New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4793, 2 August 1876, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2.

The real struggle of the session commenced last night. Not that Mr. WhitAKER's land resolutions are accepted by , either Ministry or Opposition as the test question; nor was there a doubt as -to their fate. But since they lead up to the platform, which after all sorts of "backing and filling," as sailors would say, the Opposition have at last succeeded in agreeing upon, they may be fairly taken as initiative of the first debate during the session upon a real political and constitutional point. In introducing his resolutions no one can deny that Mr. Whitaker made a most able speech, probably the most able speech that it would be possible to deliver from his view of the question. It is no new thing to say that Mr. Whitaker is as experienced and effective a parliamentary speaker as any that New Zealand can point to. He has the experience of years passed as a representative, and also of a Cabinet career. He is all the more effective because his style is strictly argumentative, and he has the happy knack of speaking as if he was arguing from an innate consciousness of right. But whilst admitting all this, the conclusion cannot be avoided that Mr. Whitaker's speech of last night was rather that of a pleader before a Court of Appeal than of a member of Parliament addressing an assembly of business men. He, of course, professed to be arguing only in accordance with the strictest principles of justice and equity, not on mere technical points of law. And yet after all, what was the beginning, the middle, and the end of. his speech 1 ?. Why, that though the resolutions now known as the compact of 1856 had been passed by Parliament, yet, because important alterations in the details arising from them had been since made (notably in 1358), and because in effect they only appeared on official records as resolutions not as an absolute compact between honorable men, they could not be regarded as binding in principle now. In other words, Mr. Whitaker endeavored to upset an agreement on purely technical grounds, and to show that it is now null arid void because in some of its expressed or implied details it has since been varied. In other words, Mr. Whitaker argued on the principles of a mere eqoitable arrangement come to without legal assistance, as if it had been an agreement fenced around by all sorts of legal restrictions. . In his reply to Mr. Whitaker the Premier did not lose sight of the groundwork of that gentleman's arguments, as it really existed, and as we have put it. In apologising for applying the -word grubbing to that groundwork, he merely apologised for using a term which was correct, but which, without some explanation, 'might have had Offensive application. But the best portion of Sir J anus Vogel's reply was that in which he showed how readily the compact of 1856 was accepted as being wnexceptionably favorable to the Nortli Island, and to Auckland [in particular, and that Mr. Whitaker, as a member of the then Ministry, joined his colleagues in expressing these views. And no one can fail to agree with the Premier in his opinion that the fairest way for those to act who wish to upset the compact of 1856, would be, not to quibble with its justice, but, admitting that justice, to show, if possible, that the time had arrived ivhen the circumstances and necessities of the colony required its abrogation. Again, as Sir Julius "Vogel put it, what would be the consequences if Mr. Whitaker's proposals were carried 1 The effect would be either to indefinitely delay abolition, or to cause abolition to be carried out by the Government taking over everything connected with the provinces, without having carried any measures to provide-for the wants of the outlying districts, the districts that it is admitted have suffered most from the existence of provincialism. Mr. Whitaker's resolutions were, of course, not carried, but they have at least brought down definitely the proposals which Sir George Grey and those who aet with him have been so long threatening. And here we may remark that Sir George Grey's treatment of Mr Whitaker's resolutions has by no means given satisfaction to the Auckland members. If he be sincere in his separation proposals, then he should have undoubtedly supported in a practical manner Mr. Whitaker's resolutions, which, had they been carried, would have acted as a necessary prelude to his own designs. But it ft evident that he was not sincere," and his only desire is to carry something or another that shall cause the Government to resign. He knew that there would be a large majority against Mr. Whitaker ; he hopes for better success with his own ' venture. He need not hope. His proposals are like all else that comes from him ; .professing everything, aiming; at nothing. In one breath he desired to affirm the unity of the colony and the intention to divide it. In the same speech he talks of a necessity for the reduction of Government expenditure, and proposes to create three governments. He and Mr; Macandrew would angle for the Canterbury votes by making Christchurch the seat of government for the South Island. They, of course, make Auckland the seat of government for the North ; and they satisfy Wellington with a scat of government too. Shallow artifices all of them. Wellington does not depend upon being the seat of government. She casts in her lot with the colony as a whole, and her members will voto, we trust, in colonial, and not in local interests. Sir George Grey has ingeniously tried to bribe everybody, and every interest, but his bribes are as transparent, in their nature as those .of the child'who offers its sweetmeats to be let off punishment.