The Evening Star MONDAY, MAY 18, 1874.

Evening Star, Issue 3505, 18 May 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, MAY 18, 1874.

The - no-confidence debate brought to light the great difficulty there is in really estimating the party distinctions of the .present Provincial Council. When a late colleague of Mr Turnbull and Dr Webster, and three prominent supporters—Mr Fish, Mr De Latour, and Mr Clarke, of the late Executivebased their opposition to the REiD-cum-Turnbull Government on the ground that Mr Turnbull and Dr Webster were taken in by Mr Reid, one can only express astonishment and regret. Astonishment that not until Mr Reid had had the formation of an Executive did these members discover the unfitness of Messrs Turnbull and Webster, and regret that they should have admitted their shortsightedness in such a patent way, and thus led the public to question their political ability. The attack on the “ composition ” of the Executive might have been properly made by Messrs Bastings, Fish, De L atour, and Clarke, if the members objected to had been Messrs Reid, Stout, and Lumsden. Strange to say, however, not one word was said against these three. Here was something inexplicable, and rendered not less puzzling when the events of the past June are kept in remembrance. Indeed, there only seems to be one natural explanation and that is, to some members of the Council : Mr Bastings must be in the Executive, before they can support it. Questions of policy, questions of personal fitness of the members of the Executive are of no moment. The one essential in an Executive to merit the support of at least eight or nine members of the Council is, Mr Bastings. Such an alliance to force one Goldfields representative as the sine qua non of all Executives might be well termed “ unholy.” It is even more than that, for it inferentially throws discredit on all the other Goldfields representatives, and makes them really say at least ‘ those who supported Mr Bastings’s motion — no other Goldfields member is fit for the position of Goldfields Secretary. Mr M‘Kellar saw this, and manfully attacked such a position, asserting that though he had no fault to find with Mr Bastings’s administration, still he could not admit that the member for Tuapeka was the only administrator the Goldfields could produce. The other question introduced into the motion of no confidence—that of the proposed land policy of the present Executive—was even more unfortunate than that of the composition of the Executive. First, the land policy has yet to be submitted in detail, and it is certainly unfair to attack any wide general statement regarding proposals to be submitted. The Council ought to wait until the proposals are before it. This would be a sufficient reply to those who were not last year supporters of the Executive; but to those who did support the’ Executive when Mr Bastings was Goldfields Secretary, the attack on the land policy was simply absurd. Mr Reid submitted three proposals to the Council: first, the construction of certain railways ; second, the payment of these railways out of. loan ; third, failing the obtaining of a loan, the sale of land—wholly unsuited for agricultural purposes, and of a rugged character—by auction, at the upset price of ten .shillings per acre. If the Council do not sanction the railways, there need be no loan and no pastoral lands sold. Here then was a way out of the dilemma. But it the Council did authorize the construction of railways, these works must be paid for, and here again were two courses—either a loan or the sale of pastoral laud. And how did the Opposition meet these proposals 1 The debate showed thathardly two of the Opposition were agreed as to what the land policy ought to be. Mr Bastings, with his personal supporters, it is true, admitted he and they had last year proposed and supported the disposal of more than half a million of acres of pastoral land —the size of the blocks not being mentioned, but that they had changed their opinions. Out of office, and in the cool shades of the Opposition, they were opposed to the sale of any pastoral land. If they are sincere in this new creed of theirs, there will yet be an opportunity afforded to them of promulgating their doctrine. When the proposals for branch railways are before the Council, let them be found consistently and determinedly voting against the construction of all new works. But they did not venture on such delicate ground during the debate. The talk was kept up of “large blocks, large blocks!” Would! it be, believed that not only did Mr Reid say nothing about the sale of “ large blocks,” but if the Opposition so desire it, they can move that no block exceed 1,000 acres in extent. Of the views expressed as to the sale of land on deferred payments, «kc, we cannot criticise the Opposition, because not two of them agreed. Policy they had none. And even the attack on Mr Reid’s statement had to be given up for an adverse criticism by Mr Bastings on his Honor’s opening

address, to which Mr Bastings had assented when in office, but when out of office he condemned. When an Opposition leader is reduced to such straits as those, we can only feel pity for him, and pity for those who follow whithersoe’er he leads, and without demanding from him a clear and explicit statement of his views. While thus criticizing the conduct of the Opposition, we do not mean to infer that the sole object of those who are opposed to the present Executive is office. There are some in the Opposition who have, on previous occasions, refused office when it was offered to them. We think we have, however, shown that the Opposition has as yet no clear defined policy to replace that proposed by Mr Reid, and that the , objections to the personnel of the Executive were captious, if not factious.