THE GLOBE. THURSDAY. MAY 18, 1882. THE HON. E. RICHARDSON AT BINGSLAND.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2530, 18 May 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY. MAY 18, 1882. THE HON. E. RICHARDSON AT BINGSLAND.

The speech of Mr. Richardson afc Biugsland is, to quote an old proverb, neither fish, flesh nor good red-herring. An old campaigner, like the late member for Christchurch, must know well enough that the declaration that he intends to be a purely independent member cannot be swallowed by nine-tenths of the public. Inpointof fact, the thing is an absurdity on the very face of it. A member must give his support, modified or otherwise, to one of the two parties, and ha should make up his mind as to which party is most worthy of the confidence of the country. It is not as if the main measures to be brought forward by the Ministry are unknown, or as if the lines on which the present and late Ministries have been working are mysteries and uncertain. On the contrary, the platform of the present holders of power is perfectly clear on general issues, and their ability or inability to carry through the Government of the country on that platform should bo one of the articles of faith of any candidate fcr a seat. “ He had been jinked,” said Mr. Richardson, ‘ whether he would support the Hall Government, bnt ho had declined to pledge himself to do so. He had taken up an independent position in the House, and should continue to do so, reserving to Himself the right to support that Government which brought forward measures best calculated to advance the interests

■of the people.” The above is a pretty sentiment, and elicited cheers from the -aadience. It had a smack of sturdy independence that would be sure to go down at a public meeting. But the slightest reflection will bo sure to modify this satisfaction. la the first place, the

life breath of Parliamentary institutions is government by party. When a • member of one party is dissatisfied with the proceedings of that party, he is perfectly jns'ified in going over to their adversaries, or of forming a party of his own, or, if absolutely necessary, of taking an independent stand because ho can agree with no one else in the House. But instances of the latter are rare, because j government and party tactics must naturally always bo carried on by compromise. Mr. ißichardson, however, gives no valid reason for standing alone. The ■ past and present of New Zealand polities are perfectly well known to him. He, above most men, should have some sort of idea as to the side of the House he would most frequent, if elected, and, having that knowledge, it was his duty to lot the electors of Stanmoro into the secret. When the electors • cheered the windy sentiment quoted above, they, probably, did not reflect that its utterance was no compliment to them. It surely implied a suppression of the innermost thoughts of the speaker. One of the reasons given by Mr '.Richardson for sitting thus on a rail was the following : —“ Ho was of opinion that the time had not yet arrived when the members could divide themselves into •Liberals and Conservatives. The people of the country, and, indeed, all new I countries, desired Liberal measures, and any Government which would do this would stand. So long as any Government brought forward measures which would tend to the good of the country, that Government would have his support.” The opinion in the first part of this quotation is true enough in one sense of the word. The time has certainly not arrived when members can divide themselves into Liberals and Conservatives, in the English sense of the word. The sharp division between two such parties is impossible in a country where the interests that form those parties do not exist. But, if Mr. Richardson means that government by party is’impossible in New Zealand, wo do not agree with him. If Parliament is to consist of unattached members, the confusion that would arise would lead to bad government and all descriptions of evil. On the very face of it the assertion, in the apparent sense in which Mr. Richardson wishes it to be taken, is absurd. There do exist parties at the present moment whoso principles differ very considerably. Each party has its own modus operandi, and has proved its ability or inability to carry on government; and Mr. Richardson pays no compliment to Parliamentary institutions when he declares that the time has not arrived for government for party. Mr. Richardson’s concluding sentence on this subject is a masterpiece. He said that “if the time came when parties were divided into Conservatives and Liberals, he should be fonnd—as he always had been—on the side of the Liberal party.” As to ■when that time was to arrive, or if he had reasonable hopes that it would ever arrive during the lifetime of the present generation—on these points he was judiciously silent. So that most unfortunately the period at which Mr Richardson will cease to sit on a rail is indefinitely postponed

When Mr Richardson descends from his idea of the general principle* of Government to state his views on particular measures, he becomes more satisfactory, because he is forced to give an expression one way or the other. Wo are glad to find, for instance, that ho has determinate ideas on some of the Bills brought down by the late Government during the last session. His view on the railway tariff also will probably commend itself to residents in Canterbury. As to his opinion on the reductions in the Civil Service, wo hardly think he is so happy, Ha blames the late Government for the manner in which reforms were carried out. They should, he said, “ have gradually reduced the service, leaving thos* who were fittest and increasing their salaries, so that they would here have a working Civil Service, not a number of people doing nothing. His opinion was that it would be bettor to employ eighty at 7s per day than one hundred at -55.” And again —“ The colony had lost some of their best men, because they conld not get Is or 2s per day more, and the same process was now going on. There was no doubt of this, that many of their best mon on whom the safety of their railways depended had left them, and many others would do so were it not that they had families and properties. He had done his best to avert this state of things by reasoning with the Government, but with no result.” But he immediately declares that ” the state of the railways was, ho thought, most creditable to the officials concerned.” How these two statements, the latter following close on the heels of the former, are to be reconciled, it is difficult to conceive.

Mr. Richardson’s dictum on the manner in which our loans have been expended is certainly a curious one. He denies that the money raised has been squandered. He calls attention to the nads, water-races, railways, &c., that have been constructed. “ With these works in view, though many of them had boon constructed which were not as yet reproductive, he could not agree that there had been any useless expenditure.” Apparently Mr. Richardson would bo perfectly satisfied if the million a year ho proposes should be raised should be spent on the same principle as Iho millions which have already gone. Hero again wo cannot agree with him We yt nt no moie political railways, for the people have to pay for their construction. If Mr. Richardson recognises no faults in tho expenditure of our past loans, all we can say is that he would be a most unsafe man ns a future Minister of Public Works. No doubt it would pay to complete our system of arterial communication, but to hear a public man declare that ho has learnt no lesson from tbe past is simply astonishing.