Wellington Independent "NOTHING EXTENUATE; NOR SET DOWN AUGHT IN MALICE. TUESDAY, 25th AUGUST, 1868.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXIII, Issue 2723, 25 August 1868, Page 3

Wellington Independent "NOTHING EXTENUATE; NOR SET DOWN AUGHT IN MALICE. TUESDAY, 25th AUGUST, 1868.

" The Act for securing the better freedom and independence of Parliament" might more fittingly be termed " An Act for increasing the power of the Grovernment and weakening that of the Opposition." Mr Stafford's Ministry is surely possessed of amazing virtue, because neither he nor his colleagues can brook the spectacle of gentlemen silting in the Assembly, who are holders of Provincial appointments, and have thus, as the Premier put it during Friday night's debate, " a direct interest in the distribution of revenue which they did not raise a s iid by which they profited." Of course Mr Stafford would have us suppose that his political morality is of the purest I kind, which, like the virtue of indignant Donna Julia, it is a crying sin and a wanton outrage even to suspect. Nevertheless, like the venerable spouse of the fair but frail Donna, we are made very suspicious by the strong circumstantial evidence against it which is forced upon our gaze. While the Don, in the lady's bedroom, stumbled over a pair of shoes, " where no such shoes should be," we come across in the lobbies of the House and in the Parliamentary papers, equally damning proofs that the Ministry are by no means t immaculate. They contrive to gain votes in the House, through the exercise of that power and patronage which their position confers upon them. We see a Secretary of Crown Lands in one House, steadily supporting Ministers, and we also see a host of paid Commissioners in the other, regularly (walking into the same lobby with those who possess the power of the purse. Of course we do not say that the gentlemen who have travelled pleasantly through the colony during the recess ; performed a little formal work, and then pocketed heavy cheques with virtuous self-satisfaction, had made any regular bargain with Ministers, that a faithful support should be adequately rewarded by a grateful Government — because in these days of political purity no suchbargains ever are made. Still itiaperfeetly well understood, that whatever lucrative commissionerships or other good things may be at the disposal of a Government are very often conferred upon those to whom it has cause to be grateful ; and so it happens, that though what this bill calls " the freedom and independence of Parliament," are nominally maintained, yet in i reality, Ministers always have a certain number of followers whose votes are safe, because with them principle means selfinterest, and both run in the same groove. There are members of the present House who dare not refuse to " ken-nel-up" in the right lobby when the Ministerial whip is uplifted. Such members " do not break out like mad dogs," — to quote the elegant phrase of Mr Charles Haughton — on the contrary, they are very tame spaniels indeed, and do exactly what they are bid. " The Tearem's and Holdem V of the Assembly have got good pluck in them, and perhaps if they were more numerous it would be better for the Country and worse for the Government. We are, indeed, sick of this affected prudery which Ministers display. Their bill provides for excluding all paid officers in provinces except Superintendents, and yet they do not scruple to assert that

>those who receive emoluments from the General Government and come down to the House with the cheques in their pockets — the aforesaid paid Commissioners to wit — are perfectly independent, and therefore entitled both to sit and vote. Such hypocrisy is absolutely sickening. Whether the waiters upon Providence, who vote with tho Government, are independent or not, we leave the House and the country to determine; but that the gentlemen who are sent up by the provinces to represent them in the Assembly are so, there is no doubt whatever. Of what nature is the interest which a Provincial Secretary or Treasurer has in the distribution of the revenue ? Of course he will act in the interests of his province, but it does not therefore follow that he will forget those of the colony at large. " The direct interest of such a member of the House," is, as Mr Fox said, "a Provincial interest," and "thatinterest," hecontinued, "was the very interest connected with the property, thetalent.atidtheeducationofthecolony." It is fair to assume that the men elected to the Provincial Councils are the best whom the electors can obtain, and those who are selected by the members of a Council to form an Executive, are usually the leading men of the body which places them in power. In their official capacities they obtain the best and most complete information as to the affairs of the province which they govern, and on that account, as well as for their own ability, they are often elected to the Assembly. Why, then, should such men be excluded? The provinces, in the aggregate, constitute the colony, and we therefore see no reason why the leading men in provincial legislatives should not have a seat in the Colonial Parliament. To exclude them by law is not only to disfranchise the ablest men in the provinces, but also the people who elected them. If this bill in its present shape were to become law, the choice of the electors would be most unfairly limited. Of course, gentlemen would be returned all the same more or less pledged to act for the interests of their provinces, and equally, of course, local interests would influence their votes. Still, an evil and an injustice would be committed through the exclusion of those from the Assembly, who could, from knowledge and experience, do most for their constituents. The bill, moreover, while asserting a principle, does not fully carry it out. If a Provincial Treasurer is to be made ineligible for a seat in the House, why not also a Superintendent of a province. No person can be more wedded to provincial interests in the distribution of the expenditure than a Superintendent, and if he be allowed — and justly allowed to sit— it is hard to perceive why the members of his Executive should be shut out. The conduct of the Ministry is all of a piece. They wish to strengthen their own hauda, and weaken those of their opponents. Their creed is exceedingly simple. They would, if possible, keep all members in their seats over whom they could exercise a vote-compelling power, and they would exclude anyone else who was likely to go against them. It is true that the act forbids the rank and file of General Government officials from holding seats in the House, but there are some important exceptions made which would still give Ministers an opportunity i of getting in safe and pledged supporters. Whoever being in the pay of the General Government, may hold a seat in the Assembly, is not to be envied. It will be a question between giving them his vote or losing his office. The public have not forgotten the urgent telegram which brought up Mr John Hyde Harris and Mr Chetham Strode last session to vote with Ministers on the Public Debts Bill. Mr Stafford may first deny, and afterwards practically admit that these gentlemen were sent for, but the facts are well known. We remember, not many months ago, being on board a steamer at Port Chalmers on a Saturday afternoon, which had steam up and was ready to start for Wellington. "We remember that the passengers were all on board, and that the captain was eager to be off, when there came a special message to him that he was to wait for those hon. gentleman, Mr Hyde Harris and Mr Chetham Strode, who had been sent for by telegraph, to come in hot haste and help the Ministry. Then did the captain look grim and did tho passengers curse. Then did the steamer wait for twenty hours till the Hon Harris and the Hon. Strode made their appearance, which they did on Sunday afternoon. Of course those gentlemen impersonified in themselves the independence of Parliament ; of course, Mr Strode, the E.M., came away of his own free will ; of course Mr Harris never had a bill to pass for one John Jones. Equally, of course, Mr Crawford, who voted against the Ministry, was not persecuted for his independence. It is of course not true, that Mr Stafford said : " Give up your seat in the Council, or look out for the safety of your appointment." It is impossible that Mr Stafford, the staunch advocate of Parliamentary independence, could commit an act of tyranny worthy of Castlereagh or Sidmouth." Yet strange to say, the majority of the people cry out that he is guilty.