The Press. MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1882.

Press, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5364, 4 December 1882, Page 2

The Press. MONDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1882.

Thh defeat of the Parkes-Bobertson Ministry in the New South Wales Parliament and the subsequent rejection of Sir Henry Parkes by the electors of East Sydney form a very unexpected train of eventsUntil: within the last few weeke Sir Henry Parkes* 'tenure of office was commonly supposed to be more secure than that of almost any other Colonial Minister. By his coalition with, his old opponent Sir John Bobertson; he was believed to have practically destroyed all opposition, while his long and vigorous administration had been attended by success so unbroken and so conspicuous, that it seemed hopeless for his political antagonists to make any headway against him. He had recently returned from a visit to "Europe, where he had met with i more distinction than was ever accorded before to a colonial representative, and on his return the colonists had welcomed him with the warmest demonstrations. He appeared to be the idol of the people whose wonderful prosperity is justly attributed in a great measure to his political action, and it was reasonable to suppose that he would be able to hold office against all comers for as long as he should please to. do so. Yet shortly after the meeting of Parliament, and almost entirely without warning, the Parkes Ministry were badly beaten on a Government question. What is still more strange, they were beaten on a question of policy which was no new question, but which had been deemed to be settled twenty years ago. They were defeated on the second reading of their Land Acts Consolidation Bill. This

measure did not propose any new principles of land legislation, but merely Bought to consolidate the legislation embodying the land policy of New South "Wales ever since 1861. But there waa the rery point at issue, and there the Opposition, under Mr. Stuart, found the only opportunity, per-

petraxvte tii.© land system -w-faicJa. Ixas been so i II i ( r long la rogue. Drought about & concentration of all the antagonism wbicn has been growing; up against that system for many years past. The actual easus belli was thiK. OTbe taidlaw of 23exr Soixtitr Wales, which js ooaaected with the name

of Srr Jollh IBotyertson, is somewhat similar to the Canterbury lead lair, Its Vital principle is selection before survey. There, a» here, any one maj tray land wherever tnere island to 1» bought, and there, as tere, tte rtmtoldera tave no .more tenure than, is implied in a mere grazing license over the unsold land. This system is de- , dared by its advocates to be the mainspring of the wealth and progress of the colony, and the most precious political possession of the people. Sir John Bobertson and *" a followers claim for it almost all the advantages that any land system could possibly comprise. Free : trade* in land, they hold, is the essential concomitant of free trade in ; and in proof of their contention, they proudly point to the astounding spread of settlement, increase of population, and accumulation of wealta that have taken place in New South "Wales since that system was established. There have always been those, nevertheless, who held very different views from these. Their argument is that, far from the prosperity of. the colony being attributable to the land system, the colony would have been much more prosperous' wealthier, more populous and sounder in every respect if that land system had never been heard of. They say that the chief result of free selection before survey was to compel the runholders to purchase the freehold of the pastoral country, and thus involve themselves in endless embarrassments, whilst at the same time locking up the land from settlement, and filling the Treasury with money which ought to have been regarded, as capital, instead of paying a permanent revenue in the shape of rent. The unbounded facilities for obtaining land which that system afforded, its opponents declare, produced aa indiscriminate land scramble, accompanied by periodical fits of crazy speculation, and induced a multitude of people to g* into agricultural pursuits who had no aptitude or resources for them, and whoso energies might have been much more profitably : employed. All these various views in opposition to the Robertson land system were brought to a practical issue by the proposal to consolidate the laws under which that system exists, and were formulated in the shape of a rival policy proposed by Mr. Stuart. That policy is, briefly, aa"follower—Mr. Stuart proposes that in future no land should be sold before survey ;that the pastoral lands should be let to the runholders on fixed lease, for periods varying according to the distance of the land from the sea, and the degree of probability of its being required for bona fide settlement; that no more than a certain proportion, say one-half, of the Crown land in aay division of the colony, shall be open for tale at one time, and that this lend shall, besub-dividedinto convenient agricultural j holdmgs, and offered by auction as farms, after survey. By these .means, it is contended, firstly, the pastoral industry, is seven times more important than any other, will be secured and promoted; secondly, {he public estate will be husbanded until it is needed to. provide for a healthy and legitimate demand for land; thirdly, the people will be protected from the temptation to impoverish and fetter themselves by purchasing land with bor-

rowed money; and fourthly, the State will be protected from theevils attendinga fiTnyprval dependence on the proceeds of. land sales. Ameng these, the main consi&erstio& no doubt, is the first mentioned, namely, the great benefit which the pastoral industry would derive from a fixed tenure and the exclusion of selectors. Mr. Stuart, in short, represents the views and interests of the runholders and all their connections; while the Ministry are the champions of the principle of "the land for the people." Sir Henry Parkee, we may say, has never identified himself particularly with that principle. He has devoted his attention I more te other branches of politics, especially to the establishment of commercial free trade. The real object of attack is Sir John Robertson and his party in the Cabinet. Sir Henry Parkee, however, is> of course, jointly responsible with his colleague for the land policy of the Ministry; and not even his singular great personal popularity'or the credit which he has gained by his eminent career as a free* trader and a wise and resolute administrator, have sufficed to counterpoise the antagonism of the Parliament and the people to that policy.

The history of the crisis is extremely interesting to every earnest student of the development of government in young countries, and we shall watch with much concern the outcome of the general election which is now in progress and which has already had the startling result of depriving, for the time being at any rate, the most prominent colonial statesman of the day, of a seat in a Legislature where for many yeafes He has held almost absolute sway. *v •

Lobs DtrersßiN's plana with regard to reform in Egypt, as announced by cable message from London on the authority of the Times, will doubtless be received with the consideration due to Ms known ability as an administrator and to his experience of Mohammedan affairs whilst acting as Ambassador at Constantinople. These plains include, we are told, a Native Government with liberal institutions, abolition of the dominant caste, and the engagement of a few foreign specialists as superintendents of departments. It is probable that some such scheme, from its intrinsic reasonableness and adaptation to the wants of the country, will be adopted. There is nothing in it very new; indeed, it follows Tery nearly the lines of the status quo ante bdlum in the days of the control. ' This, however, •tight not to militate in the least against its reception. The object of the genuine statesman is not to propound projects of startling novelty, but to govern , wisely, and according to the best information, no matter where that information cornea from. Above all things, it is advisable to prefer practice to theory, and to carry on, if possible, those arrangements which have been tried and have worked well. 2STow it is beyond a question that in the main the Government of Egypt under the Anglo-French control worked well. The fellaheen, or cultivators of the soil, had never for centuries past been so little oppressed, or so well paid for their -work, and yet the revenue was increasing, and farming and manufactures were in a thriving state. Even Arabi admitted to Sir William Gregory, as the latter mentioned at the time, in one of his letters to the Times, "that the Control had done good to the country, and that he .should not like to see it abolished, only the initiative of the Government of the country, he held, ought not to be in its hands, but in that ot the army. A restoration of the Anglo-French Control is, how. ever, now considered impracticable, and ±3ie question is snl>srtafccct>e somefhins enumerated l>y Lord. 3>nfEeriii,- there -will probably be little difference of opinion. anywhere as to the advisability of Egypt toein® ruled by a Native Go▼erlnziexrt, 2107 aZionld there l>e any Mellon v to wk Ike ink sloiili k The present Khedvre, TewSk Paaha, was duly appointed by hie suzerain the Sultan, with, the fall approval of the European Powers, and has never teen charged by any one of them with either bad faith towards themselves or miagorenunent of his own country. His title to the Crown is uncontested. To surround him with! liberal institutions, however, is a matter more easily said than done. Another Assembly of Notables may be summoned. but it is not possible for it to be a genuine representation of the people. TheTurksand Arabs have no honesty, and the Egyptians no knowledge. The proceedings of the last Assembly of Notables, or, as it was foolishly called by some people, Egyptian Parliament, were a mere farce. When they were elected there was no opposition in one single instance. The people thought they had to elect those who were nominated, and they did so. And when the Assembly of Notables was actually called together, it always followed the policy of the Vicar of Bray, "to serve whatever king did reign," and also' agree with the strong battalions. When Ismail was Khedive the Assembly- approved of all his extravagance and exactions, When the Control had the upper hand, it supported the Control; and when Arabi rebelled, it was the obedient, humble servant of Arabi, and registered all his decrees with abject servility. It is to be hoped that something like a decent Parliamay be got together in Egypt, but it is difficult at present to see where it is to come from. In course of time, if the country is settled, it is probable that from among the Egyptian cultivators, some who have acquired property and position may be fitted for the suggested duty, but at present almost all are as poor, aa subservient, and as ignorant as the «ame number of Dorsetshire farm laborers. With regard to Lord DufFerin'a proposal to "abolish, the dominant caste," by which we presume is meant to abolish their power, recent events have proved the imperative necessity of , such a step. The Torko-Arabic army is, in its upper grades, an alien, not a native army, no more representing the Egyptians than the Eussian army in Armenia, in its turn, represents the Turks of that country. Mohammed Ali, the founder of the present dynasty, himself born in European Turkey, filled all the higher appointments in th army and the civfl service with Turks, and though the preponderance, of these in the government of Egypt is flbi! as great as it was, the change las been chiefly from the fanatical, corrupt, and oppressive Turk, to the: eqttaßyvfanatical, corrupt, and oppressive Arab. With such an tipper elasa filling the Government appointments, and wielding almost unlimited »wer, the rebellion of some other Arabi jn fe. very short time would*be nearly a matter of certainty. -And for that season, also, it would be necessary that foreign specialists should be engaged aa superintendents of departments. The Turks'and Arabs are I completely unfitted by {heir dishonesty and corruption, the Egyptians .by their ignor.aace. It was indeed objected daring the continuance of the Control that natives were shut oat of the public offices and foreigners appointed at high salaries. This

was true; but the reason was that the Turks and Arabs, who were really no mare natives than the English and French, -were quite "wiUnig to work at nominally low salaries, but always supplemented their incomes by the bribes they received for robbing their country's treasury. Their services were on the cheap and nasty system. The Englishmen and Frenchmen were paid high salaries, but they did their work honestly and efficiently, and on the whole the country gained largely by their appointment for the duties allotted to them.