THE ADDRESS IN REPLY.

Evening Star, Issue 5991, 25 May 1882, Page 1

THE ADDRESS IN REPLY.

The debate on the Address so far has not developed any very extraordinary ability in the new House of Representatives; and why it should have been adjourned after the motion was carried, and the only remaining question was the appointment formally of a committee to prepare the document, is not very easy to be understood. The silly amendment of Mr Joyce, who sought to lay down the principle that the Premier must always be a member of the representative branch of the Legislature, was rejected, as it deserved, without a discussion; and we then find that Mr J. C. Bbown and others of Mr Montgomery's heterogeneous following desire to have something to say, so there will be another very purposeless debate to-day.

It is so far satisfactory that the Opposition have as it were concentred on a point, have chosen a leader, and, we may presume, intend to carry on the war in a regular manner instead of resorting to guerilla tactics for obstruction and annoyance. If the member for Akaroa can manage to keep the discordant elements in something like order, and is able to merge the forces at his nominal disposal in a common resultant as opportunity may offer, he will certainly prove himself more fit for the position than we —judging from past experience—conceive at present. He has undertaken a very difficult and possibly thankless task, as he will discover in the event of either success or failure to disturb the Government. The leader of the Opposition is, under ordinary circumstances, the man whom the country has to look to to form a Ministry in the event of a hostile vote being carried against the occupants of the Treasury benches; and we are of opinion that it is essential that he should be a man in whose general political principles a large section, at least, of the community can have confidence. Is this the case with Mr Montgomery 1 We unhesitatingly assert that it is not ; and we will go further, and express the conviction that he avows opinions which absolutely preclude his ever becoming Premier, and should preclude his ever occupying a seat in the Cabinet. At present we will only refer to two subjects, both of which, however, must be admitted to be of paramount importance to this Colony. The hon. gentleman is a Protectionist in the full significance of the word, and, in regard to State education, would allow it to be infected by denomination' teaching. The last few numbers of ' Hansard' satisfactorily demonstrate both these propositions. In the debate on the Customs and Excise Duties Bill, September 28, 1881, he stated : " I have always been, " and am now, a Protectionist out and " out j" and he endeavored to persuade the House against, we may say, the evidence of their senses, and in the full face of undeniable statistics, that France, Germany, the United States, Canada and Victoria have prospered exceedingly under protective tariffs, and not, as is the real fact, in spite of those tariffs. Referring to jthe proposed increase of the duty on jam, he said he would be glad to pay twopence more instead of one halfpenny. " I think," he concluded, "we should take care of "our own people, and it is on those " grounds I am in favor of the Bill." This is straightforward at any rate. He acknowledges that Protection makes articles of consumption dearer; but he " would take care of our own " people" in this peculiarly happy manner. In respect to public education Mr Montgomery not only shows the taint of denominationalism but a spice of the Jesuit into the bargain. When Mr Fulton's Bible-in-Schools Bill was under discussion—August 23, 1881—the member for Akaroa took occasion to point out what had taken place in Canterbury. " There were schools," he stated, " where religious instruction " was given for half an hour every " morning. The clergyman of the dis- " trict and others came there and gave " religious instruction not merely " reading the Bible—without interfer- " ing with the four consecutive times " for secular teaching. . . . He had " said these few words to show that the "Bible could be read and religion " taught in their schools." It is pretty notorious that a number of the State schools in Canterbury are neither more nor less than|proselytingseminaries; and that so long as the correct doctrine, according to Anglican views, is taught, religious instruction is winked at, without any close regard to hours. So far as the telegraphic summary enables a judgment to be formed, the speech on the Address in Reply, with which Mr Montgomery inaugurates his assumption of the leadership of the Opposition, was hardly worthy of the occasion. He tried a lance with the Government on the land question, hut could only assert that the late Premier, Mr Hall, possibly did not agree with the proposal indicated by His Excellency >• to the effect that a system of leasing agricultural lands might with advantage be incorporated in the land lawa Mr Hall, as one of his late colleagues observed, will no doubt speak for himself at the proper time; but it is " hard lines" that Ministers are to be held responsible for bis opinions, as well as for their own, on this, or indeed on any other subject. Mr Montgomery has a past history in reference to the Canterbury land laws which some obliging friend will no doubt remind] him of in the liouse. Then he makes a puerile complaint as to the Treasurer

asking the opinion of the local bodies relative to local government and local finance, and thus throwing over the newly-elected representatives of the districts. Major Atkinson, in reply, was quite right in stating that very valuable information would thus be obtained, which would prove of great service to members in dealing with 'so extensive and important a subject. The great card, however, of the Opposition is evidently the Parihaka affair, of which much will'without a doubt be attempted to be made as against the Government. We are confident, however, that Ministers have the country with them entirely in the matter, whilst many leading members of the Opposition have committed themselves to favorable opinions of Mr Bryce's policy, and will have to eat their words, in a manner of which they will be reminded, if they change front now for merely party purposes. Amongst -the greater lights thus notably committed are Sir George Grey and Mr Sheehan, whilst amongst the lesser is Mr M. W. Green, who in fact posed as a Ministerialist throughout the contest, although we now see his name recorded as a regular attendant at Opposition caucuses. The other speeches in the debate on Tuesday call for no special notice. Sir George Grey is evidently quite in his old form, and delivered with his usual effect the stock arguments with which all are so familiar. He has comparatively new ground to work upon, and may therefore be excused for re-filling his used-up squib-cases in order to produce a display for the benefit of the political infants of his party. Mr De Lautour was great on the presumed grievances of the Otago goldfields, which he can know very little about, although nominally representing Mount Ida—a constituency which appears to be of opinion that " absence lends enchant"ment to the view" in the case of representatives. He talks in his not very pleasing oracular manner, and would appear, although such a thing is scarcely possible, to have a few new land theories, including "settlement " without reference to locality," whatever that may mean. Mr John Hqlmes, member for Christchurch South, made his deh.it in a very pretentious speech, marked by none of that modesty befitting an aspirani, even if specific power had been shown. The whole tone was rather that of an ex-Minister than of a man opening his mouth in Parliament for the first time. It is understood that he is being carefully coached to make a great speech on the Parihaka question when it comes on for debate ; and great no doubt it will be as regards quantity. Mr Holmes, we fancy, will very soon take his place, and that will not. be in the front. According to all accounts he is more likely to rival the immortal Rees, and to run Seddon, of Hokitika, hard.