Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1901. COMING EVENTS.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 10 June 1901, Page 2

Greymouth Evening Star, AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1901. COMING EVENTS.

Parliament will meet in about a fortnight, and members are taking their constituents into their confidence. Some of them like Mr. Barkley are content with defending the action of last session and contradicting certain statements made. In refering to the charge made by Mr. Pirani he said he wished to draw attention to a statement made in a public print in this colony—-a print that was, presumably, the property of a gentleman who was a member of the House of Representatives. The statement was in these words; —“ Those who feel any respect for representative institutions cannot but regard the result of the session of Parliament just concluded with loathing and disgust. It is well to speak plainly, and therefore we can say with truth that a depth of degradation has been sounded which is unrivalled in the annals of New Zealand, and both Chambers are equally blame-worthy, although the most flagrant instances were exhibited in the Lower Chamber. Drunkenness was always in evidence, and was not looked upon as any offence by the majority of members, while in one case at least it was openly encouraged by the Premier." His own opinion of the matter was that every assertion in that paper was an absolute falsehood. The members of Parliament he met in Wellington were above the average of gentlemen one would meet, say, in this town. Drunkenness was a rarity. There may have been one person mho was dr unit once or twice during the whole session, but that was all; and, as far as the language and the conversation and the influence that one came in contact with, it was only that which bo, at any rate, could bo proud of. It see ns to us that Mr. Barkley admits the charge, but attempts to clock it over by declaring that the member who formulated it had no right to do so. Most folks are aware that there is a certain amount of truth in the statement made, and it would have been better had Mr Barkley either let the matter pass, or admitted that some of the members did offend in the manner described. Mr Barkley then goes on to declare that Messrs Seddon and Ward are good and strong men, but the other members of the Cabinet he has no confidence in, “ neither has the party.” r Jhon, why does not the “party” boldly tell Mr Seddon so? In regard to Mr Mills’ appointment he declared that “ the last man who was attached to the Ministry was, ho thought, the weakest of them all, and, in his opinion, it was not right to find in any Government two men who were head and shoulders above thq rest of

their colleagues.” Probably, if an alteration was made it might still be found that the Premier and Mr Ward were head and shoulders above their colleagues; most certainly this would be if Mr Barkley was the average. Mr Barkley in the following sentence seems to take up an extraordinary attitude for one who is in favor of “ Government by Party.” He says that when he entered the House “ he found there was no Opposition at all. They would not elect a leader. They would have no Opposition whips with whom the Government party could do business. They would not criticise the policy of the Government, and as a rule the great majority of the men who were supposed to be on the Opposition side voted in the Government lobby. What was the result ? It became necessary for members of the Ministerial party to become friendly critics of their own measures, otherwise the weak points of a proposal wou d not be picked out and criticised. The Government members therefore rose to the occasion, and the measures were brought through the House more perfect than they would have been, perhaps, if there had been a strong Opposition.” Here he unconsciously gives utterance to one of the strongest arguments that can be advanced in favor of an elective Executive—yet he would oppose such a proposal if it was made, In a future issue we shall refer to other addresses.