THE POLITICAL SITUATION. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.

Evening Post, Volume LV, Issue 64, 17 March 1898, Page 5

THE POLITICAL SITUATION. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.

In the course of his remarks at the large gathering of Mr. Duthie's supporters at Thomas's Hall last evening, Mr. George Hutchison, M.H.R., who should be one of the first authorities on the question in the colony, referred to the constitutional position in politics arising out of the recent election contest. Mr. Hutchison said :—: — By-elections, even when successively following the same course, may not afford reliable evidence of the drift of public opinion over a whole country, but if such indications occur in circumstances of admitted importance as to results, the record of by-elections may become a tolerably accurate index of the future. Sinci the geueral election of December, 1896, we have had (besides a re-election of a member for a country constituency under peculiar conditions) two by-elections. Both the by-elections (other than the one referred to) occurred in cities where the advanced claims of Minister? might be expected tc receive more favourable consideration than iv other constituencies, but iv both the Ministry suffered defeat. The more recent contest (in Wellington) was accepted by both sides as likely to hay« an important effect on general politics. The Premier declared, in advance, that it was "the greatest political battle ever fought in this country." Every influence the Ministry could employ was exerted, andthe result was decisive. PARTIES IN THE HOUBE. When we consider that in Parliament, between the dates of these two coutests, five of those members who at the General Election were classed as supporters of the Ministry voted with the Opposition on a question which the Premier made one of "no confidence," and that towards the end of the Session two more, claimed as supporters, assisted m preventing the passing of a Bill introduced by the Premier, we find convincing indications of impending change. THE COUKSES OPEN TO MINISTEKS. A Ministry, with the waning support experienced by the present one, both inside and outside Parliament, must contemplate recourse to one of three expedients. T, ue y may (1) adventure a new policy; or (2) claim a dissolution ; or (3) resign. As to No. 1, although such an attempt is always probable, yet nothing sufficiently new within the development of their present policy is likely to edge off the stampede, while a sudden turn would mean destruction. Less than 18 months have elapsed since Ministers went to the country on certain declarations of policy which were accepted as sufficient by a considerable though reduced majority. No policy measure has been rejected by the House of Representatives. It has been on administration and not on legislation that tbey have been shaken. This is literally true of the representative Chamber, which is the only one to be considered in connection with the question of confidence or no-confidence. THE BISKS OP CHANGE OF POLICY. If, for the purpose of covering their weakness in Administration, the Ministry wfere to launch a new policy calculated to influence the electorates, such as a large loan for public works, they would undoubtedly incur considerable risk of further degradation. Apart from their repeated declarations against such a policy, a change in that direction would be so obviously artificial and for a purpose so likelj' in its operation to be proflgate, that it would most probably defeat itself. Such a reckless bid on a falling market would thoroughly discredit them. Expedient No. 1 may therefore be passed over. WHAT IF NO NEW POLICY ? Let us now suppose that the Ministry decide to face next session without any change other than further protestations of their wonderful patriotism, and let us alsc suppose that they are unable to carry on th« work of government, not perhaps in consequence of a direct vote of waut-of-confidence but from the combined effects of opposition and disunion. I THE QUESTION OF DISSOLUTION. In such an eventuality they may desire to [ appeal to the country. Would they be entitled to a dissolution ? It is to be remembered that to ask for a dissolution would be a confession of forfeited confidence suffered in a House elected under their own auspices, in which less than two years before they had started with a three-fifths majority. The withdrawal of confidence in such circumstances must be held to imply a change in public opinion. This is the long-maintained constitutional doctrine. Recently a modification has been urged, which some constitutional authorities accept, though with hesitation, to the extent that when a change of opinion is manifested during the course of a Parliament, and is sought to be appealed against, it is allowable to enquire if the change in the attitude ol the representatives is justified by a corresponding alteration in public opinion. This course is urged as proper so as to avoid, if possible, recourse being had to such a serious step as breaking in upon the ordinary life of Parliament unless clearly necessary in the public interests. It is also justified in these colonies, where, although representative institutions are in operation, the Governor still remains directly responsible to the Crown for the exercise of the prerogative of dissolution. Such an enquiry, however, in the present case would certainly be answered against the Ministry. If, instead of resistance to a withdrawal of confidence, the springing of a new policy such as already considered were made by the Minister the ground for claiming a dissolution, the character of such a change would of itself disentitle them to an appeal, which would practically be an appeal against themselves. Consequently, on every ground, they would fail on No. 2, leaving them no alternative but to resign. THE DUTY OT? THE OPPOSITION. In such an event, the recognised Opposition would be expected to fulfil the responsibility they had assumed by preventing the ex-Minis-try from performing the work of government. But it is clear in such a case that the new Ministry would be in a position of considerable embarrassment if they had not the right to appeal to the constituencies. They could only depend for support in the House on a minority. They would, no doubt, by constitutional practice and by Parliamentary courtesy,, be accorded an opportunity of introducing their policy, but, as that would bo a policy the constituencies had never pronounced upon, the new Ministry would, so soon as they found any hesitation as to the complete acceptance of their policy by the House, be entitled to have it submitted to the judgment of the electors.