South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2600, 21 July 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1881.

Mr John Sheehan acted rather hurriedly in his proposal for the Repeal of Abolition. He did not consult the members on his own side of the House and in not doing so he made a great mistake. The proposed measure was of such a vital nature that it should never have been brought forward without the assurance of the support of the party. It is said that Sir George Grey does not look with favor on the young politician who so ably assisted him to power, and who had displayed conspicious ability when a member of the Ministry. During the past twelve months Mr Sheehan has been consorting with the political enemies of his senior colleague in the representation of the Thames. The .Patetere transaction roused the ire of Sir George, and Mr Sheehan was one of the chief instruments in the transaction. There is an old saying that between two stools a man falls to the ground. Outside the House Mr Sheehan is a friend of the landgrabber; inside the House he aims at being a leader of the Liberal party. In a previous issue we gave it as our opinion that that party would henceforth place little faith in him. The debate on Tuesday night fully bears out the prediction, Mr John Sheehan is gifted with surprising audacity. He attempted to jump into the position of a party leader, but he fell on the threshold of performance. There is a considerable section of the House who would vote for a revival of Provincialism, but the majority of them would most decidedly object to act under the. leadership of Mr Sheehan. We have contended that the deposition of Sir George Grey from the position of leader, would add to the strength of the Liberal party, as anything introduced by him is certain to meet with violent opposition on personal grounds. An instance of this was furnished the other day by the Legislative Council throwing out the Affirmation in Lieu of Oaths Bill. Dr Pollen, a bitter enemy of Sir George, moved that the measure be read a second timethatday six months. The division list showed that the political opponents of the senior member for the Thames had banded together to defeat the measure simply because it was introduced by him. The Bill was not of a party character, but its paternity was enough to damn it in the eyes of the majority in the “ Lords.” They intend to pay Sir Geerge Grey out for his attacks on the Legislative Council. It is highly advisable that the leader of the Opposition should have a fol-

lowing in the Upper House. Sir George Grey has not the confidence of even a respectable minority in the Legislative Council, and probably there are not a dozen members in the Lower House who would like to see him again on the Treasury Benches. But taking all things into consideration, Sir George. Grey is immeasurably preferable as a leader to Mr John Sheehan.

Ministers evinced a strong desire to take a division on the Repeal of Abolition Bill. They were determined to make it a test question, and objected to its postponement. It was in vain Mr Macandrew told them that they were not responsible for Abolition ; that it was carried before they came into office. But the Government were not to be taken in by such a specious plea. If there is any continuity in politics, the present Ministry is clearly identified with the party that swept away the provinces. Had the repeal of Abolition been put to the vote, there is now no doubt that the Government would have had a large majority In fact, one member of the Opposition stated that the majority of those who are generally opposed to Ministers would be found with them. Though Mr Sheehan’s proposal was stifled at its birth, the short debate plainly showed that the Provincialists are in a very appreciable minority. There is no earthly chance of the Provinces being revived. One might as well talk of reviving the English Heptarchy. The present Government are not noted for the wisdom of their tactics. They have managed, it is true, to stick to office, but it has, on more than one occasion, been at the sacrifice of principle. They made a palpable mistake in not allowing Mr Sheehan time to mature his proposals. It is the usual custom in Parliament when a vote of no confidence is on the paper for all other business to be suspended. Ministers do not care about transacting business with the fear of death hanging over them. But there need have been no dread of impending death at the effort of Mr Sheehan. It was an affair which the Government could have afforded to let stand over. It was a question, too, on which time should have been allowed for an expression of opinion from the country. No one expected that such an extreme proposal would be made during the present session. The country as well as the House was taken by surprise. There was one particularly good reason why the consideration of the question should not have been pressed with such great haste by the Ministry, and that was that the Opposition were not responsible for Mr Sheehan’s Bill. The ostensible leader of the party, Sir George Grey, was known to be opposed to the introduction of the measure, as his Local Government Bill was intended to meet the wants of the country in the direction of the objects aimed at by the repeal of abolition. But Ministers would listen to no reason. They were greedy for assured victory. However, the trial of strength did not come off. Mr Sheehan, seeing the feeble support be was likely to receive, refused to move forward. He slunk away with a few bombastic words that the Ministry had not seen the last of him and his Bill. Mr Ormond is a much more dangerous opponent than Mr Sheehan, and he has taken up the gauntlet thrown down with such bravado by the Government. It is quite, on the cards that Ministers may .find themselves in a minority. Mr Ormond is a shrewd man, and he knows when and how to strike. His motion that the proposals of the Ministry in respect to local government and finance are unsatisfactory, is of a most comprehensive nature. It is a doublebarrelled shot. The motion will, doubtless, unite together the supposed Middle Party, and what is termed the disorganised elements of the Opposition. It has been tolerably evident ever since the commencement of the present session that Ministers do not possess the confidence of a majority in Parliament. They have held office on sufferance, or rather through want of agreement on the part of those wo do not believe in the Government, Whether the coming vote will be adverse to Ministers or not depends- in some measure upon the prospect of securing a body of men to take their places who will enjoy the confidence of Parliament, and, in a far larger degree, of securing the confidence of the country at the approaching general election. There are a number of members in the House who are in the main opposed to Ministers, but who have misgivings as to the men likely to succeed them. Ministers appear to be doubtful as to the issue of Mr Ormond’s motion. They were not at all anxious that it should be put to the vote immediately. There are, doubtless, a few waverers that the Government hope to make “ safe ” before the division bell is rung.