The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Ooast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1881.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 1380, 23 July 1881, Page 2

The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Ooast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1881.

Unless Ministers have a purpose which they have not at present though proper to disclose, we cannot gee why the Premier should have accepted Mr. Oumond's amendment to the policy of the Government, in respect to local measures, in the light of want of confidence. Mr. Ormond is not the leader of the Opposition, if

indeed a compact body entitled to be considered as such is to be found in the House. Mr. Ormond has distinctly stated that he moved his amendment as a private member, and it is not usual for Ministers to accept either a motion or an amendment as being entitled to such an important consideration. Mr. Ham. himself denies that there is any demand by the public for a change in tho govern ing institutions, and we believe tho Premier to be quite correct in bis statement, The public — that is the intelligent, responsible, thinking portion of the public — do not wish for a change, or tho discovery would have been made long before tins. Not a request, nor a petition, nor a memorial of any kind has been presented to the House by any one of the representatives, complaining of the policy either past or present of the Minstry. Why, then, should the Premier and his colleagues allow Mr. Ormond's amendment to bring about a complete disruption of the public business. Mr. Hall told the House on Thursday, that the Government did not pretend their proposals were all they might be, and they would, in committee, gladly have accepted any amendments calculated tc make them more perfect. Why, then, should Ministers' have thought it incumbent on them to treat Mr. Ormond's amendment as tantamount to a "no confidence " motion 1 We can only, being so much in the dark, ofler one ot two explanations. Either Ministers liave assured themselves of a majority when a division cornea to be called for, or they wish to place the Opposition in a dilemma. We are inclined to think that Ministers will not be beaten on a division. This could only come to pass by an extent of " ratting " which we do not think is likely to be shown as the Assembly is now constituted. The confidence of the country in Ministers should mean the confidence of the Representatives in them, and the country has given no sign that its confidence has been in any way betrayed.

The second explanation we have to offer, and it is not one we are willing to accept, is that Mr. Hall and his colleagues know quite well if they resign their portfolios Mr. Okmond will not be able to form a Ministry capable of carrying any important measure through the House. We presume that Sir George Grey as a colleague would be altogether out of the question. Sir George has long since proved himself too perverse and impracticable ; too headstrong, too stubborn and too autocratic to work with any set of Ministers he did not stand at the head of, and who would obey his behests without any questioning. Mr. Sheehax, we have not the least doubt, would accept any portfolio which might be offered him from Minister of Justice down to Post-master-General ; but the House would have as little to do with Mr. John Sheehax as with Sir George Grey. From the absence of working material, Mr. Ormond would have to declare his inability to form a Ministry, and nothing would remain but for the Hall party to return to office without probably a change of a single name having to be made. If it should come to pass that Ministers find themselves in a minority, it will not be on account of their policy. It will have nothing to do with any proposals relating to finance and local government ; but will be due to the fact that a temporary change of Ministers will throw the Representation Bill into the next Parliament, and so allow the new general elections to take place under the present electorates — a thing most devoutly to be wished for by not a few members, who know very well that the change made by a redistribution of spats would be annihilation to their chances of being returned. Mr. Ormond is a shrewd man, and of long experience in political tactics, but we very much doubt whether in the end he will not find Mr. Hall has — to use a common-place but very expressive phrase — "euchred" him. However, in politics as in war, a battle is never lost until it has been won. So it is hard at the present time of writing to say who will be the victors. If by some unforseen and unreckoned on series of causes the present Ministry is beaten, it does not follow that a dissolution will be asked for. We are inclined to think it will not. Just as a clever general will at times order a retreat in order to deceive an enemy and convert the retreat into a victory, so has a Prime Minister many a time and oft thrown up his portfolio and retired from oflice, knowing well that the one who is to take his place will not be able to fill it, and that, upon being re-called, he returns with double honors. The political history of the last two centuries, only superficially read, will have shown this line of policy to have frequently been adopted, and with eminent success.