The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1886.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXVI, Issue 7926, 31 July 1886, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, JULY 31, 1886.

The determination of Government to keßp for the South Island the amount excised the other night from the schedule of the Loan Bill, is both logical and courageous. It is a combination not always seen nowadays in the political world. In constructing the schedule, Ministers were guided by consideration for the Colony as a whole. It is the duty of a Government to perform this function with impartiality. In that way only can every district obtain its proper share of borrowed money for the construction of reproductive works. When every district is treated with fairness, the progress of the Colony is uniform, and the maximum of progress always accompanies the expenditure of every loan thus impartially allocated. That was the case for the schedule as it stood originally. The Government felt that the two lines, branching from the Midland on to the western seaboard, the other to the eastern, are necessary for the completion of the Southern Trunk system. They realised, too, that the long neglect by which certain important Southern districts had been prevented from developing their resources at a rate commensurate with that of the rest of the Colony, could not be permitted to continue. The House refused to view this arrangement with favour. . The Opposition, assisted by some of the Government party, who appear to have misunderstood the intentions of their chiefs, destroyed the balance of the schedule. The Government cannot, under the circumstances, attempt to restore the two lines excised. To be logical, they must restore the balance of the schedule by other means. That course requires courage. The announcement we publish in another °olumn is a proof that the necessary courage is possessed by the Government. Instead of allowing a scramble, Ministers assert their right to lead the House in a matter of great moment to the best interests of the whole Colony. The attitude is, in every way, creditable to them. An attempt has been begun, and will be continued no doubt, to make the attitude discreditable. Mr Bryce told the Treasurer at the end of the last long sitting on Thursday morning, that he and others would treat any attempt to reconstruct the schedule as

a, breach of faith. He had asked, when the money clause of the Bill Was under discussion, what "the Government would do in case the schedule were reduced after the body of the Bill had passed through ComImittee. The Treasurer had. replied that the Government would take care at the proper time that there would be no discrepancy between the Bill and the schedule. The Government is now taking care that there shall be no discrepancy. Therefore, the Government is only doing what it promised to do in a certain event. The Minister made a statement which meant that, in the event of reduction of the schedule, he would restore the schedule to the original amount. The Opposition interpreted him to mean that he would reduce the amount of the loan to the lowered level of the schedule. The fact that the Government is doing what the Treasurer said it would do is a proof, not of breach of faith on the part of the Government, but of misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition. "What Mr Bryce and his friends really mean is, tftiattbe Minister,; by giving an answer capable of two constructions, wilfully misled the Committee; to that it may be replied that nobody cam=. pelled the Committee to be misled. It would, of course, be wrong for a Minister to get an| important principle accepted by false pretences, in such a mariner as to make the acceptance irrevocable. But this is not an analogous case. It is a usual and proper piece of tactics for a' Minister to refuse to show his hand until the Opposition has unmasked ite. intentions. There was no question/or ultimate acceptance of anything in this case. All the Minister said in effect was that at the proper time he would make the Ministerial proposal, which/the House could then deal with as it pleased. To talk of breach of! faith is to waste words in covering a tactical defeat. The fact that the Minister was prudently looking ahead at the early stage when he was asked the question, shows that the Government was determined from the first to adhere to justice in the event of the reduction of the schedule. Thus the episode, instead of diminishing, actually increases the credit with which the Government has come out of this matter so far. Justice to the three districts has been, it has been alleged, amply done by the passing of the measures necessary to the construction of the Midland Railway. The people who use this argument forget that before the Midland our account with the Colony had to be balanced. When the districts made their celebrated, and ultimately victorious, combination, they came to Parliament with a claim for the settlement of arrears. The public records of the Colony showed that Canterbury alone was entitled to nearly a million and a half before the account with that district could be said to be balanced. The arrears due to the other districts absorbed the balance of the Midland eontract, and the redress of the whole account was completed by the West Coast harbours. This was the " tacit understanding " which was so often referred to during the last debate, but the payment of past arrears is not a reason why there should be an unfair division of the public resources in the future. That first principle the Government recognised when it drew up the schedule of the Loan Bill. That principle, the Treasurer declared, in the middle of the debate, must be maintained. That principle he and Mr Holmes indicated with force; and so did Mr Allwright, though he had differed with his friends about the schedule itself. That principle the Government has now determined to maintain. It is refreshing to see this attitude taken up in defence of the long neglected interests Of this part of the country. It is, in fact, a new sensation amongst us all. Honour to the Government which has given it to us, and to the members who are standing by that Government in its logical and courageous attitude! As we write; the reports of the debate, and its result, reach us. The Government, after doing its best, has been defeated. It has made a good fight and been defeated by a narrow majority. Having done its best, we may rely on it for doing so again, and, let us hope, under happier circumstances.