MARLBOROUGH GOSSIP.

Hawke's Bay Times, 17 August 1863, Page 1 (Supplement)

MARLBOROUGH GOSSIP.

[From the Marlborough Press~\.

Gossip generally, at the present time, may be considered to be pretty equally divided between Maori affairs and Provincial politics, but as the latter subject is more purely of local interest than the former, I shall make it the theme of my present discourse. Not satisfied with having obtained the adjournment, the “ present” opposition appear determined to leave no stone unturned to endeavor to ensure their real object, which it requires no great amount of discernment to understand as meaning the overthrow of the present Government. Whether they will succeed or not, time will show.

The very extraordinary ruling of the present Speaker, some short time since, has l/Ccri the tlicrnc of vsry cciivcrs 0^' I'’' 1 '’' while public opinion on the whole, is decidedly opposed to it, as being unprecedented and unconstitutional, and so far from being conducive to obtaining either an amicable arrangement between opposing parties or ensuring expeditious legislation is only calculated to further embitter factious spirit and partizanship. That such ruling is unconstitutional in the extreme is self-evident, as it virtually ignores the only right that a minority can be possessed of, viz., to utter and record their views and sentiments, whilst it entirely removes the possibility of convincing argument from the opposition, and leaves them a per ; feet nonentity in the house. It it an old-established fact in legislation that an opposition part is actually as necessary as a Government, for the simple reason that every subject requires discussion and argument to thoroughly ventilate it, and con* tirmatively explain its real worth. Captain Baillie, however, considers otherwise, and is of opinion that when there is a decided majority on any question under discussion, and they consider that they have heard enough on the subject, they can call for and on a division, even to the interruption of any one of the minority then on the floor of the house. No doubt Captain Baillie, as his position requires of him, is far better read in parliamentary precedents and legislative practice than we are out of doors. Will he then condescendingly give us some explanation concerning the justice of what appears such arbitrary ruling, and the parliamentary usage from which he derives a precedent ?

Captain Baillie would probably inform us that this ruling is by no means intended to have an arbitrary effect, and that the house will always grant the minority a fair hearing, but I would simply suggest that his idea of a fair hearing, although, doubtless, concurred

in by the majority, would in no way be considered equally satisfactory by the minority, who would be virtually without redress. One can easily understand the intolerable nuisance and hindrance to public business of a factious opposition, but it is not equally simple to designate satisfactorily and at the same time lucidly explain what constitutes factious opposition. By one of the present standing rules and orders we are imformed that any member guilty of factious opposition, is to be considered guilty of contempt, and acted with accordingly; and as the probability arises that the present opposition will in no way submit to sit iu taciturnity, like “ little boys who must not speak until they are spoken to,” we shall probably see, ere long the whole of them marched off in disgrace under the charge of friend “ Goodman.” But to look at this subject, however, in sober earnest, it really won’t do, and 1 can’t help thinking that Captain Baillie must have pretty well arrived at the same opinion, and that when the house again meets a far more modified ruling will be adopted ; for at the present moment, the majority are allowed to say as much as they please, whilst the minority only as much as they are allowed. Surely a far more advisable method to adopt would be to limit any speaker, whether belonging to the majority or otherwise, to a certain length of tima.