The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1886. DISSOLUTION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1460, 28 January 1886, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1886. DISSOLUTION.

Judging by what has fallen from Ministerial lips recently, we are on the eve of a general election. The Hon. Mr Ballance struck the key-note at Wanganui no doubt with the view of ascertaining how it would beroceived. He said in effect that so disorganised were parties at present that it would be impossible for a Ministry to carry out any desirable policy, and that consequently be, personally, would be in favor of a dissolution taking place before the meeting of Parliament, so as to avoid the expenses of two sessions. He took care, of courae, to let it be known that this was bis own individual opinion ; but since then Sir Julius Vogel has practically upheld bis views, and so has Mr Larnacb at Dunedin ; and, if we are to believe the Wellington correspondent of the Lyttelton Times, the whole Cabinet is in favor of a dissolution before Parliament meets. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that it is more than probable that an effort will be made to extract a dissolution from His Excellency the Governor, but the question is, Will he grant it 7 The grounds on which the present Ministry can claim a dissolution are : that they have placed certain definite issues before a House elected previous to the Government taking.

office ; that the House reject'd t s >■ ■>r proposals, and consequently th -l it desirable to get the verdict of the electors ou the subject ; that t.) wail until the meeting of Parliament would only result in two sessions, end consequently in great expense to the colony; and, therefore, that it is better do at once what must be dona shortly, at any rate. Looking at it in that light, there is no doubt but. that (he position of the Ministry is very plausible; but the Governor can reply that towards the end of last session they successfully resisted several motions of uo-ccnlidence, and thus proved that a rnsjority of the House supported them. With such a fact staring him in the face, we do not think His Excellency would be justified in granting them a dissolutwn before Parliament meets. Dissolutions arc granted as a general rule when a Ministry cease to command a working majority of the House, but in this case the Government cannot put forward that plea. It is true their measures were rejected, mutilated, and shelved ; it is true that instead of leading th-y were led ; but the Governor cannot lake cognisance of these things. He may know, ns we all know, that as a Ministry they are hopelessly feeble, but at the same time there is the fact that they resisted several no-confidence ra lions successfully staring him in the face, and it is not easy for him to go beyond it. However, His Excellency is one of those bland, genial, kind-hearted men to whose heart the pitiable plight of a Ministry in distress would appeal more cogently than sound logic, and it may possibly happen that he would yield to their importunities. It is not, however, very likely, nor are we convinced,that th<« Government will press him very hard on the point, The fact is, it appears to us that to dissolve before Parliament meets would place the Government at a disadvantage, By waiting until Parliament assembles they could submit to the country a definite policy, which would be accepted as the Government programme ; by dissolving now Ministers would have to give their individual views to their constituents, and run the risk of being suspected of disunion. Possibly they would try to make capital out of their frugal efforts to save (he expenses of two sessions, but we do not think such a thing would have the least weight with the electors. On the whole, we are inclined to believe that no dissolution will take place before Parliament meets, and it may possibly happen that it will not even occur then. There are many members on whom a threat of dissolution exercises a conciliatory effect, and it is possible that a groat deal of what is laid about it is only bounce and blow intended to bring weak-kneed representatives to realise the dangers of the situation. However, the probabilities are altogether in favor of a dissolution shortly after Parliament meets, but what good it will do is certainly a problem difficult to solve. We cannot see bow it can possibly alter the existing state of things, unless the electors take it into their heads to keep out the great majority of the leaders mid put new men in their place. If the old leaders who exercise influence in the House go back they will just be as desirous of getting into office as ever, and they will do exactly what has disgraced the proceedings of our Parliament in the past. To replace some of the second-rate members by others will not materially alter the position of parties, so long as the numerous aspirants to a seat on the Ministerial Benches are returned. They are the men who do all the mischief; they subordinate public interest to their desire for office, and are certainly worse than useless in the House. If these men could be kept out of Parliament, and good, common-sense, practical men placed in their stead, good would result from a general election ; but we believe they will be returned again, and consequently we are convinced that parties will be as disorganised after an appeal to the country as they are at the present time.