The Star. FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1910. THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9912, 29 July 1910, Page 2

The Star. FRIDAY, JULY 29, 1910. THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION

The division 011 Mr Massey'a 110-con-fidonco motion is admittedly a little startling. Evidently there are some" members of the Liberal Party whose loyalty has been strained to breaking point,' while others feel so strongly on the land question that, although not prepared to vote for the overthrow of the Liberal administration, they are unable to support the Government when this question is raised. The analysis of the division lists is a little significant, Messrs Dillon, Field and Jennings have been rogarded hitherto as firm members of the Liberal Party, and the pressure of freehold opinion in their constituencies must be particularly strong to have compelled them to vote against their party on a no-confidence motion. It must be remembered that it is a rule of party politics that when the existence of the Government is at stake the members who are elected to support the Government on general policy shall support it, even if their opinions on the special question at isfiuo are at variance with those of their leaders. Tho very fact that an amendment to a Government motion is accepted as a motion of want of confidence is held to deprive the amendment of any particular application. The,rule has often been abused by party leaders, who, for tlje> purpose of. gaining support for a proposal not acceptable to their followers generally, have converted ordinary amendments into no-confidence motions. But the abuse of the rule does not render it inoperative. Many members object to it as being altogether too binding, but a little reflection will show that while the party system prevail? there is no escape from it. Indeed, without an understanding of the kind party governmeat would bo impossible Individual members must be prepared to sink their opinions at times for the good of their party and for the furtherance of tho general policy to which they subscribe. Tho voting of Mr Fisher, an Opposition leaseholder, illustrates the point. In the casa of Mr Massoy's motion there could be no room for mwunderstaiiding. The Leader of the Opposition specially asked that his amendment should be treated as one'of noconfidence, and the Prime Minister complied with his request. The five members of the Liberal Party who voted with Mr Massey, therefore, cannot now bo regarded as faithful followers of tho Government. Of the abstentions from voting, Mr Wilford's is tho most significant. The member for Hutt is an old and tried Liberal, but it is notorious that no would have difficulty in retaining his seat if he did not advocate the freehold tenure. The division helps us to undon-tand how widely tho Opposition heresy on this particular problem has spread, and how marked is tho failure of the constituencies to comprehend the true bearings of the land question. Whether it inj dicates, also, a weakening tendency in I tho Liberal Party in Parliament reI mains to be seen.