The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays.) WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1879.

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 446, 23 July 1879, Page 2

The Patea Mail. ( Published W ednesdays and Saturdays.) WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1879.

In the old days in Australia, a story was current of a benighted savage who was decoyed into Church one Sunday by some well-meaning settler. The only thing in the whole service that was not Greek to ‘ Billy’ was something about ‘ daily bread.’ This he thought was decidedly promising. He hung about for some time after the congregation dispersed, and at length walked away disappointed and sorrowful. But next Sunday, to the unspeakable joy of the well-meaning settler, he returned. Again he heard about ‘ daily bread,’ again watched the parson depart, and again went home disappointed, and this time angry. Next Sunday, however, he caused further joy by again putting in an appearance. But there was an impenitent look about ‘ Billy’ that made his patron feel uneasy. The service went on and ‘ Billy’ sat with clenched fist, and fixed eyes. No sooner were the words ‘ daily bread’ uttered, than he sprang to his feet, shook his fist wildly, and demanded, to the utter confusion of the parson, “ What far yabber yabber ‘ daily bread,’ and nebber nebber gib it ?” For the third time Sir George Grey has yabber yabbered ‘daily bread,’ and Billy, twice disappointed, has not shirked his duty. On Friday last, Sir W. Fox moved the Want of Confidence motion in a speech, that for hard hitting, plain speaking, powerful argument,, and arraying of facts, is not often equalled. It is so refreshing to know that the Government have been forced to listen to the nlain truth, t.hnt. we cannot refrain from quoting at some length from Sir William’s eloquent speech. Before doing so, however, we must allude to some events that took place in the House in a previous sitting. On Wednesday the Ministry revealed the hopelessness of their position in a manner that argued either blind confidence in their strength, or a decided want of the tact for which the Premier is so noted. In the first place Sir George, without a moment’s warning to the House, proposed that the debate on the Address in Beply should take place that evening (Wednesday), instead of on Friday, in order that a Loan Bill might afterwards bo rushed through in one Session, so as to be in time for the English Mail. This could not be carried except by the unanimous consent of the House. The Premier, therefore, placed himself in a position in which a single vote could inflet a defeat upon him. On being asked for his reasons, and urged to make a clean breast of it, he replied that “ He had been asked to make a clean breast of it, but he had none to make*” Most true ! Of course he met with a decided rebuff. We think that to expose hincself to such a rebuff, at such a critical time, was the reverse of wisdom. But Mr Macandrew at once proceeded to help his colleagues out of the frying-pan into the fire, by taking a division on a matter of no consequence whatever. This was not the time to let the enemy count the host, Mr Macandrew should rather have adopted the policy of the canny Malcolm of old—

Let every soldier hew him down a bough, And bear’t before him; tnereby shall vve shadow. The number of our host, and make discovery Err in report of us.

But the degenerate Scot forced on a division on the question of adjourning' the debate on a direct steam servic 6 between Britain and New Zealand 1 The Government were left in the minority by ten votes. It is true that Mr Sheehan voted with the Opposition. This, however, was only a rather thin devise to hide the defeat of the Government. Putting Mr Sheehan on the other side, there is still a majority or eight against the Ministry. This little affair may not afford an absolutely accurate measure of party strength in the House, but nothing can be more certain than that it indicates a majority for the Opposition. The House would never allow the Government it intended to support to be humiliated in connection with so small a matter. We have then a fair idea of the prospects of success that Sir William Fox had when he rose Jo speak immediately after the proposed Address in Reply was read. We will now give a few passages from the speech, at the end of which be moved the ‘want of confidence’ motion : “ Sir William Fox said that he charged the Government with incompetency and unconstitutional conduct. The country was strewn with their broken promises, and they were incapable of carrying them out. They had had ample time to carry out their measures, and had two-thirds of the House with them last session, but they had done nothing. With reference to railways, what had they fulfilled. As an instance he quoted the Dunstan railway, which was not yet even surveyed. In their Native Policy they had utterly broken down. He next touched on the Tapanui railway, and later the railway at the Thames. He criticised the course the Premier took in making that railway, and said he had no more right to make that line than he had to make one in his island of Kawan. (Hear, hear.) Then there was the unconstitutionl act recently endeavored to be carried out on

the floor of the House, in attempting to force the proposed loan through in one sitting. The hon member denied that there was any emergency requiring such haste, or if there was, the Ministry must have known it three months ago, and in that case it was their duty to have called the House together at, once. The intensity of the Premier’s autocratic feeling was growing every day, and would apparently have no end. Another item told by the newspapers was that no Cabinets have been held for a length of time. This practice has gone out altogether, and the head of the Ministry merely sent for his colleagues when he wanted them, and gave them orders. There were many indications that he intended to reign supreme. He then referred to the disorganisation of the civil service, and complained that old servants had been dismissed and boys put in thenplaces. There was one case at Wanganui of a most efficient officer, a postmaster, who was esteemed and respected, His office was wanted to confer on the son of one who had served a Minister, who was placed in bis stead. Then there was the case of Mr Luckie, who he thougnt was quite competent to fill the almost sinecure office that he filled. (Laughter.) He would then refer to the fearful mismanagement of native affairs. Everyone knew that it was the worst possible policy to make love to the natives in the way they had been courted. The Premier was then at his old game of making capital out of the natives. He bowed down to the dust, made feasts and speeches—very foolish speeches—more nonsense and tomfoolery he never witnessed in his lifetime. (No, no. Yes, yes.) The Government had rushed the country to the very verge of war. The colony had had more humiliation from the Premier and the Native Minister than from any men that had ever been in the country, They had lost more prestige during the last two years than they ever had before, and they had lowered the dignity of the Queen’s Government. A Native Minister should be a man of undoubted moral character; but people could not travel through Maori country without hearing stories that made them blush

He then proposed the following addition to the Address in Reply :— * In conclusion, we respectfully submit to His Excellency that, in order to secure satisfactory results to the deliberations of Parliament, and to facilitate the proper discharge of the functions of Government, His Excellency’s advisers should possess the confidence of this House, and we deem it our duty to represent to His Excellency that, in the opinion of this House, his present advisers have so neglected and mismanaged the administrative business of the Government, of the colony, that they do not posseseihe confidence of the House.’”

We have quoted from the New Zealander, in which of course Sir William would receive no favor. The same journal was so overpowered by Sir George’s lengthy reply that it could not give even 1 a full outline of it with any degree of accuracy.’ The best way to discover whether a composition has any philosophical unity, or whether it reasons anything out logically, is to try to make an analysis of it—in other words, *to give an outline.’ If it refuses to shrink into an outline, it may safely be consigned to the limbo of forgotten things.