N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1889.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 908, 26 July 1889, Page 16

N.Z. MAIL PUBLISHED WEEKLY. FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1889.

the POLITICAL DEADLOCK.

Although the Government won the first battle over the Representation Bill, by carrying, at 4 am un Wednesday morn-

iug, the second reading of the Bill, the struggle is not yet over. Indeed, it may prove to have only begun. Hie situation at present is virtually a deadlock. The stonewalling, which had already compelled one nearly allnight sitting, was resumed when the House met on “Wednesday evening, and was still proceeding at an early hour yesterday (Thursday) morning, all attempts at compromise having, so far, failed. And the stonewalling which can be carried out on a motion in House when each member can only speak once, is as nothing to what is practicable in Committee, when every member may speak as often as he likes, and may mo ve'as many amendments as he can manage to devise. Indeed, the obstruction?, to the itepre mentation Bill of 1881 was carried on for 48 hours with no better material than alternate motions “ that the Chairman report piogres3,” and “that the Chairman leave the chair.” It was originally ruled by the Chairman of Committees (Mr Seymour, the present member for Picton) that although two consecutive motions to report

progress could not he received unless gome progress had been made in the interim, it was nevertheless in mder to move “ that the Chairman leave the chair,” and the taking of a vote on this motion would be deemed “ progress ” in t he sense required by that ruling. But when no fewer than twenty-three of these motions had been alternately moved and all rejected during a continuous sitting of forty-eight hours, then the Chairman spoke as follows : ‘•'l am of opinion that the limits of fair discassion have been overstepped on this occasion, and that it is my duty as Chairman, in order to uphold the proper conduct of the business of this Committee, to put a stop to proceedings which have become obstructive. Bor the present, therefore, I shall not permit to be proposed, nor shall I put from the chair, any further motions to report progress or to leave the chair. I shall submit to the consideration of the Committee the various clauses and amendments which may bo bona fide offered and be in ■order, and shall then strictly confine the deliberations of hon members to the point under ci nsideratio-. I am fully sensible of the importance of t he ruling which [ am now giving and have arrived at this decision only aftercareful and anxious thought, with the intention of bringing back the Committee to its proper function of fair and reasonable consideration of the details of the measure submitted to it by the House. I have only to add that I shall not now permit my ruling to be disputed.” When on this Mr Gisborne resisted the Chairman’s ruling, and was reported to the Speaker as disorderly, the Speaker (then, as now, Sir Maurice O’Korke), after dealing with the specific offence, spoke as follows on the general question : “ It is but right that! should m\ke some comment upon the proceedings of the last 48 hour.-*. I iuivi- heard (h> j opinions delivered by the Clin urn n, in every word of which I fully comar. The House has now earned for rseif the unparalleled position of having h*i uninterruptedly for 48 hours withoui touching upon the Bill that, was committed to its charge. Times will arise when the House must show itself to be master within its own house. It is true that it is difficult for the Govern ment and hon members to express the authority of the House on such occasions, but there is a personifica'ion of the powers of the House withiu its walls, and that personification in com mittee is the Chairman of Committees, aud in the House the Speaker. Hon members mnst not suppose that Standing Orders were framed for the purpose of tying the baud'* of the House, and preventing it from dealing with the matters that the public has sent us here for. I feel ashamed that the people’s name should be prostituted by saying that such obstruction of business as we have witnessed is an exhibition on behalf of the people’s liberties. There are far other services that the people require at our hands —Dameiy that we should give duo and mature consideration to the matter submitted to us, aud not so abuse the forms o' the House as in a great measure to paralyse its powers, demoralise its members, and bring it into contempt I mention these things in order that there shall be no mistake, that there is a power to release this House from a deadlock if it should be attempted to bring one about. In the exercise of that power it will be found that j. for one shall not flinch from the duty entrusted to me.” The common sense of these two utterances cau scarcely be gainsaid, and the precedent thus established is a very important one. It indicates pretty plainly the course which will almost, certainly be adopted in case of any systematic obstruction in committee. We may take it for granted that the present Chairman of Committees, Mr Hamlin, will be guided by the precedent which has been created. If so, he will rule out of order any motions that progress be reported or that he should leave the chair which may be made for obviously obstructive purposes. The principle was affirmed in 1881 that the House had inherent power, irrespective of all Standing Orders, to rtile the conduct of its own business and to compel such conduct t o he orderly and reasonable, this power being personified in the psr.iou of the presiding officer —the Chairman if the House were in Committee ; if otherwise, the Speaker. This constitutes a fairly effective check on one species of obstruction if only the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees can be relied on to rule with, the same firmness

l as was exhibited in 1881. But it is quite possible for ingenious stonewallers to make speeches which, although manifestly designed purely as obstruction, possess nevertheless a sufficient degree of plausible per tinence to make it a very responsible and inyidious step for a Speaker to stop them. Here it is that the closure is so useful by enabling a wearied House to cut short a needlessly or wilfully tedious discussion. Had the full power of closure existed, the wilful waste or time which has taken place this week might have been prevented, and nothing would have been lost to the public through the cutting short of a purposeless and o 1 - structive debate. This power .would have been valuable > n YVedn* sday : i a ab3er.ee may be still more k>'Miiy felt when the Hit-presentation Bill is in Com mil tee. i’nr t-vsn if Mr Hamlin adheres to Mr m«»ur ’.■< prey ode nr ip .1881 and refuses t“ accept, obviously obstruct] w, moMous to report progress, m,*-re yet remains an infinity uf obstructive potentiality in ih-'. amendments /--.which may be moved to alnnut every word of the Mill, and may he debated av- ex tre <>e length. Intervention by m<. ana of closure would in «uch a case be a useful resource if avail able. As it is there will be B<*me Idt’e d {limit? in “breaking down ihe htooewali ” should :ho pros' nr intentions of the town members be carried out. It will not be easy to apply the “ iron hand ” effectually w.chout introducing a new precedent; which might prove a very dangerous aud undesirable one. The preseut, deadlock affords fresh proof that new Rules of Procedure are imperatively required.