The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1884.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7229, 1 May 1884, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1884.

Upon the subject of political turncoats, the Premier, last Saturday night, was most impressive and outspoken. It was a subject which he was probably regarded by the majority of his audience as quite the last man in the world to touch. The story of the Auckland four .in 1879 has not yet faded from the public mind. We all remember how that little incident made the. difference to the Government between a minority and a majority. The Auckland compact it was called, which was a euphemistic way of putting it. Compact is a word suited to a large scale of things. There is something great and statesmanlike in the very idea of a compact. Nevertheless, even friends of the Government held down their heads for shame whenever the Auckland compact was denounced—a thing that occurred in those days unpleasantly often its ' the most nefarious political transaction on record. This transaction has, as we said just now, not been forgotten. It is remembered, amongst other reasons, because the famous, or notorious, Auckland four were the noble pioneers of an army of what the Premier called turncoals, and was corrected by his meeting, which reminded him—his friends tell us with a brutal freedom greatly to their disci-edit —that the proper title is " rat." Having gone through one Parliament with the assistance of the four, Ministers faced the next, in 1881, with a minority which became a' majority by some mysterious process. Throughout the present Parliament there has been, in fact, quite a floating population of rats, migrating over towards the Government side. One of them, bolder than the rest, absolutely informed his constituents the other day that "he had his price," and took care to be paid. It was for the benefit of these gentry that Estimates were prepared with mystery and rushed through with a speed denounced by good Parliamentarians as unseemly, at unseemly hours. For them Ministers made progresses with a judicious eye to the places where public expenditure was really " indispensable." Under all these circumjttances it is not a little wonderful M«t the Premier permitted his lecture BP»aturday night to extend to the Subject of the rat and his ways. His object, we presume, was to handle the nasty subject so freely that public opinion wouli come to the conclusion that heiwas as free from]

reproach concerning it as lie appeared to be devoid of fear. To succeed in such a bold enterprise, it is necessary to show that one is not devoid of reasoning power. But this is exactly what/ the Premier failod to show. Ho did not dispute the fact that rats are extant in the economy of our politics. Far from it. He descanted a little on their wickedness, but only a very little : just onough to show that it h, in his opinion, a crime to rat. Ho blamed the constituencies for electing such creatures to represent them. He waxed warm on the subject, and rose to a considerable height as lecturer on the duties and requirements of the electoral position. But he had no pity for the deluded electorates. If they choose to neglect their duty, and elect persons unfit to represent them, men who called themselves Liberals, without any intention of acting up to their principles, the electors have only themselves to blame. He then denied that he had anything _ to answer for in such a connection. Neither he nor his colleagues lad done any tiling to be ashamed o£: tii'.y were quite ready to answer for all their supposed misdeeds of this kind. Now, no rats ever have gone out of the Ministerial ship to the Opposition. The migration has been the' other way. If the Premier's defence is sound, then these rats, who have committed a crime, have done so without the smallest provocation.. "There are many rats. They have all abused their trust by coming over to our side. We have never given them the smallest temptation." That, in brief, was the Premier's method of showing that, on the subject of rats, he Y as as much without reproach as he was without fear. He did not say that a change of political creed is open to all honest men, and that the men in' question had been honestly converted from the Liberal faith. That would have been at least intelligible. He said that, politically, the men were not honest, that they ought not to have been elected, and that, after election, they behaved dishonestly, without the ghost of a motive. Is it wonderful that he failed to get the confidence of the meeting ? i