Untitled

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3301, 31 October 1883, Page 2

Mr M. W. Green, M.H.R., for Dunedin East, treated his constituency on Monday evening to an account of his stewardship. Divested of a certain amount of twaddle such as seems to “ come natural ” to Mr Green, the speech was a plain and practical one. Mr Green opened his address, by remarking that the newspapers were unable to present the public witli a correct view of political afiairs in Wellington, and that it therefore became a member’s duty to himself to meet his constituents, and set everything right. Mr Green made a huge blunder here, in limine. On the principle that “onlookers see most of the game,” the journalists who watch the progress of sessional events from a neutral standpoint, must surely be able to judge far better of the situation, than those engaged in the actual warfare. Mr Green need not lay the flattering unction to his soul, that he, or any other member, knows better “ which way the wind blows” than those whose duty it is to chronicle all that transpires on all sides. He launched forth in his old style, and maundered away about his “ attitude as an independent member,” and his conscience &c.; in fact he merely went over the welltrodden path over again. At length he emerged from this dish-water, and began to talk sensibly. He indicated his concurrence with the objects of the Bible-in-schools party and the local optionists, and touched upon the landleasing versus land-alienation question. Here his remarks are sensible; he holds firmly the views of the two parties referred to, and he believes in leasing Crown lands as opposed to alienating them. We go with him on the two last, but we entirely disagree with him on the first point. The Bible-in-schools party will never succeed in disturbing the secular system. It is labor in vain for them to try to do so. The principles of local option in regard to the liquor traffic, properly carried into action; and of leasing as against alienating, are sound, and we give Mr Green credit for sincerity and real sense, when he says that land legislation must always be tentative for a long time to come, and that the Land Act introduced by Mr Eolleston was conceived and framed in a spirit of wise liberalism quite foreign to the general policy of the Government. While, however, Mr Green, as a dutiful Ministerialist, sings the praises of his party, he cannot help letting the cat out of the bag ; he evidently does not think much of them at the bottom. He believes them men of honor, “ with a scorn for anything ignoble,” but, he adds, “ with all deference to them, Ministries moy be too long in power,

and a change in them may be beneficial to themselves and the country.” Now, if that is not a delicate hint, we should like to know what is. Major Atkinson will not commend his disciple for that bit of moralising, and Mr Dick will read it with a sickly smile. Mr Green is a very slippery eel, indeed. He coquetted with the Opposition, he posed as an Independent, the Ministry made a proselyte of him, and finally, he damns the Ministry with faint praise ! “ Unstable as water,” we must pronounce Mr Green. When he got to work seriously at practical legislation, all was well, and he did good service. He ought to be an assistant member, if such an office could be found for him ; he is clearly out of his element when he stands by himself. However, he spouts well, talks fair words, and is honest, and it is not therefore to be wondered at that his constituents still have unwavering faith in him.