THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1837.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8082, 24 September 1887, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1837.

In the minds of the electors of Newton there surely can be no doubt. In some other constituencies there are two candidates—both, perhaps, running to some extent on the same lines, and both having nearly equal recommendations as regards honesty, straightforwardness, ability, and other qualifications for political life. But in Newton the linee are sharply defined. On this side we have Mr. Withy, one of the best and ablest and most disinterested of the men who have of late years offered themselves for political life. On the other side we have Mr. Tole —a member of a reckless, squandering Ministry, who have dragged New Zealand down into the deepest depression, and who will be the means of keeping it there so long as they are in power. Mr. Tole represents a Ministry which, for the last three sessions, has strenuously resisted all attempts at economy in the public service, and who, when their extravagant estimates were cut down through the votes of the Auckland members, robbed this province of the public expenditure due to it, while cunningly contriving to have all the Otago works put beyond doubt by having the contracts taken, then chuckling over the robbery. He represents a Ministry which some two years ago avowed its purpose of launching out into a career of profuse expenditure on the gambling principle of "giving the colony another chance." He represents a Ministry which has disgraced the colony to such an extent through tha world that our credit and good name are gone. He represents a Ministry which, in pursuance of some schemes, has declined to interfere when a Grown grant was attacked on account of alleged mistakes on the part of Government officials, and has thrown the burden of a costly litigation upon men who came here honestly to invest their money, thinking the Government were like that of any other civilised country. He represents a Ministry who have declared in England that a Grown grant in New Zealand is no guarantee of security of title. He represents a Ministry which has started a protection cry, which they know cannot be given effect to, but which is designed merely for the purpose of imposing fresh taxation on the working classes. He represents a Ministry which, while professing to be eager for the nationalisation of the land, has given away 2£ millions of acres to a foreign company. For all these things is Mr. Tole responsible. He is the sole representative of the Ministry in this province. Whoever votes for him votes for Stout, and Vogel, and Ballance, for extravagance and corruption, for heavy taxation and unfair dealing to Auckland. This is the issue before the electors of Newton.

A few words on how Mr. Tole came to find himself a Minister of the Grown. He was in the first place run in as a member by the famous Central Committee at the time when hat body was omnipotent in elections. He has kept his place through the Grey influence, by good luck as to his opponents, and by having effective assistants in managing the roll. The story of how he became a Minister may be briefly told. There was a deadlock in the formation of a Ministry. An Auckland man was wanted, and it was essential, besides, to obtain the aid of Sir George Grey. Mr. Tole had overtures from both parties, and the thing was really left in the hands of Sir George. Mr. Tole himself was quite as willing to join Atkinson as Stout and Yogel, if he could have got leave from his then mentor. Sir George was at the time sweetened over by Sir J. Vogel, while Major Atkinson was his pet aversion, and to Sir Julius was Mr. Tole consigned. There he has remained, in a not very prominent position in the Ministry. There is an old and famous political story of how the great Edmund Burke addressed a meeting of constituents, and when it came to the turn of his colleague to speak, that gentleman contented himself with uttering the words, " I say ditto to Mr. Burke." So it has been with M r. Tole. Sir J. Vogel appeals for a new burst of extravagant expenditure, heedless of how the money was to be raised to pay the borrowing, on the gambling plea of " give the colony another chance," and Mr. Tole rapturously applauds the utterance. He cries out, " I say ditto to Sir Julius." Sir Robert Stout declares that the Auckland members haveforced retrenchment upon the Government, who were willing to run a-muck in expenditure, and that in revenge the Ministry has cut off the Auckland votes, while contriving to have all the Otago works secured by having contracts taken. Mr. Tole, though he is being ruined by the meagre salary of £1250 with travelling allowances, a Ministerial residence, and so on, (so much less than he could have made in practice), actively aids the Premier in this nefarious scheme. He cries out, " I say ditto to Sir Robert!" Sir Julius Vogel denounces land nationalisation as a mischievous humbug. Mr. Tole says ditto. Sir R. Stout and Mr. Ballance revel with delight in wild schemes, and make speeches, and publish pamphlets urging their acceptance. Mr. Tole again says ditto to them. Vogel repudiates Protection only a few

months ago, Stout and Ballance wrote and spoke against the theory only a few years ago. They find it expedient now to raise the cry of Protection for the purpose of covering their designs for fresh taxation. Tole's " ditto" is loud and vociferous. He had never mentioned the subject before—probably never thought about it—but now he is a Protectionist to the backbone. The Premier is " gone " on the matter of education, and declares that no matter what extremity the colony may be brought to by weight of taxation, the education system shall be maintained in all its extravagance. Again Mr. Tole says ditto. In connection with this subject of Education, it is curious to read a speech delivered by Mr. Tole at a meeting in Newmarket, in July, 1879. It is a distinct and entire contradiction to all he is crying ditto to now. He said:—

He believed that the State should only pay for education for those who were not able to pay for it themselves. . . . There are not many rich people in the colony, and there are none who could be called paupers. If you pay for the education of those who are able to pay for it themselves, you are enabling them to save money, which is equivalent to giving them other things which they could obtain with the money so saved ; it is equivalent to so much food and so muoh clothing, if they like to spend the saving in that way. To that extent you are making other people pay for the education given free in this manner, and that was an injury. . . This was a Christian country. It was an offshoot of England, which is always referred to as a Christian land, ruled over by a Christian sovereign. If we live in a Christian country, our education should have, to be complete, a Christian purpose, and this implied some kind of religious instruction, whether it was taught in school or elsewhere. . . Then it is stated that the secular system has been "settled by the majority." What is the meaning of this settled T It is presumptuous to say, it is settled, knowing how rapidly public opinion changes.

We may explain that Mr. Tole is a zealous and earnest Roman Catholic, and that in the session preceding this speech he had supported a bill introduced by . Mr. Curtis, which would have had the effect of giving grants to the Roman Catholic Church. Mr. Tole proceeds to speak on the subject of the expenditure on education, and his remarks are worth quoting, as being very funny at the present time. He proceeded: —

Then again, the cost of this system is very great—lt is far too much. The aggregate attendance at publio sohools throughout the colony may be stated at 62,000. At the same time there are 24,000 children being educated by private effort. Now, it appears to me that those who educate 24,000 children by private effort are called upon to pay for the education of the 62,000 least to a largo extent. This system costs £300,000. . . . Take the County of Eden for example. The number of children educated in public schools is about 2090 as compared with 1440 by private effort. There is an expenditure of £10,000 on the County of Eden. Can it be said that the 1400 ohildren have no claim upon the fund which educates the other 2090? . . . But there is another objectionable feature about the system now so much lauded. It holds out a bribe to come to the Government schools. To that oxtent it prejudices private effort. It is a monopoly, and a monopoly ii the spring Qf all kinds of abuse.

This about the cost of the system is especially noticeable. Mr. Tole, in 1879, bitterly complained that it cost the colony £300,000. It now costs about double that amount, and yet he sticks to the Premier, who says that not a sixpence can here be retrenched. Mr. Tole, speaking of the Roman Catholic claims, continues :—

All they wanted was aid in proportion to the claim they had, as citizens, upon the publio fund devoted to education.

Further on he says : —

It was said, that the present system was a compromise. Where was the compromise to those who had religious scruples or particular sentiments ? If one set of people got all they wanted, and another get nothing, where was the reciprocity ? ... As long as 100,000 people were dissatisfied, there would be bickering upon this question. This discontent was going on, and it would go on. This would be a subject that would always create discontent. He, really believed people were education mad—clean gone ! (Laughter, cheers, cries of "No.") By whom was all this agitation led ? It was led on by the more intelligent and the wealthy class—by many of the gentlemen who wore educating their children at the expense of the poorer classes of the community.

We commend this to the Premier. He, we believe, if any man, is " education mad—clean gone 1" Those are Mr. Tole's sentiments. He would revert to denominationalism to-morrow, and would make votes of public money to Roman Catholic schools. How has he so successfully smothered his feelings when Stout has been increasing the cost of the system, and declaring that no sacrilegious hand shall touch it Can his motive be anything else than his salary 1 We may state that at the conclusion of the address from which we have given the above extracts, the following took place :—

Mr. J. M. Lennox moved, "That, while thanking Mr. Tole for hia address this evening, the electors of the county of Eden assembled at this meeting, regret that their member voted last session in favour of Curtis's measure ; they consider denominational education is neither desirable nor practicable in this country, and would urge on their member the necessity of voting in future in favour of the Education Act at present in operation in this colony." '

It is needless to go back upon Mr. Tole's speeches to show how frequently he repudiated Sir Julius Vogel, and declared that he hated him and all his works and declared that he would not ally himself with him at any price. How violent must have been the change ! Now he allies himself with him for the paltry sum of £1250. That is the price.

But the great point is, after all, not the inconsistencies of Mr. Tole, not the fact even that he has betrayed the interests of his constituents, and stood tamely by when they were jeered at and insulted. He is responsible to us for the sins of the Ministry. He is responsible for their extravagance, for their persistent refusal, year after year, to reduce expenditure ; for their eager and persistent efforts to increase the crushing taxation of the colony. Mr. Withy is a new man, and we want new men. He has shown conspicuous ability during the course of his canvass, and we are quite sure that he would never think of adopting. the Jesuitical and humiliating expedient of Mr. Tole, and throwing away his convictions to please either constituents or colleagues. Electors of Newton, do you wish to retain the present Ministry in office 1

The political contest in Parnell derives its importance in a large measure from the fact that the electorate has for nearly a decade been virtually a pocket borough for Mr. F. J. Moss. Somehow he and his friends have come to think that he has a prescriptive right to represent it; and, consequently, this political preserve is guarded by them with as much jealousy as could possibly ever have been manifested by any of those antiquated Tories

whom they are so often in the habit of denouncing. This, indeed, is not to be wondered at; because, as all experience troes to show, there is no one so keenly sensitive about what he deems his vested rights as . the profuse Liberal or pronounced democrat, whenever he has I'uo chance. In these levelling days, however, vested interests of any description are prone to be disregarded, and so it has come to pass that Mr. Moss' claim to be the hereditary member _ for Parnell has been disputed. It is a great shame, his friends say, that any one should be bo presumptuous as to do this. But while they continually preach as they do, and deem themselves highly meritorious in proclaiming, that the highest privileges of the land are open to all without distinction, they are not entitled to complain if any modest gentleman step out from the ranks, to exemplify their doctrine. There is, in short, no tangible reason why Mr. Moss and his friends should indulge in whimpering denunciations because Mr. Seymour George has ventured to challenge their title to retain the Parnell constituency in their exclusive keeping, to their peculiar honour and social benefit. On the other hand, those members of this electorate whom Mr. Moss does not rank among his friends, have assured themselves that they have reasons only too cogent for desiring that they should transfer their confidence to another representative. . One of these, and in some respects the most conclusive in its bearing on the present contest, is furnished in the action Mr. Moss took last session in supporting the policy of the StoutVogel Ministry. When the division on the no-confidence motion condemning the policy of the Government was taken Mr. Moss went into the lobby with the Ministerial party, and must therefore be held as sharing in the condemnation which was then passed upon the Ministry and their policy. And yet he wishes the public, and especially the electors of Parnell, to believe that he is not, and never was, a supporter of the Ministry. Ever since the dissolution, consequent on the passing of that motion, he has been trying in vain to justify his vote on that occasion, and has just distributed throughout the constituency a circular, in which he endeavours to mislead them by representing the want of confidence motion as being limited to the tariff proposals, and that he voted against it because it was designed " to stifle protection in its birth." But no one knows better than Mr. Moss that such was not the design of the motion. Its purpose was to traverse the whole policy of the Government, and especially their financial policy. The speeches made by members of the House then, and the speeches made by the members of the Cabinet since, in different parts of the country, sufficiently prove this. As for protection, in so far as it was introduced in the tariff proposals, that was utilised as a mere electioneering device. Mr. Moss must be a very simpleminded person if he imagine that he will induce the electors of Parnell to believe that he did not know as much. That tariff was expressly framed to divert attention from the disastrous state of the country's finance, without any expectation of it being carried, and with the anticipation that it would be challenged, and that, be the result what it might; it would supply a convenient election cry, when an appeal to the country should be made. Of the correctness of this view there is no better evidence than that furnished by Mr. Moss himself. No sooner did he appear before his late constituents after the prorogation of Parliament than he took occasion to describe as " monstrous " the idea that the issue in this political contest should be for or against the Ministry, and to express his preference for it being for or against protection. Mr. Moss no doubt thought, as the Ministry had done before him, that protection would be a good election cry; but he as well as they have made the mistake of supposing that the electors could be so easily hoodwinked. As a rule the people are desirous of having encouragement given to local industries, and they are, moreover, assured that this will to a reasonable extent be given by any Ministry in power. They are, however, shrewd enough to discern that this is not the question now before the country. They know, and Mr. Moss also knows, though he tries hard to evade the fact, that the sole issue submitted to the electors is, Whether the Stout-Vogel Ministry, whose policy the House condemned, is or is not still deserving of the people's confidence 1 They know further, and Mr. Moss also knows, though he shrinks from the unpleasant thought, that this issue in its bearing on him personally is, whether, having voted for that Ministry on the motion that made them appeal to the country, he is or is not worthy of the continued confidence of the Parnell constituency ? There are those who believe that the majority of the electors do not consider Mr. Moss entitled to a renewal of their confidence, and that they will therefore now withdraw it from him and transfer it to Mr. George. Another reason why the electors are desirous of a change in the representation is supplied by Mr. Moss' own fierce denunciation of the so-called ''Continuous Ministry." For that fatal vote of his, he and his friends have for the past three months been apologising by asserting that it was inexpedient to eject the Government from office until it became manifest that their place would be occupied by a Government more deserving of public confidence. In reply to this it is sufficient to say that the responsibility of settling that point did not rest with Mr. Moss or any individual member, but with the House of Representatives; or, failing this, with the electorates, when appealed to for that purpose. In his circular already referred to he Bays that " in the new Parliament new parties must be formedbut that could have been done in the old Parliament as well as in the new one ; and any ground he had for fearing that the "Continuous Ministry " might return to power exists now just as it did then, and would again determine his conduct. If, however, Mr. Moss' objection to the "Continuous Ministry " has any force it must logically apply with equal force to his own continuous membership. The argument that, he employs against a re-introduction of ' the Hall-Atkinson Administration may quite legitimately be employed by the j Parnell electors against himself, and ho certainly has no right to complain if he should be " hoist with his own petard." Ah against this unpleasant conclusion ! his alleged liberalism may by himself and | his friends be claimed as a set off. This, I however, will but poorly avail him, for j the only liberal measure which, during his Parliamentary career, he has been the main instrument of getting passed is the one that fixed the members' honorarium at two hundred guineas per session instead of leaving it dependent on the vote of the House. In all his actions, indeed, as well as in this one, he has manifested a capacity for looking after himself which his opponent cannot lay j claim to, and, though comparisons are said to be odious, it is yet only fair to j state that all really liberal measures are certain to meet with as cordial a support i from Mr. George as they could obtain from Mr. Moss, and a support, in some respects, more consistent. Mr. George will not pretend to occupy the time of the House in talking about them at wearisome length, but he can at all events be reckoned on to back his speech with his vote, which is more than can be said of Mr. Moss. No one in the House is at any time assured of the position Mr. Moss will occupy when a crisis comes on ; the consequence is that he is on both sides of the House regarded simply as a i source of weakness ) while, as the result of his instability, the constituency he represents is practically disfranchised. Taken collectively, these reasons, with others which might easily be enumerated, would, even in the case of an ordinary lection, be a sufficient warrant for the

electors of Parnell making a change in their representative. On this occasion, however, the principle we have laid down for their guidance renders their duty very plain. If they are in sympathy with the condemnation passed by the House on the wasteful policy of the Stout-Vogel Ministry, as wo believe them to be, then their former member, who voted to retain that Ministry in power, ought to be rejected, and their preference be given to a candidate who' unequivocally declares himself to be opposed to that Ministry. Thus interpreting the issue now before them, they will unhesitatingly record their votes in favour of Mr. Seymour George.