THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, APRIL 23, 1881.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6063, 23 April 1881, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, APRIL 23, 1881.

It is difficult to gather from the speech addressed to his constituents by Mr. Ormond whether he is a friend or a foe of the Government. He entertains a high opinion of the personal character and the intentions of its members, but he is a most unsparing critic of its policy and proceedings. He appears to agree with the Ministry in some things, and dissent from it in most. If he is a friend, he is that obnoxious thing, the candid friend. The Administration will not thank him for his candour, and assuredly practical politics require that adverse criticism should be left to the opponents of a Ministry. If each of its supporters is to give it an approval qualified by the picking of holes in its coat, its position is very sure eventually to be undermined. A supporter of a Government has necessarily to sink somewhat of his individuality, which is exactly what Mr. Ormond is not prepared to do. It is not consonant with government by party, and it would render it impossible if individuals of a party were to exalt their judgment above that of the Government and that party, and avail themselves of every opportunity of showing how much better they could discharge the functions at the exercise of which they cavil. That is the position assumed by. Mr. Ormond, but if he has ceased to be a supporter of the Ministry, and still aspires to lead a third.party, then lie would be absolved from our comments, but not otherwise. If Mr. Ormond is an independent member, it can only be said that each member has a right to assume a similar attitude, and were all to do so, no Government could stand for more than a few months, and there would quickly be confusion worse confounded. An infinite number of excellent arguments can be advanced in favour of the independent member, but they are overshadowed by two important facts, that whilst personal independence is possible in the United States, where the Cabinet does not retain office by the pleasure of Parliament, it is not so here where it does, and that personal independence, although supported by the most exalted motives, yet enables a member to do everything which he ought not to do who doos not possess them. Theoretically the independence of a member is sound enough in practical politics who is not for must be deemed to be against. The independent member is a nuisance, and as often as not claims the position to cover ulterior designs. The constitution of England', , owes much" of its success to the strict observance o£ party ties • when these came to be disregarded'it

would bo a'bad day for England, and it might become necessary to discover some means, of obtaining for a Government some security for a reasonable tenure of office. Mr. Ormond is ill-content that so many Bills should have been withdrawn last session, but the mistake consisted in having. introduced them, and he was not just to the Government when he omitted all reference to the party conflicts which absorbed much of the time that might otherwise have been expended on them. He might have said something about the action of that Mr. Ormond which had for its object the formation of a third party, and tended to "weaken the position of the Government. Of course, Mr. Ormond could not have been conveniently oblivious of these circumstances, and his own proceedings, a becoming modesty doubtless induced him to be silent with respect to his own conduct. It "was unfortunate that the exercise of this virtue should result in injustice to the Government. We are not in the position that we ought not to express an independent opinion, and so, whilst \ differing with Mr. Ormond thus far, we may express our concurrence with some of his views. "We share "with, him his dislike of a frequent recurrence to Royal Commissions, and consider with him that they have the tendency to lessen ministerial responsibility. For this reason we have previously objected that the powers conferred upon Sir "William Fox and Sir Dillon Bell •went to a length which to a great extent was a supercession of the late Native Minister. Although there is something in. his. dissent from the wholesale abandonment by the Government of the rights . acquired with respect to the purchase of native lands, the chief objections consist in its precipitancy and its extent. In many instances it may have been desirable, but there appears no reason why the thing should not have been done leisurely and with more deliberation. If the negotiations had been maintained in a state of suspended animation, 'which in many instances was the actual position, the public interests, we are disposed to think, would have been better served. The retrocession was due to financial causes, and it would have been better' to have awaited, the effect of, the measures ap : plied to restore the condition of the revenue. The abandonment was " a heroic, remedy for -a,. temporary diffipulty, and such remedies should usually be shunned.. We objected at the time to the weak policy of. the Governor by letter seeking an interview with Te NYhiti, and therefore necessarily concur "with Mr. Ormond's dissent: from the proceeding. Wo hold very strongly that too much has been made of the Maori, : and those.of his race who claim to represent him, and there seems no reason why a policy of justice to the natives should be attended with subserviency. We take it that the Government erred rather in its proceeding than T in intention, that its policy is one of firmness, and that it is in process of hardening, we certainly trust so. If one thing is surer than another, it is that the country is weary of a pampering and apologetic policy. Mr. Ormond, however, goes mucli further than this when he approves Mr. Bryce's contemplated march to Parihaka, and it is a matter for congratulation that Mr. Bryce's position was not strengthened by his having Mr. Ormond for a colleague. Ere this we might have found ourselves with a native war on our hands. The time may come for such a policy as that of Mr. Bryce's, but the present is not that time.

It -would be a bad day for the colony when Mr. Orniond's advocacy of leasing the railways and guaranteeing interest, or the concession of. a land endowment for new lines should be adopted. He can have given very little attention to the leasing theory, or he would have discovered that it is quite impracticable. It has been strongly supported elsewhere than in this colony, but succumbed speedily to the logic of facts, and is now extinct. The guaranteeing of interest on the cost of railways was for many years the policy of India, admittedly has failed, and has been entirely abandoned. The Government now construct their own railways, and are firmly convinced of the advantage of the change. Is Mr. Ormond ignorant of the fact, or does he prefer his speculative opinion to the Indian proof? As to the land endowments, if we want to see the legislature become a hot-bed of corruption, then, and then only, should such a course be adopted. It has had that effect :in tlie United States, to say nothing of numerous other evils. Worse than all, Mr. Ormond, who says truly enough that Parliament lias more than it can do, and is troubled with trivial matters, advocates the' restoration of some form of provincialism— that the colony should go back on its tracks. We shall not stop to discuss this matter, it will be time enough to do so when it assumes a realistic form. A full development of local self-government can be obtained without the restoration in any form of provincialism, and Parliament be relieved of much of its work by the same process. Mr. Ormond's speech is not without value as a contribution to the discussion of the political questions of the day, but we are inclined to think, says more for the activity of his mind than for his judgment. It is some comfort to be able to infer that as he advocates the strict limitation of the business of the coming session, he does not intend to diminish the time available for its discussion by the enforcement of his personal views.