POLITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8533, 11 September 1907, Page 5

POLITICAL NOTES AND COMMENTS.

(From Our Parliamentary Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. The calm which, after the shortlived but somewhat severe storm which occurred in the House last week, affords an opportunity for calmly reviewing the unusual position that took the country by surprise. On Wednesday last six Government supporters who had previously approved the Tariff impost upon mining machinery voted against that impost; three other Government suDporters also voted against it, but did so on both occasions, and were therefore consistent. Some were absent, when the division bell rang, and the whole combination of circumstances left the Ministry in a minority o* two upon a matter trifling in itself, but important as indicating a disposition towards independent action on the part of members. At the instance of the Premier progress was reported a little later the same evening, and the feeling was that a "crisis" had arisen, and that the Government desired time to consider its position. As a matter of fact the Government desired to see "which way the wind blew." So when Thursday came the Estimates were placed first on the Order Paper, and the Tariff seventh—a- position that was not likely to be reached that night. On the following night Bills of what may be described as "pot-boilers" were placed above the Tariff Bill, and the hum-drum of ordinary Government work was proceeded with. So ended the week, the Tariff Bill being still hung up. That day, however, the Premier felt it incumbent upon him to make a "Ministerial statement," in which he announced that the recalcitrant members had no intention to act contrary to party requirements, and that he had forgiven them. In his speech, however, he vaguely hinted that he had a dissolution "up his sleeve" in case of further recalcitrancy. Rumours had been circulated in the meantime that ■ the Premier had consulted the Governor and had received from His Excellency a mromise of a dissolution upon conditions respecting . which rumour was silent. There can be no doubt, however, that it was the fear of a possible dissolution that brought about an explanation and a reconciliation which the Premier professed to be satisfied with. So far the Premier has scored a victory, and there is every reason to suppose that it will carry the Government through the session and tend to expedite busi • ness, which has already been inordinately delayed. The question whether the members of the Government party were right or wrong in their attitude is a matter upon which differences of opinion may arise, though the highest authorities agree that in a case of the kind members have a perfect right to the free exercise of their individual judgment. Another question arises as to whether a Ministry is justified in using directly or indirectly threats to bring its supporters "to heel," in. a question of differences between the Government and the House. In the present instance no direct threat was used, but there is a strong opinion among some members who listened to the Premier's remarks on the Wednesday and Friday, that a threat of dissolution was implied. A proverb says, "There are more ways of killing a dog than by choking it with melted butter," and the Premier in his caustic censure of his fallen-away supporters showed his appreciation of this. He allowed much to be imagined, and in this way cleverly—perhaps— evaded a constitutional difficulty. Todd, in his Parl'amentary Government, speaking on this subject, says:—While the decision of the House upon any question which is calcul. t d to affect the relations of Ministers towards the House is pending, it is highly irregular and unconstitutional to refer to a dissolution of Parliament as a probable contingency, with a view to influence the conduct of members upon the particular occasion. For the Houses of Parliament should always be in a position to exeivise an unbiassed judgment upon every question brought before them, fearing neither the Crown on the one hand nor the people on the other. As on the questions of Ministerial defeat and the right of a Ministry to a dissolution there appears to be a good deal of ignorance on the part of members, and a great deal more on the part of the outside public, the views of the recognised authority upon Parliamentary Government in Britain and the colonies may prove of interest. Todd says that a mere defeat, or even repeated defeats in the House of Commons (and in the Lower House of any State) upon isolated questions, would not necessarily re- ; quire the resignation of a Ministry which retains the general confidence j of Parliament. But if Ministers declare that they regard the passing of a measure in a certain shape, as a matter of vital importance, the rejection of their advice by Parliament is tantamount to a vote of want of confidence, and must occasion their resignation. Finance and taxation, he proceeds, are questions "especially within the province of the House to determine, and they should be free to act in relation to such ques tions without being hampered with the possible effect of their votes udou the stability of the Ministry." "Estimates are excluded from this condition because when Ministers assume the responsibility of stating that certain expenditure is necessary for the support of the civil Government, and the maintenance of the public credit, at home and abroad, it is evident that none can effectually challenge the proposed expenditure to any material extent unless they are prepared to take the responsibility of overthrowing the J Ministry. On this point Mr Gladstone stated: "No Government could be worthy of its place if it permitted ite-Estimates to be seriously resisted by the Opposition, and important changes can be made therein only in circumstances which permit of the I raising of tin question of a change of Government." There are four instancss, according to the authority mentioned, in which a dissolution may properly take place, two of which relate exclusively to the British Parliament. p 'J he third, which applies to British and

Colonial Parliaments, is for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the constituent body in reiation to some important act of the executive Government; and the fourth is, whenever there is reason to be'iieve that the House does not correctly represent the opinions and wishes of the nation (or State). Upon this ground ever since 1748 it has been completely established (says Todd) that when the House of Commons refuses its confidence to the Ministers of the Crown, the question whether, in doing so, it has correctly expressed the opinion of the country, may properly be tested by a disselu • tion. The author of Parliamentary Government goes onto remark 'hat the prerogative of a dissolution ought not to be exercised for the purpose of" retaining any set of Ministers in power. According to this authority, "the prerogative of dissolution should be exercised with much discretion and forbearance, on the ground that according to Peel, unnecessary or abrupt dissolutions of Parliament 'blunt the edge of a great instrument given to the Crown for its protection,' and, whenever they have occurred, have always proved injurious to the State." Todd proceeds to remark: "There is no constitutional principle which requires thai, there should be an appeal to the country previous tolegislation upon great public questions, even though they may involve: organic changes in the constitution itself; for by the true theory of representation, asserted by the highest authorities and enforced by the uniform practice of Parliament, the House is competent to decide upon any measure that may be necessaryfur the well-being of the nation." He adds: "So long as Parliament may be reasonably presumed to represent the wishes of the people, it is. not necessary to go beyond Parliament to ascertain them." As to the attitude to be assumed by the Governor, Todd says: "As the representative of the Crown over which he is commissioned to preside, the power of dissolution rests absolutely and exclusively with the Governor. He is personally responsible to the Crown for the lawful exercise of this prerogative, but he is likewise bound to take into account the welfare of the people, being unable to divest himself of a grave moral responsibility towards the colony he is commissioned to govern." Summed up the position appears to be this: A dissolution should neither be asked for nor granted as long as there is the material within Parliament to carry out the will of the people, and that the retention in office of any particular set of advisers for the mere sake of keeping them in office should not weigh with the Governor in granting a dissolution.