The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1876.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLV, Issue 4780, 14 June 1876, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1876.

The justice of the policy followed by the Opposition during the last session of Parliament has been affirmed by the highest constitutional authority in a most emphatic manner. The laconic despatch of Lord Carnarvon, which appeared some days ago in these columns, sets at rest any doubts that may have been entertained about the matter. Had that despatch been extended to volumes of ponderous folios it could not have made the attitude of the Imperial Government any clearer to the people of this Colony, That despatch, in fact, only contains an expression of opinion which a little reflection should have enabled every one to expect. The absence of any sign of astonishment from those upon whose conduct this expression of opinion is really a severe censure, does them credit, for it shows that, appreciating the situation, they have the good sense to pocket their dignity and submit quietly to the snub they have brought upon themselves by their headstrong conduct. This is the more remarkable, as tbc bare mention of any probable difference of opinion between them and the Imperial Government was always scouted by them as the baseless fabric of the dreamiest vision. One of the strongest points of the position they maintained during the whole of last session was that the Assembly was admitted by the Imperial authorities to be the best judge of its own affairs, and that,therefore, whatever the Assembly did was sure to meet with approval. In their eyes any theory which looked upon the powers of the Assembly as limited, was simply the offspring of an imagination which had become diseased by long poring over constitutional questions. The action which was founded upon this theory was denounced in the most unmeasured terms. It was fractious, it was unconstitutional ; it broke through the usages of Parliament, it was the establishment of a precedent which pandered to the tyranny of minorities; it was unEnglish, dishonest, and, in short, it was everything that was intrinsically bad and radically objectionable. The Government party represented themselves as martyrs crushed by the weight of an outrageous minority. They took the greatest credit to themselves that in the exercise of the most singular good sense, and in the most magnificent spirit of forbearance, they had agreed to compromise with the unreasonable demands of the Opposition. The position of that party was simple enough. "Whatever differences existed within its ranks as to the principles of constitutional reform, the party was united upon one point. It held that a Parliament, in the last days of its existence, had no right to introduce radical changes in the government of the country. The upsetting of longestablished, long-cherished, and admittedly beneficial institutions, without the consent of the people, they looked upon as unjustifiable in principle, and unprecedented in the history of constitutional government. They proved their position, they protested, and they demanded that the whole question of Abolition should be referred to the constituencies. They might as well have talked sentiment to the mountain tops, or expected the waves of the sea to listen to reason. The Government laughed them to scorn, and with the help of their subservient majority, drove the Abolition Bill through all its stages but the last. An attempt was made to strengthen the Government position by appealing to the people at large. Mobs were assembled in all the centres of population and in every outlying hamlet and grog shanty. Ministerial telegrams flew to all the corners of the Colony, explanatoiy, promissory, and of the order that begs the question.. Every one held up his hand, whether elector or without title to the franchise, and the result, though clearly and emphatically against the Government proposal, was actually pronounced by Government supporters to be in their favour. With this fraudulently claimed support, the Bill arrived at its last stage. Here it encountered the heroic stand made by the Opposition. The result was, as everbody knows, that right triumphed over might, and great was the outpouring of ministerial indignation. The significant commentary of Lord Oarnavon is a fitting termination to the eventful history. “ I concur,” ■he says, “ in thinking it a wise course “ to delay the operation of so important “ a measure until the general election “ has afforded the constituencies an “ opportunity of expressing their opinion, “ and I trust that if it should be en- “ dorsed by them, it will be found as “ advantageous in its operation as has “ been anticipated.” Thus the principle is established upon which Colonial statesmen must act, viz., that measures of such importance as the Abolition Bill of 1875, must be considered, at least with reference to their general principles, by the constituencies, before the Parliament can venture to give them the force of law.

If tho attempt is made to dispense with this preliminary, it will bo promptly suppressed by tho exercise of tho royal power of disallowance. That this course would have been followed, if tho Bill had not been remitted to the constituencies, no one can doubt, who thoughtfully roads the despatch from which wo have quoted. Had the Ministry conquered tho Opposition in the memorable struggle, tho late elections would have passed by without any mention of the Abolition Bill, and the new Parliament would have been greeted with tho notice of its disallowance on grounds which would have precluded it from ever entering on the consideration of the subject. The Government have actually to thank the Opposition that they are not at this moment ruefully choosing between a dissolution or a postponement for five years of the burning abolition question. Whether their submission to the Opposition is due to the accident of a rare gleaming of good sense across the Ministerialist path, or to a sudden and unwonted panic inspired by the firm attitude of right, Ministers may consider that submission as the best stroke of policy they have ever made. The lesson should not he lost on them. If they should ever again prepare for the country a little constitutional surprise, which they seem to consider the natural and proper result of disappointment with respect to a favorite bill, they will know what to expect. They will bo compelled to submit their ideas to the constituencies, and nothing but the verdict of the constituencies, expressed at the polling places, will be accepted as evidence in the proper quarter, no matter how fervid or sweeping the Ministerial representations j that public opinion is with them.