Hawke's Bay Herald. TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1879.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5280, 14 January 1879, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1879.

The opinion expressed by Mr Stout, that the time has come when we should begin to think of electing our own Governor, is not one which, we should think, will meet with much favor. There are perhaps a few persons to whom such a mode of appointing the Governor would be acceptable, but we feel sure *that generally it would be deemed but a hazardous experiment at best. It is to be regretted that Mr Stout was so brief on this point. We confess we should have liked to have heard from him why it would be better to have a Governor elected by the people of New Zealand than one appointed by the Imperial Government ; and also why he considers that the time for it, or for thinking of it, has now come. Is it because it was found that the Governor was not as pliant respecting a dissolution as was wished, and that his want of pliancy was likely to endanger the present Ministry's retention of office 1 If so we fear that Mr Stout makes the same mistake as other Ministers have made, in supposing that their being an office was above everything else, and that whatever obstructed it must be swept out of the way, forgetting that the people's interest is really the principal thing to be considered, and not the men by whom those interests are to be advanced. Mr Stout, we are sure, means well. He would like to see this colony governed entirely within itself, instead of being shackled with the rules laid down in Downingstreet. But he forgets that this is one of the checks in our system for which there may be the. greatest need $,t some

time or other, and that though now and then the yoke may gall a little, we are anything but prepared to throw ifc off as yet. It is, besides, about the only link that binds us to the Mother Country, and the desire to retain the bond of union, to remain an integral part of the great British Empire, is too strongly implanted in our hearts to allow anything to be done that would be tantamount to a severance. On the question of dropping the Electoral Bill, Mr Stout's explanation would be well enough if it were not for one thing — he forgets that he is arguing against what lie himself proposed to do. The bill was dropped because the Legislative Council restricted the Maori franchise to the ratepayers' qualification. Mr Stout says, "The Maoris had been sullen> isolated, and would not trade with us, but he hoped they were On the eve of a better state of things. Could they have gone to the Maoris with the whole of their franchise destroyed 1 ?" Possibly it might have raised a difficulty, but then Mr Stout proposed to do so when he brought in the Electoral Bill ; Mr Ballance proposed to do^it when he addressed his constituents at Mar ton ; and Mr Sheehan proposed to do it when on the second reading of the Electoral Bill he lauded the change that would be brought about by inducing the Maoris to become ratepayers. On most of the other points in Mr Stout's address we hold with him, With him we think beer a legitimate object for taxation) and we cannot but deem it a matter for regret that on that question and on the Joint Stock Companies tax, the Government were compelled to yield to the pressure that was brought to bear upon them. We do not, however, agree with Mr Stout in his condemnation of Mr Fox for opposing the Beer Bill. In that we consider that Mr Fox was true to his principles. Desiring as he does to see all intoxicating liquors prohibited, he could not consistently vote for a measure that would give the State an interest in the sale of beer, thus connecting the State more closely than ever with the liquor traffic. Mr Stout touched very lightly on the future. All we can gather as to the programme for next session is that Government will oppose any proposal to amend the Education Act in the direction of denominationalism ; that an Electoral Bill will be introduced, based on manhood suffrage ; and that a proposal will be made for the redistribution of seats in the House of Representatives. Something Mr Stout also said about means being taken to induce the breaking up of large landed estates ; but his remarks scarcely warrant the assumption that there would be anyshing of that kind actually proposed to Parliament. He did certainly say that " they must take care that property and money were somewhat equally distributed among the people," and he hinted that it " could be done either by the French system of the subdivision of the land, or by the imposition of a progressive tax which would fall heavily on those who acquired vast areas of land." These, however, are mere theories, which serve well enough for garnishing a speech spoken to the multitude, but which are not very likely to be incorporated in any bill which — in the present day, at any rate — a Minister would care to introduce into the Parliament of New Zealand.