FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26,1880.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5553, 26 February 1886, Page 2

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1880.

The possibilities of a Dissolution were touched upon at some length in Sir Julius Vogel's Auckland speech, and, as it seems to us, with a strong desire for insistence thereon. But this is jußt the important point which — as we remarked the other day — has not been formally discussed. When Ministers meet in full Cabinet, it is extremely doubtful, to say the least, whether they will be disposed to accept the proposal of the Colonial Treasurer. That a dissolution is within measurable distance, everybody recognises. But why should it como before the Session ? On what ground can Ministers anticipate that His Excellency the Governor would grant a request of the kind F The reasons which Sir Julius gives are mainly based on financial considerations : the expense of a Session would be saved; a new Parliament would meet at a time when Legislative work will have become desirable, and a decision with regard ' to the projected sew loan ought to be come to before the end of June. This is pertinent enough, and of course there are risks that J a new loan, if placed in the English market at a later period, might not be taken up on such favourable, terms oe present indications promise. But on the other hand it mast be borne in mind that the policy of the Government is not definitely before the country. Indeed, as Sir Julius practically admits, there has been no decisive meeting of the Cabinet for resolving the various proposals into a distinctly stated programme. The various Ministerial utterances have led the people to anticipate a specific Public Works policy, characterised by vigour of conception and firmness of purpose ; to anticipate such an arrangement of the incidence of taxation as will tend materially to benefit the great majority of the people, instead of continuing to add to the wealth of strangers and to swell the profits of the middlemen ; to anticipate such a handling of the land question as will inevitably tend to the successful operations of a large number of comparatively small holders. These things, and more. There are the interests of the mining population, the question of cheap 'money for the special • advantage of farmers, and so on. let all this so far lacks the authoritative stamp. It may be the policy of Ministers, but not necessarily of the Ministry. It has to be ormulated, and proposed to the Represent- , atives of the People. If these reject it, then an appeal must be made to the People themselves; and an appeal so made would have ten times— a hundred-fold— greater effect than if Ministers were to go to the country now. Nor do we see, for the reasons stated, how His Excellency could now grant a dissolution were it to be asked for. True, the last session was infinitely more barren than some sanguine j souls had expected : yet it was not un- j [ fruitful nor profitless. Setting aside alto- i gether the legislation of the session ' properly so-called, the great lesson of

nterprovincial Reciprocity was enforced n such a way that its salutary effect must iave been great. His Excellency might »ith justice consider that if the position of ;he Ministry iB not very much better now ;han it was ab the close of the session, of a certainty it is no worse. What, then, should justify him in granting a dissolution off-hand? If, however, Ministers meet the House with suoh a policy as has been foreshadowed, and that policy is rejected as to its principal features, then to our thinking, the Government would be fully justified in asking for a diesolution, and His Excellency would be amply warranted— the position of partieß being duly considered — in granting one.