The press. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1906.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12590, 5 September 1906, Page 6

The press. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1906.

THE DISSOLUTION BOGEY.

The politicians and publicists who are at present holding up the bogey of a dissolution and asserting that a fresh appeal to the constituencies will assuredly follow a defeat of tihe Government on the land question are on the lioms of a dilemma. Either they themseTvee are ignorant of the principles of constitutional • government, or they aro trying to impose on the ignorance of new mombere of the House by frightening them with a contingency which they know is extremely uoilikoly to happen. Moreover, ilk the latter case they art* paying these new members a very poor compliment m assuming that tiho mere fear of havtffg to Tisk tlbeir scats ami their £300 a year ia enough to -make them vote against tibeir convictions and to falsify their election pledges. In considering this question it must be borne in mind that it is not within th© power of the Ministry itself to say whether a dissolution ehall or shall not be granted. That ia ddettoct-Iy tiheprerogative of the Grown. And .although mi England of late years it has not been customary for the Sovereign to .refuse a dissolution to his Mißistere, the case is different in the colonies, "where tihe Governor is entitled, and , indeed ./expected, to exercise hie discretion, in the matter, and dissolutions are frequently refused. All constitutional authorities are agreed tihat dissolutions ehouOd bo resorted to, with great caution.- "Frequent, im- " necessary or abrupt dissolutions of "Parliament/ as one writer puts it, " inevitably tend to ' blu.i:ib the edge "Of a great instrument given to tibe "Crown for its protection,' aiid when"evea , they havo occurred tJbey have "beem fraught with dan.ger to the "Commonwealth." Lord Phmket, by* the way in winch he handled the orisia which followed the death of Mr Seddon, eliowcdi that 'he has a keen appreciation of the principles, and indeed of tihe .niceties, of constitutional government, and w© do not for one moment believe that he would grant the present Ministry a dissolution eimply because they were defeated upon the land question. The sole object of a dissolution is to ascertain the mind of the country. If the land Question were an entirely new issue, upon which the opinioa of the eloctore had never been asked, Mum we could imagine the Governor granting a dissolution upon the defeat of the Government on this question. But everyone knows that this was one of the most prominent questions fought cut at the late election, and we doubt if there is a eingle representative who did not declare his views upon it. If the Ministerial pTOpmeals axe defeated, therefore, it must bo assumed that in throwing: them out the House is expressing the wishes of the country. JiOng ago, Charles Jnnfcs Fox laid it down that it is dangerous to admit of any other recognised organ of public opinion than.the Houee of Common?— a dictum quoted with approval by Six

Robert Peel in 1841. It would be not only a useless expense, but a positive act of absurdity to go to the electors in 1906 or 1907 to ask them for their opinion on a question upon which they pronounced in decided terms in 1905. But it is further argued that if the Government are defeated on their lanrl proposals, Mr Massey will bo unable to form a Ministry out of the present House, and this in itself will afford ample justification for a dissolution. Those who argue in this way, howover, show their ignorance of the conetitutional precedents in regard to this particular question. That there might be some difficulty in forming a stable Ministry we admit, but it does not at all follow that it would be impossible. It must be remembered that the death of Mr Seddon dissolved the bonds of party allegiance in the case of many iromibers whose sympathies are really with the Opposition in regard to many of the questions of tho day. It is possible, and indeed probable, that the defeat of the Government would lead to a considerable readjustment of party lines. In any case his Excellency would not be justified in granting a dissolution merely because parties were evenly divided, or because of any difficulty in forming an Administration capable of keeping the confidence of the Housefor I any length of time. That has boen laid down on many occasions, even in tho history of this colony. In 1872 the Stafford Ministry wns defeated in the House of Representatives upon motion by Sir Julius Vogel of want of confidence, which was passed by a majority of two. This Minie-txy had been in existence but four weeks,.their predecessors having resigned upon a similar defeat by en adverse vote of three. Theee facts seemed to show, as it was put at the time, "that no party "in the present House was strong " enough to command, a reliable work- , "ing majority." Sir George Bowen, however, refused to grant a dissolution). Aa a mntt€T of fact, there were fivo Ministries in seven months at this period of the colony's history. In 1877 Sir George Grey requested the Governor, the Marquis of Normanby, to driesolve the House of Representatives on account of the evenly balanced state of parties therein, but his -Excellency refused to consider the question. Neither oh the ground of an advene vote on the land questions nor on account of the subsequent difficulties of forming a Ministry—which difficulties we believe would in practice be found to disappear ' —is it at all likely, therefore, thjt-fc this j colony will be plunged into the expense and turmoil of another general" election before it becomes due in the ordinary I course in 1908. Those members who I allow themselves to be frightened into i voting against their pledges by the bogey which has evidently been (raised for the express purpose of so terrorising them will find it very difficult to explain their actions when they have ' ultimately to face their constituents in ' the ordinary course.