THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1912. THE NATIONAL VERDICT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14926, 26 February 1912, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1912. THE NATIONAL VERDICT.

We have nothing to say upon the 1 allegations affecting the member for Grey Lynn, which are in a sense sub judice, having been referred to a Parliamentary Committee. Apart from this question, however, we voice the opinion of the electors at large when we regret the lamentable decay of Parliamentary dignity which has been manifested in the debate upon the no-confidence motion. If there is anything in constitutionalism, it is plain that Parliament was summoned at an unusually early date in order to record the verdict which had already been pronounced by the electors. That verdict was against the Government, provided, of course, that members were bound by the pledges they had given to the electors, and upon the strength of which they had been chosen as national representatives. When it was asserted that the. Government would ignore the situation which had arisen, and would attempt to carry on as though nothing had happened to render an early session imperative, we refused 1:0 admit for one moment that Six Joseph Ward would thus desperately cling to office in the face of a national verdict so unmistakable. It is true that the result of the election was not to place the Reform Party in assured possession of a clear majority over all others, but it has never been denied that the large working majority of the Government was swept away and that its pledged supporters were reduced to a distinct minority in the House of Representatives. The business of Parliament was, therefore, not to discuss and debate what should or should not be done with the Government, or to consider the advisability, or inadvisability of measures which had never been referred to the electors, but to proceed at once to a formal pronouncement of the sentence which constitutionally follows upon a national verdict of this character. We may compare Parliament in such a case to a judge who has heard the verdict of a jury, and whose place it is, after asking the condemned if he has anything to say, to pronounce solemnly the sentence provided by law. What has taken- place is that the Government, condemned by the national verdict, attempts to show that this verdict was obtained by calumny, abuse and misrepresentation, and seeks to escape sentence by persuading members not to vote as they were instructed to vote by their electorates. Inevitably, this lowers the tone of Parliamentary proceedings, for it transfers the question from the impersonal ground of national* politics to the arena in which vulgar personalities pass as arguments.

Sir Joseph Ward has unhappily failed, in an hour of disappointment, to rise to the occasion and to bear himself as a statesman whose policy, has met with defeat. He chooses to assume that the verdict of the electorates was not influenced by the weaknesses and mistakes, the errors and the incompetencies, of the Administration of which he is the head. To the average citizen, who is conscious of the fact that the Continuous Government has outlived its usefulness, and has lost its energy, the public services and the national administration abound with convincing reasons why there should be a change. Yet we are asked to believe tu.it there is not a legitimate and honourable reason for the wave of public opinion which tossed aside the great majority with which the Government went to the country, and it is inferred that had it not been for personal vilification of the Prime Minister, for the importation of sectarian feeling and for gross and deliberate misrepresentation, tho electors would have returned another great majority to support the Native Lands policy of Sir James Carroll, the railway management of Mr. Millar, the public works policy of Mr. R. McKenzie and the unsophisticated guardianship of Mr. Buddo. That the Prime Minister's contention is. obviously absurd does not assist in elevating the debate and maintaining the decorum of Parliament, for it has the effect of dragging the no-confidence debate away from the only question which constitutionally concerns Parliament, and of confusing and obscuring that question by smothering clouds of objectionable and regrettable personalities. The only question which should be before the House, the question to which Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition and acknowledged spokesman of the 11 Labour" element ought to confine themselves and their supporters, is: " What is the verdict of the country This question cannot be settled by debating, haranguing or discussing, for it was settled last December at the polls. It was the duty of Parliament when it met and is the duty of Parliament still to determine that question by proceeding to a division. If members keep faith with their constituencies the Government must be defeated en a division— better governments and greater statesmen have been defeated, time and again, without feeling embittered against their fellow-citizens. Whether Mr. Massey can hold office is. another ques-

tion altogether, but one which need excite no alarm. For the electors are conveniently at hand to answer any appeal to the country and to arbitrate effectively and finally between rival parties and unstable governments. Parliament should proceed at once to a division, and should not deride the constitutional lights of electors by further delay in formally recording the national verdict. Delay is not only injurious to business and to the political reputation of the Dominion ; it is calculated to still further lower the tone of a debate which must already be regretted by every representative who realises the position.