THE SITUATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8958, 16 August 1892, Page 5

THE SITUATION.

MINISTERS AND THE GOVERNOR.

RUMOURS OF AN IMPENDING DISSOLUTION.

[BT telegraph. —SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.]

Wellington, Monday. Early this morning a sudden flutter was excited in the lobbies by a circumstantial statement being circulated that the Minister for Public Works had said to the leader of the Opposition that the Government would announce a dissolution to-morrow, and that Parliament would be prorogued in a fortnight's time. This story flew about like wildfire. As it appeared to come with some semblance of authority and responsibility, more credence than usual was attached to it, and members began to look anxious. After a time, however, reflection seemed to show more and more the impro bability of such an announcement being more than a little bit of " bounce" or "bluff." The objeot was supposed to be to "harden up" the Ministerial side in view of possible dangers. Nobody could see upon what grounds a dissolution could be either claimod by Ministers or granted by the Governor. I conversed to-day with a large number of members on both sides of £he House, including several Parliamentary veterans, and none can discover any likely ground of dissolution. One member said, "A Governor could not grant a dissolution in such circumstances, when Ministers have just forced a want of confidence motion and won by a majority of 18. They could not appeal against their own majority. Another said, " You see the Government have backed down on all their measures. They have eased off all the debatable points, and even were they beaten on the freehold question or on Sir George Grey's expected motion condemning the taxation of improvements, they could not possibly go to the country on either or both of these questions unless they wished to court a defeat." Several held that a Governor could not constitutionally grant a dissolution to the present Government except in case of defeat of some very important new policy being brought forward upon which the voice of the country must be taken before it could be carried out. It was remarked more than once ! that a Governor was bound to " exhaust the House" before putting the country to the trouble and expense of a general election, and that if Ministers were indisposed to accept loyally His Excellency's decision not to swamp the Council for them, their only constitutional course wan to resign and obtain a dissolution through the numerical weakness of the other side on succeeding to office, and consequent probability of easy defeat. But it is still held by many that if the Ballance Government did resign on the Governor's persistent refusal to make u large number of Council appointments Mr. Kolleston might find his administration accepted by a majority of the House as an alternative to a dissolution. It was put in this way by one member"The Council rejects or amends the Government measures ; the Governor refuses to appoint a sufficient number of new councillors to give Ministers a majority ; Ministers resign in the hope of forcing a dissolution; Mr. Rolleston forms a Government, and takes up most of the Ministerial measures, which he could do with perfect consistency, omitting certain details on which even the Ministerial party (and, perhaps, the Cabinet itself) are not agreed. There are many waverers and still more who loathe the very name of dissolution, and why should not these agree to support Mr. Kolleston whose policy would be tho same as theirs until the general election comes off in the regular course next year. Ido not see (he said) why they should not, and I believe a sufficient number would do so to avert a dissolution." Now this was a member of tho Ministerial party who was speaking, and others have taken tho same ground. Nobody seems to know exactly what are the present relations between Lord Glasgow and his advisers, but all appear to agree in deeming them severely "strained." Sir George Grey's question, " What is the present state of the negotiations between the Governor and Ministers in relation to calling additional members to the Legislative Council, and what steps do Ministers intend to take in relatfon thereto?" has terribly fluttered the Ministerial dovecots, and may lead to awkward results in his skilful hands. I heard to day that the question at issue between the Governor and his advisers with relation to the Council appointments is not merely one of number, but also of personnel, that is to say, according to one member of the House, His Excellency although quite willing to appoint members of the "labour class," who by past public services or otherwise have given proof of their fitness and capacity, is not disposed to nominate men who might be merely recommended as belonging to the labouring class, and whose qualifications might only be utter inexperience in public life and absolute subservience to Ministerial dictation. His Excellency is said (I know not with what truth) to have expressed himself strongly against any " class" nomination or any other movement in the direction cf pitting class against class. It is rumoured that he has intimated very plainly his objection to such a course, but that Ministers contend he has no right to pick or choose, and ought to accept their recommendation, to which it is retorted that if they cannot act harmoniously with the Crown they have a constitutional alternative. Ido not say on my own authority that this has been the nature of the communication, for of course I have no authentic means of knowing, but some members tell me they have good reason to believe the case to be as above stated.

However, putting that aside, whatever may be denied by certain Ministers, I have it on the very highest authority that the Cabinet, as a corporate body, has no intention of precipitating a dissolution if it can be avoided, and tha.t there is no truth whatever in the report that a dissolution had been arranged and would be announced to-morrow." I have reason to believe that Mr. Seddon did make some such statement to Mr. Rolleston as that which created so much stir to day, but that it was made and taken purely as a joke. This sort of jesting is apt to have awkward consequences at times when it fits in so closely with rumours that so long have been actively prevalent, and when the predilections of the ocular Minister are so well known. I hoar that the Premier has explicitly disclaimed to several people to-day any intention of wanting or precipitately forcing a dissolution, so the matter virtually remains whero it was at first. Latkr. With regard to the statement made to me on Saturday by Mr. Rolleston, and the warning of the Opposition in the House that they would obstruct business if information was not given as to the negotiations between the Governor and the Ministers regarding the Legislative Couucil, I understand that the Government will to-morrow lay on the table the notes and correspondence on the subject.