The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY). MONDAY, JULY 25, 1881.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 6329, 25 July 1881, Page 2

The New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY). MONDAY, JULY 25, 1881.

When the member for Totara remarked, in the House on Friday evening last, that the present Ministry had “place” and the Opposition “power,” that the Ministry had “men,” but the Opposition found “ measures,” and he endeavored to build thereon an exceeding show of reason why he should vote against the Ministry on the question of confidence or no-confidence in their Local Government proposals, he deceived no one, except perhaps himself. It was all too glaringly apparent that he spoke as a special pleader, and the impelling motive was made clear in his subsequent avowal that members of the House are but mere local Parliamentary agents, doing the best they can for their respective districts. Such indeed is the only position many {TdlrEicaT creeci“ mosl’°“steadfastly believed in, and especially in sparsely populated districts, embodies but two rules: Firstly, “ Let us get all we can out of the Government;” secondly, “Let us abuse the Government who will not give us all we ask for.” Hone know this better than the member for Totara, and probably no* member of the House intending to seek re-election at the hands of his present constituents ; is less at liberty to diverge one step from this brief but significant creed. His speech conveyed the impression of being a most labored effort,, less inspired by honest convictions than by desire to propitiate distant readers, and influenced ■ by a lively sense of favors to come. In a younger‘and less unskilled member, such tactics might have well been permitted to pass unnoticed; but veteran in politics,, and skilled in strategy, as the member for Totara is, it is passing strange that he allowed his speech to betray him. It is well for a moment to deal with his argument, that because, in the esteem of the Opposition, Ministerial measures are not perfect. Ministers should be incontinently bundled out of office. If this be a just rule, then Opposition members are to blame because they did not seek to enforce it immediately the Licensing Bill was laid before them.* Avowedly that was not brought down as a perfect measure; and the wisdom of both sides of the House was invoked to aid in its being perfected, and that aid was given. So with the local government measures, of which the Crown and Native Lands Hating Bill forms one of the series. They were not advanced as complete and final measures, any alteration in which would be deemed by the Government as con. veying censure,; but as outline measures filled in as fully as circumstances would permit, but by no means embodying any cast-iron rules repelling all suggestions of amendment or improvement. The position is analogous to that of the Irish Land Bill in the House of Commons. . The Press representing almost every grade of opinion in Great Britain, have concurred in urging upon members to unite in perfecting the, measure in committee. As with the Licensing Bill, so with the measures under discussion, the plain path of duty before the House, in this the last stage of its existence, was to take them one by one, and so dispassionately and impartially discuss them, that ere. the session had closed each such measure would have assumed a practical and Useful form, and members might have- gone back to their constituents with a satisfactory; tale of good work accomplished. There was no need for precipitating a political crisis ; the country at large desired no change on the Government benches, and it is only those well designated the “ Irreconcilables ’’ who are responsible for the present obstruction to public business. Among these rank members who, perhaps against their own convictions ef what is just and generous, berate the Government merely to pro-. pitiate disappointed constituents. This is truckling to the most narrow and sordid considerations, and should: be avoided. There is honesty and directness of purpose, and far more evidence of good intent and liberal views, in the announcement made by other members that they will vote against the condemnatory amendment

tabled by the-member for Clive, but will also, > when the Government j measures are brought on for discus- j sion, rote against many of the proposals contained therein. This is a common-sense view of the subject. Instead of hurling invective and taunt at individual members of the Ministry, and with long array of tricky sophisms strive to excuse themselves for obstructing public business, in raising a foolish and factious opposition which cannot possibly result in good, the more reasonable members of the House are willing to deal with the measures awaiting discussion, as they have with those which have already gone through the ordeal of debate in Committee, and accepting whatever is good, rejecting all else beside. Argument based upon comparison of “ place ” and “ power,” “ men ” and “ measures,”-is inexcusably bad; it reveals nothing more than a covetous desire to grasp the emoluments of office, it is devoid of patriotism, it is ridiculous in its assumption of superiority, for it is backed up with no evidence . that the shattering of the present administrative organisation would pave the way for anything better, while the doubt constantly asserts itself that any change at the hands of tho chief agitators and abettors in tho present crisis might be infinitely worse. The question involved in the present debate before the House is, whether any measure or series of measures brought down by the Ministry of the day may be, condemend in toto, without being first discussed. It is quite possible to imagine that measures may be tabled so irretrievably bad that in mercy to the originators they are best swept into speedy oblivion; but it is a matter for serious consideration whether- —whatever the rules of the House may permit—any measure designed to' work a radical reform should be condemned, and, figuratively, made to “ shuffle off this mortal coil ” without benefit of bell, book, or candle. If the principle is affirmed it will reduce party tactics to a system of surprises; no Ministry will feel safe in introducing any new measure of reform, for it may lead to their own sudden deposition. And yet so long as any considerable number of members of the House. deem, themselves merely representatives of individual constituencies —whether such position is forced upon them by such constituencies, or whether it is the fault of the present system of representation —the progress of public business will always be in peril Irom such surprises, because of that inconsiderate tendency to retaliation on Ministers who cannot or will not, injustice to the general interests of the country, make concessions to every local' demand. Hereon might be based strong argument iu favor of a better adjustment of proportional representation under which individual members, though nominally representing individual districts, would be elected by the whole body- politic. Until a better community of opinion is established iu such respect than now prevails, party distinctions in the House of Representatives will be always liable to become obscured in faction-fights 'and the debasement of Parliamentary functions.