The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1877.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 1896, 27 November 1877, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1877.

Putting aside the selfish anxiety of Major Atkinson and a few of his late colleagues to get back to place and pay, we find that one of the chief objections urged to the present Ministry . retaining office is that Sir George Grey and roost of his associates m office have from time to time avowed a belief m the efficacy of Separation as • a panacea for colonial ills. This is a ' singular objection to come from a party which for eight years acknowledged Sir Julius Yogel as its chief, and which when he went away placed Mr Whitaker and Mr Reid m the chief seats of the synagogue. Mr Whitaker m op-

position certainly was not behind Sir George Grey m Separationisi zeal, and while the hitter has practicsilly announced thnt m office lie wiil defend the unity of the colony, the former entered on office after a deliberate avowal of au intention to iisp the position as a mere stop-gnp, ujtil the party of Separation was strong 1 enough to make a successful effort. It there was any danger of the unity of the colony likely to arise from the fact of one or more members of the Ministry believing m the doctrine of Separation, certainly that danger reached its maximum when Mr Whitaker became practically the real bead of the Government. The colon}', however, m this respect was none the worse for his tenure oi office; while there is strong 1 reason to believe that lie himself was a good deal the better for it, as one of his first speeches after he was turned out was a distinct renunciation of his previous heresy, and a deliberate avowal of a conviction that Separation was an impossibility. It is remarkable that Sir Julius Yogel arrived at a similar conclusion by the sume process, the enjoyment of a seat on the Treasury Benches; and, comparatively short as Mr Donald Reid's tenure of office ivas, it is evident from various indications that his faith also was weakened. It is scarcely likely that Sir George Grey and Mr Manandrew will escape the magic influence of office, and we would put it to Mr Rolleston and those who with him are so frightened of the name of Separation, whether it is not worth while trying this process of conversion, by allowing the present Ministry to remain where they are for a time. How grent would be the rejoicing m the camp of the faithful next session if Sir George Grey, Mr Macandreiv, Mr Fisher, and Mr Sheehan should publicly recant, acknowledging theerror of their ways, and enter into full communion with the apostles of unity. More unlikely things have occurred. Indeed, giving the present Ministry credit for what no one is likely to deny them, the possession of a large amount of common sense, we believe it to be impossible for them to occupy the position they do for any length of time without arriving at the same conclusion that Mr Whitaker has — that, however admirable m theory, Separation is a practical impossibility. The advocates of tho unity ol the colony, if they are really m earnest, should rather rejoice at the opportunity now afforded of converting their most dangerous opponents, especially as the risk incurred m the experiment is of the smallest. Even if able to resist conviction m the way we have indicated, what possible action, we may ask, could the present Ministry take during the recess which would endanger the unity ol" the colony, or advance the cause of Separation m the slightest degree ? A matter of this kind is not one m which a Ministry can anticipate the course of public opinion, or act without the support and concurrence of Parliament. During the recess the attention of Ministers should be, and uo doubt will be, devoted to making the best of existing institutions by improving the system of administration. They well know that their existence depends on their success m this direction, and every step taken m improviag the administration of Governmenr, m lessening its cost and increasing its efficiency, is a step also m the direction of establishing more firmly the unity of the colony, and renderingSeparation more undesirable and more impossible. In fact, Sir George Grey, and bis colleagues will find themselves actually obliged m that practice to sap the very foundations on which that theory rests. Itmay be said that if they are conscientious men, they cannot accept this position, and that if convinced (hat Separation is the best thing for the colony, they must at all hazards seek to accomplish it. We do not wish to enter here into any nice disputation as to how far the end may be held to justify the means, m politics any more than m morals, and it is scarcely necessary to do so, for men are very rarely, if ever, inclined to regulate their present duties by their pet theories when the two appear antagonistic. Macanlay's remarks on the subject of persecution point out clearly the distinction between theory and practice m such matters. In his essay on Hallam's Constitutional History, he says — " To punish a man because we infer from the nature of some doctrine >vhich he holds, or from the conduct of other persons who hold the same doctrines with him, that he will commit a crime, is persecution ; and is m every case foolish and wicked. ... To argue that, because a man is a Catholic he must thiuk it right to murder a heretical sovereign, and that because he thinks it right he will attempt to do it, and then to found on this conclusion a law for punishing him, as if he had done it, is plain persecution. If, indeed, all men reasoned on the same data, and always did what they thought it their duty to do, this mode of dispensing punishment might be extremely iudicious. But as people who agree about premisses often disagree about conclusions, and as no man m the world acts up to his own standard of right, there are two enormous gaps m the logic by which alone penalties for opinions can be defended. . . Man m fact is so inconsistent a creature, that it is impossible to reason from his belief to his conduct, or from one part of . his belief to another." We have here high authority for contending that it is nonsense to contend that because Sir George Grey and his colleagues, or some of them, believe m Separation they will therefore be sure to direct their efforts to disturbing the unity of the colony, or that they will be acting unconscienciously if they do not do so. We have also authority for saying that a clear case of persecution can be established against Messrs Rolleston, Stevens, Travers and others, who would punish Sir George Grey by political ostracism on account of his opinions. To conclude that, because he thinks Separation right he will seek to ,

overthrow the unity of the colony, and then to turn him out of office as if he had so offended i« exactly od a par with the course of conduct which Lord Macaulay pronounces "m every case foolish and wicked." We have no fear whatevpr nf any desperate revolution following Sir George Grey's advent to office. A radical change is more likely to take place m some of his theories than m any of the institutions ef the country while he is administering them, and the practical reforms which we have little doubt he will be able to effect will be fresh barriers to the realisation of what is after all a mere theory .Separation, even by Separationists, is only desired as a means toward 'an end. ft may rest with Sir George Grey to attain the end — good, honest, and economical administration — by these mean?. « In another column will be found a report of the proceedings of the Timaru Hospital Commission at their monthly meeting 3'esterday, including their decision with regard to the petition m re throwing open the Institution to the different medical practitioners m the town. We feel perfectly assured that five-sixths at least of the general public will agree with us m thinking that the course they have adopted is a wise and prudent one, and that none but evil effects would have resulted had they acceded to the prayer of the petition. Tbe gentlemen who compose the Commission are not such men as would be likely to be influenced by personal feeling, or leaning m the matter, and we are quite satisfied that they had only the welfare of the public at heart while considering the matter. Narrow-minded views cannot be imputed to them, and those who charge them with such (lor there are more than one), deserve the most unmitigated censure and contempt. If people have any complaints to bring against the past or present conduct of Hospital affairs, why do they not come forward and state them openly, instead of doing so m outside circles or quiet conversation ? If anyone connected with the Institution is guilty of neglect or other faults let those who believe it charge him with it m a proper manner. We ourselves have been openly charged (not by either of the medical gentlemen concerned), with treating the subject m an unfair and unjust manner, but for this we do not care two straws, and will leave the public to judge of the action we have taken. But we must protest against similar accusations being brought against the Commissioners. If any person believes that underhand means have been resorted to m connection with the opposition shown to the petition, let him state hi& reasons through the medium of this journal, and attach his name to them as a proof he is not ashamed of what he says. We shall then be prepared to answer him m a proper manner. While on this matter we wish to say a little moiv. If any individual feels aggrieved at what appears m this paper, the most honest course to follow is to write to the Editor for redress, and not to nccuse any particular member of the staff with being the cause of wounding his feelings. It is v rule invariably followed by all newspapers never to give up the author of any article on any pretext whatever, whatever may be the consequences. Bullying will not cause the rule to be broken any more than insulting language will, for a writer is always anonymous. Further, we do not acknowledge any person's right to dictate to us what we shall put m the paper, and what we shall not ; nor wiil threats ever prevent us from following a course which we consider right. If we do an injury to anyone, and decline to make reparation, the law is always open, to him to resort to. While we do all m our power not to wilfully or needlessly cause annoyance to people, it is our duty to place facts before the public as facts', and not gloss them over. These remarks have been called forth by our having been challenged on more than one occasion of late for our daring to insert his, that, or the other ; and we wish it to be understood that we consider ourselves the best judges of what should appear m the paper and what should not.