The Daily Telegraph. MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1884.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4079, 18 August 1884, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. MONDAY, AUGUST 18, 1884.

To describe the Ministry as a coalition one is entirely misleading. Whatever name we may chooso to call the combination we cannot say that in any sense it is a coalition one. When we talk of a coalition Cabinet being formed we understand that two opposite parties for the time being have agreed to coalesce, so that some great question may be satisfactorily settled or got rid of, which could not have been possibly accomplished by either party standing alone; or we understand the union of two parties for the purpose of crushing another, which by itself was too strong for anyone party singlehanded, and had rendered itself obnoxious to all sides. When this is done questions upon which differences of opinion exist in the separate divisions are for the time being put on one side, or each section is allowed to follow the bent of its _ own will without restriction from those with whom it is in alliance. Not only arc questions put on one side in this manner and practically shelved, but all such questions, when it can bo done, are carefully avoided, as it is felt that once bring up those subjects on which the two sections acting in accord differ you may at once destroy the coalition, and so tho good for which that union was effected may be disturbed and endangered. Now, if we apply the above to the Stout-Vogel Administration, what do we find ? Have they agreed to sink their minor or major differences so as to settle some burning question which has been agitating the minds of the colonists ? Have they coalesced for the purpose of wiping out something that was growing up in our midst dangerous to our liberties and threatening the welfare of the common good? Has there been any despotic rule which has necessitated the joining of the different forces together so that our freedom may be secured to us ? Nothing of the kind. It is an unholy alliance or combination rof discordant members simply to gratify personal ambition, and for the sake of the sweets of office. The elements of which the team is composed have nothing in common, they cannot mix or amalgamate, but that has not deterred them from uniting forces. The colony has not been considered for one singlo moment — the one point which has been brought to bear when the merits of each proposed addition has been recruited to their ranks has been, How much strength will he add to us, and will his presence among us command outside support. On what other principle can we conceive of the rabid, theoretical, broad views of Stout, and the narrow, local, selfish policy of Macandrew being joined together ? What can there be in common between tho world-wide boldness of Sir Julius Vogel's policy and the timid, fearful, shrinking efforts of Montgomery, whose political creed of late has been limited to the one subject — lower grain rates for Canterbury, whether those rates pay or no is immaterial, whether the country must suffer so long as Canterbury reaps the advantage is altogether beside the question. What bond can join together the half-thought-out and ill-digested liberalism of Sir Georgo Whitmoro and the intensely practical views of Mr Richardson ? And yet these men have banded themselves together for no particular object generally, but cash with an individual axe to grind, and tho coiuviry is expected to acquiesce in such a lion. We venture to say the country will do nothiug of the sort. The country in tho past has suffered too much from injudicious experiments to care much about trying too see what good could come out of such a mass of contradiction and antogonistical elements. The head of tho Government again is a point on which outside feeling is utterly opposed to what has been done. The country never for a moment dreamt of Stout as a Premier, not even his warmest admirer can say that he has done anything in the past to entitle him to such an honor being thrust upon him. His political career whilo he was previously a member of the Houso Avas only saved from absolute failure by his retirement from a doomed Government in the nick of time as the rats are said to forsake a sinking ship. Tho short experience we had of him was that of a man who, if he had the means within his reach, would not scruple to use them to crush out every opnion antagonistic to his own in the community. His admirers claim for him he is a self-made man. For that we may honor him, but at the same time we must dissent from tho arrogant style in which he addresses those who arc ©imposed to him, as if, in his making'of himself, all the wisdom of the earth had been gathered together in his own person. His vanity is excessive, and while he talks of that cheap and easy lip liberalism which is so popular with the unthinking he is little better than a narrow bigoted Tory of a century ago. We have no faith in him, wo would have no faith m a Ministry in which ho occupied a place, so how can we havo any trust in a combination of which he is nominally tho head of the Government. Wo venture to say that the rule and reign of tho new team will be of short duration. It will bo impossible for such men to sink their differences so as to elaborate an acceptable policy. It is an easy task for a Cabinet to formulate a policy when the views of tho individual members arc in accord, and when the only question is how much can be accomplished in a session, but it is a very different matter when there is no union between parties, when the views held, are diametrically opposed, when the love of office and the satisfaction of personal vanity go to make up the points which have brought them into political combination. Love of country—patriotism—has formed no part of this combination. There has been no thought outside of self. There has bcenno consideration as to whether this or that was for the general good, but a blinding effort to obtain place and pay, not because of tho good that may bo conferred on the colony at large by the accepting of office or pay, but that tiic old fossils of our Parliamentary lobbies may not be milled in their vanity, and that they may have their desires for the cares of State granted. We have said nothing as to the manifest unfairness, with which this Island has been treated. One member of tho Cabinet, Mr Ballancc, holds a portfolio, whilo another Northern man, who strangely enough represents no class nor section of the people, without portfolio is our other representative. And with these two tho whole of this vast territory is supposed to be satisfied, while the capacity of Canterbury alone requires she should hays three members with office. We venture to think that, when a test division tho block vote given by this Island wiUteach the Stout-Vogel combination that fair play is better than selfish office seeking, that the North is no longer on the back of the South, but young- and vigorous, and fully conscious that its future is assured, and determined that justice shall be done to

it, and that justice as its first demand asks for the defeat of a combination Avhich is an insult to every thinking man in our midst.