The Evening Star THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3526, 11 June 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1874

As there could scarcely be a difference of opinion regarding the facts on which Mr Fish based his resolution censuring the late Executive, so substantially his motion, though theoretically negatived, was morally affirmed. We cannot but look upon it as an unwise proceeding for the present Executive to have accepted the motion as a trial of strength between themselves and a shadowy Opposition. The motion implied no censure on Mr Reid or Mr Stout. It was one that those gentlemen might have calmly left to be discussed by the Council as an open question, and in which they could even have felt quite at liberty to acquiesce, without in the slightest degree endangering their position as Ministers. Had not Mr Reid been in office, we do not know anyone so likely as himself to have moved a

similar resolution, and, in all probability, to have carried it. What possible object was expected to be gained through regarding Mr Fish’s motion as a “ no confidence” resolution we cannot understand. So far as we can see, the House had affirmed its confidence in the Executive by passing the Estimates laid before it, and virtually approving most of the measures of the Government : the motion of Mr Fish did not concern anything proposed to be done, and it was asking too much of the supporters of the Government that merely for party purposes they should vote against a resolution that could only be met by one similar in spirit and varied alone in words. If Mr Fish’s motion had been carried, which there is reason to conclude would have been the case had it not been made a Government question, the Executive must have resigned, and none but themselves would hare been to blame for a result they had invited. The consequence would have been time wasted in reconstructing a Ministry to v hich there would have been a strong and determined opposition, delay in public business, a prolongation of the session, and all the inconvenience necessarily consequent upon change of Ministers. As it has turned out, the victory of the Reid Executive is equivalent to a defeat. Only twenty-five .members were present j and it was necessary, in order to propitiate a majority of them, to introduce a resolution so worded that it may be said to be Mr Fish’s motion diluted so as not to be too disagreeable for the friends of the Government to swallow. Where were the absentee members ? Why did they not attend and vote ? Is not the infe-' rence fair that they did not wish any change of administration, yet they would have felt compelled to record their votes in favor of Mr Fish’s motion, and therefore preferred being absent, as the only means of avoiding the dilemma in which the action of the Government had placed its friends 1 If, in a house of twenty-five members, with the aid of the Executive, only fourteen could be mustered to support the substituted resolution of Mr M‘Glashan, it is plain that the majority of the non-official members were against the Executive. Nor must it be forgotten that after all the affair amounts to a compromise. The final vote was not on Fish v. Reid, but on an amendment proposed by an independent member, so worded as to express the spirit of both resolutions. The censure is not the less because it is issued in the mild verbiage of a “ regret” that the late Executive did wrong, and warns future Ministries to be careful not to do likewise. Mr Haggitt put the matter in its true light, so far as the real merits of the transaction are concerned ; and were it not that personal feeling has been largely imported into the discussion, we have no doubt Mr Reid would have entirely endorsed all he said. But if so, the folly of making the affair a Government question is apparent. What does it matter to the public that Mr Fish differs from Mr Turnbull or Mr Reid on things immaterial to their interests ? So long as public business is properly conducted, private feelings may be fairly left to regulate themselves. There is no occasion to make the floor of the Council Chamber the arena for wordy personal duels. It has been too often the battle-ground for a faction fight, from which the Province has usually suffered. That it has escaped this time with only the loss of a day s discussion must be considered a cheap let off, as there was nothing to be gained by it, and much more might have been wasted. Mr Reid’s long political experience should have been to lead him to avoid risking the status of an Executive on so trivial a difference as that of personal feeling. Nothing can justify a Government in assuming a motion to be one of “ want of confidence” that does not involve some essential difference between large sections of the House ; and nothing is so likely to create want of confidence as an endeavor to burke discussion on questions on which the public can have but one opinion. The result of the debate has not altered the public view of the facts of the case. No better reasons have been shown for departure from recognised principles than were before apparent. The late Executive have not been exonerated from blame in departing from the instructions of the Council j in fact, the only difference between the motion of IMi Fish and that adopted, js a warning implied in the original motion, and the omission of the constitutional theory, which was not essential. In standing forward to defend what is indefensible, the Government have suffered the usual fate of unwise champions : though conquerors in name, they are virtually defeated 3 and in seeking to damage an opponent they have really given him a victory.