Page:Life·of·Seddon•James·Drummond•1907.pdf/80

 nearly the whole of the South Island for the new order of things represented by the Stout-Vogel combination. A meeting of Canterbury members unanimously decided to vote as one man against any Ministry whatever of which Vogel was not a member. It was largely a question of the North versus the South, and feeling ran so high that the South began to consider whether it would not be better to separate and let each island attend to its own domestic affairs.

While these wranglings were taking place, and the business of the colony was brought to a standstill, Mr. Seddon came into greater prominence than he had yet achieved. Rising in the middle of one of the party quarrels that were of daily occurrence, he made a speech which found an echo in every centre of population. It was telegraphed in full to the newspapers, and was commended for its practical common sense, and the desire it displayed on the part of the speaker to get on with the work Parliament was supposed to be attending to. Remarking that he had a right to let the people of the colony know the true position, so that they might fairly judge those whom they had sent to represent them, he detailed the history of the previous few months, but he made no further apology beyond saying that “this is a time for plain speaking, and I am going to speak plainly to-day.” He was surprised at Sir George Grey’s actions, he said, and he could not understand how that statesman regarded it as his duty to help in unseating those who were endeavouring to do good to the country. He wanted to know why men who had worked with Sir George and for him should be turned off the treasury benches before they were able to say what schemes they had devised to chase away the bad times that had overtaken the colony. The father of the property tax, the head and front of the Continuous Ministry, and the man who was supposed to be robbing the “unborn millions” of their birthrights, was now to be supported by the very statesman who had denounced him. Mr. Seddon added that the whole proceeding struck him as being exceedingly inconsistent, and it would require a great deal of explanation to make him see it in a different light. It was a “lamentable state of affairs,” and a “sorry spectacle.” The session had made absolutely no