The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER, 21, 1889. A BARREN SESSION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1946, 21 September 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER, 21, 1889. A BARREN SESSION.

Pabliameitt is now over, and the question is, What has been done? The answer is, Nothing! comparatively speaking. In the whole Parliamentary history of New Zealand there has been no session so barren of results. The excuse the Government give for this is that the Opposition obstructed business, and would not allow them to do anything. If so, it was the business of the Government to have resigned. It was not the business of the Opposition to carry their measures for them. For instance, supposing the Opposition had not opposed the Hare System Bill, What would haye been the result P Simply that the Hare system would have become law. The Opposition prevented this, and thus did good work for the colony. Again, the Government introduced a measure to disfranchise one-fourth of the electors of cities and their suburbs. This was opposed not by members of the Opposition, but by town members. This was the only attempt at stonewalling that took place; but it was not the Opposition that stonewalled. It was a fight of Town v. C juntry; and the Opposition had nothing to do with it—no more than the man in the rnooa. This stonewalling arose out of the incompetency of the Government in introducing a measure which on the very face of it carried a challenge to town members to fight not only for justice, but for their political existence. By introducing this measure the Government challenged obstruction, and they got it; but the Opposition were not the chief obstructionists. Town members obstructed, while many Opposition members supported the Government. Then there was the Ward-Hislop affair. A motion was brought forward to appoint a committee to inquire into it, and the Government, wishing to hide Mr Hislop's delinquencies, made it a no-confidence motion) Was it not reasonable for the Opposition to ask for an inquiry into the affair ? And was it not unreasonable for the Government to refuse it ? Time was lost over this, but whose fault was it ? If Mr Hislop had behaved himself decently, the occasion for it would not have arisen, We defy the Government to show an instance in which the Opposition $g an Opposition exceeded their duty. T&ejr business was to criticise Government measures, #nd oppose such of them aB they objected to™snd this is all they have done. It is of no use for the Government, therefore, to

try to throw blame on the Oppositio 11, The barrenness of the session is du e to the incompetency and the weakness of the Government. What else could have been expected from a Government that was falling limb from limb by the weight of its own corruption P Mr Fisher first, Mr Hislop second, and the general opinion is that Mr ¥ergus, Mr Eichardson, and the Premier ought to have followed suit, while the last days of Parliament found Mr Mitchelsoa trying to perpetrate a job. A Ministry capable of the corruption of which they have been guilty would not hesitate to resort to falsehood to hide their incompetency, and hence the falsehood concerning the obstruction of business by the Opposition; The Opposition have done well; they have exposed a good deal of jobbery and prevented the passing of mischievous legislation, and the thanks of the colony are due to them for it. "What is really wrong is this : There are three parties in the House—the Atkinson party, the Ballance party,]' and the Scobie Mackenzie party. The Mkinson party is too Liberal for the Scobie Mackenzie party, which consists of Freetraders and ironopolists, and they are not Liberal enough for the Ballance party. There is, therefore, nothing but confusion, and there will be nothing but confusion until the country comes to realise that it must vote for principles instead of for men. Nine out of every ten of the members are not elected because of their principles, but because they are liked for their private virtues or for some other reason. So long as that is the case we shall never have a thoroughly capable Government. The electors have no principles, therefore Parliament has none. The reform ought to begin with the electors, and until it does reform is impossible. There is only one way by which reform can be effected, and that is by forming local political clubs. There are in every constituency differences of opinion. There are many who favor Protection, ethers who believe in Freetrade; some who believe in a Land Tax, some in a Property Tax; some in breaking up large estates, some opposed to it—and bo on. Now what is wanted is the people to divide themselves into two political clubs in each district, and let the majority win. We have not had a Government for many years worthy the name. Sir Julius Vogel was put in to keep Sir Harry Atkinson out, and next Sir Harry was put in to keep Sir Julius out, but neither Sir Julius nor Sir Harry had a following bound together by the ties of a common policy. Mr Scobie Mackenzie kept the Stout-Vogel Ministry in and their measures, and he is now treating Sir Harry Atkinson exactly in the same way. The result is corruption, weakness, and incompetency. For our own part, we would rather see a thorough-going out-and-out Conservative Government in power, with a following and a policy of a pronounced kind, than the shilly-shally, milk-and-water half-and-half sort of arrangements we have had in the past. The thoroughly strong Conservative Government would, if it did. nothing better, open the eyes of the colony, 1 and awaken it out of its sluggish indifference, but the milk-and-water; Ministries can never do anything. They are, and have been, the ruin of the colony, and they will continue to be so long they continue to exist.

OH ACTABLE AID. Chabitaele aid is becoming a very important question, and it ia bound to continue to be so. There is nothing to preventii As the population increases so will the number at psor people, and so will the expenditure on charitable aid. We notice that the South Canterbury Board has been trying to secure the assistance of committees of ladies in the various districts to grapple with the question. We do not know what they expect the ladies to do for them, but whatever it is we are sure the ladies will do it in a kindly and charitable way. There is more true kindliness, charity, and sympathy in one woman than in twenty men, and if they had more of the management of such things as charitable aid, the drink traffic, and cognate subjects the world would be the better of it. But what we cannot understand is what the local committees of ladies are to do. Are they to see that the local poor are properly attended to ? If so, well and good. Are they to try to collect local means of relieving poverty, so as to lighten the burden of charitable aid ? If so we cannot approve of their action. Private charity is good, it is a virtue, it is humane, it is deserving of all that can be said in its favor, but we disapprove of it so far as the distress which exists in this colony is concerned. The distress in this colony is artificial. It has ho right to exist, and would not exist if the colony were properly governed. "11l fares the land/to hastening ills a prey,,. Where wealth Accumulates and men decay.''

That is what is wrong here. Wealth is accumulated by a few, and that is the cause of the poverty. Now there is nothing to bring these people and the ratepayers generally to their senses except to throw upon them the cost of maintaining the poor. They will by this means bo brought to understand the error of their ways. We have frequently pointed out to them that it would be better to settle the people on the land than to have to support tlbem out of rates, but they will not believe it, and they lyijl always insist on opposing any attempt to carry out

such a proposal. There is nothing left, therefore, only to throw on them the full weight of charitable aid, and for this reason we object to private charity. They have so far shifted the cost of charitable aid from their own. shoulders to those of the general public. They have increased the tax on tea, and handed it over to the local bodies, and the local bodies have handed it to the charitable aid board. This so far has been sufficient to carry I on charitable aid. Yet we bear a terrible amount of noise about the ratepayers' money, while it i« really nothing more nor less than the tea-, drinkers' money. This tax ought to be taken off tea, and placed on looal rates. It is really a shame to extract it ■ from the tea-drinkers, many of whom are on the verge of starvation. The day when the tea tax will not be sufficient to meet charitable liabilities is not far distant, and then the ratepayers will have to put their hands in their pockets unless they find some other means of shifting it on to the people. Sir Harry Atkinson said he would not tax sugar, so as to have it handy for taxing when some necessity for it arises. In all probability when the demand for charitable aid increases he will raise the necessary amount by taxing sugar. (.