The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5560, 23 January 1879, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY , JANUARY 23, 1879.

Intellectual ability and great argumentative power in debate have long been conspicuous in the Attorney-General. It has been many times remarked that if he hud never been a lawyer he would probably havo proved a better statesman. In a measure he himself admits this, by constantly advocating party government. He always craves for an opponent; every question, in his eyes, has two sides, both of which he would like to hear advocated. Party government he openly desires, and even in debate on the native question, for which his colleague, the Native Minister, expressly claimed that it should not be regarded as a party question, the At-torney-General upon every possible occasion attributed party motives to his opponents. In his late speech at Dunediu, it is true, he ascribed the defeat of the Electoral Bill to the action of the Upper House, but he carefully avoided giving any explanation of the reason why the Government did not appeal to the country to pronounce e verdict on the questions in dispute. Instances of the studied disingenuousness of the speech are throughout plentiful, but in no case is it more apparent than in what he said about the Chinese. We take the extract from the report of the “ Otago Daily Times,” which, as it is written throughout in the , first person, may be accepted as verbally accurate. Ho said :— ‘ ‘ There is another “ matter I wish to refer to, and it is “ about the Chinese. On this matter I “expressed the opinion in the House, “ and I now express it, that we ought to 1 ‘ pass au Act similar to that which is “law in Queensland, restricting the “ arrival of Chinese to this Colony. I “ believe that the whole of our civilisa- “ tiou might be interfered with if they “ were to come in unrestricted num- “ bers to our shores.”

Now, on reference to “ Hansard, it will be seen that Mr. Stout said nothing of the sort in Parliament. He advocated delay, and only promised that if the House insisted upon a remodelling of the law the Government would follow the example sot by Queensland, His umrds are;—“At present the question “ was not of a pressing nature, because “ there had been no sudden influx of “ Chinese into New Zealand.

“At present it would be better to “ watch what was being done with “the Chinese in California before “ rushing into legislation. . . . But

11 tho Chinese who came to the Colonies “ were mainly from the southern “ portions of their country, and he “ did not think they would ever “ come in such large numbers as to “ ellect us. Besides, fewer were erriv- “ iug here than was tho case two or “ three years ago. Thera was no danger “ of their overrunning New Zealand ; if “that were possible it would bo right

“ for Parliament to pass a law similar to ” that in Queensland, ‘but he did not “ ‘think the time for that had come.’ ”

Tlie policy advocated in August differs in toio from that set forth by the same gentleman iu the following January. And yet Mr. Stout boldly claims consistency for himself, and takes credit for having throughout advocated the popular policy The point made was a good one, and caiiud forth cheers; it is a pity it was founded upon a false assertion. A little temporary applause and evanescent popularity gained at the expense of a man’s general character for a strict adherence to truth are paid for far too dearly.

It is somewhat remarkable that the At-torney-General’s speech in August last is an exact reproduction of the policy urged by the previous Ministry. In all probability this fact had escaped Mr. Stout’s memory, otherwise, as ho always longs for a firm Opposition, ho might perhaps have modified his views so as to make them more in accordance with his January utterances. Upon the occasion in question there was no opposition to the motion being withdrawn, which was brought forward by Mr. Reeves but opposed by Mr. Stout, and which proposed to restrict Chinese immigration. The circular on the subject of Chinese immigration which was sent round by the Queensland Government, was replied to by the various Australasian Colonies iu very lukewarm terms, although they nearly all express their readiness to act decisively if occasion should arise. The New Zealand Government’s reply simply states that ic had not yet had occasion to regard Chinese immigration as open to objection. This is exactly what Mr. Stout urged in Parliament, and what the House then affirmed. The question of Chinese immigration does not at present concern us. Mr. Stout’s accuracy and the reliability of the arguments brought forward by him were the subject of inquiry, and have been tested, but found wanting.

The instance adduced is also instructive, in that it shows how absurd it is to talk about party government in Now Zealand, the advanced Liberal party having in this instance taken up exactly the same platform in regard to a great question as did their predecessors in office, whom they would fain represent as belonging to a strictly conservative class. A political economist such as Mr. Stout is no doubt aware that the decay and ultimate abolition of party government have been predicted by more than one writer on political subjects, and the attitude assumed by the whole country in respect to the Immigration and Public Works Policy might in itself go far to convince him that no welldefined parties exist in New Zealand. In what he says on both these subjects, we trace clearly the effect of the legal training which Mr. Stout has gone through when studying for the law, and while we admire the ingenuity of the speaker who can so cleverly present the sunny side of the question, we must regret the determination displayed by him not to admit that there are any shortcomings whatever on the part of the Ministry. That lawyer was clever whose defence of a thief caused the latter to remark on his acquittal, “That he thought he had stolen two horses, but Mr. ’s speech had convinced him that he had not;” but there are few who would envy the counsel the reputation he must have earned. It is just this sort of reputation for unscrupulous ingenuity which the Attorney-General runs the risk of acquiring.