NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1484, 5 July 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

. i'HE straining—it looks almost like the snapping—of relations between the British Government and the Labour group in Parliament has behind it some of the same forces and feelings that are latent in our own "Liberal" Government's relations to tho four Labour M.P.'s in tho House. There is nothing really sudden or surprising in the British Labour party's intimation, that if tho Government puts up candidates for tho two seats lately held by Labour men, tlio Labour members will desert the House of Commons—a decision that Mr. Philip Sxowden says is a declaration of war. The matter was discussed -at the Labour party's conference at Merihyr Tydvil on May- 28 last. First of all a protest was mada against the presence of three Labour members of Parliament at Mn. Lloyd-George's demonstration at Cardiff. Then Me. F. W. Jowett, M.P., moved that the Labour M.P.'s should vote on all questions without regard to the consequences to the Government, and some strong protests were made against the Government's dragging or. Labour at its chariot wheels. A milder proposal was brought forward as an amendment, to the effect that tho Labour party should calculate the consequences, "bearing in mind that its decisions must bu guided solely by consideration for its own. interest as' a party and by the desire to increase its opportunities for attaining its end." On Mr. Keir Hahdie's suggestion both the motion and amendment were shelved, but not before several speakers had said some uncomfortable things; as. that the worker in the street was asking whether the Labour party in tlio House had a view of its own, and that it was demoralising, and destructive of Labour aims, to consider every question in regard to its possible effects on the life o( a Government. In our own llouse we have a want of unanimity even amongst the Labour four. Me. Hindmarsh urges opportunism, and, from his point of view, quite properly. Mn. Robertson and Mn. Payne urge nothing much, but they sacrificed more than most men would care to in order to save the Ward Government. It will be interesting, if ever a Labour party of any consequence appears in our Parliament, to see how they will settle the question of tactics.

In a striking paragraph of his synodical / address Bishop Sprott condemned the hedonism of our time. Eq attributes to the modern "inordinate love of pleasure" much of the present "revolutionary unrest among the masses," who, seeing the well-to-do feverishly striving to acquire in order to feed their enjoyment, have "not unnaturally, come to think that enjoyment is the true end, the true ambition of life." It could be show,, that Bishop Speoti has somewhat over-stated ( the facts at both ericts, But we are glad of every voice that cries out against hedonism. Poverty is an evil (to be avoided, as Johnson earnestly counselled his friends), but so is wealth as often as not. Much of the "Labour" doctrine is an affirmation of pleasure as the sumnuim honum. Mb. H. G. Wells preaches just this, indirectly, in a recent notable series of articles in the Daily Mail. His articles have been the subject of an enormous amount of criticism, friendly and 'hostile, by : prominent writers, but nobody went so near to the real heart of the matter than Me. Fixson Young in the Pall Mall Gazette. Ho denies that happiness is the only thing worth seeking, and adds these" wise and luminous observations:

The whole trend of human experience shows that there-is no such thing as happiness as'a Tight; that, in the individual, the pursuit of happiness as an end is disastrous, and that people- who spend their lives feiirching for happiness do not find it. If that is true for llie individual it is true for tho State. If wo follow happiness wo can never overtake it; but it wo go our way there is a chance that we may meet it on the road. That is not an individual opinion; it is the teaching of human experience. Therefore, airy legislation or social arrangement which has as its object the control and just apportionment of an imaginary store of human happii.ess is wrongly conceived and is (loomed to failure. By steadfastly pursuing it one may attain a certain peace of mind; but Happiness, never.

Society will never be able to do more for its units than can be done by securing that its laws will give to none any privilege it denies to others. This was the firm belief of Mr. Gladstone in thijse later years when he seemed to have passed beyond the- stage of merely being wise and to have become part of Wisdom itself.

At the psesent time, when members of the Mackenzie party have been delivering long and dreadfully wearisoniß speeches, thero is much interest in a recent development in tlio House of Commons. The two big topic's of the moment—lreland and the AVclsh Church—have produced such an orgy of verbosity that the usefulness of a time limit is being discussed in the lobbies of Westminster. There is a time limit in our ov.-ii Parliament, but to prevent a dull talker from speaking for ten hours is- hardly a boon when ho is still allowed to talk one hour. Sir Henry Lucy, writing in the Observer, mentions a proposal "almost infantile in its ingenuousness." This is that a member proposing to speak shall notify the Speaker beforehand of the length of time, he proposes to occupy. SiK Hesky himself proposes a rigid time limit, different, perhaps, for different occasions. In the course of his article he refers to the presence in thn House of Comm6ns of men not unlike some of those, wearisome people we have here in Nnw Zealand.

"A ninii,' , he observes, "with nothing partinulfir tn say and no gifls of style or humour to cover his barrenness might not—indeed, as we know to mil- rlnlonr, he dnen not— hositntn to iuAigt upon the House of Commons

a spcccli even exceeding the measurement of'a full hour." Defective as is the procedure of the House, here and at Home, there appears to be no better way than a fixed time limit. One is tempted to say that an hour is too long for any speech in our House; but it is a fact, that there are occasions when certain speakers on both sides would be hampered, to the disadvantage of debate, by a shorter time limit. All we can do is to go on hoping that the men of the depressing class will in time come to be merciful enough not to go beyond the few minutes that would be ample for the full expression of all their ideas.

The House of Hcpresentativcs spent a painful hour last evening with the 'member for Nelson. This gentleman, who has sat in Parliament ,i few days, achieved the distinction last evening of breaking more of the political canons of good taste in the course of an hour's speech than most members would caro to accomplish in a lifetime.. He appeared to labour under the extraordinary idea that Parliament is as greatly interested in Mb. Atmobe as Mil. Atjioke is in himself. With the utmost freedom, and unchecked by Mr. Speaker, he repeatedly referred to the members of the Opposition as "these men"; he sneered at the Leader of the Reform party; lectured the House in quite the Superior Person style; patronised Ministers, graciously doling out to each in turn a certificate of character: and in the role of Sir Oracle generally made himself very ridiculous. It was really a most extraordinary exhibition of egoism, cheap smartness, and direct rudeness, and the surprising part was that the member for kelson appeared incapable of appreciating the extent of his offending. It would not ba easy to select either the most popular or the most unpopular member of the House of Representative's, but a few more such speeches as that delivered last evening by Mr. Atmore would quickly removo any doubts as to the member best entitled to the latter distinction.