The Press. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER. 25. 1913. THE PARLIAMENTARY STRIKE.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14832, 25 November 1913, Page 6

The Press. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER. 25. 1913. THE PARLIAMENTARY STRIKE.

Tho stonewall in the JJonse of Representatives was resunied yesterday, but in circumstances which make it reasonable to suppose that the obstructionist • minority will not I>o able to hold up tho work of Parliament much longer. During the week-end Sir Joseph Ward appears to have learned that his tactics have outraged public opinion, and that there are means by which the right of Parliament to do its work can be asserted against tho unlawful determination of a minority to prevent the transaction of the nation's business. His method of revealing tho effect of this new knowledge upon him emphasised tho grossiiess of Kis party's assault upon Parliamentary order and the public interest: the clauses which were stonewalled for days were pa_secl without discussion. This will help the public to understand that the Opposition did not desire merely to stonewall the secondhallot' proposal, but to waste timo and money, and destroy several valuable days, by stonewalling a proposal which "was unconnected with the second ballot and which every member in the House approves.

The rawest novice in Parliament could hardly have cut a poorer figure than the Leader of tho opposition when he attempted to show that tho stonewall of 1881. which we dealt with yesterday, was not on all fours with the present one in all essential points. But tlie novice and the expert are equal when they attempt to deny a plain fact which everyone can see for himself. The Leader of the Opposition, however, might have had tho wit at least to refrain from his pathetic little attempt to arguo that obstruction was easier, and worse, in 1881 than in 1913. The public is still completely in tlie dark concerning the "principle" for which, without indicating it, tho Opposition pretend they have been fighting. What is tho principle which justifies such an orgy of obstruction at this stage of the session, and such a direct encouragement to the strikers to continue their lawless attempt to paralyse the ordinary business of the community ? The Opposition will not say. The bToad fact is that, apparently with the exception of Mr H. G. Ell, every member of the House is pledget! to repeal the Secpnd Ballot Act, and those who are fighting to retain it will have to reckon with their constituents even if they are safe from any reckoning

with their consciences. ETen if Mr Massey had not definitely stated that Parliament will next session have an opportunity of providing whatever new system is agreed upon, the Opposition would have no excuse for fighting fox the retention of a system which they all, again with the singular exception of Mr Ell, positively said must go. On February 21st last year Mr G. W. Rus_ell, speaking on the want-of-confidence motion, challenged the then Opposition to name an Act they would repeal.

'•The second ballot," a Reform member interjected, and Mr Russell said: "The second ballot 1 The second ballot " does not need repealing. I think it •' is dead already. At any rate, I " hope it is. I have won my seat on " both occasions after a eecond ballot. " I had to go to the second ballot, and " 1 won both the first and eecond " ballots on both occasions, so that I "do not want any moro second " ballots."

Everyone knows, indeed, that none of the obstructionists ever declared, prior to the last election, that the second ballot should not be repealed unless some new system of voting were simultaneously provided, and the public may consider it wise in future to regard pledges by "Liberals" as quite worthless, owing to the secret reservations with which they are given. As to the absurd suggestion that Mr Massey is seeking a .arty advantage, it is sufficient to point out that the system which the Bill restores is tho system under which the "Liberals" wero victorious for twenty years, and that it is since the second ballot was introduced that tlie Reform Party came into power. The truth of the matter is that tho f 'Liberals'' have been moved only by three considerations. In the first place, they somehow fear that their political necessities require the retention of the second ballot. In the second placo they wish to cripple Parliament/and prevent the Government from passing necessary legislation of various kinds. In the third place, they are anxious to' embarrass the Government at a critical time and to encourage the Red Feds, in their violent war on the community. And the nation knows it.