Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6474, 26 November 1881, Page 4

Mb Mohtookebt made on Monday, as he generally does, a speech very much to the purpose, and fairly exhaustive. It has not met with satisfaction everywhere, because the truth is not welcome everywhere. That he spoke many truths may be guessed from the simple fact that an attempt has been made to upset only one of them, and this prima fade impression is confirmed by even the most careless perusal of Mr Montgomery’s remarks. It is unavoidable that, at election time, so prominent a politician as Mr Montgomery should be obliged to go over a great deal of old ground, and it is equally unfortunate that the country should have to listen to the same criticism about a portion of that performance. On the present occasion a great difference is observable. We have been treated to the usual dispute about the blackness of the late Government. But the question of the brilliancy of their successors raised by Mr Montgomery, has found very little treatment. The adverse champion repeats the old theme defensive of the gloomy financial policy of Ministers, but he has not much to say of the rest of their policy. All that we are informed about it is that on the more important points of his speech Mr Montgomery is not worth replying to. It is quite easy, as we have already hinted, to guess the reason why. Mr Montgomery spoke the truth, and spoke it well. For instance, his summary of the Native question was the best we have seen yet in the speech of any public man, temperate full able convincing. The words that Mr Montgomery has spoken, as well as those of Mr Turnbull, at Timaru, whose remarks on the Native question are a great credit to him, will, we hope, be remembered some day. We notice, moreover, that Mr White at Sydenham has, like Mr Turnbull, been rewarded for his manliness by the applause of his hearers. As Mr Montgomery stuck so closely to the admitted facts of the case, and to the reasonable inferences from those facts, it is not surprising that in Ministerial quarters Mr Montgomery was only judged worthy of the safer argument of contemptuous silence. When he told the tale of the last Parliament, his very capital summary of the history had for its chief supporter Mr Ormond, who has been ol late such a conspicuous figure in politics. With snob a witness as that, Mr Montgomery is safe from reply when he deprives the Government of the solo credit for the large measure of Liberal reform which ia the main feature of the history of the last Parliament.

Bat the best point In Mr Montgomery’s speech was the reference to the Government policy o! the future He piuned Ministers to the Bills which have already so nearly proved their rum. As nobody has anything to say in favour of these measures, the hostile critic has naturally a dear field. When Mr Montgomery pointed out that one of these Bills may be simply an engine of gross oentralistio corruption, that the other was nothinelse than a most improper drain on the fo ! the of die. teicts that do not contribute to the general revenue, and that the Premier had announced the reappearance of both he stated what even ZfZL fi the Government know and have adnoslible ' b ®J ra « i#Bi “pljim* possible. Mr Montgomery referred,

as Mr Ormond did, to the story of the member* who were promised tbe withdraws! of the Bill that was debated, on condition of their voting for the second reading. The stoiy is damaging to the Government, but is too true to find any refuters. The fact seems to bo that to save appearances Government must pretend » determination to bring these bad Bill* forward once more. Simulation is the legacy of Ihe crooked conduct which kept them in office last year. Political wrong-doing, in short, is like all other wrong-doing, in that one wrong makes many necessary. The Premier, to prevent the enemy scoring, is obliged to say that the Bills will be introduced again. Unless they are radically modified they will find little favour. The probability, to judge by the whole career of the Government, is that they will b# radically modified. But they will not in that ca»e be tbo same Bills. Hence we can quite understand how it is that Mr Montgomery is not worth replying to. There is really nothing to be said in reply.