The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 28, 1913. NATURE & THE POLITICIANS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1813, 28 July 1913, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, JULY 28, 1913. NATURE & THE POLITICIANS.

A conspicuous feature of presentday politicians is the tendency they display towards the inexact in specch, towards what Mr. Churchill in a grand roll of syllables entitled "terminological inexactitude." This failing, like a certain class in the social scale, has been always with us. Instead of diminishing with the advancc of learning and tho more intimate knowledge of the English language existing indications point not obscurely to its decided increaso. New Zealand's Hansard for last session, for example, is by no means the bare, bald record of dreary, arid speechifying that many suppose. Leaving out of consideration the politics and policies which are supposed to have animated the speakers, which, in a manner, give a semblance of cohesion and senso to the enormous mass of printed, matter, tho logomachist' and the dialectician havo here a rich storehouse of the curious things which command their attention. Our Hansard fully establishes the truth of tho wellknown commonplace that volubility goes hand-in-hand with indefinitude. Vohemenco and volume aro foes to tho clear and the precise. The wonderful lack of precision which characterises numerous politicians, duo it may be to carelessness, to a desiro to conceal the truth, or to the absenco of knowledge, will appear incredible to thoso who have not studiously observed tho utterances of some public men, especially thoso of New Zealand and Britain. Moreover, tho methods employed in answering criticisms, as in supporting an argument, frequently suggest that the speaker attaches to familiar words and phrases meanings altogether different from their ordinary and legitimate interpretation. Reasons for change or for a standing still not seldom aro found to be based upon ludicrously false promises. llival politicians invariably possess to a remarkable degree, when it suits them, tho cjuite convenient gift of non-perception. The arguments for and against Home Rule for Ireland—to select one topic cf wide interest—might be extensively quoted by way of illustrating tho liberties which may be taken with tho English language. Politicians perform a service which few will dispute: they continually remind the public that language may bo employed to conceal as well as to express thought.

Lord Russell, long much quoted, by his disregard of precise and correct spcech, it is now said, was not without a measure of responsibility for decades of disaffection in Ireland. "The true key to our Irish debates," he declared, "is this, that it is not properly borne in mind that as England is inhabited by Englishmen, and Scotland by Scotchmen, so Ireland is inhabited by Irishmon." Nobody in Lord Russell's time, and nobodv to-day. would classify the inhabitants of Ireland as ono, homogeneous people. Tho dwellers in tho north-e;ist of Ireland are totally alien 'to the" Irish found in the western districts of Ulster, and in Leinster, Connaught and Munstor. Differing as they do in many places in languago, everywhere in customs and in creed, they disavow most forms of co-opera-tion with the main body of the Irish, desiring to remain as they are, a distinct and separate people. Lord Russell's words, handed down from his time, do duty to-day on public platforms, in Parliament and in tho press. Had there been absolute accuracy of speech in those days, before the modern claims of the Home Rulers had been formulated, tho history of Ireland might have been somewhat different from what it is. Had politicians and statesmen realised years ago that Ireland is occupied by two dissimilar peoples, tho world in these later times would have been stived learning that truth from scenes of strife and by threats of civil war. The majority must rule, urges one section of tho Irish. Yea, admit tho other section; but a 'majority of ono, separate, homogeneous people. Geographical proximity seems to leave this plea untouched. That the two sections are divided, and that very widely, few will caro to deny. This being so, the numerically weaker section contends that its acts should be guided by a majority within itself—of its own people—and that to superimpose tho will of a separate and alien majority on it is not majority rule in the true sense of tho word, but tyranny and despotism. The recent inquiry into the Marconi enterprises of certain members of the Asquith Government tho means of bringing to light 'various unexpected readings of established English terms. When Mr. LloydGeorge obtained one thousand shares of tho American Marconi Company, without paying for them —that is, without investing any of his money in them—and sold them forty-eight hours later at a profit, ho quite erroneously described- the transaction as an' investment. No amount of argument or persuasion would inducc him to acknowledge that what ho had engaged in was speculation. Though, a month later, ■he secured more shares in the same concern on credit, his stockbroker charging him heavy interest for the unpaid money, ho, with fine scorn of "literary pedants," held that transaction to bo also an investment. That faithful and grateful henchman of tho Asquith Government, the editor of the British Weekly— recently knighted—vigorously supports Mr. Lloyd-George, and concludes his loyal rant with the homely questions: "What are Ministers to do? Are they to put their sayings into their stockings?" And this inspite of tho facts that Mr. LloydGeoroe obt'ainod tho shares without payment of a penny and paid interest on the amount of the debt ho had thereby incurred. This is a poor game: one of the poorest and most contemptible that a public speaker or writer can play. But nobody is deceived; except, perhaps, those who indulge in these forms of rhetoric. Dealors in what may bo termed tho wilfully and maliciously indefinite belong to a catagory by themselves. It is tho moro innocent varioty to which' we mainly allude, tho indifferent, badly _ informed, self-opinionated individuals. They do incalculable harm, and it is almost impossible to make them realise tho fact. Like Uncle Pullet they have a great natural faculty for* donseness. Mark Rutherford must have had maltrcaters of the English language in his mind when .he wrote: "Nature deals very, kindly

[with us and is full of wonderful adaptations and compensations. To the croature which needs protection she sends a tough hide. It would be of no use to clothe with self-ignor-ance, self-complacency, and a pachydermatous moral tissue the wise men who never need fear contempt."