The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1912. THE GOVERNOR AND PARTY GOVERNMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 231, 28 March 1912, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 1912. THE GOVERNOR AND PARTY GOVERNMENT.

Lord Islington is at heart a politician, although in his official position he is merely representative of the King aai is debarred from having, or, at least, showing, any party bias. At the recent ceremony of laying the foundation stone of the new Parliament House, he emphasised this principle by saying that the broadening and extension of the British constitution was gradually removing the Crown and the Crown's representatives from the dust and heat of party controversy. The King's representatives have, of course, had nothing whatever to do with party for many years, and it is impossible that they will ever show bias. But Lord Islington inferred that the party system was the fixed and ordered basis of British Government, possibly unalterable, and therefore bound to be accepted as the only reasonable method. As all British Parliamentary procedure is based on the procedure of the Mother Parliament, whatever the defects of politics, or mere struggle for office may be, there is very little chance of a change in the Dominion as long as there is no change in the Motherland. The fact that there is no chance of a change in the Motherland is no criterion of the justice of government by party, and even were the Governor of New Zealand in his heart opposed to the system which merely means faction' fights and strivings for place, he dare not voice his feelings. The position of a Governor who has been a party man is, therefore, more difficult than that of a King's representative whose interest was neutral. His statement of a fact is of no possible interest, because he can neither support it nor dissent from it. There is justice in an inclination to the desire that party government, which is the basis of British government, shall gradually cease, that adherence to a set of hard and fast suppositious beliefs is wrong, and that party government might disappear and be replaced by government for all the people, irrespective of their leanings to party. The people's whole concern is that their business shall be transacted in an honorable, progressive way. It i« not in the interests of a nation that necessary work should be only capable of performance if a certain set of men are handed billcls. Snppositiously. the whole of a Parliament are placed in their positions by the people to do the whole of the people's work. In reality, a portion of Parliament is antagonistic to a portion of tbfi pcopk- and the other part of Parliament is handicapped in its work. The efforts of batches of politicians to achieve place

is presumed to be in the interests of the people. The effort of their rivals is admitted to be against the interests of the people. The people support party warfare, because it is the only system they know. They have no chance of deciding Uether the abolition of party governi ; would be of service to them, nor wi! !ie people of the dominions ever get s.ich a chance while the Mother Country still holds that party government is the only government possible. The men of rival parties may be quite as honest as each other in an endeavor to transact the people's business. In theory, every member of Parliament is working to the same end. Antagonism merely for the sake of place is therefore antagonism to the people's interest. It is simply selfish. Politicians are not to be blamed for this selfishness, for the party system is the only system that is open to them at present. It would be impossible for the New Zealand Parliament to decide that it would work as one friendly body for the people, for it has no British precedent. It may ultimately occur that the British Parliament will set the example of non-party government, in which case colonial government would follow suit. Wits tne ' disappearance of party government, the parochial politician would also disappear, and the people's husiness would be the first consideration of every man in a parliament.