THE STONEWALL IN PARLIAMENT

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2697, 30 December 1909, Page 4

THE STONEWALL IN PARLIAMENT

Stonewalling is not often admired on the cricket field, and it is no more attractive in the'political game, but in both phases of life it occasionally has its uses. The stonewall set up by Mr. Massey over an item on the Supplementary Estimates has served its purpose in drawing attention to the outrageous manner in wliich the Premier sought to flout Parliament in an endeavor to gain his own ends. ‘When the • general Estimates were down for discussion they included an item of £4OO as an annual grant to the Hon. W. P. Reeves, in his capacity as “Financial Adviser” to the Government. Rightly or members came to the conclusion that such an appointment was unnecessary, and although Sir Joseph Ward defended the item, it was struck out by a substantial majority. The amount was afterward s replaced on the Supi>lemontary Estimates, and the fact was naturally resented by those vdiose special duty it is to guard the privileges of the. House. Mr. Massey took the view that the Premier had been guilty of a deliberate and unjustifiable effort to get behind the wishes of members by a most unusual procedure, and announced liis intention) to use every, weapon available in Parliamentary practice to prevent the item being passed. It was possible to ifiove 399 amendments to the clause, aintl he would move them. At this Jstage of the proceedings the Premier might easily have avoided aiv unpleasant'situation by explaining all thfi facts at his disposal, but this he re|used to do. Later on, ' || " ' ■ ’V:' ; Y ' ,! M

by which time the House had got into very bad humor, Sir Joseph stated that the greater part tof the £4OO comprised liabilities already incurred, including six months’ notice, which would be necessary' to terminate the appointment. To this Mr. Massey very reasonably replied that if the Premier would reduce the amount to the extent of pre—sent liabilities the opposition would be withdrawn. This conciliatory offer was refused, Sir Joseph standing out for the whole £4OO. The only promise ho would make was that in June next the House would be given an opportunity, to consider the appointment held by Mr. Reeves. This was surely the height of impertinence —to grant as a favor the right to consider an appointment which members had already de-‘ dared was undesirable! This then was the disagreement which led to the House resuming after Christmas, and although the Government was bound to win in the long run, its victory is not a very creditable one.