Evening Post.

Evening Post, Volume XLIV, Issue 11, 13 July 1892, Page 2

Evening Post.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13. 18S2. A SINGULAR DIVISION. It was an edifying spectacle to see Mini&ters going into different lobbies last night in the division on one of the most vital provisions of the first Policy Bill they have submitted to the House. It will bo remembered that the advent of this Bill was heralded by the ostontatious announcement that by it Minibtera would stand or fall. In the second division upon it they are themselves divided. There is Scriptural authority as to the ultimate fate of a house divided against itself. The Ministerial division is the more singular in that tho very point at issue is tho one on which the Bill was wrpeked last session, and regarding which Ministei'3 have during the recess boon especially bitter in their denunciation of the action of the Council. It was on this point they were going to try conclusions with the Council this year, and sweep that body out of existence if it did not yield. The Electoral Bill of last year, as originally introduced by Ministers, contained the freehold clause. Tho clanso was strnck out in the House, because some parties attempted to add the leasehold qualification. Tho Council dosirod to restore tho Bill to its original form, but this was strenuously resisted by its authors, tho Ministry, and they preferred to ' drop the mcasnre altogether, and establish a grievance against tho Council, rather than permit it to pass in the form in which thoy had introduced it, recognising tho freehold qualification. Now, at the cost of an internal split, tho Ministry as a body has harked back to the original form, and the House has, by an overwhelming majority, roversed its decision of last session, and in doing so has justified tho action of the Council in remaining firm in its support of tho political rights of freeholders. The example set by Messrs Seddon and Beeves, in throwing, off their Ministerial responsibility and renouncing their Party allegianco by voting against tho Premier on this occasion, is a somewhat dangerous one, and can scarcely fail to be productive cf evil results to the Ministry. Party obligations and allegianco will probably sit lightly on the shoulders of private members when they note the action of their leaders in this matter. If the Premier cannot manage and control his Cabinet household, how is he to lead and direct his Party ? If he wore a man of backbone, ho would on such a question as that of last night have adopted tho position taken np on a similar question in tho Imperial Parliament by the Duke of Wellington, who, when Premisr of England, said grimly — '" Sir Husset Vivian may voto as he pleaso», but the Commandant of the Forces in Ireland must vote with tho Government." If Mr Ballanck had said — "Messrs. Ekeves and Seddon may voto as they liko, but the Ministers for Education and Public Works must vote with the Government," ho would havo brought those gentlemen to their senses, and saved the scandal of Ministers voting against each other on an important question of policy and principle.