THE PRESS ON SIR GEORGE GREY'S SPEECH.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XL, Issue 198, 12 August 1876, Page 4

THE PRESS ON SIR GEORGE GREY'S SPEECH.

The following criticisms on the miserably weak speech with which Sir George Grey opened the Separation debate, are from the Wellington Argus, a supporter of the Ministry, and the Christchurch Press, ao; Opposition papers— (Evening Argus, August 8.) Separation is as yet only an empty sonnd. It is a sound accompanied with some fury, but it bas no practical signification. It is no secret, even to the Separationists themselves, tbat from end to end of the country the feeling awakened by their conduct is one of unmitigated disappointment mingled with dissatisfaction — disappointment with the crude generalities, and misappropriate sentimentalism which pervaded the utterances of the expounder of Separation, and dissatisfaction with tbe virulence, coarseness, and vapidity that marked the so-called speech of his "nearest follower and henchman." For in truth tbe rumors of mysterious caucuses, of organization and plans, and of coming wonders had exoited popular expectation to such a pitch, that the failure has been all the more conspicuous and mortifying. The reputation of the leader justified expectations tbat in dealing with a question of such magnitude sa a proposal to revolutionize the Constitution of the oolony, Sir George would soar far above tbe common-place level of petty, personal grievances and jealousies, would regard the subject from an elevated platform, and take a liberal, comprehensive, and statesmanlike view of tbe political situation. Even Sir George Grey's political opponents expected thus much, but how miserably those anticipations have been disappointed must be patent to tbe minds of the most unreasoning of his followers. Instead of the high toned practical exposition we had hoped for, we have a vague, rambling harrangue, oonsisting for the most part of an attempt to vindicate his own past actions; much self-laudation, which would have come with better grace fiom the lips of an admirer; strictures upon the conduct of past British Ministers, who are either beyond the reach of worldly criticism or unable to reply; carpings at the Civil Service, and ihe travelling allowances of Ministers, which might be fittingly diseuesed in Committee on the Estimates; and a profusion of sentimentalism, of a weak, flabby sort, which "is not poetry, but prose ran mad." The tone of the Bpeech is rather that of a petulant old man, soured by disappointed ambition, than the high-minded statesman, impressed with the weight of the responsibilities he had assumed, and animated by unselfish and patriotic sentiments. We have searched ia vain through the speech for a solitary suggestion of a practical character, or a single proof that the expounder of Separation had grasped even the merest rudimentary elements of the sweeping Constitutional changes which he submitted to the minds of thinking men. Like Canning's knifegrinder _ story, " hless you, be has none to tell." We have no deßire to say hard things of Sir George Grey. Hie age, no less tban his reputation, removes him from the pale of harsh criticism. But comparing him with Sir George Grey of a few years ago, we have a melancholy instance of tbat decadence of intellect which too often accompaniesadvancing years and the future of cherished hopes. It had been well for Sir George Grey had he been content with the laurels he had earned, and had he hesitated to emerge, at the beck of a few designing demagogues, from his dignified retirement, into tbe stormy field of politic?, for which neither his previous official training and associations, nor the bent of his mind had fitted him; for whatever Sir George Grey may have been in the comparatively calm and untroubled vice-regal sphere, when he descends to the ordinary level of party politics he is no longer a god. And when he is reduced to tbe necessity of leaning on such champions as those who have advocated his cause, he not only reveals tha weakness of that cause, but exhibits bis own utter lack of judgment. Of one of these champions we may say that he has signalised his entrance into

Parliament by an outrage on the ordinary decencies of debate; a second has treated the House and the country to a harangue, which may be described in the words of Hoiofernes to Sir Nathaniel, "he draweth out the thread ol his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument;" while a third has inflicted upon a bare quorum an incoherent string of matronly anecdotes more fitted for a select party of rustics at some kitchen fireside, than to enlighten an assemblage of legislators. Such adherents may mar a reputation, but they cannot make one. If Sir George Grey, in his declining years, Bball look back upon a once brilliant reputation, marred by inconsistence aud blunders, his will be the bitter reflection that had he not yielded too readily to the solicitations of unscrupulousaod designing followers and claqueurs, he might have filled an unblurred page of his tory. " Save me from my friende" ought to be his motto.

(Press, August 8.)

We have never thought that the Opposition were playing their cards well when they proposed to interpolate their Separation resolutions before the discussion of the Financial Statement. And we must say that if the debate is to go on as it has begun, the sootier it is put out of the way the better. We do not complain so much of Sir George

Grey's followers. They of course trod in the steps of their leader. But we do complain bitterly that Sir G. Grey should perpetually be assuming positions which he has no sooner taken than he exposes his titter incapacity j;o fill them; On this occasion, as on every other when he has come forward to propose some important scheme of policy, he has, so far as he waa personally concerned in supporting it, miserably broken down. He had nothing to tell the House as to why his resolutions should be adopted ! He could not even explain what they were intended to mean. His speech consisted /rom first to last of a rehash of the personal charges aud general denunciations which have been repeated ad nauseam in every speech he has ever delivered, flavored with the equally accustomed bunkum about securing the rights of the people, his own indifference to office, and all the rest of the stuff appropriate to stump oratory. * * . * # He just threw down his resolutions on the floor of the House and left them to shift for tberai selves. As to explaining them he never once, thought of it. He made no attempt to show how his plan would work, or how it would effeot any change for the better. He did not even profess to argue that any such change as- he was insisting upon had any bearing whatever upon the evils he alleged. Analyse bis argument, and what does it come to:— -The Upper House ought to be elected : separate the colony. The Civil Service is monstrously overgrown : separate the colony. We have a rash expenditure : separate the colony. Taranaki and Auckland are disproportionately represented : separate the colony, A couple of Civil Servants have been raised to tbe Upper House : separate tbe colony. The Prime Minister is an extravagant man : separate the oolony. Thia is literally all that there is in the speech. We really should like to enquire whether Sir George Grey or his party continue to think that a man who on such an occasion could find nothing better to say is fit for the post of an Opposition leader.