The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, JULY 14. 1880.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VII, Issue 1068, 14 July 1880, Page 2

The Poverty Bay Herald AND East Coast News Letter. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. WEDNESDAY, JULY 14. 1880.

The Wellington Post hits the right nail on the head when it asks " Does it ever strike anybody, we wonder, that the Government of this Colony is gradually, but perceptibly drifting into the hands of those irresponsible and ephemeral bodies which it is the custom now to indicate by the American term caucus." This is a question which it is well should be discussed that it may be more generally understood by those who have given the subject due considetion. Disguise the matter as we may by . pleasant euphemisms, the fact remains that the fate of all important questions is now practically settled — not in Parliament, but in caucus. The fortunes of a measure do not really depend in the slightest degree on the Parliamentary debate, by which the public is am used — or bored —and constitutents informed through " Hansard," of their representatives' j activity. No, all that is arranged privately in secret conclave, and members may talk their best and loudest and longest within the walls of the House of Representatives, but they are well aware all the time that they are only " beating the air." They do not really expect to influence a single vote by their oratorical efforts. How can they, when only a few hours before they were present at a caucus when everything was prearranged, and " noses " counted to a nicety? Take the late no confidence debate for instance. Is it not notorious that the exact numbers which ■would be recordad on the respective sides were known a fortnight before the division took place 1 It could not be otherwise when the members on each side had bound themselves in ■ secret association to vote in a particular way on that question. And so we had the remarkable spectacle of menlbers on the' Government side condemning ■? their proposal in the most sweeping terms, yet winding \ip with. a£ declaration that they intended to vote for them, bec&we, be it ob-

might impose their will on a large adverse majority of the Parliament and the people. If the respective sides numbered 44 and 43, and 23 of the 44 advocated in caucus a particular course, to which the 21 reluctantly agreed rather than split up the party, and if 22 of the 43 Opposition were against active opposition for fear of seeming obstructive, the other 21 giving in rather than split up that party, it follows that the 23 are able to dominate the other 64. That this is no idle clanger was demonstrated by Sir George Geey's accession to power in 1877, which was brought about almost wholly in that way, and against the manifest wish of the House. It amounts to this— that caucuses are steadily superseding Parliament as the real governing power in the country, much in the same way as local governing bodies do all that they possibly can "in i committee,,' as it is uphemistically termed — really in secret conclave, free from the hampering restraints of publicity. The situation is not improved "by the similarly growing tendency to refer momentous questions of policy to Royal Commissions, apscrved — and the hint was broadly given — these proposals could afterwards be modified in caucus. Similarly we had members of the Opposition condemning any attempt to turn out the present Ministry, yet announcing their determination to vote for a motion which, if carried, must necessarily have that effect. It was well known that their side was not unanimous, but the majority supported this course and the minority dutifully followed it. Under this system a resolute and skilful minority might exercise a very objectionable domination in Parliament. Supposing parties to be almost equally divided — as last session — and a small majority of the winning side insisted on a certain proceeding to which the minority, finding in caucus that they were outnumbered, gave in ! their adhesion, while a majority of the opposite side, although averse to the measure, similarly agreed not to oppose it. Clearly the result would be that a majority of one side only, and a minority of the House pointed by the Ministry of the day. All the chief subjects of present New Zealand politics are under reference to Boyal Commissions : — Civil Service Reform — covering retrenchment generally ; Local Industries — directly affecting the collection of revenues ; Native Affairs ; Public Works. Why, these are really all the political questions of the day I And they are all referred to Royal Commissions I It comes to this — We are drifting rapidly towards a system in which a Ministry in power might be able by appointing a Royal Commission referring to it some important questions, and forcing their recommendations on an obedient caucus, exercising a most objectional tyranny,, which it would be very difficult indeed effectually to combat oi- restrain. We fully recognise the occasional necessity of a caucus, but only as the exception which proves the rule, and ws-cumufc help fearing that the exception is too rapidly bcGOtinmr tau rultr. rendering the parliamentary delxuo.s a mor<? Shaw, which it i.-i iJle extravagance to embalm in the pages of " Hansard." There is clanger no*; only to the general welfare, but even to liberty itself in this growing tendency towards the Government by caucuses and Royal Commissions. No one can tell how soon an occasion might arise when this elaborate system of tmconstitutional conclaves might be skilfully twisted into an engine of opjjression as potent as the historical oligarchy of Venice. The people of New Zealand will have to be watchful that their liberties and privileges are not " Royal Commissioned" and " caucused" away altogether.