THE PREMIER'S SPEECH CRITICISED.

Te Aroha News, Volume II, Issue 87, 31 January 1885, Page 6

THE PREMIER'S SPEECH CRITICISED.

Wellington, January 2'L The "New Zealand Times," on the Premier's speech, says : — " There is no denying the fact that, though some of the news, papers "of the colony have by fits and starts oxhibited .strange subserviency to the Ministry, the tone of tho press altogether has been far too independent to bo agreeable tO the StOUt'Vogel Constitution. It has sometimes been difficult to distinguish friend from foe, and Mr Stout does not like such a state of affairs. But Mr Stout forgets the political character or want of character of tho Government of which ho is the nominal head. It is neither lish, flesh, nor good red herring. It has a strangely mixed-up sort of policy, a great part of which Mr Stout would havo bitterly opposed if ho had not been in Parliament, and would have bitterly opposed if, being in Parliament, ho had not boon a Minister, lie thoroughly enjoys being, possessor of the title of Premier, though to onablo him to hold it for moro than a day he was compelled to connect himself with a gentleman whoso political opinions are for the most part diametrically opposed to his own. Which side is it whose want of a constant champion in the Dunedin press Mr Stout regrets ? Would the champion have to fight for Liberalism or Conservatism — for Stout or Vogel ?" Tho "Times" condemns tho wbolo speech as milk-and-watery, and says the local government proposals resemble Mr Montgomery's in 1883. The "Post," in criticising the speech, thinks it will cause a general feeling of disappointment throughout the country. " The account given bjTthe Premier of the proceedings in the early times of last Parliament, which culminated in the formation of the present Ministry, is clever in its way, but is none the less unsatisfactory, for it implies in every word that there is no real bond of union between the Premier and the Treasurer, and that they are practically only working together in order to carry on the business of the country— an expression which, in its present connection, simply means keeping their common enemy out of office. Mr Stout himself proclaims the fact that the present combination does not form a stable Liberal administration, and his words convey the impression that if only he were a little stronger and if Parliament were only a little more Radical, he would most gladly throw Vogel overboard, and he evidently believes Sir Julius would as readily disembarrass himself of the Liberal element if he could command a majority without its support. On annexation and confederation the Premier spoke clearly and well, a^dmade out a better defence of the action of Government in the Samoan affair than Mr Ballance did at Woodville. But it is singular that neither of them seems to have denied, as Sir Juliuß Vogel has dono in his interview with the Star reporter, the general truthfulness of tho account published regarding the action of Government in the matter. In fact, Mr Stout spoke as if that account had emanated from Government, for, he said, they did not disclose what they were doing until they had received Lord Derby's reply. This certainly implies that they have disclosed it since, but Sir Julius Vogel insists they have not done so yot. We fancy Mr Stout's is the correct version, and if our information is accurate, we believe most of what has been disclosed regarding the action of Government re Samoa and the Hineraoa really proceeded from Mr Stout himself. It is rather hard upon him, therefore, that Sir Julius Vogel should have characterised the statements in the question as a hoax, and untruthful. Mr Stout evidently thought them sufficiently accurate to only need the addition of a single new fact—that relating to the despatch of H.M.S. Miranda from Sydney to Samoa."