The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1883. Mr Montgomery’s Reply.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 964, 8 June 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prevalebit. FRIDAY, JUNE 8, 1883. Mr Montgomery’s Reply.

It must be admitted that Major Atkinson’s address at Hawera the other day has not increased his political reputation, even among his most devout admirers. In the first place those people who expected the enunciation of a strong policy on the part of the Government could not fail to be disappointed when they learnt that the only important Bills to be brought down next session merely dealt with social reform questions. But what particularly formed the subject of reproach among the Colonial Treasurer’s opponents was the manner in which he spoke of the Opposition, especially the nominal leader, Mr Montgomery. Ardent and vigorous debater as is Major Atkinson, when he resorts to banter, his utterances are not always very refined, and in this instance it must be confessed they verged on absolute coarseness. Whether the Minister in question recognises it or not, it is generally admitted that the member for Akaroa is the leader of what Opposition exists in the present Parliament, and an attempt to make people believe that the political power of Sir George Grey has not departed cannot meet with success. The Treasurer, in fact, made a false move, which he will probably live to regret. Still, it had one effect, namely, that it aroused a certain amount of sympathy for Mr Montgomery, even among those who were opposed to his opinions, and when that gentleman replied at Christchurch on Tuesday evening his words received more consideration than perhaps would have been accorded to them under ordinary circumstances. It is a distinct advantage to an orator to be sure that the audience he is addressing is predisposed to be friendly, and taken altogether we are inclined to think that Tuesday’s speech was the best we remember to have read from Mr Montgomery. His recriminatory retort to Major Atkinson, that although a great deal of talk had been expended upon the necessity for a National Insurance scheme and for a reform in the constitution of the Legislative Council, the Government do not intend to bring down any measures dealing with these matters, was not without justification. There certainly does seem to have been a very great deal of cry and very little wool. But that part of the speech that is not directly personal is hardly so successful, the same ground having been travelled over many times before. The colony has had to listen only too often to interminable arguments as to the comparative merits of a Property Tax and a Land Tax, and to accusations brought against the Government for their delay in bringing their measures before the House. Mr Montgomery’s trump card, however, was the West Coast railway, and we may be sure that the Christchurch audience was entirely with him when he held up Mr Rolleston as an object for reprobation because he had not secured a grant out of the loan for the construction of this line. Tremendous cheering, we are told, followed the comparison between the conduct of the Minister for Land, and that of Sir G. M., then Mrs O’Rorke, who gave up the AttorneyGeneralship because he could not agree with the proposal of. Sir Julius Vogel to abolish provincial institutions, although we fail to see that the cases are in any way parallel. In the one instance the issue was'upon a question of national policy, which this matter of the West Coast railway can scarcely claim to be. What Mr Montgomery said upon land tenure was principally confined to the manner in which the Native Lands Court was administered. Here he hit upon a decided blot, but it must be remembered that Mr Bryce had already recognised the existence of that blot, and that the Colonial Treasurer had echoed the Native Minister, thereby pledging the Government to initiate some measure to remedy the evil. But when the member for Akaroa has said all he can, what does it amount to ? The Government, he avers, has no policy, but is not the Opposition in precisely the same plight ? Take, for example, this West Coast railway, whichg Mr Montgomery stated was wanted not only by Canterbury but by the whole colony. Will he test the strength of parties in Parliament upon this question ? He knows better than to attempt such a course, for he is fully aware that the members of his own party in every other province but this would vote against the proposal. The moral to be drawn from the two speeches of Major Atkinson and Mr Montgomery seems to be that next session will be a very tame one. The Government evidently does not mean to attempt to witch the world with any startling proposals, while the Opposition will carry on the same kind of guerilla warfare that characterised their tactics last year.