OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 275, 19 March 1889, Page 2

OUR SYDNEY LETTER.

(from oub own correspondent.) Sydney, March 6. All question as to the relative effective strength of parties in the H.uise ha« been set at rest by this morning’s division. The Protectionist Ministry are defeated by four votes, the numbers being 64 against 68. No doubt they will accept the position with becoming grace. And there is also no doubt that they will be much stronger in Opposition than they were on the other side. They went to the country one-third of the Assembly. They came back again fifty per cent, stronger, constituting, in fact, half the House. The full moral weight of this circumstance will now assert itself, and if the conduct of the party is characterised by dignity and selfrestraint, it cannot fail largely to increase its influence.

A great deal of heated partisan rubbish has been written to assert that the Ministry ought to have resigned before meeting the House. It was said they were in a minority nf five—an assertion which was vigorously denied by the other side. Now, without re-opening the irritating and fruitless discussion as to which of the paper lists of names was correct, it is evident that the existence of a Ministry does not depend upon paper names at all, but on the number of members who can be got together in the House to support or oppose it. We talk about the verdict of the country. But the verdict of the country in a case like this where the numbers are open to so much doubt and dispute, can only be given in the Assembly by the members whom the country has returned for that purpose. As a matter of fact, the division just taken was in doubt till the very last moment. Any Ministry which had accepted the ” bounce ” of its opponents as truth, would have stood selfconvicted of craven poltroonery. If there had been any desire to adopt such a course, which we have no right to believe, it was placed out of reach by the force of circumstances. Mr Dibbs and his colleagues had given hostages tn fortune. They had paid the Civil Servants’ salaries without Parliamentary authority, and are now technically liable to the painsand penalties in that case made and provided. The mete instinct of self preserration, quite apart from any hunger for place and pay, would demand that at all hazards they should maintain their vantage ground as long as possible, Their present position is a very unenviable one, and should act as a warning to any Ministry, however laudable its motives, which ia tempted to expend the publio money without Parliamen. tary sanction, They are absolutely at the mercy of their opponents for Indemnification in this matter, and although the power possessed by the latter Is not one that oan be talked about, it will exeraise a very considerable, if not altogether an undesirable influence.

For one thing it ought to prevent the execution of the discreditab'e purpose which has been attributed to the leading spirits of the now-defeated Ministry. It was said that if they found it necessary to resign, they would avail themselves of the absence of their successors from the House to move a vote of confidence, mare McMillan, Haynes and Co. But men who are themselves dependent on the generosity of their opponents will hardly countenance any out throat tactics of this kind Even if they would the support of the moderate section of the Home would be necessary to carry them into effect and it ia to be hoped it would be sternly refused. One such incident in the history of a colony is quite enough, without erecting it into a pre oedent.

It is to be hoped, now that the question of numerical superiority |)as been definitely settled, that the public bneiness, which has fallen into moat disgraceful arrears, will receive the best attention ot both parries. At the time I write, the State employees, even those dependent on weekly wages, are unpaid, and are suffering distress and pressure in consequence. Nearly tpe whole of the loan and trust funds appear to be absorbed and spent in current expendi u-e, whilst the land difficulty has reached a pitch which is well nigh intolerable. That a number of respectable, or linarily conscientious gentlemen should lose

all remembrance of these threatening facts in the wild desire to get at the throats of their equally respectable and conscientious antagonists sitting opposite, is one of the special dancers incident tn party government, and one of the symptoms which shows a change to be necessary, Either of these matters or all of them are of more pressing publio importance than protection or freetrade. But they don't lend themselves so readily to party strife. Therefore they are neclected, and the interests of the State suffer in consequence. There is one other matter upon which, now that the Government is definitely defeated, even partizans may be expected to hear reason. It has been loudly asserted that Mr Dibbs and hia colleagues assumed the reins of office for the express purpose of establishing a protective policy, and that when they found it out of their power immediately to do so, they should incontinently have resigned. But what are the facte ? Mr Dibbs came into office on the question " that the House do now adjourn ’’ moved by Mr Want and carried by a majority. As long therefore as Mr Dibbs could retain a majority (and nothing that could be regarded as authoritative had transpired before this morning’s division to show that be had not) he was entitled to govern. It is true that he declared that his policy, among other things, would be to recast the fiscal policy of the country in the direction of Protection. But just as he avowed himself a Protectionist, so did his opponents avow themselves Free Traders, It Mr Dibbs was under any compulsion to push protection to its logical outcome, the other side are under just as much compulsion so to push their Free Trade principles. Their conduc’, for instance in retaining office after the duties on dairy produce had been carried in their teeth, is a much graver dereliction of duty, judged according to canons of this kind, than that of Mr Dibbs. The one side ran their heads against a stone wall, were defeated, and pocketed the affront, The other recognised the strength of the obstacle and decline to test that of their headpieces against it. But if they had attacked it, they might be relied upon to resign if they experienced a defeat.

After all, the question is whether or not a certain amount of protection is neoeaeary to secure real freedom for industry, just as a certain amount of warlike preparation and expenditure is necessary to secure the full frui'ion of the blessings of peace. Thia is the question on which the public are elowly and laboriously making up their minds, and there seems no reason to doubt that the ultimate verdict will be the same as that which has been given in nearly every British speaking country in the world. It is a question to be decided on its own abstract merits and has nothing to do with the Catholic vote or with the political fortunes of any particular set of office seekers. Indeed, the latter, if they are not especially careful, seem likely, by the encumbrance of their ill-regulated zeal, to damage tlje cause which they espouse. But iu spite of the attacks of enemies and the mi-takes of friends the great cause of truth is bound in the long run to assert itself, “Not proven " ia the verdict of the commission appointed to inquire into the alleged tramway Dasing job. It was averred that certain syndicates who were interested in obtaining leases of the metropolitan tramways had offered bribes of shares and oash to sundry members of Parliament to secure support. The commission cannot find any evidence to this effect. Neither the briber nor the bribee in such oases are particularly anxious to publish the details of their crime to .the world. Their anxiety is rather the other way, still, th,ey do occasionally make a mistake, which a sharp scrutiny might detect. In this case it appears that no mistake was mads.

By the way this verdict of •’ not proven " covers some curious cases. For instance, at the Divoron Court iha other day an aggrieved husband sought for relief on the grounds that his wife was wont to drink spirits in her bedroom with another man, and was given habitually to sundry other familiarities which in the eyes of those who witnessed their,, only bpre one construction. But the judge held that not only was adultery not proven, but that there was no evidence of it, aad dismissed the case without calling on the respondent. Of ooutae if the parties who were cognisant of tha compromising facts can dismiss them from their minds with equal ease, the lady's reputation will bo fully established and vindicated. In her case it is quits pos-

sible that ihe allegations after all were not facts but mere malicious inventions. But in the case of some of our members of Parliament, lam afraid that the verdict of “not proven ” means just what it says and nothing more. And that, after all, does not mean much.

The next ahufle of the political cards will be watched with absorbing interest. The present outlook is simply a prolongation Of chaos.