The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5260, 1 February 1878, Page 4

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1878.

Mr. Roi/Lestow is a gentleman who lias over commanded respect in Parliament from members of all shades of opinion; and although wo have dissented from his views, on several important questions—particularly on th4t of .abolition—we cannot refrain from expressing the opinion' that ho, has always been actuated by an honest desire .. to do his,.duty,, to,j the country. Although he hold; strong views.! on provincialism and the land • fund, it; cannot hii said of him that:he !regarded the welfare of ■ the particular province l from which ho hails as paramount'to the welfare of the colony generally. The

late Superintendent of Canterbury addressed the electors of the constituency he represents on Saturday evening.last. It will be remembered that he was one of the members of that Middle Party which had a brief existence last session. Mr. Rolleston gave an on tline of thecauses which led to the formation of that party. He said that there arose a feeling in the House that the Constitution was not getting fair play owing to the continuous existence of the Sir Julius Vogel Ministry, for the Atkinson Ministry represented the same principles and policy as had been initiated by him. Mr. Rolleston said : “ There was this against them,— and I speak of them as personal friends of my own, as men of the highest integrity, and men deserving well of the country,—there was a general desire for a change. They had become, if I may use the expression, tarnished by time.’’ Further on he states that the late Government brought down the Bills promptly at the beginning of the session, and that the majority of their measures had since been carried by those who toik their places. The only charge against the late Ministry appears to be that it had grown old in the service of the State. It mattered not that the personnel of the Ministry had completely changed, and that there was a considerable modification of policy —the Ministry were objectionable, according to Mr. Rolleston, because men with different ideas had for a number of years been unacceptable to the House and country. The Ministry had not taken their places on the Treasury benches by a vote of no-confidence in a previous administration, but had been chosen from time to time by the leaders of the House to fill vacancies as they occurrred. That appears to have been the main objection to Major Atkinson’s Government by what ivas known as the Middle Party —that party without a head and devoid of fixed principles. We are again told that it was with the distinct understanding that Sir George Grey should not be in the new Ministry that the vote of no confidence was carried in Major Atkinson’s Government, and that if Sir George Grey had moved the resolution instead of Mr. Larnach it would not have been carried. Major Atkinson has been the subject of a great deal of abuse for moving the no-confidence motion in the Grey Ministry shortly after their assuming office. But no other course was open to him, as will be gleaned from the following remarks of Mr. Rolleston “ Major Atkinson has been blamed most unjustly, as I think. He has been accused of having, shown an undue haste and a greed to return to office. He has been accused of this because ho moved a vote of want of confidence in the new Ministry of Sir George Grey. It is open to question whether it was wise to move such a motion at such a time, but I know that the feeling, of those who supported that motion, and I was one of these, was that it was better to settle this question at once, and after it had been settled to proceed to business, because it was pretty generally known, as you will see from the explanation I have already given you, that Sir George Grey did not possess a majority in the House. That vote of want of confidence would have been carried but for what L may be allowed to call a fluke. I may say for my own part that I think it was a great pity that some other leader who would have represented a change of Government could not be found ; but Major; Atkinson was not responsible for that, since so large a number of the members of the House would have him move it. It was impossible to have any other, and it is not fair to lay upon him the. charge of greed for office and avidity to seize it when he only did what was pressed upon him by the majority of the House. Such charges, I think, are very much better left alone. I think, on the other hand, that there has been a very great difficulty, and there will be a great difficulty for years to come, in getting men to take upon themselves the troubles and disagreeableness of office.” The Premier’s action with regard to the Land Bill is thus referred to by Mr. Rolleston “ I must say that I think the country generally and the Parliament must view with regret an autocratic act like that of Sir George Grey in advising the Governor to disallow a Bill which had passed both Houses of Parliament. Such an unconstitutional course, I think, has never before been taken. In these times it is specially incumbent upon the representative of her Majesty to see that no one takes upon himself so unconstitutional a power, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Governor that such a step, unparalleled in this or any other country, was not taken.” Mr. Rolleston here only expresses the opinion of nine out of every ten thoughtful men in the community, and.it maybe safely relied on that the secret attempt of the Premier to burke the Land Bill will not be passed over in silence when Parliament meets. Mr. Rolleston has touched upon numerous matters in his post-sessional address, and we will take another opportunity of referring to his frank and able speech.