NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1831, 18 August 1913, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The British, dhancelior of the Exchequer (MS. Lloyd-George) and the editor ; of 'The Spectator have been crossing swords, and although tho_ editor-had to fight in the open while his opponent sought the shelter of Parliamentary, privilege, he managed to place the Chancellor in a very undignified position. The following comments by The Spectator on Mr. Lloyd-George's speech at the recent lunoheon given by the National. Liberal Club speak for themselves: . •

Before we leavo tho subject of Mr. Lloyd-George's speech wo must note that though the opportunity was so good a. one, and tliough ho found it so easy -to heap personal abuse upon Lord Eobert Cecil' and Lord JUvusdowne,, he mado 110 -attempt to iheet'ourlohallengo to him to repeat outsido the House of Commons iwliat he' said inside ilt as regards the editor of "the. "Spectator." Mr. LloydGeorge, /111 the Houso, spoke of "Mr, Maxse, Mr. Chesterton, and Mr. St. Loo Strachey, tlio three gentlemen who had been working this together," i.e.; the chargps of corruption against himself. These words convey an accusation of conspiracy, the charge that the editor of the "Spectator" conspired .with tho two gentlemen named. Under cover of tho privilege of Parliament, Mr. Llovd-Georgo dared to_ make this charge. Though wo have twico challenged him openly, he does not daro to repeat it where ho is not protected by privilege, and where we should be able to force him to substantiate it, or to pay tho penalty for not substantiating it. Such conduct can only b« described as mean and cowardly,' and calling for the censure of all decent and honourable men.,

The Spectator goes on to ask what is'to be thought of a man who uses tho phrase, '-'Hitting a man when his hands aro tied and he cannot hit back—that is the Tory notion of fair play," and is all the while taking advantage of the privilege of Parliament .to tie the hands of those ho attacks. It is necessary in the public interest that speeches_ made in Parliament should be privileged, but it is a most improper thing to use this protection for the purpose of attacking the reputation of private individuals. It is like shooting from behind a hedge at a) man standing in the open.

Mir. Hanan, the member for Invercargill, has given notice to ask the Prime 'Minister whether he is for or against a referendum on the Bible-in-Schools question. In this connection it is interesting. to find that Mr. Hanan himself voted for the second reading of Mr. Sidey's Bible Lessons in Public- Schools Plebiscite Bill in 1905 and on that occasion he took up a clear and logical position. He 'frankly admitted that he was personally opposed to the giving of such lessons in the State schools; but, he went on to say: "I, as a Liberal, do not deny tho right of tho people to a. direct vote on the subjcct, and to settle this matter for themselves. It would, as Mr. Seddon has said, be undemocratic to refuse the. people the opportunity, under fixed and failconditions, of- expressing their opinion on this subjcct. It is a question, I submit, that belongs essentially to the people, and a -question that can only be adequately and properly settled by 'the whole of the persons interested.. We _ may vote in this House upon this question without submitting it to the people, but our voting would not settle it." Mr. Hanan was personally against the proposal, and believed the people would reject it; but nevertheless he contended that it would be undemocratic to refuse the referendum. The second reading was carried by 39 votes to 22, The voting of those members 'who are still in the House was as follows: — Ayes. . Buddo J.nurenson Davey Marnier Ell . ' Massey . Eraser, W. l.'.'iodus, R. H. Hnnaii Thomson, J. C. Herdinan Ward Herries Sidoy Lang Noes. Carroll ~ Witty Millar Fisher Wilford Pairs—For: Buchanan, Agninut: Colvin, It is interesting to nolo that tho late

Mr. Seddon voted for the Plebiscite Bill in 1903.

From the point of view of principle the position on the Bible-in-Schools question has not ohanged since 1903 or 1905. The question still remains as Mr. Lauhenson said on the latter occasion : "Are you prepared to trust the people 1" The Bible-in-Schools League answers "Yes"; its opponents say "No."

A recent example of the methods of our anti-Reform friends is perhaps worth exposure. In the House of Representatives last week Mu. J. Vigor Brown went out of his way to. drag on to the floor of the House the private affairs of a num-ft ber of the shareholders of this paper. He read a list which purported to show the value of land owned by individual sharqholders of The Dominion—a list which has been quoted on previous occasions—and made rit the basis of an attack on the Government and on the paper. The member for Napier apparently had not troubled to ascertain whether the list he quoted was correct-or not, and. as a matter of fact it was full of inaccuracies. It served itß purpose, however, which was to enable our morning contemporary, of which Mr. Brown is a director and shareholder, to, make use of it to attack The Dominion. The thing was so transparent and so very stupid. Mr. Vigor Brown, M.P.. gets up in the House and attacks those associated with this'paper, and Mr.-Vigor Buown, director of the "New Zealand' Times," is then applauded in his own paper for having "rendered courageous and conspicuous service to the democracy ana the cause of progress," the particular service so applauded being an attack on a rival journal the success of which is apparently causing him muchl concern. It is no doubt somewhat difficult for our anti-Reform friends to find occasion for eulogising the public services of the member for Napier, but we should have thought that even our morning contemporary, which is not overburdened with any fine scruples or any sensitive regard for the canons of decency and good taste, would have hesitated to make itself quite so transparently ridiculous, as to try and humbug its readers in this way. It should really give the public credit for some intelligence.

In i-he'course of his very vigorous speech in the House of Representatives on Friday last, the member for Taumarunui said:

The abominable crime of being a "oneParliament" member, wliioh tho member for Hutt had accused him of, he would not attempt to palliate, but he hoped to learn somethißg and not to continue a blundering bounder in spito 'of 14 years of Parliamentary experience.

"A: blundering bounder" in the political sense apparently is not regarded as "unparliamentary language," although it certainly has an unpleasant sound, and is calculated .to prove provocative of a breach of the Parliamentary peace. Mr. Wilford was indiscreet in his line of attack on the member for Taumarunui, for, after all,. it is the pan-who has a long Parliamentary record rather than the new member-who/is"most-opon to criticism.- The member for Hutt has nearly 14 years' Parliamentary experience behind him, but his staunchcst admirer would find it difficult to point to any record of achievement during that long period. Singularly enough, too, despite the fact fchitt he is one of the veterans of the present House, he has somehow failed to attain any influence either with the House or with his own party. This, no doubt, is largely clue to the fact that he_ lias managed to create the impression that he is not a serioiis student of political affairs. He- began badly by treating Parliament as a placo created mainly for the airing of cheap wit; and while this might easily be excused in a member, both young in years and political experience, it rapidly, dis- ; counts the influence- of a member who persists in making it his ohief stock-in-trade. _ A superficial smartness and readiness of retort may; score a point now and then and raise a laugh at an opponent's expense, but it does not carry a member, very far in the esteem of the House, nor does it give him weight on important issues with his own party. Mr. Wilford instead of gaining ground in Parliament has lost it. Ho is given to a flippancy of maimer of speech and a desire to appear smart, which has cheapened him politically. Thus, when vacancies havc'occurred in the ranks of Ministers on the side in politics to which he belongs, ho has been passed over for men of less length of party service. At the present timo members, comparatively newcomers, such as the member for the Bay of Plenty, the member- for Avon,_ and others, rank high in the councils of the party, while he takes a minor place. When the member for Avon . was making his speech on Friday- evening, Mr. Wilford, sitting on, the back benches, was playing a role common to him, supplementing' tho remarks of the member for Avon with a running fire of flippant interjections,- and laughing consumedly at his own jokes. ' It was an excellent example of the manner in which the .member for Hutt cheapens himself, possibly without knowing it, in an effort to win a laugh before full galleries. Mr. Wilson was perhaps' undulv severe in his reference to Mr. Wilford, but it must be admitted that' the member for Hutt has blundered badly politically.