The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1884.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7222, 23 April 1884, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1884.

There are people in the district who are persuaded that the catastrophe which overwhelmed Mr Rolleston at Papanui, on Saturday night, is to he largely ascribed to the agency of what is ordinarily known as the mob. It is a soothing reflection, made for the benefit of the unhappy member who had to go through so much and such severe punishment, that he need not, after all, think very seriously of what the mere mob says of him, and his actions. “ Resign, my dear sir, of course not. Odi profanum vulgus. Verbum sap:” and the Rollestonic visage assures its well-meaning interlocutor that he need never fear any white feather of that sort. And to do him justice, Mr Rolleston, during the hour immediately preceding the discovery that he had reached the position of a mis-representative, behaved with great courage and presence of mind. This too, is regarded as much in his favour. But as want of courage of that kind never was alleged against Mr Rolleston, it is hard to understand how an exhibition of bravery can be regarded in any way as relevant. Many a man has died with great fortitude on a scaffold without raising any doubt as to the correctness of the verdict which adjudged him to die. The plea that his judges of Papanui were but mobsmen after all, is just as fallacious. Everybody who was there testifies to the orderly, rational character of the meeting. Even the Ministerial organs have felt constrained to admit that “ for the present ” Mr Rolleston has ceased to represent his constituents. The idea, we suppose, is that the honorable gentleman, regardless of his constitutional responsibility, hopes to live to convert these misguided people. All people are misguided who think that the time has come for that great man, the Premier, and his colleagues, only less great, to retire from office. The admission, however, whatever it may mean in other senses, means clearly that the catastrophe of Saturday is not due to what is called the mob, Mr Rolleston ought to know that himself better than anybody else. He was once in the middle of a mob, in the Oddfellows’ Hall of this city, when Sir George Grey was addressing a meeting. That mob —it was a mere mob of the worst mobbish instincts and behaviour, though composed of men well-dressed and in good positions—after howling and roaring itself hoarse, actually rushed the platform, and but for the courage and presence of mind of Sir George Grey, would have cleared it, and stopped the meeting. Mr Rolleston was in the centre of that mob, and had ample opportunity for observing its characteristics and marking its behaviour. The result of that observation must be a conviction that at Papanui he was treated in a singularly different manner. He must know that there is nothing to soothe his feelings in the mob theory. If Mr Rolleston had enemies at

Papanui he also had supporters. Ho alluded to them iu feeling, even glowing terms. A few were present who raised timid hands that were glad to retire to the congenial obscurity of pockets as soon as the eye ot the Chairman had passed over them. But when the opportunity had come for fighting for their friend, when, there was time for an amendment, to be followed by vigorous speaking and volleys of cheering from a solid phalanx of supporters standing shoulder to shoulder—in that trying hour there was “none so poor as to do him reverence.” Who, thou, are the friends to whom Mr Eolleston expressed his thanks for standing by him in the time of distressful catastrophe that has come upon the once fair fortunes of his political life ? The question is more important than at first sight it may appear. Coupled with the expression of gratitude, there was the assurance of his belief that the grain rates were not going to cause the block vote of the Canterbury members to come and go in the coming session. At once one gets an uncomfortable kind of idea that the friends of the Minister are those Canterbury members who have been such constant friends of the Ministry. It is borne in on one in an uncomfortable sort of way that the Minister of Lands bad reason to tell his constituents that, in spite of their public denunciations, the Canterbury members would continue, on vital questions, to follow Ministers into the lobby. The Question is in a nutshell. As there were precious few political friends of the Minister present, and as certain Canterbury members were once the best political friends of the honorable gentleman and his Government, there an understanding now between, them on the grain rates ? The members in question ought to take the first opportunity of putting themselves right with their constituents. Whatever the merits of the reception accorded to the Minister of Lands at Papanui, the Premier may make up his mind that he will get nothing different. He will not on the one hand be rushed off the platform, or howled down, as Sir George Grey very nearly was, when as Premier he was addressing a Christchurch audience. Nox-, on the other, will he be listened to with that deep subserviency wbicb all Premiers take as a delicate attention, due rather to their talents than to their exalted position. If we know our fellow citizens, we feel sure that they will give the Premier a fair and patient bearing, from a faxeeting distinctly hostile. He, on his side, being gifted with a larger share of tact and readiness of speech than his colleague of Lands, will probably not give a hostile meeting nearly as many opportunities for galling jibes and effective sallies. The fight will he more equal, no doubt. But it. will not be different in result from the result at Papanui. . The Premier’s will probably also resemble Mr Eolleston’s iu that be will have to stand fire without any effectual support. The same men will go to the meeting, in bis honour, with the same air of wishing devoutly that they might hold up their hands, at the critical moment, under their chairs. And so there will be nothing to prevent the passing of a hostile motion. We do not, of course, anticipate that the Premier will attempt to justify himself by unfolding a policy. At Hawera he distinctly adopted the role of reticence. At Papanui his colleague said that “ great policies ” are not wanted. In other words, he said that the Premier was reticent at Hawera, for the reason, a very ordinary one with this Government, that he had nothing to say.