Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1875.

The leader of her Majesty’s Opposition is virtually keeper of the conscience of her Majesty’s Government. Ah organised Opposition is as essential to Party Government as a Responsible Ministry. It is the Constitutional check against abuse of office; and by putting a drag upon the chariot wheels of State, it leads to circumspection where there might be a temptation to recklessness. The absence of a regularly organised Opposition is therefore very much to be regretted in all countries possessing Parliamentary Government. In England, the want was felt last session, when the leadership of the Opposition was in commission during the, absence of Mr. Gladstone from the House, but reverted to him when present, There was not, and there could not be, any continuity of policy under such circumstances. The Liberal party was without a head, and it missed several opportunities when it might have reduced the Conservative majority very considerably. Indeed, it does not seem overstrained to state that during the last session of the Imperial Parliament, a compact Opposition might even have defeated the Government. Divided as it was, it compelled Mr. Disraeli to abandon several of his measures, and now that it has been reconstructed under the leadership of Lord Hartington, we anticipate greater triumphs during the current session. The leader of the Liberal party, in a speech at Lewes, after his election, struck the key-note of his policy. It was that of “watching and waiting, “ with a reasonable amount of freedom of “ opposition.” Now, this is precisely the point, in party tactics, which our political leaders have yet to understand. “ He that is not for us is against us,” is their motto, and anything like independent opinion is resolutely stamped out. Hence the absence of any approach to a healthy opposition in the New Zealand Parliament. Members do not care to stand up, and advocate what they believe, to bo for the public good, sneered at by Ministers, and without active support from their own more immediate allies. It is an invidious position to occupy, and few men have the courage to take the same stand session after session. If the member bo a supporter of the Government, he must not on any account traverse any proposal of Ministers ; if ho bo in Opposition, ho must not speak unless in accordance with his leader’s wish, no matter how ignorant that leader may be of the subject-matter of. debate. The consequence has been, that Parliamentary opinion has been dwarfed in New Zealand. There is no Opposition, the leader having solemnly abandoned his party after breaking it up. The House of Representatives is now only a registering machine for Ministers. It accepts as infallible truth the Gospel by Ministers, and it changes its creed as often as Ministers change theirs. This may be very pleasant for Ministers, but it is not pleasant or salutary for the country, and the sooner it is altered the bettor. The Government will be better for a strong

and vigilant Opposition, and the country will rest satisfied that its affairs are properly managed. i • i Now, all this is different from, the English practice. The privileges and duties of a Parliamentary Opposition were clearly defined at the meeting in the Reform’ Club, when the Marquis of' Hartington was appointed leader of the Liberal Party. Mr. Bright occupied the chair, and the main point of the speeches went to establish the right of members of a Party to perfect freedom of action within reasonable bounds. As a lesson in Parliamentary tactics, a few extracts from the speeches delivered on that occasion may be of use to New Zealand politicians. Mr. Bright said : With respect to the object of our meeting I have only one observation to make, which is this, that although we are here for the purpose of selecting a parliamentary leader, yet we know ami recognise perfectly well each of us that we will not by so acting thereby impose fetters or burdens upon ourselves. A parliamentary leader is, of course, necessary according to our views of conducting politics, but we each and all of us reserve to ourselves such individual liberty as honorable men necessarily require. (Cheers.) Wo are ready to make all the sacrifices which may be necessary for party unity, or which may bo demanded from honorable men, and which honorable men can make; but, as I have said, a party leader is necessary. I think if wc act on this rule, and bear in mind what I have urged, we shall find that we shall be able to act under such a leader as may be chosen, and that there will be no difficulty whatever on the part of any individual member with respect to particular points in acting in unity under such a leader. I believe that wo all agree, and desire, if possible, to keep before ourselves this consideration —thai, unless we are united upon some broad, general organisation, it will be ,impoßsible for any party whatever to carry, out the object which it has in view. Without that general unity the momentum of the party would be destroyed, its power would be destroyed, and it would become, not a disciplined force for the carrying out of grand objects, but a mere mob for the purpose of gratifying the eccentricities of, I am sorry to say, the vanity of individuals or of particular sections. (Loud cheers.)

This is precisely what has been wanting in party organisation in New Zealand. A little more freedom of action would have ensured a far healthier political life than there is present, or than is possible under existing conditions. But Mr. Bright was not the only speaker who spoke in the same strain. Mr. Charles Villi ers, in proposing the Marquis of Hartinton, said :

It is not intended, nor indeed is it desirable in choosing a leader of the party, that we all of us should be supposed to abandon our own private freedom, and particular judgment on certain matters that may come before the House. I myself have some experience with respect to independent action in matters that have been formerly taken up by the leader of the party, and I may bo permitted in consequence to repeat what has been said, that we do not necessarily give up our freedom either for the consideration or the criticism of particular measures, the abandonment of which by any hon. gentleman could not but be injurious to the interests of the party itself. For many years I may say—indeed, I may go further—there has been no time that I can remember when there were not some few amongst us who were not at once upon certain questions with the great majority of the party. I confess that I myself have had great sympathy with such sections of the party. (Cheers.) We may have been reproached with being factious, but we have always felt under such circumstances the consolation that we ourselves were in advance of the rest of the party. (Cheers.) I have never known any material occasion upon which we have all been agreed upon the wisdom of particular steps, although we have all at the same time felt the necessity of acting, when great occasions arose, unitedly and in the interest of the whole party. We have always maintained our own right to communicate with each other individually, and consult upon such matters as had special claims upon, or interest for its. (Cheers.) For these reasons I do not believe that the choice of a leader can fetter any man’s judgment whatever. (Cheers.) It is not precisely uniformity of opinionon all occasions which creates the difficulties that are to bo encountered in selecting a leader of the Liberal part/. What is wanted —and what alone we are desirous of finding—is a person of such capacity, such experience of public affairs, and at the same time with such a devotion to the interests of the party as will qualify him for occupying the post of our leader. These remarks were further enforced by Mr. Bright, when acknowledging a vote of thanks proposed by Dr. Lyon Playfair, seconded by Mr. Holms. Now, with this lesson before them, we trust the political leaders of New Zealand will be a little more rational than they have hitherto been. They must clearly see that no good can come of a dead level of uniformity. It crushes out opposition, and leaves the Government without a constitutional check.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18750414.2.7

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4389, 14 April 1875, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,417

New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1875. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4389, 14 April 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1875. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4389, 14 April 1875, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert