Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 75

Chapter III. — Party Government in New Zealand

Chapter III.

Party Government in New Zealand.

"The devotion of factions to their chiefs, the reference of [unclear: patric] to party, and not to the common weal, perverted morality, and [unclear: co] founded the rules of right and wrong."—J. C. S. de Sismondl, on [unclear: the] cause of the decline of liberty and virtue in the Italian Republics.

Just as the Pilgrim Fathers of New England framed [unclear: th] Constitution of the United States as nearly as possible after [unclear: th] model of their ideas of the British Constitution under [unclear: George] III., so the Constitution granted to the Pilgrim Father [unclear: of] New Zealand was as close a copy as the [unclear: circumstances] would permit of the British Parliamentary institutions [unclear: of] the time. It was inevitable that this should be the [unclear: ca]. Only the most farseeing statesmen could have foretold [unclear: wh] was likely to be the result of transplanting the [unclear: Cabi] and Party system into a young colony with no natural [unclear: parti] page 35 Now, however, with our added experience of nearly half a century—experience of the development of the system in other countries and colonies as well as our own—it is high time for us to examine the tacit assumption that whatever was once good for England must therefore, necessarily, in spite of suffering such sea-change as to be hardly recognisable, be now and henceforth the most suitable system possible for a democratic colony, with nothing in common with the Old Country except the race of its inhabitants. Mr Justin M'Carthy hit the nail on the head many years ago, when he said:

The conditions under which the colonies have to create a constitutional system are entirely different from those of England; so different, indeed, that there must be a certain danger of going astray simply from trying to follow England's example under circumstances entirely unlike those of England.*

In England, as we have seen, the two political parties have inherited, from the old historic Whigs and Tories, principles and traditions which have hitherto delayed the development of some of the worst evils of the Party system. In New Zealand there were, of course, no historic parties, so there was nothing to delay the evolution of the necessary artificial parties, excepting the high-minded public spirit of her early statesmen, and the peaceful and orderly character of the population. Even now, it is doubtful if there is in all the world a country more homogeneous as to its inhabitants, and better adapted in any way to be governed easily, economically, and without enmity or bitterness, on sound democratic lines. Instead of this, we find continual borrowing and reckless extravagance; we find the House of Representatives more like a bear-garden than an assembly of reasonable men anxious to forward the best interests of the country. And worse than this, we find all political means and methods—legislation, Administration, public speeches in the House and out of it—used to try and stir up ill-feelings and jealousies; to set class against class; to create and widen and crystallise slight differences of opinion; in short, to build up, by means of exaggeration and misrepresentation, the antagonistic artificial parties without which the party machinery would not work. It is not natural that there should be any marked class distinctions in a colony like this. Of course, the educated and the uneducated, the virtuous and the vicious, the successful and the unsuccessful, will always be with

* "Short History of Our Own Times."

page 36 us, and equality (excepting in the sense of equality of opportunity) is an idle dream; but the object of wise rulers would be to minimise these differences as much as possible, and to endeavour to build up a contented and homogeneous nation. To draw a horizontal line through the community, and try to rouse ill-feelings between the two sides, is a crime against humanity and democracy.

It is quite obvious that in New Zealand it is not parties that instituted Party government, but the adoption of Party government which necessitated the formation of parties. Although as attempt has been made to apply the names of Liberals and Tories to the two opposing sides in New Zealand politics, it is abundantly clear that neither in the House nor in the country it there that distinctive division of opinion which those names would imply. Sir Harry Atkinson, Sir John Hall, and Mr. Rolleston are three typical Tories, according to the nomenclature of the day. Yet Sir Harry introduced the first legislation for the protection of the wages class—which was, of course, opposed by the other side of the House, and then copied by them when they came into power. He also introduced a carefully-considered scheme for old-age pensions. Mr. Rolleston gave us the most liberal land law known in this or probably any other country—the perpetual-lease principle, which was, however, shorn of much of its value to the country by the insertion, against his own wish, of a clause allowing the leaseholder the right to purchase the fee simple. This again has been travestied by the party now in power by their "lease in perpetuity"—a sort of copyhold tenure, by which the community parts with the land without either receiving its present cash value or reserving the future added value, which must accrue from increase of population and settlement. Then is was Sir John Hall who brought forward, session after session, his resolution in favour of conferring the franchise on women—a reform bitterly opposed by the now dominant party, and yet subsequently passed by them, obviously against their own convictions, in the hope that they would find their reward in the grateful support of the new voters. We might add to this list the Hon. Mr. Bowen (who gave us our excellent system of national education) and other well-known names.

On the other hand, it has been the fate of the party styling themselves "Liberals," to pass some of the most capitalistic legislation in the history of the Colony, such as the propping up page 37 of two moribund financial institutions at the expense of the taxpayers, and the Mining Act amendments, enabling foreign syndicates to take up very extensive areas of ground. It might be a little unfair to judge a party by measures which did not become law, but a Ministry at all events must be judged by the Bills it introduces rather than by those which the House decides to pass; so various other Tory proposals (such as the Hon. Mr. McKenzie's Bill to limit the liberty of the Press) might be mentioned. It is unnecessary, however, to bring forward further evidence of this nature. To see what sort of principles really govern a Party Ministry, we have only to note the conduct of the leader of the House, and the occasions on which he insists on a strict party vote. On the appointment of Colonel Fraser, as Sergeant-at-Arms, the whips must account for every member of the party. When the great subject of the liquor trade and the Prohibition programme is before the House members are told they may vote as they see fit, the Government declining to stake its existence on such a trifle. When we come to the question as to whether the Premier is to have the appointment of the servants of the House, or whether the Government is to take over the management of the railways from the Commissioners, pressure is again put on members to "vote straight." The matters of vital importance are evidently those which tend to increase or decrease the power and patronage of the Government. Occasionally a strict Party vote is used to support a Minister when refusing the House some needful information, or even to express confidence in members of the Ministry who have broken not merely constitutional custom, but statute law; the idea obviously being that a vote of the House can condone any offence, and change wrong into right.

This fairly complete evolution of the artificial political party—devoid of anything worthy the name of principles—is the main reason why the evil effects of the Party system are so much more pronounced in New Zealand than in England. There are other reasons, however, such as the necessarily smaller number and inferior quality of the men from whom our administrators must be selected, which makes it so much the more ridiculous that they can only be chosen from one side of the House. A still more important reason lies in the fact that our Public Works, Railway, and Lands Departments offer great opportunities for corruption of various sorts. Were it not for these departments, indeed, it is page 38 not likely that the artificial party would yet have arrived at anything like its present state of perfection. So long as the spending or not spending of large sums in different districts depends on the decision of the Government, so long will they be able to retain their hold over constituencies, and, in many cases, practically dictate whom they shall return as their representatives. The present Premier has actually had the audacity, in a speech in the House, to advise an hon. member not to forget that his seat belonged to the Government and not to himself. Unfortunately, this is no doubt the case with regard to a large number of seats in the House, and, in the hope of increasing this number still further, a Loan Bill for a million sterling was passed during the session of 1896, the bulk of the sum to be spent practically where and when Ministers chose. It was, in short, a vast bribery fund for the General Election then at hand. In the days of our fathers the bribery of voters at an election was a common occurrence; but the candidate had to find his own bribery fund. It has been left to these later days to improve on that process by adding theft to bribery, and corrupting whole constituencies out of the public funds. Legislation has caused the old style of bribery to become practically extinct, and it can, if properly applied, be equally successful with the later form. As matters stand at present, a constituency must needs be exceptionally virtuous to elect an Opposition candidate, when it is known that, should the Government nominee be returned, the long-waited-for public works—the new railway station, gaol, or whatever it may be-will be put in hand at once.

Two incidents which came under the present writer's own knowledge will serve to show how the Government departments can be used under our present system to influence the people's choice of representatives. In the first case, a country settler, who had been denouncing the Government in strong language, happened to mention subsequently that he was going to vote for their candidate. When charged with inconsistency, he explained that, if the Opposition man was returned, there would be no hope of a subsidy for a large bridge which, being near his farm, was a matter of great importance to him. The second case was that of a poor man trying to make a living out a small pastoral lease. He defended himself for supporting the Government candidate—a man without a single qualification for the position of legislator—on the ground that he might someday be in arrear with his rent, page 39 and what consideration was he likely to receive from the Lands Department if he was known to have opposed a Government man? It would be unfair to blame a man, with a wife and family to keep, for his want of public spirit. The blame really lies with the system which makes Ministers masters, instead of servants, of the people. That this settler's idea of the principle of land board administration, as now practised, is not entirely imaginary, will be admitted by those who have noted the changes brought about by the present Minister of Lands.* It is obvious indeed to anyone that Government interference with the freedom of electors is a wide spread and growing evil in this Colony. Only during the last few years have we been liable to the shock of reading such paragraphs as the following in the daily press:—"It is alleged that a police official in Picton has since the general election been shifted to a more difficult and less lucrative position because of his refusal to vote for the Government candidate." The last two elections for the Wellington Suburbs seat have been very instructive. The disgraceful "Mulvaney letter episode" was however, only unique inasmuch as the facts were brought out in a court of law. In the following election, necessitated by the unseating of Mr Wilford, the usual Government influence was brought to bear, and Mr Wilson was elected by the votes of public servants of the "right colour"—that is to say, of men who, whatever their political opinions, were, first of all, anxious to retain their means of livelihood.

The fact is undeniable, that the main principle on which the great departments of the Colony are now being administered is simply the principle of "keeping the Party together"—consolidating it, and making it the private and personal interest of each

* Mr Pirani (at the time one of the Government Party) on one occasion, in a speech in the House, "speaking as a member of the Wellington Land Board, complained of the Minister's attitude towards the land boards, and said that, if it were continued, no man with any respect for himself would continue to act. It was high time the land boards were entrusted with sufficient means to enable them to resist any encroachments on their functions by any Minister."

For doing this service to his country the Premier had the audacity to brand Mr Hislop as dishonourable! Surely, if B happens to find a letter in which A suggests to C a plot for stealing a mob of sheep, B would be very much to blame if he did not hand over the letter to the police at once. Yet it can hardly be asserted that such an illegal transfer of a few sheep is as great a crime against the community as the tampering with the purity of elections.

page 40 voter to vote for the Government nominee. The taxpayers' money is used on behalf of these nominees in various ways—from the travelling expenses of Ministers on electioneering "campaigns to expenditure on public works; and, to make sure that this expenditure of time and money will not be wasted, as attempt has even been made to extract from the Government candidates a written pledge to support the Premier. Burke once pointed out that the principle of "an indiscriminate support to Ministers is totally corrupt," that it "destroys the very end of government as a control, and is a general previous sanction to misgovernment." New Zealand has proved the truth of this observation to the letter. Disraeli once said that the first duty of a Premier was loyalty to his Party. So far have we advanced since then, that a more correct political maxim for the presets day would seem to be that the first duty of a Party is loyalty to its chief—a maxim more immoral and certainly more deadly to liberty and good government than the older one.
In the words of Charles James Fox—words that should be painted in letters of gold round our legislative chambers—the main object of good government should be to obtain independent where. It would be difficult to imagine a system of representative government better calculated to produce dependent and subservient voters—both as to the electors and to the representatives when elected—than our present system. It is idle to object, as is often done, that these evils are merely an abuse of Party government—that the real evil consists in the character of the men we send to Parliament. The steady deterioration in the personnel of the House is an admitted and melancholy fact; but what sort of members can be expected when the first duty of a representative comes to be that he must truckle to the Government, and support it through thick and thin, in order to get fair play to his constituents? As to the Party system being "abused," either the interests of their country or the fortunes of their Party must dominate men's thoughts. If the former, then all Party traction are at an end: if the latter, then it is simply absurd to talk of party being abused. It is all abuse from first to last. You might as well talk of selfishness being abused, or dishonesty, or hypocrisy. The marked similarity, moreover, of the present state of things with Scherer's account of the political condition of France* shows that it is an inevitable evolution of the Party

* See page 9.

page 41 system as soon as unscrupulous men get possession of the Party machinery—as they are certain to do sooner or later; for the whole system places a premium on corruption, and gives an immense advantage to unprincipled politicians, who will not hesitate to use the public funds and work the public departments with a single eye towards keeping the party together and placing all power and patronage in the hands of the Premier.
To describe all the methods by which the departments are administered in the interests of party would be wearisome, and is not necessary. One or two may, however, be briefly mentioned; such as the moving of bodies of men, especially those on relief works, to districts where their votes are most needed. Analysis shows that no less a person than the Minister of Lands would have been defeated at the election of 1893 but for the "co-operative whose increase in numbers on the Otago Central railway shortly before election time was very noticeable.* The matter of the Government advertising in the newspapers all over the Colony is worthy of passing notice. This valuable patronage is, of course, mainly bestowed so as to build up a reliable Party Press; the editors and proprietors who are willing to sell their souls to the party in power, and to prove when necessary that black is white, being duly rewarded by an extra share of advertisements. As to ordinary political jobbery, it is carried on with a boldness,

* Compare the following extract from the Woodville Examiner on the Pahiatua election of 1896:—"While we acknowledge Mr. O'Meara as; our member, we would point out to him that there is great dissatisfaction in Woodville, Pahiatua, and Mangatainoka, the three centres of the electorate, over the fact that they have practically had no say in the election. Indeed, this feeling runs not only through the centres, but through a very large part of the settlements besides. Electors in these places feel that their decision has been overthrown by the vote of three or four camps of co-operative labourers, who have no interest in the district, who have been in it barely long enough to qualify, if so long, and who prill very likely be away from the district in a couple of months. The feeling is very strong that it is hard to be beaten, not by our residents, but by utter strangers. And we would tell Mr. O'Meara, in all friendliness, that he must be prepared for any hard things that may be said about this, and they will be many. We strongly object to the Government interfering with elections, either by Ministers speaking in electorates after the issue of the writs, especially when they get all travelling expenses, including special trains, charged to the country; or by dumping a law hundred co-operative labourers into an electorate two months before an election. This has been done not only in the Pahiatua, but in several other electorates of the Colony."

page 42 and to an extent, which must shock the public conscience, if it is not seared by too long acquaintance with Party politics. Very little of it, however, becomes known to the public; and when a case is brought up in the House, there is, of course, no satisfaction to be obtained. The following extract from one of the daily newspapers, though referring to a very small matter, is a characteristic sample of these cases:—

"Mr. Lang stated this afternoon that he had been informed that the contract for printing the Waipawa and Waikato rolls had been accepted at 7s., whereas a tender for 5s. 3d. had been put in. Mr. Lang wanted the matter cleared up, but he was told by the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Carroll) that it would be unwise to give this information piecemeal [unclear: as] the printing of the electoral rolls throughout the Colony. Mr. [unclear: Lang] 'Will you give that return?' Mr. Carroll: 'That will be decided when the matter comes up.' The matter did come up soon afterwards, and then the Premier declared that he would like the matter debated, which as Mr. G. Hutchison pointed out, meant that the return would [unclear: be] refused. The Premier also stated that he was not going to provide [unclear: his] opponents with pabulum to use against the Government. To this Mr. Hutchison replied that the inevitable conclusion was that underlying the pabulum asked for was something which might be used against the Government, and which pointed to jobbery and favouritism in [unclear: connection] with these rolls. Mr. Lang remarked that the man whose [unclear: tender] of 7s. was accepted was of the right colour, while the man who [unclear: tendered] at 5s. 3d. was not, yet the latter knew his work, and could have [unclear: carried] out the contract well. This was using the taxpayers money [unclear: fo] rewarding the supporters of the Government. Mr. Crowther supported Mr. Lang, and strongly condemned the action of the Government in ignoring the reiterated recommendations of the Petitions Committee in favour of the petition of the late J. H. Field, of Auckland. Mr. Crowther spoke very warmly, and characterised Mr. Carroll's answer [unclear: t] Mr. Lang as being 'not only evasive, but insultingly evasive.' In reply, the Premier declared that the Government did not bind [unclear: themselves] accept either the lowest or any tender, and the tender referred to was [unclear: at] sweating price. To this a member interjected, 'But you [unclear: accepted] tender at 4s. 10d.' and the Premier then declared that it depended [unclear: upon] the place and circumstances."

One of the most serious results of administrative [unclear: corruption] we have left to the last; and that is the deterioration and degradation of the Civil Service which inevitably follows the adoption of the Party principle known as "The Spoils to the Victors." This evil has not yet attained the logical perfection we see in the United States; but it has gone far enough the lower the tone of the Civil Service; to make real or pretended adherence to the Government a most important qualification for office or Government emoluments; and, in short, to put a premium on time-serving hypocrisy. Nor is this policy merely page 43 carried out in a quiet and underhand manner. It has been boldly acknowledged, and even defended, by some of the leaders of the party now in power. Of course, in a country where so large a proportion of the population is, directly or indirectly, in the service of the Government, this is a far more serious matter than it would be in the case of such a country as England. It has often been suggested that the remedy for this evil is that no one in the employment of the Government should be allowed to vote! Such a clumsy, and only partially effective cure as the disfranchisement of a large number of worthy citizens is so unnecessary, and no opposed to democratic principles, that it need not be discussed, while we have as an alternative the sound and radical remedy of the annihilation of the permanent political party, which alone makes such tactics requisite or even possible.

It is almost needless, after what has already been said, to point out how Party government leads directly to gross extravagance in administration, and, in New Zealand at all events, makes borrowing a necessity. Only once, since the initiation of the Public Works scheme, has an earnest attempt been made to live within our means. Sir Harry Atkinson—no doubt realising the madness of continued borrowing while money was steadily appreciating—reduced the cost of the Civil Service, and, by means of the "tapering-off policy," had virtually stopped the increase of the public debt, when the inevitable result happened. The party melted away, and he was promptly turned out of office. That his policy was, nevertheless, in accordance with the wishes of the country was obvious, from the fact that a large majority of the new House was pledged to a "non-borrowing, self-reliant" platform. The Ballance Ministry and then the Seddon Ministry made this their main battle-cry. They insisted on it on every occasion, in the House and outside, in speeches and financial statements. Perchance our leaders did protest too much; but whether they were ever in earnest or not about their "self-reliant policy" is not now the question. To those who knew the real nature of Party government, it was perfectly obvious that, whether they were in earnest or not, they would find it quite impossible to consolidate and keep together an artificial political party on those terms. The result proved the correctness of this view. The very men who had cried out for economy when they were in Opposition now became conspicuously extravagant in their administration. Not daring to borrow boldly in London, they page 44 contrived to tide over some years by means of increased [unclear: taxation] by using accumulated sinking funds, and by other [unclear: questional] methods of "raising the wind." This divergence [unclear: between] practice and "policy" was disguised as long as possible by [unclear: m] leading and incorrect statements, and by unjustifiable [unclear: refusal] parliamentary returns. The truth had to come out some [unclear: time] however, and part of it may be seen in the following table, [unclear: take] from Mr. Seddon's financial statement of 1896:—
Gross Debt. Nett Debt. Government [unclear: i] Power.
March 31, 1889 £38,375,050 £30,984,135 Atkinson
March 31, 1890 38,667,950 37,281,704 Atkinson
March 31, 1891 38,830,350 37,343.308 Atkinson
March 31, 1892 38,713,068 37,076,306 Ballance
March 31, 1893 39,257,840 38,144,070 Ballance
March 31, 1894 38,826,415 38,874,491 Seddon
March 31, 1895 40,380,904 39,335,032 Seddon
March 31, 1896 43,050,780 42,271,889 Seddon

These figures need no comment, except that Sir Harry [unclear: Atkinson] rather than Mr. Ballance, was responsible for the position of [unclear: th] Colony's debt on March 31, 1892. Deception is, of course, [unclear: dis] carded, now that it is no longer possible, and one million [unclear: sterling] has been authorised, for one year's use only. This is [unclear: additional] evidence, if any were needed, to show how much principle [unclear: ther] is in the composition of a political party, and also to what [unclear: extent] the people really rule under Party government; for there [unclear: is] proof of any change of opinion, on the part of the people, [unclear: as] the necessity, or propriety, of a "self-reliant policy."

When we come to examine the effects of the Party [unclear: system] on the legislation of New Zealand, we find them [unclear: only] disastrous than its effects on administration. Much of [unclear: this,] course, is due to so many of our representatives being [unclear: qu] unfitted for legislators; but this again is chiefly due, as [unclear: already] pointed out, to our system of Government. It is the [unclear: time] serving truckler who can obtain from the Government [unclear: th] advantages of various sorts which his constituency desires; [unclear: mo] of which, if we had an adequate system of Local Government, should be outside the scope of the Central [unclear: Administration] altogether. It is useless to complain of the want of character [unclear: and] ability in our Parliamentary candidates or members, so long [unclear: a] the upright man of honour, who would decline to beg [unclear: favour] from a corrupt Government, must needs thereby [unclear: injure] constituency materially. He is little likely to stand for [unclear: election] page 45 and is still less likely to be elected; and even if returned, he would be so disgusted with the atmosphere of intrigue and chicanery, of envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, in which he would find himself during the session, that unless he were a man of unusual patriotism, he would be hardly likely to seek election again. The loss which the country suffers from the low level of morality and ability in its legislators—the direct result of Party government—is incalculable.

The effects of this system on our legislation are, briefly, of the same nature as those already noticed in the case of England, only so much the more pronounced, as the artificial political party is more fully developed here. Members do not even pretend that they vote according to their convictions. It is quite a common occurrence for them to speak strongly against a measure, and then express their intention of voting for it. We have become quite used to this sort of thing, and remarks such as the following (taken from the press reports of proceedings in the House) excite but little surprise and less disgust:—"Mr——was diametrically opposed to the bill, but as he had annexed himself to a certain extent to the Government party, he should fete for the second reading."

"Mr——had full confidence that the present Minister of lands would not abuse the power placed in his hands by this bill, but at the same time he did not like the principle of it, and if he were on the Opposition side of the House he should no doubt potest strongly against it."

And a comparatively honest member, one of the most straightforward men in the House, when announcing some time since that he could support the Government no longer, made the following ingenuous avowal, without any apparent sense of shame "Hitherto I have supported them, and, as a good Party man, I have often, in my constituency and in this House, endeavoured to defend them and their measures when I felt myself that I could not approve of them."

Parliament is supposed to be a deliberative assembly, one of its main objects being to discuss and decide on what is best for the country. What the valuation of its deliberation and criticism of proposed measures may be, under the present conditions, is easily surmised. Insincerity is the "hall-mark" of all legislation under the Party system. The Premier, for instance, will introduce page 46 a measure of which he strongly disapproves. He will [unclear: spe] and vote for it, if he thinks it advisable to do so, while all [unclear: th] time he is quietly intriguing against it, putting up some of [unclear: h] own Party to stonewall, or arranging that it shall be [unclear: killed] some later stage. Sometimes, if he thinks it safe, he will [unclear: simp] rely on the Upper House throwing it out. This method has [unclear: th] extra advantage of enabling him to abuse the Legislative [unclear: Cou] cillors and giving a fresh battle-cry with which to go to [unclear: th] country. The Cabinet, of course, have complete control over [unclear: th] legislation. The "Standing Orders" are altered to suit [unclear: th] Government, and a "private member" practically cannot [unclear: g] even a resolution voted upon without the concurrence of [unclear: th] leader of the House.

We have, however, reached even a lower depth than [unclear: th] subserviency of Parliament. Just as Parliament is [unclear: supposed] be custodian of the rights and liberties of the people, so [unclear: th] Speaker is supposed to be the custodian of the rights and [unclear: libeties] of Parliament. Under a comparatively respectable [unclear: Party] government such as we see in England the Speaker is abort [unclear: al] parties, and treats the Government and the Opposition [unclear: wi] strict impartiality. In New Zealand, the present Ministry [unclear: ha] attempted to deprive the Speaker of his constitutional rights, [unclear: an] even to intimidate him, and that not without success. [unclear: The] appointment of the officers of the House (Hansard report, [unclear: in-]terpreters, assistants, messengers, &c.) was always made on [unclear: the] recommendation of the Speaker; but Mr Seddon, [unclear: anxious] secure this patronage for himself, ignored these [unclear: recommendations] and made several appointments on his own authority. [unclear: Sir] Hall brought the matter before the House as a question of [unclear: pri] lege; but of course the Party nominees on the Committee [unclear: o] Inquiry "voted straight," and the House robbed itself and [unclear: in] Speaker of their rights, thereby giving the world another [unclear: instance] of the fact that alterations of the Constitution, under [unclear: Party] government, are invariably in the direction of placing more [unclear: power] and patronage in the hands of the Government.

A further degradation of the Speaker was seen during [unclear: the] session of 1896. Acting under extreme pressure from [unclear: the] Government, he actually apologised to the Minister of Land [unclear: for] a well-deserved rebuke administered to him for coarse [unclear: and] parliamentary language. The apology was toned down [unclear: in] Hansard, but the fact remains. Later on a private member, [unclear: who] page 47 brought up a question of privilege very similar to that of the Minister of Lands (a personal attack in the Party press), was not even allowed to read the objectionable extract. It may be said that no strong Speaker would be guilty of partiality or subservience to any Government. But a Speaker is but human. His appointment depends mainly on the support of the Premier, and even his election to Parliament may be seriously jeopardised by a Government who will not scruple to use its influence and the tax payors' money to run one of its nominees against him.

Rapidly as we have advanced, it must not be thought, how-ever, that Party government has yet attained perfection in New Zealand. Compared with the Government Party, the Opposition is but a thing of shreds and patches, without cohesion or unanimity. It contains, if names must be given, a few Tories, a number of Radicals, and a sprinkling of Socialists—a fair representation, in fact, of the people of the Colony. Most of them have the courage of their opinions, and this, which should rewound to their credit, is the cause of great grief among orthodox politicians, who consider a strong and united Opposition as a necessary factor in the game.*

It is with some such idea of forming an organised Opposition that a "National Association" has been brought into existence, and it appears to have met with considerable success from Auckland to Otago. Whether, however, it is to prove a blessing or the reverse to New Zealand depends entirely on its methods of working and on the aim of its leaders. If it is content to turn out the present Government, reform parliamentary usages, and then dissolve, future generations will have good cause to reverence its memory. Unfortunately, however, it bears on its face certain marks of the permanent artificial Party—the curse of

* As Mr Syme says:—"The position taken up by the advoeates of Party government is indeed an extraordinary one. They assume that strong Governments are desirable; but by a strong Government they mean a strong Party government—that is to say, a Government supported by an organised party and opposed by another organised party, with a proper balance of power between them—and they assign as a reason for having an organised Opposition that it is necessary there should be a check upon strong Governments. In other words, they want Party government, because by that means a strong Government may be kept in check. They want, in fect, to do and to undo at the same time and by the same means."—"Representative Government in England."

page 48 modern polities. I he very breadth and vagueness of its [unclear: schedul] of "principles" have a suspicious ring about them. Of course, [unclear: i] will be argued that two political parties will neutralise each [unclear: other] and do less harm than one; but this is very doubtful, as [unclear: th] resulting outbidding of each other for votes would most [unclear: likely] make the last state of New Zealand worse than the [unclear: presence]. This, however, is not the real question before the country. [unclear: The] true alternative to the present state of things is, not to [unclear: develop] our system of Party government still further and make it [unclear: perfect], but rather to abolish it altogether. As Mr Labouchere says*

To restore respect for parliamentary government is far more [unclear: im] portant than that "outs" should stalemate "ins." The primary [unclear: dut] of each elector should be to insist upon the House of [unclear: Commo] being made an effective legislative machine, and one able to [unclear: exeri] proper control over the Executive. As it is, it is neither one nor [unclear: the] other.

To effect this reform the Cabinet system—that [unclear: excrescence] on the body politic—must go. King George III. used to [unclear: mi] his ministers, that he might the better control them." King Demos must do the same. The full discussion of the [unclear: remedy] will, however, come later. In the meantime, we need only point out that the question is now ripe for decision. Although always theoretically sound, it is only of late years that it has become, not only eminently one of practical politics, but also the most urgent and pressing question of the day. And this we [unclear: owe] chiefly to Mr Seddon. It is mainly due to his strong will [unclear: and] unscrupulous determination that the one political party [unclear: ha] developed its inevitable fruits more rapidly than the other [unclear: side] of the House—more rapidly even than the parties in the other colonies. The abolition of the Party system has been strongly advocated by leading men both in Victoria and South Australia but there is little doubt that New Zealand, which has led the way in various other reforms, will in this, the most important of all, be again to the front.

Mr Lecky, in speaking of the United States, points out that—
There is one thing that is worse than corruption—it is [unclear: acquiescence] in corruption. No feature of American life strikes a stranger so powerfully as the extraordinary indifference, partly cynicism and partly [unclear: good] nature, with which notorious frauds and notorious corruption in the

* Truth, June 25, 1896.

page 49 sphere of politics are viewed by American public opinion, notorious profligacy in public life and in the administration of public funds seems to excite little more than a disdainful smile. It is treated as very natural—as the normal result of the existing form of Government.*

We have hardly as yet reached this depth of degradation in New Zealand; but we shall certainly be there before very long if we do not exert ourselves to rise up and break the Party "machine" to fragments before it becomes too strong for us.

* "Democracy and Liberty."