New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4351, 1 March 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1875.

Our contemporary, the Wairarapa Siandard, has an article, oh the 23rd February, . under the caption, “Political “ Parties,” which professes to point out the distinction between Party Government in England and America, and socalled Party Government in New Zealand. In England, there is Parliamentary Government; and in the United States of America, Responsible Government exists. The, distinction is clearly enough drawn by our contemporary, and is the necessary outcome of the difference between the Constitution of the United State's and that of England ; but at bottom, both express the same thing—the will of the majority, of the people. In both cases, _it is “ Party Government,” the; Washington Executive as truly representing the dominant majority of the electorate as the British; Cabinet represents the majority of the House of Commons,, to which the electorate delegates, for the time being, its political functions. o ur . contemporary remarks : A Parliamentary Government consists of tbo leading men belonging to the majority In the Representative- Chamber, a Responsible Government, as in America, of tho representatives of the dominant party in the States. Thus, it will be observed, each system pre-snpposcs tho existence of two political parties, not in the House Oily, but in tho countiy; and it gives the reins of. ptfilter into tho hands of that which fa tho most numerous for the time being. What ia necessary to be home In mind is that both In England and the United States, it isthe nation, and not merely the national legislature, which is divided. Tile parties in the House are tho representatives and mouth-pieces of partles-in the country ; and both are held together by the cementing influence of common principles, common opinions, or common interests.

This ‘definition is correct, so far as the mep© constitutional theory is concerned ; which theory is also as nearly as possible carried out into practice. But we fail to follow our contemporary when he applies these principles to New. Zealand. He writes:— In this colony .would-be Ministers have never aimed to acquire and deserve the support and confidence of the principal constituencies in the country ; but only the support of a majority,of the members of the House, who have beqp held together by far different influences from those, which the'holding of common opinions on questions of paramount interest are supposed to generate. Hod Mr, .Stafford, instead of Mr. Vogel, moved the abolition resolutions, and the latter.

on their being carried, had appealed from the Homo to the country,. there would have been for thoi first time the prospect of two really great and distinct ■parties being organised, both in Parliament and in the country; but this is not the case now. We suspect that similar motives may be attributed to political leaders in England,: who seek; to secure a majority in the House.of’Commons, very often;with-’ out respect for,' and in opposition to, the recorded opinion of the chief constituencies. When Ministers lose the confidence; of the majority;'of the :Houso of Commons, as Mr.' Gladstone unquestionably did, an appeal: is made to the country. Mr. Gladstone , obtained .a dissolution in the hope' that’ the country had • been educated, through' the Legislature, up to his: own progressive standard.- It- was - not so, however. . The bulk of the constituencies were without political education. . .The householders in boroughs, who so recently had acquired the franchise,' were driven like a. flock of sheep by the captains of the two, great Spiritual Powers that: for the occasion had united their forces; —the Publican and Parson. But his successor, far from conciliating these Spiritualists, set about the work of legislation in such a way as should rather conciliate a decided majority of the House of Commons, including moderate Liberals. Therefore, although the country may be said to . be divided into two great political parties, we may conclude that .the balance of political power at the ballot boxes rests with a class which is of no party, whiqh does not understand the “ distinct and “ broadly-defined principles at stake,” but which is clear on one point that was strongly pressed : it has a decided objection to “rob a poor man of his beer.” And what is; true of England is not less true of the United ■ States. In that country the elections are invariably turned, except on occasions of great public commotion, by office-holders, the Civil Servants being at the mercy of the Executive.

Our contemporary assumes that neither in Australia nor in New Zealand is there the material out of which to form Party Government, in its true meaning. There does not exist, we are told, in any colony, two great organised representative parties amongst the electorate. This is in part true. So far as New Zealand is concerned there never was any great political question submitted to it before the Abolition resolutions of last session. : Those resolutions raise a constitutional issue, which has already divided the country into two well-defined parties; those for, and those opposed to, Provincial institutions, because the advocates of partial abolition are too insignificant numerically to be taken into account in any general argument. At the first challenge, therefore, this Colony has manifested its perfect readiness to settle these conflicting principles in an orderly and constitutional way, and presents to politicians the raw material of Party Government. -We cannot, therefore, join in the lament of our contemporary, or regret, as he does, that the proposal for abolishing the- provinces did not come from Mr. Stafford. Very possibly he is right in thinking that if an appeal had been made to the country, with the Government opposed to any such proposal by Mr. Stafford, the power of the Provincial party would have been irresistible. We are not at all inclined to dispute the accuracy of this conclusion ; but it is pure speculation, utterly; valueless, and should not bo imported: into a serious political discussion. Mr. Vogel, as Premier, moved the Abolition resolutions. The Government went the length last session of proposing the abolition of Provincial Government in the North Island ;. the country has carried the question a stage further during the recess; and we are convinced the majority of the House of Represent!ves next session will vote for the abolition of Provincial Government in both geographical divisions of. the colony. The parallel drawn by our contemporary between Sir Robert Peel and. Mr. Vogel is by no means pertinent. For our own part, we , see nothing morally wrong iu the action of either statesman. Sir Robert Peel repealed • the corn laws and broke up the Conservative party. Mr. Disraeli, who took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Earl Derby’s first Administration, an avowed Protectionist; pledged to go back to the timehallowed usage of British trade monopoly, and to resuscitate the exploded theory of the balance of trade, having satisfied himself, during a few months’ tenure of office, that his party was altogether wrong, stood up in the House of Commons and made a public recantation of his principles. He became a Free Trader of the Free Traders ; —and did not break up the Conservative party. On the contrary, ;he has “educated” that party to accept, as part and parcel of the Tory , gospel, the most heterodox principles of “pestilent Radicals,” and retires, full of years and honor, from the leadership of the Conservative party, which followed him through many windings, iii the blindness of political faith, not knowing whither they went. And so to some extent with Mr. Vogel also: He has led the Provincial party from triumph to triumph; until at length he invites; them, for the good of the colony at large, to take a wider view of their political duty, and form aparty'of progress—a Colonial party. The New Zealand ( Conservatives are now precisely in the same position that the English Conservatives were when the Protectionist Chancellor of the Exchequer stood forward, and declared that the facts were too strong for him, and that they must abandon their most cherished conviction s'regarding Protection. Now, the facts have been too strong fpr Mr. Vogel. Provincialism has boon eating up the substance of this fair land, and as milch more besides, as could be borrowed. Mr. Vogel,' as the 1 chief of a Responsible Executive, could not wipe out this record which has been written up against Provincialism, and with commendable courage he stood up before the country, and declared that he could no longer bo a party to the continuance of such a system.; Mr. Vogel may fall before the compact phalanx which the Provincialists will oppose to him under Sir George Grey. It is possible; but it is hardly probable. However, whatever may be the fate of the Government on this question, the action taken by Mr. Vogel will have a directly contrary effect to that an-, ticipated by our Wairarapa contemporary: it will divide both the House and the country into twpgreat and.distinct parties, rendering Parliamentary- Government possible in reality, as it now only exists in name.