The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, SEPT 4, 1888.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXX, Issue 8578, 4 September 1888, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, SEPT 4, 1888.

During the past session the Legislative Council has made for itself a somewhat remarkable record. It has asserted itself continually in a fashion which may be called independent, and which tho Government would probably term aggressive. It has shown no consideration whatever for the feelings of Ministers, has. in fact, rather gloried in outraging those feelings. It has certainly exercised some influence over the course of the session’s business, and on the whole, perhaps, the influence has been for good. At the same time, there is a tendency shown to exaggerate what the Council has done, and to overlook ' the causes which have weighed with its members. A little enquiry will show that the kicking over the traces which has annoyed or amused people has been only what might naturally have been expected. Moreover, it has not amounted to any very venturesome exercise of power. If it could bo shown that the Council had ov§r and over again outraged public opinion, atnd defied the expressed will of the House of Representatives, no doubt their doings would have rightly given food for reflection. They might have alarmed those who are jealous of the influence of the nominated Chamber. But if we look into the Council’s work we shall hardly see any such spirit of defiance. The nearest approach to it was the long delay in passing the Chines© Immigration Bill. But in this the Council did not reject a popular Bill. It merely insisted on some by no means unreasonable amendments. • The public, which did cafe something about the Bill’s vital principle, cared so very little about the amendments finally effected by the Council that we should be very much inclined to question whether the precise meaning of the compromise arranged at the last moment between the Houses either is, or ever will he, generally understood. It may be said with a very considerable amount of truth that the public interest in the session was mainly confined to four measures, the Loan Bill, the Tariff, the Native Bills, and the Taranaki Harbours Bill. Had the Council rejected tbo first of these the excitement would have been great indeed, but the Council, though hostile and inclined to give an adverse vote, shrank at the last moment from such a responsibility. The Tariff was passed with extremely little delay, with such unexpected facility, indeed, that it was usually attributed to the prevalence of a notion that Sir P. Whitaker and his assistant would have preferred delay or rejection. The Native Bills were merely amended in detail, but the chief effort of the Councillors—their making of Mr Ballance’s restriction on purchase meaningless—-was a most mischievous trick to play. As for the Harbours Bill, that did not come within the Council’s ken. Tho truth h that the Council’s strength was exerted chiefly either at tho expense of tho Government as distinct from tho House of Representatives, or in crushing some pet effort of an unpopular private member. For instance, in throwing out, for the fifth or sixth time, the- Bill for abolishing tho cumulative vote in the election of School Committees, the Council certainly reversed the verdict of the Lower House. But it knew perfectly well that the House did not care two straws about the measure, that the public hardly knew what it was, and that to kill one of Mr Steward’s numerous Bills would be looked upon rather as a joke than otherwise. The Codim Moth Bill was another case in point. The people directly interested in it, the fruit growers, were very much divided in opinion about it; it had only passed the Lower House on the understanding that it would be “carefully considered in another place,” and although nominally a Government Bill, it was, in fact, the pet fad of the very unpopular Mr Hobbs, who had induced the Government to take it up for him. Therefore, the Council threw it out with equal promptitude and safety. Tho Fair Bent Bill was a much more important measure, and in killing that, the Councillors certainly did deal the Government a stinging if not a very heavy blow. But there, too, they were fortified by the indifference of the House and country. On the sufferings of a certain number of over-rented Crown tenants, there was indeed no indifference. But their cases could be met by makeshift concessions, as they have or are now being met. The Bill went far beyond providing for their hardships, and the farther it went the greater was the difference of opinion it gave rise to. Had the Government cared to accept certain amendments in the Lower House the Bill might have passed the Upper. As it was, its opponents in the House allowed, it to hurry to certain death above. Take, again, the instance of the Christchurch Drainage Bill. There the Lords did to death a Ministerial measure very actively supported by a member of the Cabinet. But, before doing so, they had taken the trouble to ascertain that the Bill, so far from being popular in the district it dealt with, was very unpopular indeed. They were not, therefore, flying in the face of public opinion, but complying with it. The rejection of the first Naval and Military Settlers Bill excited neither interest nor attention. The District Railways Bill was not thrown out, but amended. This certainly was an act both of interest and importance. But the section of the pnblic most keenly concerned in it was by no means keenly anxious to see it passed. The district ratepayers took its postponement till next session with entire resignation. On the other hand, the amendment, whose making caused its postponement, t had, we fancy, the sympathy of a majority of tho House of Representatives. As for the Special Powers and Contracts Bill, which was killed, and the Eating Bill, which was eviscerated, these were quite minor matters, and their fate, though intensely annoying to Ministers, attracted no general notice.

It will tlms appear that tho

Councillors, tliougli decidedly successful in the kind of guerilla warfare they have carried on, have hardly ventured at any time on a pitched bat 1,1 e with public opinion or with the House of Ritpresentatives. They have skirmished with an ability and success which speaks not a little for the skill of their leaders, Hr Pollen and Mr Waterhouse. EWo| they have very seldom interfered with really popular Bills. In two cases, they went outside their functions and tried to meddle with matters of vital public concern, the Midland Bail way and the EducationAct. Nobody took any notice of what they did, and they were unable to resent the snub. On the whole, they have done little except what the House and the public were quite willing they should do. On the other hand, they have paid off their grudge of last year against the Government in full, and have given a distinct warning to all prudent Premiers not to annoy them at a time when they cannot be swamped by fresh nominations.