The Star. "WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1903. AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7787, 19 August 1903, Page 2

The Star. "WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1903. AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE.

The present session, is prolific in "no confidence " motions. 1 Another of these sacrifices to Party Government was forced on the House yesterday, when the Premier I accepted an amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply as an expression of want of ' confidence in the Ministry. It may be doubted- -whether 'Mr ; Seddora was justified in assuming the attitude which he took up, and, moreover, | there can be no question, we think, that Mr Taylor was extremely ill-advised in moving the amendment. It was improbable from: the first that the amendment could serve any useful object, and as matters tutoedi out, it resulted in, nothing more than a colourless debate^ followed by an uninstructive division. 'The nature of the amendment was as unjustifiable as was the interruption which it caused. For some reason best known to themselves, Mr Taylor a.nd his prohibitionist colleagues have assumed that the Premier is responsible for the present situation in the Newtown licensing district, and the amendment moved by the member for Chxistchurch charged the Executive with interfering with the right,-of the police to enforce the law in that electorate. Needless to say, the charge was wholly unwarranted. The attitude of the Government over the licensing issues, far from being "unjustifiable and subversive of popular rights and liberties," has been conspicuously correct. As Mr Seddoh has been careful to 'explain/on, every occasion on which the subject has arisen, so long as the question is still before the law Courts the Government is powerless to interfere. But the prohibitionists deliberately shut their eyes to this very apparent fact. For some undefined reason, they have concluded that the Premier has formed an alliance with the liquor party, and apparently nothing will them that his whole attitude is not dictatsd by a consuming desire to protect the interests of the "Tna.de." This assumption;, of course, is grossly unfair. It fe trite i.lv\.t. tihe Premier has been, slow to move on tlie matter of licensing legislation this session? but his immobility has net. beem to tihe detriment of one side more t'tbaia anotiisr. He 'has striven to fc,old the balance with strict impartiality, ,and .although has policy has been of too nega,liv«f a character to please the extremists on «itiher- side, ifc is admitted by all impartial observers tfohh helias succeeded. But th&rr prejudices ha,ve. induced the probibiticnasts to atojek tihe Premier, aoid w© cannot ,see thafb they have any reason to complain of Ms retort. To us it seems tha,fc the daEemae was ait least worthy of the attack. But, although the methods <r.:bnted by Mr Seddiosn to rqpel tho assault may be open to criticism, and bot!h the nature and time dhio-sen by Mr Taylor for his amendment deserve, ©ensure, they sink into insignificance by comtpivrison with the action of that section of the Opposition which supported the Among this section were memibers who, by their own ddtaission, had no sympathy with the anie-ndnwnit. Yet, in their blind hostility towards the Government, they voted! for it. No woiiddr, wit-h suc ; h an object lesson of political depravity beifoire him, the Premier hesitates to tackle the licensing question. After his experience of j"ie>sfcerday it, seems that he must ooiuiit on the inflexible opposition , of oertalin Conservative memlxirs, a-pavt from t)h<* mes'Lts of th© question. '