OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 278, 26 March 1889, Page 3

OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

(FROM OUB OWN CORRESPONDENT.) Sydney, March 22. The political developments of the paet week have been important. Sir Henry Parkes has assumed the reins, and, aided by a new team, specially selected “ for thia occasion only,” he proposes to pass the estimates and attempt a Land Bill. Considering that in a full House he ean only boast a majority of four, and that he signally failed to carry out a more modest programme when two-thirds of the House supported him. the outlook is not very promising. If two members were to change sides the •• majority ” would vanish, and it is impossible that any really useful work can be done. In a House so equally divided the truest wisdom would be to efface party lines as much as possible, and proceed with such business as would commend itself to both sides. By withdrawing the Protection issue from his programme, Mr Dibbs offered facilities for the adoption of such a course. But it was declined by the Freetraders and they in their turn, have no right to expect any more consideration than they have shown. “ Party first, the country afterwards,” was the war cry which governed the onslaught on the address-in reply. There seems too much reason to fear that this keynote, once sounded, will dominate the whole proceedings of the present Parliament. The Premier is generally admitted to have made a very fair choice of colleagues. We have come to such a pass that it is a positive recommendation to a Minister that he shall be a novice. This seems about the only way of securing that he shall not have befouled his record by previous Ministerial laches or jobbery. Nearly all Sir Henry’s team can claim this important qualification of ignorance and innocence. Hence they have a right to their opportunity. How many of them in a few months time will be cast aside like

sucked-out oranges ? A list of the men who have been “ tried and found wanting ” by the present master of the political ceremonies r would be found very instructive reading. . Burns, Garrett, Abigail, Roberts, Inglis and AU their predecessors would figure in it. And probably before many months are over they will be joined by the majority of those who now hold the Ministerial portfolios. And yet, except in that one particular of glibness of tongue, who shall say that most of them are inferior in character and ability to the tnan who has discarded them ? As a talker, Sir Henry is facile finceps. No man in the colony, perhaps no man in Australia, is better able to persuade an audience that he, and he alone, knows the needs of the country and has the ability to put things straight. But this kind of thing to now becoming monotonous. A man can't move people by the tongue alone. If a statesman has repeated opportunities and shows only indolence, apathy and incompetence, relieved by occasional outbursts of eccentricity and petulanoe, his oratory comes to be taken at its true value. He made a great speech at North Shore on Monday, and sketched out his future programme. But very few people game to hoar him, and those who did could not help remembering that it was entirely owing ta this plausible speaker, that be had not st that moment a solid majority of twothirds of the House, They remembered, too, other speeches which had been made, For instance at Kiama not so very long ago he had occasion to "oppose a candidate for election * Take a log of wood,” he said, " out it-up into lengths, and call one of them Bruce Smith, and you will have as good a candidate as the gentleman I am opposing.” This Mr Smith is now one of his colleagues, and Sir Henry waxed eloquently on Monday in dilating on his merits! But with Sir Henry words are but the means to an end. They have no necessary connection with accuracy, or even with fact, as this little instance shows pretty conclusively. The Free Traders base most of their hopes of a continued lease of power on the squatting vote, A Land Bill has been promised which will attract this section, who mostly style themselves Protectionists. There is no doubt that a Land Bill is urgently needed. But it is needed in the interests of the whole country, and a measure which is framed to catch votes is sure to be drawn up in the interests of a favored class. The land ques tion is of more vital and immediate importance than the Protection issue. It the public estate is sacrificed to party exigencies it will be a clear case of dropping the substance to grasp the shadow. What is the deficit ?—four millions, as per Mr Garren, or two and a-half millions as per Mr Burns and Mr MacMillan ! When doctors differ, who shall decide? When all these Treasurers and ex-Treasurers can’t come within a million of one another, the much enduring British investor may be expected to be in a pretty quandary. The point which will impress itself on him most of all is the feet that there is a deficit and that for two yt»n a Government has preferred expending |te (rust funds to making any attempt to extinguish it. When that fact comes into prominence, the amount is a secondary consideration. Mr MacMillan reminds one of that lady of easy virtue, who, when taxed with being the mother of a child not born in wedlock, replied“ Lor! Sir, it was only a very Utile one I” This is the attitude which our I present Treasurer strikes for the edification of the British financial public.