The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1891. DOUBLE SESSIONS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2158, 3 February 1891, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1891. DOUBLE SESSIONS.

When the number of members was reduced and plural voting was abolished in 1889 Mr Ballance urged that as a natural consequence Parlia ment should be dissolved. An understanding between Mr Ballance and the Government was then arrived at to the'effect that the dissolution would take place in April, 1890, and that the new Parliament would meet in June as usual. This arrangement was not carried out, and the consequence was that the 1890 session was a disgrace to everyone who took part in it. The proceedings were simply shameful until Mr Bryce (on behalf of the Government) and Mr Ballance came to certain arrangements, amongst which was the condition that if the Government were defeated in the elections they should resign at once. Now, it is important to bear this in mind. Pirst, the Atkinson Govern ment promised to dissolve Parliament in April, 1890, and did not do it \ second, they promised to resign if beaten in the elections, and did not do it. Had they done either a double session would have been avoided. They are, therefore, solely and entirely to blame for the double session and extra expense. Mr Ballance made two efforts to avoid a double session: first, by exacting a promise that a dissolution would follow the constitutional changes of 1889, and again by exacting the second promise that the Ministry would resign if defeated. It was not Mr Ballance’s fault, therefore, that the second session took place, but the fault of the Atkinsonians. They held office for nearly two months after they were defeated, so as to provide a sinecure for Sir Harry Atkinson and swamp the Legislative Council with their friends. They spent all this time trying to buy over sufficient support to give them a majority, but to no avail. They could not corrupt as of old, so they could do nothing but lie down and die without an effort. Thus since the fifth of December last they have added six members to the Legislative Council, thereby saddling the colony with six live pensioners, and they have, too, put the colony to the expense of a double session. In the same way in 1887 they put the colony to the cost of a double session* Parliament met iu May, and the general elections would have taken place at any rate in August. One would think that no one would think it worth while to make any change for the sake of three months, yet the Atkinsonians did not wait but turned the Stout-Yogel Ministry out and thus caused a double session The beauty of all this is that they always insist on blaming the opposite party for the mischief thus done. They blamed Sir Robert Stout for the double session in 1887, and they blame Mr Ballance for it now, though how on earth he could have avoided it is more than we can understand. Their ground of complaint is that Mr Ballance ought to have adjourned, instead of prorogued, Parliament. By doing this the members tvould not have been entitled to the £IOO extra

for the double session, 'lhat is their J argument. Now, so far as we are J concerned, we heartily wish this had I been done. We think it is a pity that the Liberals did not make a sacrifice, and forego their claims to this £IOO, not because we begrudge it to them, but because it has given a handle to their opponents to grind at for the next three years. They have raised it as a scream now and they will keep it up too, and the general public will not . take the trouble to analyse the facts of the case. The members took care to grab this £IOO each, is all they care to inquire into, and they will brand them as self-seeking and greedy. Now, as regards the rights and wrongs of the affair the position is: These men were elected to attend once a year in Wellington, for which the law provides that they shall be paid £l5O each. The law also provides that if called upon to go to Wellington the second time in any year they shall receive £IOO extra. New this year they have, through Sir Harry Atkinson’s fault, been called upon to go to Wellington, and they will have to go again in May or June next. Every one must admit that they could not go to Wellington without incurring expense; and the question is, should they pay this out of their own pockets, or should the colony pay it. Let any private individual employ a man to go (to Wellington once, and he finds it necessary to send him twice, will he ask him to go the second time for nothing ? It is exactly the same with regard to the members. They are working for the colony; they have to go to Wellington twice instead of once; the law provides for paying them; must the law be evaded so that they shall be compelled to bear the expenses which the colony has undertaken to bear ? The amount paid for so short a session certainly is big, but in past years the members would have received £2lO instead of £IOO. Many a £2lO the Atkinsonians pocketed out of double sessions. One thing we hope this will lead to, and that is fixing the salary of members at so much a year. If this is done we shall hear no more of this scandalous affair about second sessions, members will be relieved of the charge of promoting them to gain a second honorarium, and it will make things pleasanter all round.