LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1890, 27 October 1913, Page 11

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

POLITICAL VARIETY "ARTISTS, Sir, —After their burlesque perfoimacces in connection with the recent Parliamentiry " Stonewalls," I have no doubt tlio members for Ghristchurch North and Nelson feel a sense of relief in being able to posa as political variety artists in the distinguished oompany of the member for Wallace, first at Palmerston North, then at (Stratford, and again at Hawera, where they are billed to appear as lightning-change artists 011 puroly "independent" linos this evening. Beading the account of cu° ~ j f ß ' rally " they attended at iTrvr evening, as given by the Wellington Anti-Reform journal of even date, I found myself wondering what that great tribune of tho people, Sir George Qroy, and his diaeipfo, the lat-o Mr. Seddon, would have thought of the extraordinary political combination now touring the country in the alleged interests of " Liberalism." Mr. Isitt has long been rccognisfid as being , a law unto himself; Mr. Atmore's ehicl claim to distinction is that he leads a party of one in tho House. That much must be conceded even by Mr. Atmore's friends. But where does the member for Wallace come in? What is I'is peculiar claim to distinction? Is 110, Gamaliel-like, sitting at tiio feet of L. M. Isitt, leaseholder and prohibitionist (he himself being a freeholder and anti-prohibitionist) prior to entering upon a fresh course of political oduoation under the guidance of the member for Christ-church North and his heady colleague, Mr. Atmore? Did the speakers who were so "wildly applauded" (vide your contemporary's telegraphed account) think of that " little brush " in the House last week between two of iheir number? Would those Stratford "Liberals" have been so ready to "drown" Mr. hitt's and Mr. Atmore's utterances with their enthusiastic "plaudits," could they have hoard them assailing one- another's viows upon the question of leasehold v. freehold tenures in the House last week? They havo some ideas in 00mmon, but the one that predominates with both is a bittor and unceasing hostility to tho Reform cause, and to tlho Reform Government. That one idea unites them in one compact party, strangelv reminiscent of, that "party cf two" which, in 1866, reminded John Bright "of tho Scotch terrier, which was so oovered with hair that you could nob tell which was the head and which was the tail of it." So must the members for Christchurch North and Nelson have apraaTed to the good people of Stratfora on Monday evening. But what are they out after? Independents both, as they still claim to be, there is more than a suspicion that they are looking for portfolios in.the next "Liberal" Administration (should the country ever tolerate its .formation, which is more than doubtful). However mixed their principles and politics may be, they are disoreot enough to maintain a merry front before- tho public and keep thoir.differences in the background. As tho real "Simons Pure" of political life, they are doubtless worth going a long way to see, hence the "enthusiasm " over their appearance at Stratford, where they made the most of their stock-in-trade, which consists lalmost wholly of abuse of their opponents and laudation of Sir Joseph Ward, tincturod, in the case of the senior membor of tho party, with a mixture of aiieiont ■jests, hoary ohontnuts, and lea-meeting yarns, the junior partner in the team contenting himself with the vitriolic langungp of the man whose sense of humour is dead, and Who sees in his opponents only "villains of the deepest dye." In suon pleasant and delectable company the member for Wallace is entering upon a last short and merry run of political life, which will inevitably end in his political extinction at tho general election next year. By the way, what do Mr. Atmore's constituents think of hia fiction in joining this "Liberal Variety Troupe"? By all tho rules of Parliamentary life, he should have been attending to his political duties in Wellington on Monday, and more particularly so because the Nelson Loans Conversion and Empowering Bill was before tho House. Through the grace of the Government he attacked, with such' little logic and reason, that evening at Stratford, tho Bill was allowed to go through all its stages at tho ono sitting of tho House; probably, as Mr. Massoy said, just about the time the member for Nelson was "slating tho Government for all he was worth. Just another word. _ Was it merely a coincidence that, with these political /variety artist® out of tho way, the Gweminent was able to put up suck a fine business record in the Honse last evening P To deal with fourteen Bills at ona sitting is surely a record in th© work of the New Zealand Parliament.—l am, et0 '' ' DEMOCRAT. Wellington, October 21, 1013.