THE RECENT RULINGS.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 213, 7 September 1881, Page 2

THE RECENT RULINGS.

(By Telegraph.) Wellington, Tuesday, 11*30 p.m. The Post to-night has the following leader finally dealing with the late inlings of the Speaker and Chairman of Committees. : Baßsanio: I bsßetch you wrest once the Jaw to your authority; to do a great right do a little wrong. Portia: It must not be; theie Is no pqwer in existence can alter a decree 'establisiied. It will be recorded as a precedent, and many

! an error by the same example will rush into the State: It cannot be. Exceedingly apposite are these words of Shakes]) to the late political situation. The Government hare forced the Representation Bill through the House in spite of the resistance of those whose rights it so matedally inVades; their resistance has been crushed by deliberately over-ridiog the law 3 by which Parliamentary procedure is governed. The Government eaid to the Speaker and Ghairman of Committees •• Wrest once the law your authority, to do a great right," that is to say to- enable as to force through our measures, "Do a little wrong." Unhappily the Speaker and the Chairman did not reply "It must not be; it cannot he." No they did " wrest the law to their authority " and to do a little right they did a great w*on&. The " little right " was breaking down the very trifling obstruction of ptib!! c business which bad exhausted the limited endurance of the Government. Ministers were conveniently obliv'ousof their own early history as a Ministry; they pre, ferred to forget, although they were pointedly reminded of it last night, how thty came to be sitting on those benches at all. Was it not by deliberate " stonewalling " against tbe Opposition when the latter had an admitted majority of cix ? They resolutely slopped tbe progress of all business until at length they were reinforced by four convert? from the bother side; they continued this obf structjon fully thrice as long &s the recent stone wallers were permitted to do, and the fact tnuMheir minority was only six instead of 26 makes merti^ a minor difference in degree. They were obstructive Jhatthey might retain office; the Nelson men obsw' icte * "to save their constituenciesfrom disfranchisement." At the time we defended the action of the Government, as we have late'y extenuated the proceedings of the stonewallers and then, as now, we stood almost alone among New Zealand journals, in doing so. We adhere to our opinion that the Government were perfectly justified in the course they adopted, and events hare amply proved that We were correct in our views. The events of the future will show that we have been right in our condemnation of the means by which the Government have forced the Representation Bill down the throats of their opponents. ■ We have said that Ministers owe their present existence to their haviog two years ago stonewalled until they managed to win over the needful accession of strength from the other side. That was precisely what the recent stonewallers were doing when their thread or combative life was so abruptly severed by the aclion of the Speaker and Chairman of Committees. They were gaining euppoffc both inside of the House atd outside, and llsd they not been so arbitiarily oppressed by main force in defiance of all law and precedent we have little doubt that they might have succeeded io defeating the Bill, or at least in compelling a Satisfactory compromise. It was, doubtless, the clear [perception of this danger that led the Government, supported by their temporary coalition majority; to have recourse to such a dispose process of extinction"; .They were smitten with a panic ; like the late icinperor, Napoleon 3rd they felt that the Empire was slipping away from thfir grasp ; the stone-! wallers were in a minority, it is true, but the relative power of the respective sides in fighting on that particular battle-ground was not so widely disproportionate. The stonewallers required only to keep one man, or at "the most, two, on duty, whereas their opponents were obliged to have twenty always at hand to avert a " count out " ; so, while the Government had available only three watches of twenty each, the other side had more than double that number ;of the numerically smaller " watches " they needed ; even allowing for the extra labor of speaking entailed on the latter, the relative strength of parties on this ground was equal. It was like one of those cases in actual warfafe : when a small body of resolute men, posted in a narrow motmtain pass or other strong position, can hold in clteck, or even defeat,, a force immensely superior ; therefore ;it was that the Government sprang a tnine under them and so annihilated the resistance which they could not overcome in fair fight. It was not the mere delay which was objected to, for that was nothing to the waste of time which had occurred over previous Bills this session, but Ministers began to fear the stonewallers were going to Win, and it was for this reason that, as they could not be vanquished in fair fight or by regular siege,they had to be destroyed by means n"ot sanctioned by the rules of war. And the thing was done so clumsily, too. The law was not only "wrested," but it was wrested much more than there was any necessity for to accomplish the object aimed at. The Chairman of Committees had arbitrarily forbidden any further debate or any motions |to report progress. Had he accepted Mr^Gisborne'a motion to refer that unprecedented ruling to the House, the majority would doubtless have rejected the motion, or even if carried the Speaker and majority in pursuance of previous arrangements would no doubt have Buppoited his ruling. His refusal to receive Mr Gieborne's motion was therefore short-Biphted as well as unwarrantable That it was distinctly uDJastifiable is absolutely clear. We may quote the following extract from thß " Law and Practice cf the Legislative Assembly " (p 766; 1881) one of the highest authorities on Parliamentary precedent and procedure:— "lf any doubt should arise in the Committee as to a point of order or other proceeding wbicb may appear to be beyond their province to decide, the course is to direct the Chairman to leave tbe chair for the purpose of obtaining the instructions and directions of the House in reference to the matter in question." Thi3 is plain enough to meet the meanest of comprehension. Mr Seymour had no right whatever to refuse Mr Gisborne'g motion, especially as it was plainly not moved for the purpose of obstruction, but related to a ruling which was wholly" without precedent. Mr Gisborne was within the exercise of his Parliamentry rights in moving this motion, and its rejection was utterly illegal, unwarrantable, and indefensible. Then, under the repressive system lately adopted in the House of Commons, the power is only given to put the question without debates, but when a motion is moved the question most be put. Curiously enough the Speaker himself admitted this in tbe lecture to the House. After scolding and fining Mr Gisborne, tbe Speaker pointed out that there was a regular course provided by which the ruling of the Chairman could be brought under the notice of the Honse, and the course he suggested was precisely that which Mr Gisborne adopted, and it was because he protested against the Chairman's unwarrantable refusal to recognise his right to take this course that he was reported to the Speaker. It ia needless to comment on the peculiar proceeding of the later functionary— we alluded to that feature of the case at some length yesterday. We only desire, therefore, io conclnding, to raise once more our protest against tbe illegal action that has been committed, and to utter a note of warning in regard to the consequences. A perilous precedent has been established. For the future, members are at the mercy of aiy Speaker'e caprice. He may be usually wise and just, yet led away for once into an eiror of judgment as in this case, or in a new Parliament, he may be an unblushing partisan elected by an unscrupulous majority. No matter, he will have, all the same, the power of silencing members, rf burking discu«Bion, of stifling criticism, of curtailing the freedom of debate, and he will be able to point in immeasurable justification to theprecedent established last Friday night by Mr Seymour and Sir Mourice O'Rorke