Ministry would resign. On the other hand, if the division were very close, Ministers would ask his Excellency to dissolve Parliament and try an appeal to the country. The debate, which must result in something decided, is going on now, and will probably

continue for some days. Meantime the colony is getting into a worse and worse position, while there is little coherencelittle union—and little of a large and farseeing view of the grave cri«ia which has arisen—to those who whie seeking to overthrow the present G-overnment, yet do not seem to be able to give the colonists a better one in its place.