Sir Robert Stout on Dissolution and Resignation.

Manawatu Herald, Volume III, Issue III, 11 December 1890, Page 2

Sir Robert Stout on Dissolution and Resignation.

" Looking at the thing as dispassionately as I can, I do not think that the Premier should be pressed to give an answer at once as to what he should do. I think it is only fair, in the present position, that ho should not only have time to consult his Cabinet, with all the members present, but that if necessary he should also consult the leading men among his supporters. I think however, that he is bound to resign — that duty seems to me abundantly plain. The only question of difficulty is whether the House should be called together or not. My first impression was that it should be called together, because reading the list of members returned party lines did not seem to be strictly drawn. I have heard, however, within the last day or two, that the Opposition can i*cly upon a majority — that is, that in addition to those marked " Opposition " in the newspapers, there are some marked " doubtful " who would go with the Opposition when formed. If this is to be the case, then T think the way is clear ; that is, that the Ministry should resign, the Governor should be advised to send for Mr Ballance, who is the leader of the Opposition,

and if Mr liallance undertook to form a Government, it would be unnecessary to call the House together. If' ho declined to undertake that responsibility, then there is no other course open than to summon Parliament. lam not aware what Mr Ballance's views are, for I have not asked him ; but if he could see his way to undertake the formation of a Ministry, that would meet Parliament, say early in April, it would be an immense saving to the country. To summon Parliament now means practically holding two sessions in the year, A great point was made year of the extra cost of a double session, and no doubt in our financial position this should be avoided if at all possible. If Mr Ballance undertook to forma Government, then by April he would be able to formulate his policy, and the House could then judge whether he and the policy which he and his colleagues proposed wore worthy of support. The whole thing, therefore, turns, in my opinion, upon whether Mr Ballance is willing to undertake the formation of a Government. If he is, and he can see his way to having a majority, then a second session can be avoided, the House need not be summoned, and the Government can go on till April, when the House assembles. Looking at it from the constitutional point of view, I don" t suppose anyone will dispute that once a Ministry is defeated in the country its duty is at once to tender its resignation to the Governor. You will remember that in 1887 when 1 was defeated I tendered my resignation within about [ a couple of hours after my arrival in Wellington from Dunedin — in fact, at the earliest possible moment that the Governor could receive me. I have no doubt, however, from what I know of Sir Harry Atkinson, that he will follow the constitutional course if he has time to consult (as he has a right to do) his colleagues and chief supporters. Of course he and every politiican knows that any attempt to hold office after the verdict of the country against a Ministry would only re-act on their party and injure them for a long time to come. Besides, from what I know of the present Ministers, I do not believe that they would for one moment desire to keep office after the verdict of the country against them. I have no doubt they will take means of consulting their party, and that in a day or two (or a week or two, if necessary) a decision will be come to. It also rests, no doubt, with the Governor whether he thinks Parliament should be summoned or not, but I should imagine that he would be guided, before summoning Parliament, and possibly would also consult Mr Ballance as leader of the Opposition. — N. Z. Times.