ECHOES OF THE THREATENED DISSOLUTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 3774, 21 September 1907, Page 3

ECHOES OF THE THREATENED DISSOLUTION.

References by Mr Massey and the Premier. In his excellent speech on the Tariff Bill in the House of Representatives on Wednesday night, Mr Massey, leader of the Opposition, referred to the attitude taken up by the Government in connection with Mr Herries’ amendment with regard to placing mining machinery on the free list, which was agreed to by a majority of the House. “I want to say that it seemed to one then and that it seems to me now,” said Mr Massey, ‘‘that the action of the Government in that was petulant and undignified.” Mr Massey went on to state what had happened after the rebuff to the Government, referring particularly to the introduction of the Licensing Polls Bill, which was to provide that in the event of a dissolution the local option poll should be taken in the ordinary way. “What did it all mean?” he asked. “The right honorable gentleman represents a part of the colony that is known as Bluff, and it seems to me that bluff entered very largely into the action of the Government on that occasion. (Laughter). Sir, it- is laid down by all the constitutional authorities that a threat of dissolution on the part of any Government is highly improper. The threat was not there in so many words, but what was done was evidently intended to convey the impression that if members who support the Government were not more careful with regard to their attitude, a dissolution would be brought about. But it is one thing to ask for a dissolution and another thing to obtain it, and I venture to say that before a dissolution would be granted the representative of His Majesty in this colony would take very good care to inquire into the circumstances leading pu to it, and take care to ascertain whether the possibilities ot- Parliament had been exhausted before committing the people of the country, to all the trouble, expense and worry in connection with an election. So far as a dissolution is concerned, I do not object to it in the slightest, but that is not the point. The point is that Parliament should not be coerced in the way that was attempted by the Government. There should be no idea of a threat, or even a hint of a dissolution, when the Government is defeated on a comparatively unimportant motion.” The Premier also made a forcible speech. Towards its conclusion, Sir Joseph Ward made reference to his attitude with regard to a dissolution. The granting of a dissolution was, he said, entirely the prerogative of the representative of the Efng, but whoever was the head of the Government had his rights, and he (Sir Joseph Ward) was prepared to exercise them in such a way as he believed to be right, and no one could stop him if he believed it to be in accordance with the maintenance of the traditions of the high office he held. Nobody could stop him from relinquishing his position or prevent him from exercising his constitutional right, and there must be justification for a refusal. The party which he headed was returned to power under another Prime Minister, has distinguished predecessor, and unhappily through death, it had lost its leader. He (Sir Joseph Ward) now held that position, and, if he was to be overshadowed by a portion of the party saying they had not been returned to support him, and that they would desert him, he would have a right to ask for the same recognition which would have been received by the late Prime Minister had he lived. As a new leader brought into the position by the hand of death, he had an undeniable right to ask the people of the country if he possessed their confidence. He had neither asked for nor been refused a dissolution, but he knew what his rights were. He was not thinking of his personal safety, but of the maintenance of the high traditions of his office. He was not going to be trodden upon by any member of the House whether they were supporters of the Government or on the Oppossition benches.