The Evening Star THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1887.

Evening Star, Issue 7181, 7 April 1887, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1887.

If Mr Ballaxce really indicated the policy of the Government, as the report of his speech at Wanganui seems to imply, we can only say “there is nothing in it.” On all important question Ministers have agreed to differ, as they have been in the habit of doing ever since they first took office. Female suffrage, the incidence of representation, the number of members, the reform of the Legislative Council, and the question of Imperial Federation are all open .questions. “ The policy of the Govcrnim nt,” said Mr Ballancb, “is one of progress." Judging from the dismal past aid ilu unpromising future, Ministerial progress is lamentably crab-fashioned —sidelong, not forward, In reading his speech we confess to a feeling of disappointment. All that can be gathered from it is that Ministers are unanimous as to the increase of taxation, and cherish a furtive tendency towards Protection. There is absolutely nothing else of joint opinion in it. All the remainder consists of Mr Ball ance’s personal opinions as an individual member of the House. And in his exposition of the policy of Protection he is guilty of the moat amazing blunder. Protective duties, according to him, are to accomplish two irreconcilable things—they are to increase the revenue, and nt the same time to encourage local manufactures. Now, the acknowledged object of heavy import duties is to check importation, and it is obvious that it there is a decrease of imports an accession of revenue from Customs duties is not possible. The old saying that one cannot “eat the cake and have it” is strictly applicable to this contention. His declaration of tho “ determination ” of the Government to force the Representation Bill through might have been satisfactory had he not previously qualified it by revealing that on all important details Ministers were at variance with each other. This being the case, what is the nature of the Bill that they are so fiercely determined to force through ? Is it any sort of a Bill that may be scooped out of tho chaos of debate — debate in which it is certain that Ministers will be found opposing each other, and voting in opposite lobbies? What sort of policy or progress is this? And, in the name of wonder, why does he say that the Opposition have it in their power to defeat the measure ? Has it come to this: that

the Government exist only by sufferance, and occupy office by the grace of the Opposition ? Or shall it be supposed that Ministers are so far from being in accord to the principles of the Representation Bill as to render its . defeat a desirable thing in their estimation? .As to the Land Acquisition Bill, it may safely bo set down as something tiic Government neither desire nor intend to be carried. It is merely a bone for hungry debaters to quarrel over, and after having served its purpose of dividing the H ousc against itself, it will be abandoned, to be served up on the stamp and the platform as a standing illustration of the liberality of Ministers and the contrariness of the Opposition. “See what “ we would have done if we had not been “ prevented,” Sir Rohekt Stout will cry, as he has cried before ad naumtm; and Sir Julius and the rest will point the moral, showing how the beneficent intentions of the Ministry have been defeated by the supporters of a hostile Opposition. These devices arc bo simple that a child may see through them. On two points public opinion will hold Mr Ballance to have blundered. The proposal to constitute a “ judicial ” committee of members of Parliament to sit in judgment on the Supreme Court is such n transparent absurdity as to be beneath the dignity of serious comment. But, silly as this is, worse remains. Mr Ballance, speaking, it is hoped, for himself and not for his colleagues, did a wrong thing when, referring to popular opinion in relation to the Hall case, he gave voice to the vulgar notion of there being “ one law for the rich and another for the poor and he intensified this error by intimating his belief in “ the existence of an impression “ that the rich man might, by the use of “ his friends and money, evade the penalties “ of his abuse of the laws of the country.” Even although ho spoke for himself, ho should have remembered that, as a Minister of the Crown, he cannot divest himself of official responsibility, and that such words, coming from such a source, are defamatory of the reputation of the judicial bench. This is a grave offence, and it will tax the ingenuity of the Attorney-General to shield his colleague from the consequences in Parliament, or to explain away the meaning of his words.

Since the delivery of Mr Ballance’s speech a greater man than he has spoken at Christchurch. But we seek in vain for any indication of policy. We rise from the perusal of the Christchurch speech no wiser than before, but more firmly impressed with the conviction that nothing less than the removal of Sir Julius Vogel from the councils of the State will amend our condition at home or improve our credit abroad.