THE MINISTERIAL HAPPY FAMILY.

Evening Star, Issue 7282, 5 August 1887, Page 1

THE MINISTERIAL HAPPY FAMILY.

That Mr Laenach should Lave devoted a considerable portion of bis speech to the propounding iof arithmetical problems, by way of demonstrating what "ft boon and aj blessing to men" bis own Ministry had been, was no more than might have been anticipated. The line of "defence Jaid down by Ministers' is that they nave not been worse than their predecessors,... Mr Laknach appears to have conned' his lesson thoroughly; and he~ repeated it fairly well. There is something to be this policy ; for although • the:absejijte inaccuracy of Ministerial figures has. been E roved over and over again, it is possible that,' y dint of constant repetition, Ministers may not only' succeed in inducing others to believe in them, but may come-fo believer in them themselves. —But it is rather too great a tax on popular crednlity to be asked to give credit for economical administration to a Government which has confessed to! 9 serious deficit, and demanded extra taxation on an already over-burdened people to the tune of £300,000 a-year. It is of to tell us that preceding Governments were worse than the present. The "crogk£ does not improve its own appearance by 1 < calling the kettle black." Therefore it is not at all surprising that derisite-fcries and ironical laughter should have followed upon MrLabnach's assertion that Vthejpresent " Government oould not be blamed for, or "accused of, anything like extra vagande.| That is exactly what they are blamed fin? They claim to have studied economy, and they are charged at the bar of public opinion with having practised extravagance. But it could not be expected that they would admit it; and so long as they can throw dust in the eyes of the multitude, by the use of vamped-up comparisons of expenditure, their purpose will he served.

When Mr Larnach travelled out of the obscure region of figures he spoke more as a candidate and less as a Minister; and, as a consequence of venturing out of the.prescribed Ministerial grooves, he became decidedly illogical. He set forth by saying that there might be slight points of diver-' eence between Ministers, yet, "as a party they were a very&appy family." Theyjhad,; at any rate, "made np their minds to com- " bine upon the most important matters, " and upon the chief principles they were " advocating." The public should be grateful to Mr Larnach for fliis information; for. they would never jbave discovered "it" tor themselves—neither from the action of Ministers in the House, wherethey frequently voted against each other in opposite lobbies,, nor from Ministerial speeches,;/which are sadly contradictory, nor even from the speech of Mr Larnach himself;.; There may be differences of , opinion as ; to what are "important matters" di " chief principles." But it mliy be assomeo' that the Land question, the, Education question, Bible-reading in .schools, and the reduction of the number of members are fairly entitled to be so considered." Let ; us see how far Ministers have "made up their minds to combine" on these. . Sjr" Robert Stout and .Mr Ba:llance are ardent advocates of the perpetual leasing of State lands. Sir Jdlius Vooel declared in the House that he did not "indulge in: ' fads' about land systems," such its'some of his colleagues advocated; and MrLARNACHi told his prospective constituents that he did, not agree with the ideas of the Minister of Lands with reference to perpetual leasing, "He was a believer in men being able' to get -their freeholds.". Meantime tSir Robert Stobt threatens to "retire"'if • perpetual leasing is not adhered *-4xf. This is one phase of the " happy famiHr?'_ business. Then Mr Larnach gave itasjus deliberate opinion that " the country could "hardly afford to continue,to spend "enormous sum it had up to the presea|[ " time on education." This also is a question upon which Sir Robert Stoct ; 'has declared that no retrenchment is possible, and that he will not submit to the reduction of a single item. Mr Larnach believes that the cost of education is too high, and that those who seek to " bolster it up " are not friends of the present system. Sir Robebt Stout, again, threatens-to retire if any alteration is made. Evidently)' therefore,-he-is not, in Mr Labnach's opinion; a friend of the present system. This is another illustration of, the "happy family" i>tißmess|' Mr Larnach believes in Bible - reading in schools, and capitation grants to Roman Catholics. • Sir Robert Stoct ' and Mr Tole are opposed to both. These are further indications of a " happy family", on the Ministerial benches. Mr'Larnach is also in favor of the reduction of the number of members of the House pfr Representatives j Sir Robert opposed it strongly in the House. - In regard to this matter there are' indications, not exactly of a " happy family," but of some controlling influence having been exercised on MrLARNACH, from the coercive effect of which he seems desirous of recovering himself. For what was Mb course of action? On May 3 he voted for Mr Barron's motion to reduce the number, to sixty; the, follpwing day; hex paired for Mr M'Kenzie's amendment top reduce it to seventy -one j on May 17 he repeated his vote for the leaser number; and, pn the 20th, after having no doubt been subjected to convincing reasons, he voted for retaining the number at ninety-one. On the first division the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Mines voted in one lobby, and the Premier, with the Minister for Public. Works and tbe'Minister of Lands, voted in ' the other. The Colonial Treasurer abstained from voting or pairing. Truly these Ministers are an exceedingly " happy family." Considering all things, the only possible conclusion is that the " important matters " upon which Mr Larnach tells us the Ministry have "made up their minds to combine " are the retention of office and its emoluments. So long as they can draw from £1,500 to £2,500 a-year for salary and travelling allowances, Combined with tinlimited credit for refurnishing Ministerial residences, they will pheerfully agree to differ, and remain in the "toappy family." The phrase well befits them. Most people have seen exhibitions of happy families, consisting of all sorts of animals naturally antagonistic to each other, whose only bond of unity is fear of the whip and mutual hunger and thirst. Had Mr Larnach such an exhibition in his mind'a eye when he hit' upon such an appropriate metaphor ? Not. agreeing in anything which is not united in opinion upon any single poifilrwhich deserves or is entitled to thenamfe of " principle " —with what daring assimption does any one of them stand before thia, public and insult the intelligence his audience by saying that Ministers,: sre "happy family"?

There is one matter in respect to which we think 1 Mr Labnach will confess, after due reflection, that he has made a grievous mistake. Be said of some members of the. House, whom he designated as '' email fry," that "no doubt they had. been promised ". •'some satisfaction for their firm cohesion f' with the Atkinson party to oust the preMBent Government"; and he further said* that '* one Maori gentleman who came irfto " " the House recently was induced to change f' his mind very suddenly, and if rumor spoke f truly some coin of the realm passed that ( f* direction." Nothing could l>e iajrtfjps taste than these allegations, As a general rule the man who u prone to think ejil of, others is himself evil. Neither asllinister bor candidate is Mr LAasAdH jusjtj|fied:4n violating the Ninth Commandment. _ To desperate men and despairing! Ministers »ome slight latitude maj* be ■granted-* ebsfriff thiß'OaSe My / -p^Me>Jltoi» i i l*irt j sionate tenderness might L be I 'W* yield, has been uffduly and; improperly ex-"" ceeded. '"' ■ ' '•"•"'