THE PREMIER.

Waipawa Mail, Volume IX, Issue 883, 21 January 1886, Page 4

THE PREMIER.

The Wellnftou “ Kreniug' Press'’ ess the Preisiier. We should just like 10 ask how the Premier would bear to be measured as a public man by the standard of his political consistency. Why, he is a living- monument of political inconsistency. 11c was formerly a bitter opponent of national education, which he declared, undermined the social life of the people by relieving parents of their responsibilities. He once wrote an elaborate pamphlet denouncing national education on that and other grounds, lie is now the most thoroughgoing supporter of national education in the colony. He was formerly an advanced freetrader and was one of the ministry who in 1878 changed the incidence of taxation in order t o'furl lie r freetrade and give the working classes a free breakfast

bible, especially as to tea and sugar. lie is now a denounced protectionist, and a3res so little for the working mens’ free breakfast table, that in 1884 he strongly supported the Bill for establ sliing sugar monopolies, and in 1885 fought desperately for the imposition of a heavy duty on tea. He was formerly a passionate advocate of the nationalisation of the land, and went about declaiming against the alienation of another acre. He more than hinted that Henry George was a disciple of his, and lie declared himself ready to go the whole length of (lie views e xpressed in ‘ Progress and Poverty.’ Vet, within one short year he allied himself with the men most bitterly opposed to all those views, the avowed champions of the cause of landed property ; and he warmly supported and succeeded in carrying a bill to alienate a million acres of land from the State to a company of private speculators in England. Political consistency, indeed ! We fear that if Mr Stout were to be tried by that standard, the only standard by which he tries otlieis, bo would not have a shred of reputation left. There never wl.s a man in this country with so short a memory or such variable principles as his. The only tiling he has been consistent in is his inconsistency. lie never varies in tiiat. It is perfectly safe to depend on him, if ho holds very strong end clear opinions on any given subject now, to hold just the opposite opinions on it, at least as strongly and clearly, at no distant date. Yet, we should not say from this that lie is either a fool or a rogue, or that he is unworthy of public confidence. We should sny merely that with great abilities and much capacity for public usefulness, ho lias not, so far, displayed such strength of mind or fixity of political purposes, as to give the country the full benefit of bis powers. Now, is ‘it too much to ask of him, that lie, tlie greatest sinner against consistency, should not incessantly anathematise inconsistency as the unpardonable sin ?