The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1883.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2815, 1 October 1883, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1883.

The question of whether a Member of Parliament ought to resign or not, when called upon to do so by his constituents, m consequence of his action m the House, has lately been settled rather decisively m England. The defeat of the Government on the Affirmation Bill, through the refusal of a large number of Liberal Members to support that measure, gave dire offence to the leaders of the party, especially with regard to those Members for whom the party organisation had been at great pains to obtain seats. The result was that the Liberal electors m several constituencies got up an agitation against the sittingMetnber, and m two instances went the length of formally requesting him to resign. These instances were Berwick, represented by Mr Jerningham, the only Catholic returned m England at the last General Election ; and Lambeth, represented by Sir William M'Arthur, formerly Lord Mayor of London. Mr Jerningham voted against his party on the Affirmation Bill, on the conscientious ground that it was opposed to religion ; but he was quickly given to understand that party politics take no cognisance of religious convictions. An indignant remonstrance was forwarded to him from the Liberal electors of Berwick, followed by a peremptory demand for his resignation. It was generally believed that this proceeding was the work of tbe Birmingham caucus, an institution established by Mr Chamberlain for enforcing discipline m the Liberal party. But the Birmingham, caucus and the Berwick electors alike found they had the wrong sort of man to deal with. Mr Jerningham was not m the least frightened by the clamor which his vote had aroused. He went down to Berwick at his convenience, called a meeting of his electors, stated all tho facts, expressed himself more strongly than ever against the Affirmation Bill, and ended by declaring that he would " never submit to be coerced by an institution which had been imported, like other abominations, from America." His electors gave him an enthusiastic vote of confidence, with three times three cheers, and tbe malcontents and the caucus had to hide their diminished head. Now, wo see by the latest papers, Sir William M'Arthur has been brought to book m a somewhat similar manner. Sir William belongs essentially to the goody goody party. He is the man who, when Lord Mayor, discouraged I turtle and champagne and fancy dress balls, and entertained his guests at the Mansion House with tea and muffins and Berious addresses. Yet he did not oppose the Affirmation Bill on any

•eliyioua ground, for the dissenters as a ■ule are favorable to the abolition >f oaths. He was, m fact, a snpiortcr of Mr Bradlaugh's claims :o admission. But he refu6ed to rote for the Bill on the highly donorable constitutional ground that it iiad been brought m as a concession to i mob. It will be remembered that just before the opening of Parliament, Mr Bradlaugh held a meeting of 30,000 people m Trafalgar Square, as a " demonstration " of public feeling m favor of bis being allowed to take his seat ; and that they only dispersed on his announcing tbe promise of the Government to introduce a Bill for dealing with his case. That Bill was the Affirmation Bill ; and n good many Members, who had previously sided with Mr Bradlaugh, naturally connected it with the Trafalgar Square demonstration, and accordingly refused to support it. Sir William M'Artbur was one of these. He did not go so far as to vote against tbe Bill, but nothing would induce him to vote for it. He simply abstained from voting, and, us forty or fifty others did the same, he was thus partly instrumental iv enabling Lord Randolph Churchill to defeat the Bill. This alleged treason to his party caused great dissatisfaction m Lambeth, an exceedingly radical constituency, and j m course of time things reached such a pitch, that, at an excited mass meeting at the Horns at Konuingtou, it was resolved to call on Sir William to resign. A deputation appointed to convey this request accordingly waited on tbe Member at tbe House of Commons, and gave him a pretty candid bit of their mind. Sir William M'Arthur, however, \ras quite equal to the occasion. He told the deputation, with something of a sneer, that though they might represent a meeting at tbe Horns, they certainly did not represent the 50,000 electors of Lambeth ; and he absolutely declined to take any further notice of their request. " Sir William's statement " the Times says " was received with frequent signs of discontent," and tbe deputation retreated m a white hot rage. The most snggestive circumstance connected with this question, perhaps, is that the conduct of Mr Jerningham and Sir William M'Arthur has been generally applauded m England, even by the Liberal journals. Nothing could be more ruinous to a party than for its most respected and influential members to be bullied out of their seats for simply doing what they believe to be right. Tbe caucus made a grave mistake. ♦

It has been decided that the Premier and the late Premier shall be the representatives of New Zealand at the forthcoming Intercolonial Conference on Annexation ; and it will probably be agreed on nil sides that a wiser decision could not have beon come to. Mr Whitaker, we are told, laughs at the whole annexation movement, and looks upon tbe Intercolonial Conference as a prime joke. But for all that, he is, we are convinced, the best man tho colony could scud to take part, on its behalf, m the deliberations there. He thoroughly understands the bearings of the question, — m so far as it has any definite bearings — ; he is singularly sage m Council on any subject ; U2id lie is too good a man of business not to give his closest attention to any matter entrusted to him, merely because he does not happen himself to attach much importance to it. His parts and personal presence, too, are sucli as to do no discredit to New Zealand. The dismay which was occasioned all over the colony by the news first that Mr Dick and afterwards that Mr Oliver was to figure as our representative at the Conference, was not complimentary to those very respectable persons ; but still there was nothing m it that need hare giren them any serious offence. If they have any common sense, and wo imagine they have plenty, they must be fully conscious of their own unfitness for such a position. If they ever think of such things, they must often chuckle to themselves at the oddness of the turn of fortune that makes them Cabinet Ministers. But party politics proverbially produce odd turns of fortune ; and men are often lifted into high places m public affairs m a manner as unexpected to themselves as it is inexplicable to the public. The truth is that provided the leading mind m the Ministry is up to the mark, almost anybody will do to fill the departmental ofliees. But it is qnite another story when it comes to a question of selecting men to represent the statesmanship of tho colony m an assemblage of the foremost politicians of Australasia. It is no blame to Mr Dick and Mr Oliver that they are manifestly incapable of performing such a function ; and the colonists meant no disrespect to them, when they cried out with one voice, half m anger and half m laughter, at the notion of their being chosen for it. Very different is the feeling with regard to Mr Whitaker. Even his most implacable political opponents admit that he will be a representative of whom the colony may be proud, and that, if anyone can give wise and practical advice upon the subject of discussion, he is the man to do so. As for Major Atkinson, it seems to us that ho ought decidedly to go to the Conference for this reason, if for no other. The Imperial Government, m all their communications on the Annexation question, have dwelt persistently on the necessity for the colonies contributing towards any expense that the Empire may incur through an extension of the Queen's authority m the Pacific. The colonies have to some extent expressed their readiness to contribute. The Agents-General m their joint Memorauduui to the Secretary of State, reiterated that assurance ; though at the same time they commented on the indefinite character of the Imperial demand. Thus it will be seen that, as concerns the colonies, tbe Annexation question is mainly a question of finance. The chief points to be decided at the Conference, m fact, are, how much the colonies are prepared to pay for Anuexation ; and what are they to get for their money. It stands to reason, we suppose, that they are not going to pay any sum that the Colonial Office may choose to fix, without having any say whatever m the expenditures of their own funds. What then is to bo the basis of their contributions ; and what influence are they to bo allowed to have m tho arrangements for maintaining British, control iv tbe Pacific, co

as to ensure their obtaining adequate consideration for their outlay ? These are questions which conic fairly within the province of colonial finance ; and unless the decisions of the Conference are avrived at with the cognisance and approval of the Finance Ministers of the several colonies represented tbere, they will be extremely likely to prove futile. It would be a poor ending of the affair if after the Conference had resolved on a certain line of action, the Colonial Treasurer were to say " We cannot afford it, and if we could, wo ought not to engage m such an one-sided bargain." But if the Colonial Treasurer is tbere himself, be can Bee that these points arc borne m mind all along ; and by carefully watching the cour.se of the discussion, iv its relation to finance, be can render a very important service both to tbe colony and to tbe Conference. Mr Wbitaker by himself would be liable to overlook that branch of the question ; and Major Atkinson by himself would be liable to overlook tbe political aspect of it. But the two together will be a power at the Conference ; and can be depended on to guard ngainst New Zealand being committed to anything antagonistic to her interests or unworthy of her standing aß a colony.