New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1886.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 751, 23 July 1886, Page 16

New Zealand Mail. PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1886.

A. powebeul and remarkable article from the well-known London paper, The World, was recently repriuted in our columns, and we invite the earnest attention of our legislators to the serious considerations submitted. The dangers which representative institutions have lately encountered and are still encountering at Home are already not unknown in this Colony, and may at any time assume a formidable shape. It is forcibly pointed out that “ Party ” has been set up by the British Nation as an idol to which all other considerations and all other interests are to be unhesitatingly sacrified. The relation of a party and its leaders are described in unflattering and incisive but by no means exaggerated terms, while the risks are pointed out that on the one hand some masterful leader may completely dominate and overawe his party rendering than the mere subservient instruments of his sovereign will, and on the other that a “ corner” party may intervene, and although in themselves an unimportant handful may virtually, by holding the balance of power, rule everything, through their support being indispensable to either party if it would command a majority. In New Zealand we have more than once been on the verge of falling over the first of these precipices, and of the latter influence we have already had practical experience. But our political parties in this Colony are seldom at issue on any question of principle. For many years past there has been little real difference, save that which exists between the “ outs” and the “ ins.” The Provincial Abolition question did constitute a definite issue, upon which party lines were very sharply defined, but that was a question of merely transient interest. An attempt was made in 1877 to set up fresh party lines on a so-called “ Liberal ” issue, but its failure was both complete and ludicrous. The “ Great Liberal Party,” afteward better known as the “ Sham Liberal Party,” died a natural death long ago, after a brief and inglorious existence. Its absurdity was rendered self-evident through the necessity that existed for its members to class their opponents as “ Conservatives,” the so-called Conservative party including such politicians as Sir F. Whitaker, Major Atkinson, and Mr Rolleston, who are among the most “advanced” Radicals in New Zealand. As a further illustration of the inconsistency and unsuitableness of that party nomenclature we find Sir R. Stout, Mr Ballance, and Mr Tole, who were enthusiastically supported by the “ Great Liberal Party,” now colleagues of Sir Julius Vogel, who actually contested the English borough of Falmouth in the Conservative interest, against the Gladstone party, while we have Sir George Grey m deadly opposition to them all. The plain truth is that we have no real political parties m New Zealand, and are not likely to have any yet awhile. Even the vigorous effort made last session to mark out new party lines on the Protection versus Freetrade basis seems to have fallen to the ground. do not regard this ab--1 senee of party divisions as an evil, but, on the contrary, it has the potentiality of much good if the situation be wisely used. But, on the other hand, the sacrifice of solid advantages for the sake of party considerations when the party demarcation consist solely in the distinction between “ out ” and “ in,” has even less to commend it than when, the difference is one of principle. Our legislators should learn to rise superior to mere ties of partv, and acquire the habit of being guided solely by the consideration of the public good. In a young Colony we have no real need of party government, and the less our representatives hamper themselves with husting pledges, which must be mainly of a personal nature, and which are too often found to operate injuriously against the welfare of the community, the better it will be for the general interest.

A London cable message published elsewhere announces the resignation of the Gladstone Ministry in consequence of their crushing defeat on their appeal to the country against the rejection of Mr Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill by the House of Commons.

It is not yet stated whom the Queen will be advised to send for, but probably it will be Lord Salisbury, as the leader of by far the largest party in the new Parliament. It will be observed that in such case Lord Hartington has promised his support to a Conservative administration. Further news will be eagerly looked for.