South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1880.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2333, 8 September 1880, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1880.

The popular ballad— No one to love me, None to caress. is being sung in doleful accents by the Ministry and their friends. Opinion may be divided as to whether the present Government are entitled to sympath}’-, but their greatest opponents will admit that if they do not deserve pity their position is pitiful. They have adopted a policy which has made enemies innumerable and few friends. They are the victims of an ungrateful and treacherous Parliament, and a thankless public. They have performed the dirty work of the former, and they claim to have obeyed the mandates of the latter. Few Ministries have displayed a disposition so servile. Yet so fickle is human nature, when it assumes a representative shape, that even those who have led the amiable drudges into their difficulties now recoil from them with contempt. It is impossible to contemplate the gloomy aspect of the political horison without feeling that the Ministry are being badly treated. But it is desirable that the blame should be placed on the proper shoulders. If Ministers complain that they are friendless and forlorn, whom must they thank ? Cun the public be held responsible ? Was it to please the public that they, adopted an unpopular policy ? Were the public consulted in reference to their scheme of taxation ? Was the increase by 50 per cent of ad valorem duties on many of the commodities of life demanded by the people ? Was public opinion consulted in reference to the property tax ? If the Ministry have been dragged through the mire, and if they now find themselves universally distrusted and condemned, to whom is the fault due ? Has the Government been betrayed by the people or by their own supporters ? After the way in which the taxation proposals of the Ministry have been declaimed it will hardly be urged that this part of their policy was dictated by public opinion. As a

fact the taxpayers were scarcely consulted in reference to the way in which they desired to be faxed. Under the pretence of revising the tariff, additional taxation of a most pernicious and harassing character has been imposed. The cost of the taxing machinery of the colony lias been enormously increased, and the new taxes have been uniform!}' aimed at colonial industry. In their policy of retrenchment, us in their mode of taxation, Ministers have obeyed Parliament not the people. At the last general election the latter urged a widely different policy to the one that has been carried out. But the Government was not to bo guided by popular clamour, and hence they assumed a dictatorial attitude, prescribing what (hey considered the country required, and not what the country wauled. The modus oprmndi of retrenchment betrays an alarming deviation from ministerial promises, and it is pleaded that the Government have abandoned their own sweet will in obedience to Parliament. Wo were led to expect that the Civil Service was to be improved, not crippled. It was to be properly organised not disorganised and demoralised. The encumbrances wore to be removed, useless officers were to bo discharged or superannuated, offices where practicable were to be combined, but efficiency was to be preserved unimpared. There was to be a judicious weeding, not a universal and merciless cheese-paring. How have these promises been carried out? The tree has been pruned—cut down to a disastrous extent —but the rotten branches are carefully preserved. There has been no “ tempering the wind to the shorn lamb,” but a merciless all - round reduction. Instead of the scarifier and the grubber clearing away the weeds we have the roller at work crushing everything before it. This is a kind of retrenchment peculiar to New Zealand. It is not the description of retrenchment that we find going on in the other colonics. Can it be urged that it is applicable to our circumstances ? Is it the sort of retrenchment that the country demanded ? The Ministry say that it is the demand of Parliament,but if Parliament asked Ministers to commit political suicide, must they obey ? The Government should have been prepared with a policy of their own, and by that policy they should have stood or fallen. Instead of that they have allowed Parliament to direct them or rat her to mislead them. If their policy has been a bold one the excuse urged for its adoption is peculiarly childish. A Government to he of any real service should lead the way, and not allow itself to be driven. A Ministry that so far forgets itself as to condescend to be a servant of servants must be prepared to realise the consequences of its folly. The pica that the Government in their policy of retrenchment have yielded obedience to the voice of a Parliament whoso existence hangs on the breath of the people, is obviously a llimsy subterfuge. If the Government lias exhibited great boldness in carrying out an unpopular policy it is inconsistent with this vaunted courage that an attempt should now be made to shirk responsibility by taking refuge behind the coat-tails of a disorderly and disunited Parliament.