THE PREMIERS SPEECH CRITICISED.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 5466, 26 January 1885, Page 4

THE PREMIERS SPEECH CRITICISED.

« ' ' :j-s (ny IBUJflSASa.—O\ra COBHUSJ'OKDB

Wellington, thi^'tt Thb "New Zealand Times," on t Premler'B speech, says:—" There isnoil ing the fact that, though some of .tiioj papers'of the colony have by flts'aiuij! exhibited strange subserviency tojtlij}| try, the tone of the press altogether MS far too independent to be '/im to the Stout-Vogel .Constitution^ has sometimes been difficult to i tinguish friend from foe, and Mrfi does not like such a state of affaire. Mr Stout forgets the politic il charactij want of character of the Governmei which he is the nominal head. It ism fish, flesh, nor good red herring.-; Ira strangely mixed-up sort of policy, a { part of which Mr Stout would havabij opposed if he had not been in Parlitf and would have bitterly opposed if,* in Parliament, ho had not been a Mit He thoroughly enjoys being possessori title of Premier, though to enable H hold it for more than a day he wast pelled to connect himself with ;a| tleman whose political opinions at the most part diametrically opposed! own. Which side is it whose want constant champion in the Dunedin pre Stout regrets ? Would the champioi to fight for Liberalism or Conserr&t for Stout or Vogel ?" The " Times'?? demns the whole speech as milt watery, and says the local governmen posals resemble Mr Montgomery's iri; The "Post," in criticising thp''ci thinks it will cause a general feeling ofj pointment throughout the country, j account given by the Promier of th ceedings in the early times of latt ! ment, which culminated in the forma the present Ministry, is clever | way, but is none the less unsa tory, for it implies in every.; that there is no real bond of* between the Premier and tho TreJ and that they are practically only \fo together in order to carry on the bi k: the c»untry—an expression whielf, 5 present connection, simply means ;ki their common enemy out of offidijj Stout himself proclaims the fact'tti present combination does not forma' Liberal administration, and his wont vey the impression that if only he weirei stronger and if Parliament were only! more Radical, he would most | throw Vogel overboard, and he 6vjc believes Sir Julius would as readily <. barrass himself of the Liberal elemeiffc could command a majority withoutra port. On annexation and confederate Premier spoke clearlyandwell,a«dniai a better defence of the action of ■'(s ment in the Samoan affair than Mr Ba did. at Woodville. But it is'''sui that neither of them seelns to| denied, as Sir Julius Vogel haa 'd in his interview wjth the Star rep the general truthfulness of the fa© published regarding the action of-Go mont in the matter. In fact, Mr;( spoke as if that account had emanate^ Government, for, he said, they did Bit! close what they were doing Until tW received Lord Derby's reply. ■ THijl tainly implies that they have disdloK since, but Sir Julius A 7ogel instate twl not done so yet. We fancy Mr Stoji the correct version, and if our liift tion Is accurate, we believe most of wh( been disclosed regarding tho action'o vernment re Samoa and the Hinemia'l proceeded from Mr Stout himsel||| rather hard upon him, therefore, MS Julius Vogel should have characteriak statements in the question as a HpM untruthful. Mr Stout ovidently Ojy them sufficiently accurate to only nM( addition of a single now fact—that rei to the despatch of H.M.S. Mirandf| Sydney to Samoa."