TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1883.

Evening Post, Volume XXVI, Issue 74, 25 September 1883, Page 2

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1883.

THE CHANGE OP MINISTRY. • A change of Ministry is always an important event in the history of a country possessing responsible Government. Nor does the importance of such an event disappear, although it may to somo extent be diminished, when tho change is due only to reconstruction on the resignation of the Premier. It may appear at first sight to the superficial observer that & Ministerial

rr>r obstruction of the kind which has ju.st taken place in New Zealand is a purely nominal chango of no material import to tho colony. People, on reading the list of Ministers and their portfolios, and noticing with what curious exactness the large majority of the allocations of portfolios to Ministers in the Atkinson Administration arc a repetition of those in the Whitaker Government, will be apt to remark: "Cjesar and Poscpey bery much alike — specially Pompey!" They will be disposed to conclude that a Ministry which practically reproduces its predecessor in all respects save one, and does not include in its ranks a single new member, must almost necessarily be to all practical interests and purposes the some Ministry, holding the same views, cherishing the same aspirations, favouring the same line of policy. In short, that the Atkinson Ministry of 1883 is the Whitaker Ministry of 1882, only with a new figure-head. But experience, even very recent experience, irrefutably demonstrates that any such couclusion would be distinctly fallacious. The Prime Minister is not as other Ministers are. Other Ministers may come and other Ministers may go, buthe goeson for ever, or, atany rate, so long as the Ministry lastß. Any of his colleagues may resign and he has only to fill their places, subject to the Governor's approval. But his resignation ipso facto kills his Ministry. He is tho only man whom the Crown officially knows as the mouthpiece of the Cabinet. Others may leave that Cabinet, but he still stays : if he goes, all go with him. And the personal prominence officially attaching to a Premier very fairly represents his actual position as regards his Administration. Illustrating this theory by the recent experience just alluded to, and going no further back than last year, we would ask if anybody now could have the hardihood to assert that the Whitaker Ministry only differed from the Hall Administration in the change of its figurehead? Ono of the first things tho Whitaker Government did was to put forth a new land policy — the perpetualleasing system — against which Sir John Hall delivered so slashing a speech that a Southern journal, which at all other times had accorded unqualified admiration to nil his public actions, earnestly remonstrated with him, and declared: — "If he slashes away muchmoro like that, he will slash the Whitaker Government out of office, and then there will bo a pretty mess." Is it at all likely that a Ministry of which Sir John Hall was Premier would have followed a policy which Sir John Hall, -when out of office, so tronchantly denounced, although put forward by his late colleagues as their piece de resistance ? We need not multiply illustrations, although they are to hand in abundance The moral is plain. Merely nominal as this week's change of Ministry ostensibly is, and persistently as the new Government may profess its intention to proceed on the same lines as its predecessor, it is more than doubtful how long or how far it will be able to do so. The late Premier's age, long experience, and forensic training, coupled with his genial bonhomie, his singular tact and skill in reconciling and smoothing over those little differences that inevitably -will arise at times among half a dozen men of various temperaments and hobbies associated together in a Cabinet, or a board of directors, or in any other combination oflhuman atoms, constituted no mean factor in the success of his Administration. The new Premier has yet to show how far he can bring himself to subordinate his own very Btrong opinions to the possibly more moderate views of his colleagues. Major Atkinson's strength and vigour of mind, his comprehensiveness of mental grasp and clearness of perception, his marked ability as a financier and a debater are unquestionable, and are admitted even by the bitterest of his capable opponents. He has also that special power which arises from strong convictions deliberately arrived at. But while all these qualities, if used with tact and judgment, must infallibly go far to command success, [ they nevertheless possess inherent dangers of a very serious kind. Strength of mind and will may betray its possessor into overbearing truoulence ; firmness of conviction into fanacticism — into " making war for an idea." Herein lie tho gravest dangers of the new Ministry. Major Atkinson's weakness consists in his strength. This is parodoxical but true. He is an able, resolute, courageous man, accustomed to be deferred to by reason of these characteristics. He is supported by the largest Parliamentary majority that any New Zealand Ministry has ever yet commanded. Will he bo able to refrain from utilising these facilities in forcing uponthe country his own particular views in politics, which, although to him they may be unimpeachable articles of political faith, yet are to other people simply crotchets or ' ' fads. ' ' Hitherto, also, he has manifested v a decided preference for the fortiter in re over the suaviter in viodo when dealing alike with friends and foes. Will he choose to restrain this inclination and reverse this preference P To us it appears that the future of this, his second Administration — its success or its failure— depends mainly, if not entirely, upon an affirmative answer to these questions being given by the course of events.