CAPTIOUS CRITICISM.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 741, 14 May 1886, Page 24

CAPTIOUS CRITICISM.

(N.Z, Times, Mat 13 ) With reference to our remarks as to the improbability of a new Representation Act being passed before a general election in case of the Government defeated this session, and being granted an appeal to the country, it is asserted that “ this is quite a mistaken view of the matter, ” because — The Representation Act of 1881 actually expires next year, and whether the Government like it or not there must be a redistribution before the end of 1887. If, therefore, a dissolution were to take place this session, or at any time before the expiry of the Act of 1881, it would necessitate two general elections within a few months of one another, and the passing of a most difficult piece of legislation in between them by an untrained House at a period of great political excitement and confusion. It is contended that there is not the smallest likelihood of anything of the kind taking place, and that therefore the northern members may safely act quite independently, as far as that is concerned, because “ the Government would never think of resorting to a course which while eminently detrimental to the public interests would be ruinous to themselves as public men.” Wherefore, “the effect of the situation really is to render a dissolution before a redistribution extremely improbable under any circumstances.” This is not very convincing reasoning. If the Government should be defeated, and should be conceded an appeal to the country, is it at all likely that at such “ a period of great political excitement and confusion,” they would undertake so onerous and difficult and invidious a task as the redistribution of representation 1 Could a Ministry declared not to possess the House’s confidence, attempt with any propriety to carry through such a gravely important measure 1 Could the House tolerate it for a moment % We doubt it very much. If the Government should be defeated this session it may be taken for granted that they will at once apply for a dissolution to which they would have a constitutional claim, and then the election would have to take place forthwith. The House could not wait for the census data on which a redistribution would have to be based, and which will probably take some weeks yet to complete, nor would the House be likely to consent in the midst of a Ministerial crisis, to settle down to a lengthened conflict over an elaborate and complicated redistribution scheme. If an immediate dissolution involved another general election next year — well, then, another election would have to be held, that is all.