PERIPATETIC PARLIAMENTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 47, 16 December 1871, Page 12

PERIPATETIC PARLIAMENTS.

Everybody who attended the sittings o c the House during the closing part of the session, or who has since perused the debates which then took place, as reported in Hansard, must have been struck with the total absence of that diginity, ourtesy, and decorum, whbh is so desirable in all great deliberative assemblies ; with the poor display of any of that national spirit, and true statesmanship, which are to he expected in a legislative body ; and with the little amount of even common sense and good temper which characterized the speeches which were made by the generality of the members on both sides of the House, not on one particular question, but on nearly all the questions which came before them. More particularly, was this the case on the two kindred questions relating to the time, and to the place, at which it would be desirable to hold the next session of the General Assembly. With regard to the first question, we may observe, that we look upon the usurpations, by the central legislature and central government, of the proper and constitutional functions of the Provincial Councils and Governments which were effected by the tinkering of the Constitution Act (without any reference whatever to the great principles involved in the questions of annual appropriations, and Ministerial responsibility, which are intimately blended with the subject) as rendering not only annual sessions unavoidable, but as prolonging their duration beyond the time that would otherwise be necessary for the despatch of the business they would be required to transact. But as this question was very properly and satisfactorily disposed of by the House, without even going to a division, we shall not further allude to it on the present occasion. We cannot, however, forbear suggesting, for the consideration of the members of the Legislature, whether the above circumstances do not point out that it would be advisable to pause before proceeding further on a path which has not only rendered frequent, long and costly sessions absolutely necessary, but which has also raised the cry for peripatetic parliaments, which has avowedly re-opened the seat of government question, which has destroyed all confidence in the stability and permanence of existing arrangements, and which threatens, at no distant day, the disruption of the

colony. ..vi As regards peripatetic parliaments, we confess that, when the subject is viewed from a colonial and not a mere local standing point, our objections to the system are considerably modified. In any case it will be conceded that in a country like New Zealand, of such extreme 'length in proportion to its superficial extent, and until the centre or heart of the colony, as regards population, revenue, and resources, bears a greater relative proportion to that of its two extremities, the establishment of such a system would prove more feasible than in any other of the British colonies with the exception perhaps of those of South Africa. Considered as a measure of colonisation, policy, and expediency, we think it is possible that, for a time at least, the advantages of the system might counterbalance its cost and inconvenience. If established by Act of Parliament it might tend to unite more closelv the several provinces together, and weld the present disjointed elements of which the colony is composed into one homogeneous whole. Often as much depends on the manner a thing is done, as upon its inherent qualities, whether it turns out in operation *a blessing or a curse. This, at all events, is especially the case as regards the subject in hand. We object less to

the establishment of the system of peripatetic parliaments in New Zealand, as to the manner it is proposed to be effected. So long as the assent of the three branches of the Government is necessary to give any measure the force of law, ft is quite obvious that not only no organic change, but no such change as that contemplated," can be constitutionally carried out on a bare resolution of one branch of the Legislature. If peripatetic parliaments are desirable let them be established by law, under proper regulations, provisions, and sale wuards ; and let the places where and when they are to be held be distinctly specified. Ample time and provision could then be made for the proper convenience of members, and the proper conduct of business. It may possibly be urged that the promoters of the movement do not desire, at present, to inaugurate such a system, but simply to hold a session at Dunedin, in order to ascertain whether the establishment of such a system would prove practicable and advantageous. To which we reply, that no such experiment need be made for any such purposes. The experiment has been tried already, and, judging from certain significant circumstances in connection with it, not with the happiest results. Mr Reader Wood, the originator of the present movement, was a member of the Ministry in office in 1302, when the session was held in Wellington. He was also a member of the Ministries of 1803 and of 1864, when two sessions were held consecutively in Auckland. On the last occasion Mr Gillies was one of his colleagues. Have we not, then, a right to conclude that neither Mr Wood nor Mr Gillies considered it would prove expedient, or be desirable, to convene the Assembly at a place far removed from the Seat of Government? It may be urged, it is true, that the circumstances are widsly different now to what they were then ; but those circumstances, and this difference, all speak trumpettongued in favor of the continuance of the course then adopted. The Government, of which Messrs Wood and Gillies were members, were opposed, in 1804, to a repetition of the experiment which had been made in 180.9, and the example set by that Government, upon this question, has been followed by every successive Ministry from that period to the present time. Nine sessions have been held since that experiment was made, and every successive Ministry which has been since constituted has decided, without any cavil or question, that the sessions of the Colonial Parliament shall be held at the Seat of the Colonial Government.

If, however, it should be held that' that experiment proves the reverse of the conclusion above arrived at, and that Parliament, as a consequence, should arrive at the conclusion that it would be desirable to make the sessions moveable in future, what more constitutional course can it take than to establish such a system by statute? If it cannot be thus established, in consequence of the opposition of the Legislative Council to any such proposal, it is a proof that whatever may be the individual views of the members of the Ministry on the subject, they cannot constitutionally, as a Ministry, advise his Excellency to disregard the established practice; and as they hold different views themselves with regard to moveable parliaments they ought to carry out the existing system until that system has been abolished by la\v\ Another reason why the new system, if established at all, should be established by Act of Parliament is this: It is not desirable that such a question should be left open, as at present, as in that case it will render its discussion during every session inevitable; it will keep the members of the Legislature constantly in hot water; it will perpetuate and intensify provincial jealousies; it will make log-rolling more rife than ever ; it will sacrifice the general welfare at the shrine of local interests ;• and it will prevent both the Government and the country from ascertaining with any degree of certainty where future sessions of Parliament are going to be held.