THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VI, Issue 265, 22 August 1895, Page 10

THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.

The immense majority that the Government had (61 to 5) in its favour when what was virtually a “ no-confidence ” motion was brought before the House last week in no way affects the Trade, nor does it in any way influence the feelings members may have on the new Liquor Bill, which will be discussed in the course of a few days by the Legislative Assembly. The notice of motion brought forward by Captain Bussell was simply a catch vote which was resorted to on the spur of the moment because he thought that there was a growing feeling amongst Government supporters inimical to the proposed tariff. That he made a mistake was proved by the fact that of the straight out opposition, which is reckoned at sixteen or seventeen, only four voted in favour of his proposition,the fifth one being a member of the “ cross benches.” We are satisfied that had he bided his time and waited for a more favourable moment to express his opinion of the action of the Government he would have met with a much more substantial backing. Although, generally speaking, our views are in accord with the Government, we are strong believers in a healthy Opposition, for no matter how good the intent of a government may be it is not wise that it should have too strong an arm, for under such circumstances no check could be placed upon its vagaries, and even the best of governments at times are prone to indulge in peculiar species of legislation. The new Liquor Bill, which we have gone into exhaustively in a previous issue, is a case in point; its provisions are arbitrary and its effect would be disastrous on the community at large. When discussed it should be met by members of both parties in the House with an honest and earnest desire to sift its possibilities and probabilities thoroughly. Although introduced by Government it cannot be treated as a Government measure pure and simple. It is too far reaching in its results, and must be handled and argued upon purely in the abstract and- apart from all party cbn-sidefatibns.-z It is not a question of Liberalism versus Conservatism, Seddon versus Stout or Bussell, or even the Government versus the Opposition. It is a broad question affecting the interests of the entire community, the revenue of the colony, and the advance or decline of trade throughout the whole of New Zealand. We hope that legislators will keep this aspect of the question well in view and approach the subject with a view to honestly speaking and voting for the best interests of the colony at large. Many members who could not conscien-tiously-vote iu favour of such a motion as was brought in by Captain Bussell last week would still revolt at the idea of passnig into law the provisions of the proposed Liq uor Bill, and we are satisfied that when the matter is thoroughly thrashed out the view of the question that we have taken will be borne out by the action of the different members of the' HoUge. It- is iniquitous to think that a BilTiiMld l&e passed in New Z'e Aland so arbitrary that even in Bussia it would meet with the strongest -opposition ; a Bill, imprimis, interfering in a most un-

warrantable way with the liberty of the subject, disarranging the revenues of the colony, disintegrating trade in general, and having so far-reaching an evil effect that its results (if it be made law) will be felt for years, not only locally, but in our intercourse with other colonies and countries. We cannot credit the idea that it will be passed, for we believe that mature consideration on the part of the Government, aided by free and. open discussion, will bring members to a sense of the great responsibility resting on their shoulders, and that the measure will either be so amended as to eliminate its most objectionable features, or that it will be withdrawn entirely, unless indeed its sponsors insist upon pushing it through, and then surely it will meet with the crushing defeat which it so justly merits Parliament is not a place for experiments. The Legislative Assembly should not be looked upon as a laboratory in which fads are to be hammered out, patented, and foisted upon a patient tax-paying community. The people will stand that sort of thing for a while because they can’t help it, but they won’t stand it for ever, and when the reaction comes it will be a sweeping one, and somebody will have to stand from under. What in the name of common sense then is the use of passing measures that are admittedly impracticable ? that will only be made law to be broken ? and that will not stand a working test for any reasonable length of time? Does it not seem childish that the pick of our intelligent men should, while influenced by party feeling or some emotional wave, propose a species of legislation that both experience and common sense tell them cannot possibly be lasting ? What profit can there be in setting up an image or fetich that a logical deduction proves must be in the course of a brief period knocked down again? It means simply a modern illustration of the legend of Sisyphus, with one exception, namely, Sisyphus didn’t get paid for his trouble and our modern Sisyphi do, and jolly well too. We hope that members will look at this question from a reasonable point of view, and when they come to give their votes or to speak on the Liquor Bill will bear in mind the far reading effects such a measure will have if by any unfortunate chance it should become the law of the land.