The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1894.

Timaru Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 6068, 29 September 1894, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1894.

Fn the email hoars of Thursday morning, Mr G. J. Smith, one of the members for Christchurcb, rose to make a personal explanation of the circumstances under which he had been excluded from the caucus of the Government party held during the course of the week. We hardly know whether we ought to sympathise with the honourable member m his great affliction, or enjoy a hearty laugh at his expense. Seeing that he aotually was shut out (the Government Whip told him that the exclusion was intentional) he had better have pocketed the affront and perhaps planned a future revenge than have stood up m his place and poured his grievance into the ears of the House, which certainly was not concerned m the matter. But though that was undoubtedly the position of .the House, as one of the legislative Chambers, Mr Smith had no sooner stated his case than a number of his friends proceeded to give him a political character, which from their standpoint was excellent. Mr Smith resented his exclusion on the ground that he was a member of the Liberal party, and was therefore, he thought, entitled to be present at the private deliberations of the supporters of a Government who profeßS to guide the destinies of the country under the banner of Liberalism. Sir Robert Stout wad the first witness to character, and his testimoney was that Mr Smith was something even better than a Liberalhe was really a Radical. Mr Hall- Jones, on getting into the box, "went one higher," and said that Mr Smith held " extreme Radical views." Mr Collins felt compelled to say that he had always regarded Mr Smith as a Radical ; and, finally, Mr G. W. Russell declared that the Government had no right to shut the door m Mr Smith's face when they "had let m Mr Saunders, who had sometimes taken a strong stand against them. The Premier wound up the proceedings by informing the House that on sixty occasions since the 13th September Mr Smith had voted against the Government, and therefore could be no true Liberal. "It waß," he said, " for the honourable member to show by his future works (votes) that he really did belong to the party." This little affair is of some interest m the present state of the House. We scarcely need say that if a member habitually votes against the Government, he oannot fairly claim to be invited to a caucus of Government supporters. A man's own sense or conscience should tell him whether he ought to be included m the list ; but obviously the Government must be judge m the case. Those who took part m this discussion seem to have Buffered from a confusion of ideas. They confounded the term " member of the Government party " with " member of the Liberal party.", Chief amongst those who made this transparent mistake was the Premier, who evidently assumed that no one could be " a true Liberal " who did not obey the word ef command when given by the Government Whip. But nothing is enrer than that a considerable number of Liberals m the present House feel themselves nnder no such obligation ; and there are signs that the list is growing longer. Chief amongst the malcontents is Sir Robert Stoat. We are not setting ourselves np as his champion, or expressing admiration of him as a politician, but it would be absurd to deny him the name of Liberal. There are others whose Liberalism is equally pronounced, but whom the Premier cannot claim as his partisans. On the other hand, there are amongst his supporters some whose views and voteß furnish splendid specimens of spurious Liberalism. It wonld be the grossest of blunders to believe that all the Liberals are m tbe Government fold. It is not the case either m the Honse or the country. Very likely if yre were to take the tronble to hunt up the sixty occasions alluded to by the Premier, on which Mr Smith voted against the Government, it would be found that the member for Christohurch was true to Liberal principles and that those who shut him out from the caucus were the advocates of shams. Still, we mast yield to the temptation of laughing at Mr Smith's innocence m supposing that Liberalism was the " open Besame " to the caucus, when a ohild should have known that tbe only key was blind subservience to the Premier. Goodness only knows why the great autocrat made an exception m favour of Mr Sannders.