The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1873.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XL, Issue 3960, 3 October 1873, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1873.

The General Assembly will be pro* rogued to-day, with the ceremonies usually observed on snob, occasions, and. it therefore ‘ becomes ’ necessary to inquire what has been done, what useful work has been accomplished, during the session, which has extended over a period of three' ihontbs. Mr Yogel tells us—personally rather than officially, we presume, that “ the session was one not to be forgotten.” He is quite right in a sense. It will be remembered, and quoted hereafter, as the do-nothing session *, the session of the “ search after equilibrium ”; and the session when for the first ; time in the history of the Colonial Legislature, Ministers openly declared that they were prepared >to shape their; policy according to the dictation of a majority in the House. This declaration was made by the Premier on Wednesday evening, in reply to Mr Fitzherbert, who had charged the Ministry with disloyalty. 14, • J ■. Referring, to thef Provincial Loans Empowering Bill, 'which the Legislative Council rejected by. such a decided majority* Mr Vogel said that “ the Government would have gone “ any length to carry it if supported “ by the House, hut the House did hot “ think further action this session “ advisable.” What does this mean ? Simply that the Government, though believing in the principle and details of their measures for the renewal of Provincial borrowing powers so thoroughly that they were “prepared to go any length” in the attempt to carry them through the Legislature, were yet content to forego their own convictions—their policy, in fact—at the bidding of the House. In short, the impression has been conveyed that the retention of place, and not the carrying out of a definite policy, was their main object throughout the session. This impression grows into a conviction when the official records of the session are examined. Mr Gillies put the matter fairly enough when he said that eleven important measures promised in the Governor’s speech bad not been passed, and several had not even been introduced. He might have gone farther. Many of the bills to which he refers were abandoned ;hy the Government when the pulaefof .Ahe House had been felt, and when it Was 1 found that the current of opinion wag not favourable. And it should not be forgotten that the Premier “ changed front ” in a conspicuous manner after Acaucusof Southern members bad decided against his proposals for'taking land as security for future railways. It wag. to be expected that Mr Fitzherbert, in reviewing the session, would speak with wariqth, with anger even, about the Provincial Loans Bill and the various little bills dependent upon it. set his heart upon obtaining power ;tq borrow some £220,000 for bis province, and it is to be inferred from his closing speech that he supported in a general way, or at any rate did hot actively oppose, the Government because he relied on their co-operation. Mr Vogel, he said/had broken faith with the House, having promised, to use all constitutional means 16 get the loan bills accepted. Again, he charges the Premier with not having kept his promise, and be winds-up by saying that when Mr Vogel found it impossible to carry these bills—“ said to form the main feature of his ’ policy ’’—resignation was still open to. him ; “ be had lost his policy, and had saved his seat.” ; This is severe, but it isTnot undeserved, criticism. Mr Fitzherbert was speaking under the influence of very keen disappointment, for the loan which be so anxiously deeired to carry on behalf of Wellington is sorely needed, and the securities he offered are, if not unquestionable, at least entitled to . consideration. If, as we infer from his speech, the Premier obtained his support, or disarmed his opposition, on toe understanding that the Government would insist on the loan bills ,i ay all hazards, his bitterrecrimina(d<m is not inexcusable.

Assuming that tW telegraphic summary of Mr Fitzherbert’s speech may be relied upon, at all events as a skeleton, he implied that the Premier had, while blaming the Legislative Coinoil for rejecting the loan bills, secretly instigated its opposition. Ho other conclusion can. in oir opinion, be drawn from Mr Fitzherbert’s remarks. He did not believe that the Government had supported these bills loyally, and he accuses Mr Vogel of having counselled “ nnsonstitutional courses “daring his agitation against the “ Upper House.'’ This means, if it means anything »t all, that Mr Vqgel professed the nttoost anxiety to carry the bills, that ihi| professions were insincere, and tbffit he acted and spoke in such a waj as to secure their rejection by tbs Council. There is nothing, so far ai we can judge by the reports in Haitard , and those that have been published in the newspapers, to justify this imputation on the Premier’s good faith. He appears to havs been sincere in his efforts to pass the loan bills through the Legislature; and it is this belief in his sincerity which creates the impression that h« sacrificed his matured convictions in order that he might retain office. The Government, Mr Vogel said in reply to Mr Fitzherbert, could wait; “ they would have all th< bills or none.” Again, in referring to these bills, be stated that “ there would be no “ barm in delay.” In this opinion we quite agree wit! the Premier, but we are not prepare! to accept, in so far as the Government is concerned, that supple deference to the dictation of the House which his speech seems to indicate as the attitude of his Ministry. The measures enumerated by Mr Vogel, and for which he claims credit on behalf of the Government, are nob

important, and the general verdict will justly be, that the session has been almost fruitless.