The Dominion. THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1909. PARLIAMENT FLOUTED.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 536, 17 June 1909, Page 6

The Dominion. THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 1909. PARLIAMENT FLOUTED.

In tho last hours of the . session the Pkime Minister made a statement which we commend to the public as a subject for reflection during the recess. It has been pretty obvious for some time that the Pbime Ministee has been relying upon his majority to make Parliament a mere machine for the. registration of his personar decrees. In fact,' it has been one of tho endeavours of The Dominion to exposo, and, ultimately to destroy, the Executive's usurpation of the functions of Parliament. But while ho was revolving in his mind his plan to carry out his designs in dcfianco of public opinion, the Piume Minister kept in view the necessity of making it appear that he was submitting himself freely to the judgment of tho national Assembly. Yesterday, howovor, ho decided that there was no need for further concealment of his real opinions. He had had his way. He had shelved the business of the country. Ho had won a respite from the disagreeable duty of permitting Parliament to take in hand the work of repairing the results of his reckless misgovernment. He had a pleasant holiday before him, and the p.rospoct of a certain quantity of homage. But even so, it is astounding that he should liavo darod to give open expression to his indifference to what Parliament may say or do. In the plainest possible, language he told the House yestorday, in a rcfisroncc to tho motion affirming tbo

necessity for establishing a genuino system of national defence, that he does not consider himself bound by the decision of Parliament, lie said : Kven if tho motion was affirmed by tho Hl°- k®. "°t going to bind himself to tho principle which it included, The rest of us have no option in the matter. Wo may think Parliament acts unwisely or wickedly, but we must obey its decrees. The Prime Minister, alono amongst ns all, refuses to acknowledge any obligation to obey the will of the House unless its will chances to .coincide with his own inclinations or to help his own schemes. Ho is the head of the Executive that exists for the carrying out of Parliament's wishes. But he has choson, not only to believe, but actually to say, that it is he, and not Parliament, whose wishes arc law.

It is only a few days since he was full of virtuous talk concerning his sense of what he owed to Parliament and the country. He would not dream of going to London, although he could have gone without anybody's permission, without first taking tho opinion of the representatives of the people. . What, we wonder, will be the thoughts to-day of those impressionable persons who were honestly moved by that touching exhibition of scrupulous respect for the people's Assembly 1 The plain fact is that when it suits his purpose the Prime Minister is ready to profess the utmost regard for the will of 'Parliament, while, when it does not suit the purposo, he does not hesitate to put a blunt and brutal affront upon the Assembly. When, as was tho case in Dunedin some weeks ago, ho declared that he' is.not going to be bound by any promises made by his colleagues, he is merely giving tho public a fair warning that tiic Government, in its dealing with the public, intends, in the card-player's idiom, to play all.it knows." But when he declares that,lie is not going to be bound by the decisions of Parliament, he is giving a commanding reason for his deposition in favour of a Prime Minister who knows his duty. He has raised in its wnosfc acute form the question which we have constantly kept prominent: Is Parliament to command the Government, or is the Government to command Parliament? The issue is between Parliamentary government and personal rule. In other countries the rule is that if Parliament insists on a certain lino of policy against the Government's will, the Government must obey, or go out of office. Infringe, this rulo, and, Parliamentary government is at an ond; There arc many things which the public will tolerate, and has tolerated, from the Government, but Sir Joseph Ward must be even more out of touch with popular sentiment than we thought when he can thus interfere with a popular right which no man in any British community can flout without coming to-grief. •'