The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5241, 10 January 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1878.

Dk. Wallis, of “rogues and trimmers” notoriety, has addressed his constituents at Auckland, and a report of his speech appears in the New Zealand Herald of the 3rd instant. Dr. Wallis is a somewhat long-winded speaker, one of those whom the reporters can condense with great facility. He differs in no slight degree from Mr. Robert Lowe, of whom a reporter said, when asked to give only the points of his speech, that he was “ all points.” But Dr. Wallis, nevertheless, is not a bad speaker, and can say a smart thing now and again. After reading the report in the Herald there is little to find fault with in the subject matter of the speech, and still less with the brevity of the report. The reverend gentleman, as a rule, is not particular as to what he says, but in his last speech at Auckland he shows to better advantage than on previous occasions, and it is pleasant to hear that he has a good word to say even for the measures of his political opponents. He gives a just meed of praise to the Education Bill. After reviewing the various Bills brought before Parliament last session, he said that “above all in importance was the Education Bill. • It appeared to him to be the best and most statesmanlike Bill that had emanated from the late Ministry. He supported the Bill in every respect except one. He could not support the introduction of the reading of the Scripture in schools. It passed in a mutilated form.” As the Bill originally provided for the opening of the public schools with prayer, we suppose from the above that, as brought down by the late Ministry, it met with the almost entire approval of ]Dr. Wallis. However much it was desirable to effect a compromise between the denominationalists and secularists, there is no doubt that the House of Representatives, in striking out the religious clauses, acted in accordance with the views of a large majority in the country. Dr. Wallis was somewhat emphatic in his condemnation of the Local Option Bill, though he states that he admits the soundness of the permissive principle, as it is in accordance with the true democratic principle, by which his whole political career had been governed. However, he opposed Mr. Fox’s Bill because it was “ manifestly unfair and unjust.” These are certainly very good grounds for opposition to any measure. Dr. Wallis may. have satisfied himself that he was not breaking the promises he made to a large section of those who returned him to Parliament, but there is just reason for a large amount of suspicion in the minds of the temperance party regarding the sincerity of a man who pledged himself to support the Good Templar ticket, yet opposed a measure brought into Parliament by the recognised head of that party, simply because the Bill did not provide for compensation to the publican whose house might be closed. Dr. Wallis must have known perfectly well, when he angled for the votes of the Good Templars, that they would in no way recognise the principle of compensation to the publican. No subject has ever been introduced into Parliament on which there has been more trimming than on the question of local option as applied to the public-house; and Dr. Wallis has been one of the most conspicuous of the trimmers. We have never been numbered amongst the supporters of Mr. Fox in his crusade against the publican, nor have we expressed any desire that local option should be adopted in this country. The presence of a number of trimmers in the House of Representatives gives to the local optionists an appearance of real strength, for the trimmer invariably expresses himself in favor of the principle of any measure which may be introduced for the suppression of the liquor traffic, but nevertheless he generally finds that chere is something sufficiently obnoxious in the details to excuse him in opposing the bringing into law of any particular measure. Of course he informs the House and the country that if at any future time areally practicable measure is brought down it will receive his support. The consequence is that, through the presence of such men as Dr. Wallis in the House, the principle of local option has been more than once affirmed,-although the majority of members did iiofc seriously believe that it would ever pass into law except in an imperfect and impracticable form. But the result is that an important section of the community now and again become alarmed as to the course of future legislation, while in reality any danger to. their vested interests from an Act of Parliament is very remote indeed. It would be much better for both parties— Good Templars and publicans—that there should be no “shilly-shallying,” but that men should boldly join sides on the question as to whether or not the publican is to be at the mercy of his neighbors. Dr. Wallis is not altogether uncomplimentary to his followlegislators. He thus discourses of the mental powers of gentlemen of the House of Representatives It was said that the personnel of the Now Zealand Parliament had degenerated of late. That might be the case in some respects. But on the other hand he had been much struck with the powers displayed by some of the most conspicuous members. He might mention : four; gentlemen whoso, mental power struck him as pervading every subject they handled. These men were Sir George Grey, Major Atkinson, Mr. Donald Reid, and Mr. Robert Stout. There was therefore in the House a very strong element of legislative power. Still it was a piece of logic shmewliat hard to consider, how it happened that the Imperial Parliament, with between six and seven hundred members, succeeded in passing sixty odd Acts, and the New Zealand Parliament with 80 members was enabled to pass over 90. This was a matter ho would leave to those better able to reason out such a subject than he was.” Wo are afraid that if the New Zealand House of Representatives consisted of 652'

members there would be an end of legislation. Dr. Wallis strongly . denounces the policy initiated by Sir Julius Vogel, which he calls the great “ tick ” policy, and asks, t 1 ‘ what was .the result they saw?” Well, we would say that the man was very dull of observation who failed to see a great improvement iff the material condition of. the people of this- colony since the Public Works and Immigration policy was given effect to. However, it is possible that the reverend gentleman looks at the condition of the colony from a spiritual point of view, and fails to see that any improvement has been effected. There are as many souls to be saved in good times as in bad, and it is just as hard to save them. Still it is. patent to all who take a secular view that the Public Works and Immigration scheme has wrought a vast improvement in the condition of the people of New Zealand.