South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1890.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 6241, 13 June 1890, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1890.

Some of our contemporaries, admitting —for the sake of the argument, what they might out of respect for probability be otherwise inclined to deny—that Mr Fergus in addressing his constituents did foreshadow some of the business which the Cabinet purpose to bring before Parliament next week, hare condemned the programme on the ground that it is too heavy for a dying Par* liament. The whole subject of loans, a New local Government Bill, a new Hospital and Charitable Aid Bill, the land debenture and reading debenture schemes, which are new departures in borrowing ; these are considered matters with which a moribund Parliament is unfit to deal. It is quite a common thing for critics of parliamentary doings to object to Parliaments taking up important measures in their last sessions. We ask our readers to consider this objection from two points of view, and decide whether it is not an untenable objection. To take the simplest ground first. The representatives who have served two sessions, must be presumed to have made themtelves more fully acquainted with the requirements of the country than persons not in Parliament—if not they do not earn their honorarium—therefore they must be better able to deal with weighty matters than a new Parliament. The other point of view is that while matters of high importance should for the reason just given be discussed by a moribund Parliament, if they present any difficulty and cannot be fairly decided by it, the succeeding election relegates the decision to the people. The Representatives by giving their attention to a measure, and bringing more or less legislature experience to bear upon it, present the measure in a certain shape for the consideration of the electors, and the candidates for election will prepare themselves to express the public mind regarding it. The Hospital and Charitable Aid Bill of last session has been through such an ordeal without an election, because it was a particularly bad bill. It is not so much bad bills that need referring to the electors, as difficult bills, those regarding which there may be great differences of opinion. If this system were regularly adopted in Parliamentary practice it would be equivalent to the vaunted Swiss “ Referendum,” and it obviously would have great advantages. There should be no difficulty in acting upon this principle in the majority of suitable cases, and, under it, the moribund Parliament is the proper one to originate important measures.

Since the above was written Major Steward, we find, has expressed his in • tention to move in the House resolutions in favour of adopting the Swiss system generally, having them discussed if possible,and then referred to the electors. This is just the deliberative procedure we mean.