The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1887. DOUBLE SESSIONS, DOUBLE PAY.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1593, 11 June 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JUNE 11, 1887. DOUBLE SESSIONS, DOUBLE PAY.

It is wonderful how virtuous We all become when it suits our purpose. In 1884 the Atkinson Ministry were turned out of office because they made up the deficit in the revenue by putting a special tax on the farmers in the shape of raising the freight on the carriage of grain. This was the point on which they were defeated, and this was the only policy on which they appealed to the country. They never eonsidered the cost to the country then ; double sessions and double pay did not matter a straw, they wanted to retain their seats and the pay. attached to them, and they appealed to the country on the great question of whether they should tax the farmers’ grain or not. They never thought of taxing the squatter’s wool. Oh no! but the poor farmer they did not hesitate to fleece. In 1887 the Stout Ministry have been defeated on the question of protection to local industries, and of placing the burden of taxation on the shoulders of those best able to pay it by introducing a progressive property tax, These are two new questions, and the Stoat Ministry have appealed to the country to give the people an opportunity of stating whether they will support them. But the Atkinson Ministry, who appealed as to whether the grain tariff should be increased, are wrath because the Stout Ministry did net wa : k out of office and let them walk in. They say the Stout minisiry bad no right to appeal, and Major Atkinson acted shamelessly in the way he blocked the granting of supplies until some of his, tollowers grew disgus’ed with him, and he had to give in. Now, finding all chances of forcing Government to resign lost, Mr Rolleston has proposed the following resolution —“ That the exercise of the prerogative of dissolution under the system of Triennial Par’iamonts is fraught with great danger to the independence of Parliament and the successful working of representative institutions in the interest of the people.” Mr Rolleston did not think of this in 1884 when he appealed to the conntry on the grain tariff; be has only been reminded of it because the Stout Ministry did not walk out of office and let him walk in. The meaning of Mr Rolleston’s resolution is that there

should be no appeal to the country at all—that is, he would take away from the people the right to say whether they approved or disapproved of the politics of Ministers. He would make Parliament autocratic, and the people nonentities. The result would be that if members were not afraid of an appeal to the country they would do nothing but wrangle for office. The check that is on them now is the fear of having to go to their constituents, and if that tear were removed the two first years after election would be spent in a Kilkennycat warfare, and the last in trying to put a good face on themselves to meet the electors. If our Parliament were not full of the most shameless placehunters that ever disgraced representative institutions, it might do to take away the right of appeal, but as at present constituted it would be ruinous. Besides those reasons it is not only a Conservative but a very autocratic idea to lake away from the peopla the right of being consulted when questions of great importance are brought before Parliament. But it is needless to discuss the subject. Mr Rolleston knows very well that if the resolution were carried it would be a dead letter, and worth only the paper on which it is printed. The right of granting a dissolution is the prerogative of the Crown (the Governor can grant or refuse it), and before Mr Rolleston’s suggestion could become binding ©n the Governor it would be necessary to amend the Constitntien Act in the English Parliament. Mr Hnrstbonse on last Wednesday said Mr Rolleston did not know what he was talking about, but we doubt that. Mr Rolleston should by this time know what he is talking about. He now thinks that moving this resolution will make it appear that double sessions and double pay will not occur again, but it will take something more than that to make the people look favorably on the action of the Opposition this year. If Mr Rolleston is in earnest let him move a resolution to the following effect:—“ That no member of the New Zealand Parliament shall be entitled to receive more than one honorarium in a year, even if he attends several serious.” That is a practical way of putting an end to double sessions and double pay. The members would never go back » second lime if they did not get paid for it. But we strongly suspect, that if Mr Rolleston moved such a. resolution he would lose a good many followers and so he will doubtless let it alone. To talk about interfering with the preroga live of the Crown is pure unadulterated nonsense, and if the resolution were carried it would have no legal effect.