The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5394, 11 July 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1878.

Wb published yesterday the telegraphic report of the Hon. Mr. Stout's speech at Dunedin, furnished by the Press Agency. It would be hardly fair to subject an important speech thus reported to a very close criticism, but Mr. Stout has the faculty of speaking with clearness and precision, and there are, at least, some points in this report upon which the expressions are do Unite and the meaning unmistaWable. The policy of the AttorneyGeneral may be said to be practically that of which the Colonial Treasurer gave indications to his constituents atMarton some weeks ago, and both differ in principle absolutely and fundamentally .from the policy which Sir George Grey, as leader ofOpposition, propounded and maintained in the House of Representatives, and which Sir George Grey, as Premier, has been preaching on the stump during the recess at every centre of population within the colony. The three points, Mr. Stout is reported to have said, in the policy of the present Government, were administrative reform, electoral reform, and taxation. By reductions, and by decentralising administration, the Estimates would show a saving of £20,000, and in the Justice, Public Works, and Native Departments, “many thousands” would be saved without the efficiency of the establishments being impaired. The Colonial Treasurer did not see his way to further reductions at the time he spoke; nor will the Attorney General, we think, be able to show, anything but an enormously increased expenditure in the Native Department, if the very extravagant performances of the last few months are to be repeated by his Chief.

Electoral reform had two aspects, Mr. Stout said, one the county and municipal aspect, the other the representative aspect as affecting elections for the House. In the municipal and county elections there is plurality of votes, graduated according to the amount of rates paid by each individual. It is here and by this means that the bloated aristocrat of Sir George Grey’s ■ imagination, with his possible forty-live votes, oppresses the poor man who has only one vote. Mr. Stout thinks that, the House is not perhaps “ripe” enough for the alteration of . that principle, and the Government will therefore deal with the other aspect first. We agree with Mr. Stout, and are moreover of opinion that the House, or any House composed of reasonable men, will take a very long time to “ripen” sufficiently to approve the injustice which Sir George Grey would perpetrate in that regard. For the election of members of the House of Representatives we are to have a freehold, a ratepaying, and a residential franchise. Mr. Ballancb proposed that the household qualification should also be retained, and the omission of it from Mr, Stout’s programme may be an error of the report. Mr. Stout promises that great care shall be taken in the work of registration of electors, and that the lists shall be made up twice a year. We will not hold the Attorney-General individually accountable for the kind of “care” of the work of registration which has recently been exhibited by the Govern<ment of which he is a member,, in the matter of the Bay of Islands and Mangbnui roll, when four hundred bogus Maori claims, already known tobe fictitious, were got on the register by the simple process of dismissing the public officer who objected to them, and thus barring the 'action of the Revising Court. That is a kind of “care” that kills. We are to have a Bribery Bill. Cabby and- Boniface are no longer to be allowed. to.' be powers of corruption at election times. Each independent elector, after having refreshed himself at a pump or the nearest- “fountain,” must, walk soberly to the polling-booth and exercise his privilege as a freeman, alone, in a secluded place. It was fondly hoped that after the adoption of voting by ballot the evils of bribery in its many forms would disappear. As that hope has proved to be fallacious it may be doubted whether the average elector, say at Hokitika, is as yet “ripe” enough to vote without having a taste of the “ principles” of the candidate who seeks his favor. Mr. Seymour George may probably haveformed an opinion on this point based upon recent experience, which ought to be accessible to Ministers. “ Redistribution of seals cannot be “ effected at once,” and, as we read the report, it is not intended to touch that question until the new House has been elected. Thera is to bo a reduction of Customs duty on some articles not now to be named in order to prevent speculation on the part of merchants, and there is to be a graduated land tax. Now wo are not making objections to these proposals as a scheme of policy. They may be wise and rational enough ; but in no true sense can they be said to be the policy of the Cabinet, if 'there bo any meaning in the words “ constitutional government by party.” The policy of a Government is the policy of its head, the Premier, and that policy differs ioto ccclo, as we have over find-over shown, from that which has been announced by Mr. Ballanoe and Mr. Stout. The “popular will,” Sir George Grey has constantly said, should guide the Government in all things. The popular will, under the inspiration of the Premier’s eloquence, has with “ extraordinary enthusiasm ” declared itself in favor of a free breakfast table, repreaen- . tation in proportion to numbers, equal electoral districts, and. manhood suffrage with one vote and one vote only. Who is it that wickedly disregards the “popular will,” and restrains the great aspirations of the popular idol 1 Sir George Grey is chief of his Cabinet-—he has avowed his principles, he has chosen his colleagues j he has secured, as he says, the support of the people for his principles which he has declared to be those of his colleagues also ; and yet we, are how practically informed,—to the great satisfaction and relief of all rational people,— that the policy of the - “ stump” is one thing, and the pplicy of the Cabinet something exactly the opposite, and differing

as being “in” differs from being “oufc.” Ifc was Sam Weller, we think, who, after listening to a moral homily from Mr. Pic wick, exclaimed with extraordinary enthusiasm—“ Hoo-roar for principles I” We feel greatly tempted to throw up our hat with* Mr. Weller.