The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas Et Prevalebit. MONDAY, JULY 23, 1883. The Supply Debate

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1002, 23 July 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas Et Prevalebit. MONDAY, JULY 23, 1883. The Supply Debate

The proceedings in Parliament daring the long sitting which commenced on Friday and terminated at half-past seven on Saturday morning were in the last degree discreditable. Unfortunately these attempts on the part of a few members, of whom both sides of the House are ashamed, are by no means infrequent, and scarcely * session passes without stonewalling tactics being resorted to. On this occasion, however, the battle was commenced in an unusual way. When the Estimates were brought up before the Committee of Supply, Mr Swanson moved that they be referred back to the Government, with the view of their being reduced. Whether Major Atkinson was justified in considering this motion as tantamount to one of want-of-confi-dence is open to question, but it is beyond doubt that the member for Newton did not regard it in that light. Mr Swanson lias all through been a consistent supporter of the Ministry, and had no desire to see them turned out of their places, but he has always been an advocate of retrenchment in the public service. He argues that if there is a falling off in the revenue, the deficiency should be met by a reduction of the expenditure, and not, as the Colonial Treasurer proposes, by an increase in the taxation. But the Government evidently chose to consider that the motion virtually challenged their financial policy, and Major Atkinson declared that if the House supported Mr Swanson the Ministry would resign. Viewing this action by the light of past events, we are tempted to ask if this high-handed manner of treating the question would have been followed were those in power not certain that they could command a majority. It will be remembered that when Mr Saunders moved for a ten per cent, all round redaction in the Civil Service, the Government, recognising that the feeling of the House was m favor of such a course, accepted the motion,

and it certainly appears inconsistent that they should look upon a far less stringent measure as a vote of want-of-confidence, and agree to stand or fall upon the decision of the House. We are thus driven to the conclusion that the Government would not have determined as they did, had it not been thatthey were sure of carrying theirpoint in this instance, and the division list showed that this cofidencc was well founded. Still, the colony will, we think, scarcely be pleased with the issue of the debate, as it clearly shows the danger that may arise from a Government possessing a power which, il abused, must result in disaster.

What followed the rejection of Mr Swanson’s motion was probably the result of pique, but it sufficiently shows the utter absence of organisation among the Opposition. Hud that party possessed a strong leader, capable of holding those under him in check, the scenes that occurred on Friday night and Saturday morning could not have taken place. But the Opposition is a veritable house divided against itself, and while such men as Messrs Fish, Seddon, and Turnbull are allowed to work their own sweet will we cannot expect the proceedings of Parliament to be conducted with dignity. The useful legislative work that these three members have done during their Parliamentary careers is infinitesimal. Mr Fish, indeed, has a certain amount of business capacity which might have made him a useful representative, but his unconquerable vulgarity of speech and insufferable conceit have rendered him obnoxious to everybody who is brought in contact with him, while the members for Kumara and Timaru are simply talking machines. These three redoublables set themselves the task of stonewalling the Estimates, with the result that the sitting was prolonged, while not a single item was reduced. It is difficult to see what is the object of such tactics as these, which can only earn for those who practise them an unenviable notoriety. That the more intelligent members of the Opposition were opposed to such a mode of procedure is evidenced by the fact that they left their seats and allowed the battle to be fought out by these three representatives and the Government. As to the system of stonewalling being a disgrace to the Assembly there can be no two opinions, and it is to be hoped that the members who are responsible for an unnecessary waste of public money and delay in the transaction of public business will be called upon by their constituents to account for their conduct.

At the same time, we cannot hold the Government altogether blameless in this matter. Had Mr Swanson’s motion been fairly discussed on its merits, and not as a vote of want-of confidence, as we think it might fairly have been, this waste of time would not have occurred. Instead of large sums of money being voted in a House containing barely a quorum, we should have had many items debated, and if a reduction had been possible the Government would have agreed. The allocation of public funds is the most important question brought forward during the session, and it is to be regretted that party squabbles should interfere with the consideration of such a vital matter.