The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays.) SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1879.

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 447, 26 July 1879, Page 2

The Patea Mail. (Published Wednesdays and Saturdays.) SATURDAY, JULY 26, 1879.

As the debate on the Address in Reply, or rather on the addition proposed by Sir William Fox, may be indefinitely prolonged by the Government, it was understood that the Opposition would allow an Imprest Supply Bill to be passed before resuming the debate on Tuesday. For some reason, however, the House was not asked to pass such a Bill, and the debate was continued, and at the time we write is still going on. It is possible that Sir George did not wish to give the Opposition the chance of doing a graceful thing in allowing the Bill to pass. But it is understood that His Excellency objects to give his sanction to any Bill of Supply before a reply to the speech has been voted. From the days of James 11. to the present, the House of Commons has maintained its rights to have its grumble about its grievances before it gave the Crown any of the sinews of war. The grumbling is usually done in the Address in Reply, and it is not considered constitutional to grant any supplies until the Address has been presented. But whether the custom of the House to grumble first and pay afterwards, binds the Crown not to take money when it is offered, unless the grumbling has been done, is a point on which we cannot give an opinion. The debate, as far as it has gone, cannot be said to be instructive or particularly original. There was no reason why the division should not have been taken after the first two speeches. Everything that has been said, has appeared in the newspapers over and over again. Whether the hon members think they are imparting information or not in their exhaustive speeches we cannot say. Mr Macandrew said that Mr Wakefield’s speech was a hash of what had appeared in his paper during the year. This was probably true enough, but who among the hon members has said anything- that in some form or other has not appeared in the portion of the Press that supports the side on which he speaks ? The only arguments that remained for the House when it met, was the division, and while the expenses of Parliament are going on, and Civil Servants going without their money, and the business of the country standing still, we cannot but complain of the conduct of the Government in not coming to that conclusive argument at once.

We understand that Sir William and his powerful following are ready at any time to divide the House on the “ Want of Confidence” motion, but the Government are determined to ‘fight to the last/ in other words, to spend valuable time in talk that will not effect the result of the division in the slightest degree. They cannot but know that their fate is unalterably sealed ; yet they have not the good taste, and at the same time the wisdom, to submit gracefully. They will wait to be dragged off their benches, laughed at, despised, and hooted. If Sir George would, politically speaking, put his party out of misery, we would admit that he had done one wise and practical thing for the colony during his term of office. We would freely admit that he had improved towards the end, and was best at the last. We fear, however, that we shall be deprived of the pleasure of making these generous admissions. He will fight to the last. When he is no longer able to renew the combat in the House, he will fight with the Governor about a dissolution. The mob meeting, held on Thursday evening, was a device to help him in this contest. He counted on his oratory obtaining for him a favorable vote, which he would urge upon His Excellency as the truest index to the feeling of the country, and as a demand from the people that the fate of his Ministry should be referred to them. Should this argument succeed, he will ‘ fight’ to the last on the hustings; causing no matter what ruinous delay in the business of the country. As, however, he will not succeed with His Excellency, he will * fight’ it out with the Secretary of State, and do all he can to injure Sir Hercules Robinson. But ‘ fight’ as he will, there is no doubt as to his ultimate discomfirture. The present position of affairs is an admirable example of how circumstances alter cases. Two years 00-o when the Atkinson Ministry was on its last legs, Sir George Grey held that the occupants of the Treasury Benches should resign the moment they discovered that they were in a minority, or on the eve of being so. But he now finds that it is one thing to lay down sublime rules tor the conduct of others, and quite -a different thing to conform his own conduct to them.

Speaking of a dissolution, we are aware that there is not the slightest probability of one being granted. The Governor will not fail to see that there are the constituents of a stroi g Government in.

the present House. He will also see that the waste of time that a dissolution would involve would be ruinous in the present crisis. Then again be will not fail to note that there is nothing to appeal to the country on. There has been no objection raised to the policy of the present Government, as set forth m the ‘ speech.’ The House simply condemns the administrators, and declares that they are incapable of carrying out their ostensible policy. This is not a question upon -which an appeal to the country could be allowed. Moreover, the leading item in she grand Liberal programme, as set forth in the ‘ speech,’ is quite inconsistent wiSft an appeal to the constituencies before that item has passed into law. We refer to the question of the redistribution of seats—a question, by the way, in which this disdistrict is particularly interested. It is admitted on all hands, that such a redistribution is necessary. But to hold a General Election before the redistribution takes place, would be to postpone the effect of the measure for several years. From a mere party stand-point it is certain that the Practical Party, as opposed to the Promising Party, have nothing to fear from an appeal to the electors. But the Practical Party, having won the field, naturally do not see the force of withdrawing from it for the sake of showing the Promising Party that they can win it a second time.

Sir George Grbv in the House, and the Government Press out of it, have boiled over with wrath at the hard hitting of Sir William Fox. They smart under it, and explain the smarting by charging their antagonist with foul play ; whereas it is patent to everyone that the cause should be sought in their own putrid sores. The surgeon’s probing of the Ministsrial boils is oallocl cowardly stab bing. Sir William has been likened to a scolding fish wife; and Sir George declared that he had never before beard such a tirade of buffoonery as the speech ot his opponent. Wo presume that ‘ Billingsgate scolding,’ * malicious invention/ 1 tirade of buffoonery/ and the like, are simply mild and generous euphemisms tor ‘ statements against the Grey Government/ having of course special reference to the statements that are true. The Government and its supporters probably fear an invasion of their monopoly of malicious invention and political buffoonery. They need have no such fear. They have rendered invention of evil respecting them quite superfluous, and have afforded such frightful examples of political buffoonery that few will wish to imitate them. For Sir George to say that Sir W. Fox’s statements “ were quite contrary to the truth,” “ were utterly untrue,” “ were entirely false, and without one iota of truthful foundation,” is the most gentlemanly and parliamentary thing imaginable. In fact, we are lost in wonder at the delicacy that refrained from accusing the leader of the Opposition of a nascent and dangerous. tendency to handle the truth carelessly. But even this is not the utmost limit of delicacy attainable by the Premier; -for in speaking of the title that is the empty reward of Sir William’s long and faithful service to the public, he described his opponent “ on all fours, crawling round to a back door to obtain the honour.” None but a very Chesterfield could mean so much, and say so little !

The following extract from a very able speech, made in Legislative Council on Friday, the 18th instant, by the hon Mr Waterhouse, will be read with in terest. He is referiug to the ploughing of the Maoris on this side of the Waingongora—“ When the natives entered upon these lands and began to plough, we know with what utter helplessness the Government looked on. The result was that the settlers in the neighborhood were alarmed. They saw the Government were taking no efficient steps for their protection, and they were driven to take up arms on their own account. I think the action of the settlers upon that occasion is deserving of all praise, and that by their conduct they taught the Government a lesson from which the colony will' probably eventually derive great advantage. When, however, the settlers took up arms, the Government still looked on with the same indifference as before, and it was only when the settlers took the law into their own hands, and at the peril of their lives removed the trespassers from the land, that the Government plucked up sufficient courage to follow their example and do what they had done. All honor to the settlers in this matter. Their action, and the success which attended their efforts, are a crying condemnation of the inaction of the Government.”

Between sixty and seventy Maoris, under Tito Kowaru, are at present engaged erecting a fence two miles the other side of the Waingongoro River, near the road ; and it is their intention to erect a fence and commence ploughing immediately across the river. The object as given by the natives themselves, is to test the confiscation question. ; If they are not interfered with on one side of the river, they say they cannot legally be turned off the other. They have tried one side, and have been pub off, and now wish to see if Government will attempt to stop their works on the other. , _ T A gelleman who came from JNew Plymouth by the coast road, informed us that the Maoris all along were very

civil, but reserved. They did not appear to wish for fighting. The natives seem very fond of parading this statement, but we take it for what it is worth. They do not wish to fight, if they can get all they want withont it ; but failing that, then, unless very decisive steps are taken, they will resort to bloodshed. The Maori is a somewhat similar animal to the rat—let him alone, and he is all right, but run him into a corner, and he will show fight. With reference to the prisoners lately taken at Tikorangi, the Plains natives say it is all right. They do not appear to be the least concerned ; but this indifference to the weakening of their ranks cannot last for ever. The reaction must come.