PARTY GOVERNMENT

New Zealand Mail, 29 January 1902, Page 49

PARTY GOVERNMENT

. The Rev C. V. Gortou. m an entertaining letter to the London “Spectator,’' says: —

It has struck me that, among other autobiographies, Lord Rosebery must nave been, like myself, reading the autobiography cf the Man in the Moon reLewis Carroll’s “Sylvie and Rruno.” He is giving an account to his iriencLs of the causes of his exile: “What ruined niy country and drove me from IV "O' 111 ® was the introduction of vepr theory of Political Dichotomy. Wnat started the thing with us was the report brought to us by one of our most eminent statesmen of the wav affairs were nanaged in England. It was a political KbrnUnV i so he assured us) that there should be two parties in every affair and wWh ery s V b i«*- These two parties—other 1 n ell . ron,c hostility to each ernmenP k tu , rn A ,U cond ucting the ‘Govnot £ V ,Kl tho » 3art >’ that happened position ’ 6 ’VI- l )o ' v '® r was called the ‘Opthe ‘Outs ’ e uw. al *t d them the ‘lns’ and V, , lh ? function of tho ‘lnsticnal welfi' 6 b - st tbe 7 could for the nawar or nrl?’ In such . things as making the ‘Gifts ’ ’ The'T 01 ?? tr6a J tie ? and wa< . 4.7, * the function of the ‘lns’ in any +! 10 <lnsJ f ,om succeeding to us jusVlt i, J t see,ried tueer mastered tho 61 o’., lU wben once we had nation was so ° u Ltespect for your into every departing buried it dneed > ‘Partment ot life, —wo introDichotomy* Principle £ of labourers were tur 7‘ • , Tbe staff too, were called tl.I 1 / dlv : idcd - They Tho business of the , a ? d the 'Outs/ ruich Ploughing ll6 i 1 ® 5 was do as Kli: »r$ j?s& Sid-jass w “‘«,* lad

‘Outs’ was to hinder them, and they were I paid for the amount they had hindered. While things lasted there were some i'unny sights to be seen. Why, I have of- 1 ten watched a ploughman with two horses ! harnessed to the plough doing his best : to get it forwards, while the opposition '' ploughman, with three donkeys harnessed at the other end, was doing his best to get it backwards.” As men of logic thev extended the principle to commerce: “And the end of it all was,” his voice suddenly , dropped almost to a whisper, and large tears began to roll down his cheeks—“the end was that we got involv-.. ed in a war,'and there was a great battle,” in which we far' outnumbered the enemy. But what could one expect, when only half of our men were fighting, and the other half pulling them back? It ended in a crushing defeat. J my'jelf was accused of treason, and—and 1 driven into exile for introducing the British principle. ‘Now the mischief’s done,’ thev said, ‘perhaps you’ll kindly leave the country.’ It nearly broke my heart, but I had to go.”

Is not the secret of Lord Rosebery’s position just this, that he cannot be wholly convinced of the virtue of the dishotomy principle? He is therefore labelled as not a practical statesman. Government by party he fails to understand to be one of the laws of our universe. May not his attitude find defenders? Party government fails in a crisis. We cannot prepare for war. “Had you sent sixty thousand men to Natal,” cry the “Outs,” “the war had never commenced.” But the “Ins” did not send them, for the “Outs” would not permit. We cannot wage war, for our enemies never believe that we shall continue it, for the “Outs” take pains to- make the more noise. And now that the “Ins” have sent the flower of English chivalry to fight her battles, the “Outs” are furnishing the enemies of England with means to befoul her fair name. The nation is of one mind that we need legislation on two questions—viz., on education and on temperance—hut the two horses pull one way and the three den (excuse me) pull the other. Party government means waste, the loss of the best years of such men as Asquith, Morley, Fowler, Grey. What wouder, then, that Lord Rosebery prefers to- walk his furrow alone, rather than hitch on to the wrong end of the plough, no matter how illustrious his companions. Is Lord Rosebery, then, impracticable, or is lie troublesomely illogical ? In response to tiie writer’s appeal, the editor of the “Spectator” remarks: —-Is our correspondent so sure that a nonparty system always works for efficiency? There was no party system in France during the Second Empire, but the lack of it did not give France a. sound army.