The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 10. 1888.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXX, Issue 8557, 10 August 1888, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, AUGUST 10. 1888.

The amount of deliberate obstruction indulged in during tbe last month’s proceedings of the House of Representatives has been one of the features of the session. It is certainly no pleasant feature. In theory, all talking against time is utterly bad. In practice, it may very occasionally be rightly resorted to. But the occasions for using it are few and far between. Like war, it is only permissible under extraordinary provocation. A minority threatened with rank injustice, through unfair use of strength by a majority, may be acquitted if it makes a stand and forces the tyrannical majority to consent to a reasonable arrangement. But then the advantage proposed to be snatched by the majority must be so manifestly outrageous as to make it certain that public opinion will be on the side of the obstructionists when all the circumstances of the case are known. Otherwise stonewalling is nearly certain to fail, and quite certain to cover those who resort to it with confusion. As a rule, the temper of the House is no bad guide as to the propriety or otherwise of trying extreme tactics. Under ordinary circumstances the House hates obstruction even more than it hates quarrelsomeness. Members who habitually talk against time become even more unpopular than those who commonly indulge in bitter personalities and coarse abuse. In nine cases out of ten stonewalling brings with it its own punishment. In the general irritation and disgust at the obstruction of the measure, a hardening up process speedily brings the stone waller a face to face with a solid and angry majority, whose moral force is probably soon sufficient to sicken the talkers against time of their foolish task. In the nine cases out of ten before mentioned, stonewalling, if attempted by an Opposition does more to strengthen the hands of the Government than a month’s clever finessing in the lobby. In every Opposition there are always a number of men ranging from moderate to lukewarm and uncertain adherents. Stonewalling always disgusts members of this class. It honestly annoys some, and gives others an excuse for rallying to the Ministerial standard. Therefore, no sensible Opposition talks against time, except as a protest to some manifestly unfair trick played or attempted to be played by the Government.

Last session tlie charge of obstruction was most improperly and wrongfully made against the Opposition as a Party. That it should have been made at all, is a proof of the excessive unpopularity of the offence. A Ministry which manages to fix the charge of wilful delay upon its opponents, can be almost certain of exciting in its own cause a very valuable feeling of sympathy in the House and country. During the present session no accusation of this kind has been made against the Opposition, and yet there has been twenty times as much talking against time this year as last. Nearly a week was taken up in killing, the “ Otago Central Bill.” A whole night was consumed in defeating Mr Macarthur’s “ Hospital and Charitable Aid Bill.” Half a dozen times minor private Bills have either been obstructed until the evening adjournment, or until the coming of the small hours of the morning has driven the mover in despair to consent to let his measure die a natural death by indefinite postponement. The Native Bills have been checked in their progress again and again by Sydney Taiwhanga and one or more of his fellow Maori members. On Tuesday night last, the Opposition, or at any rate some leading members of it, irritated by the trick played on Mr Macarthur by the Government in the afternoon, wasted half the night in an ill-considered, though not unprovoked, attempt to prevent the Estimates for the Lands and Railway Departments being carried through. Two of the victories gained by the hands of the stonewallera this session have been remarkable, and ope at any rate was unexpected. Yet the attendant circumstances show very Clearly ■.;Jp

stances can such successes be looked for when the Bills concerned are of th© least importance. We have already pointed out why it was that a few stonewallers were able to route the nominally large band of friends on whom Mr Pyke relied to pass the Otago Central Bill. Mr Pyke had justly forfeited his claim to anything like enthusiasm for himself or any cause with which he was identified. Moreover, the very proper feeling that the Bill should not have been brought in except by the Government helped its opponents immensely, while the known fact that they were in accord with half the Cabinet finally turned the scale in their favour. Mr Macarthur’s Bill was admittedly a wrong means to an end. Even its friends spoke of it more as a necessary protest than as a measure that ought to become law, and they expressed themselves as satisfied with the promise that Ministers would’ deal with the matter next session. The town members had to fight against the imposition by a private member of intolerable and unfair rates on their constituencies. But supposing a similar Bill to be introduced next year by the Ministry, we do not think the town members would be justified in stonewalling it. It would be their duty to accept the verdict of Parliament and trust to getting intolerable hardship removed later on by public opinion. In both cases, the Government has been to blame for the obstruction. On them the blame should be. Very possibly, however, some of the discredit which attaches to such occurrences as those referred to will fall on Parliament. This will be used, of course, as an excuse for another attempt to force on the House the “iron hand.” Luckily, the House will resist that to the : last.