WELLINGTON TOPICS

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3524, 10 July 1920, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

NO-CORTIDENCE MOTION. BOT H. R 1'1.) 4'lL’-TED. (Spec-Ia: CorreSp9;la3m:3)‘. V WELX‘IN*GTON, Julv :79. The rejection of My-.. IV. D, S, 1113;Don:11(l’é amendment: to the A<'l(Jre~ss— ' in-Reply, expressing ‘azo-confidence 211 the Government as at present 'eoo:3t}— tuted, was a _forcgom3 conclusion. :5-mu the leader of the Opposition had no idea of detaching axzytooi’. Mr Masse_§."’s faithful fcnilowermb His purpose in tabling the anlc~n£in3em‘;_. according’ to his own statement’. was to ascm-tahl Where the various dflexnents of the “progressive” parties stood. This he " succeeded in doing‘ to a certain extent. The Indepemiients who are real- V 1y independent abs'f:;Ened from voting. obviously their logical course; Labour joined with Liberalism for the nonce of expressing disapjpzow-:1] of the Gm!» emment, -and, With the exception of Mr Ngata, the Nafive Members voter} - with the big battalion. Mr Craigie alone among the professing independents took up the fiubious position of voting with the Goevernnmnt. PARTY STRENGTH. The division gives some indication of party strength as between‘ the GovAemment. and the Opposition. Fortyfive members voter} ag.ainst Mr MueDonal'd’s motion 111113 ‘twenty-three suppol'l'e& it, While there xflas one pair. This accounted for seventy menzbers. Messrs Statham, blitebell, Veiteh zmcl ‘ G». Smith abstainmi from voting and Mr Myers and Mr ’x‘£ilr'ol'Ei, two members of the Liberal Party, areabsmyt from the country. The other three ab‘scnr. members. though not keen party ’ men, may be regardes] as supporters of the Govern;ne'nt, and Sir Frederick Long is in the Chair. It seems, there- ‘ fore. assuming the votes of Mr Craigie, Mr‘ Lysnar not to be §mm?)'v'able, that the Government has a reliable majority of fyvelve, inc-luofng the Speaker, :1 m:n'g'in quite big enough to carry it through the life of the present I’ai‘lizl--ment without fear of disaster. THE ELECTIVE EXl~3cU'fivE. '

Mr MacDonald’s moion being halidsomely defeated, another trial of‘ strength tool: place on Mr Stath-am’s motion, which was intended to obtain an -expnesqilcvn -of opinion from the House on the Elective Executive qucsw tion and in keeping with all precedent was accepted by the Prime Minister as another impeachment of the Government. Mr Massey himself had to confess that in the days of his political youth he had been ,a sifpporter of the Elective Executive proposal, but he insisted it was a. closer acquaintance with the working of the parliamentary machine and not any change in the forifues of his own party that had altered his View of the proposal. This, of course, was a perfectly legitimate contention and his sincerity Tv'as‘fiFt seri-, ously challenged. fn H _REFORM LEFT WING. ".4. The discussion of the subject was chiefly remarkable for the astounding ignorance of the nature of the proposal and of kindred proposals; displayed by :1 majority of the speakers on both sides of the House, and for some interesting and entertaining revelations in connection with the movements of the Left Wing of the Reform Party «luring Mr Massey ’s absence from the Dominion. The members of the Labour Party probably knew :1. great, deal more about the subject than did the members of either of the otlr-Jr groups. but their policy was to reniairinquiet during? the debate. 'l‘he “washing of dirty linen.” as one speaker put it_.. over the proeféeclings of the Reform. “l’rogl'essiVe.=.” was remi‘ni.=cent of the break-:i.wa_v of the l'.iberal,Left Wing _Vear.='ago and but for the apP9€li'3UCe of three of the .“rehel.="’ in‘ the reconstruetetl C'(ll'f.iyl{}t":Tp.}'fi{ll'S tov have followed the same course. i