THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1881. THE TALKING PARTY.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2225, 14 April 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1881. THE TALKING PARTY.

Politically speaking the colony may be dividod into two groat parties—the Talkers and the Doers. Tho former having most of the talking to themselves at once naturally appropriated the title that they considered would take be3t with the uninitiated. They, therefore, chose tho term Liberal, and were good enough to dub their opponents Conservatives. Having settled this little matter satisfactorily, they proceeded to develop their ideas. As their platform entirely depended on the subject matter they had to talk about, it soon became evident that the less they actually effected the better, because tho less done the more they would have to talk about. By carrying nothing thoy would always have a party cry -with which to go before the country. And not only so, but their audience would always be in a better frame of mind. It is easier to work on the feelings of a hungry man than on those of ono who has dined plentifully. Consequently the Talkers when in power carefully abstained from carrying any useful measures, and thus preserved their modus operandi. Their elected chief was an individual of all others their most representative man. He had been distinguished in youth and middle age, but, as time went on, his executive ability had decreased, while his eloquent garrulity had waxed rather than waned. Sir George Grey fulfils to the letter the conditions which the Talking Party have laid down as the very essence of thoir being, and it is no wonder that when he was deposed from the leadership, the party fell to pieces, or that now, in the consciousness of his own garrulity, he should insist on heading their forces. The Talking Party have, moreover, a number of journals fully indoctrinated with their peculiar tenets. Among the most enterprising of these may be reckoned the " Lyttelton Times," a paper which thoroughly upholds the idea that talk is synonymous with political light. This morning's article of our contemporary is an elaborate and diffuse treatise on the beauties of this theory. The doctrine of the party may be summed up in the following extract from the article in question. Speaking of Parliament, it writes —" We say, reserving only extremes, that speech is its chief duty." That is to say, that the bodies that are ordinarily termed the Legislature are in reality formed for the purpose of talking. And the " Lyttelton Times" proceeds—- " Speeches may be irrelevant and verbose; they may be rude and ungrammatical; their arguments may be nonsensical and their statements false; thoy may be selfish, vindictive, or calumnious; but such is the power of publicity, in the midst of all the discordant din, the still small voice of truth gradually makes itself heard." It is left to be inferred that the " still small voice of truth" is more or less dependent on this clash of irrelevant, verbose, rude, ungrammatical, nonsensical, false, vindictive, and calumnious utterances. One might almost fancy that our contemporary imagines the more verbose, nonsensical, and vindictive the speeches, the more truth is likely to be evolved. Probably, however, even the most advanced Talker would not go as far as this. But a grand palaver of some sort there must be, and the longer the better. The grand palaver satisfies both conditions of the Talking Party. It prevents anything being done, and so leaves to the party plenty to talk about, and it keeps the country so much in want of useful measures as to be eager to listen to proposed remedies for the then existing state of affairs.

It is singular that men who are sharp enough in the ordinary relations of life, should, when politics are concerned, look at things from an entirely different standpoint. Many of the Talking Party are not absolutely among the initiated who adhere to the programme from political motives. They are, moreover, probably on Boards for the management of various descriptions of business, and in their managerial capacity they would, above everything, loathe and detest the very class of individuals they patronise politically. As business men, if a matter is to be discussed, they would wish the discussion to be sharp, short, and to the point. They would never for an instant imagine that the clash of verbose, nonsonsical, and vindictive utterances could in any way serve to s'f t out the grains of truth lying at the bottom of the matter in hand. And yet, after all, the management of the affairs of a nation such as New Zealand does not differ, except in magnitude, from the management of a large business concern. The same husbanding of resources must be employed, the same caro that no money is sunk in unproductive expenditure, the same wish to regnlato the outgoings by the incomings; the same judicious enterprise when an opening is seen. Matters connected with sentiment and national prestige are not yet factors iu our political calculations. We want good business men at the helm, and we repeat that it is strange that many Talkers, who have no political motives in view, do not recognise tho fact that the conduct of the affairs of the nation should not materially differ from the conduct of a gigantic company. For in the body politic it is as in the company; the good of all investors should be carefully seen to, and a common prosperity should benefit all alike. We have been led to make thesa remarks by the development of the Talking theory as enunciated in the " Lyttolton Times " this morning. But wo are very far from saying that free discussion is not necessary both in Parliament and out of it. Let our representatives at all times place their views boldly beforo their constituents, and in Parliament let the members talk when they have anything to talk about. But let not action be hindered by tho process. Above all, lot not Talk bo magnified into the main object of political life, or be used as tho sole political lover. "We assert that the making of laws, not talking, is the main function of the Legislature. The people at large should judge of their law-makers, not by tho quantity of breath they expend, but by their do6ds. Judged by this standard, how do tho Talking Party stand ? With them it is a case of " Vox el prccterea nihil." THE SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE " LTTTELTON TIMES." The public at largo havo long coasod to placo tho slightest rolianco on the statements made by the " Special Correspondent " of our contemporary. Ho is recognised as boing in tho habit of sending reports oa all possible subjects, not only misleading as a whole, but crowded with

facts which aro ttttorly unreliable. Tho only wonder has been that a respectable journal should continue to stand by an employee who is constantly causing its columns to be held up to ridicule. Ordinary persons would, have thought that the " swamp fiasco " and others of the same sort would have shipwrecked any special correspondent in the world. But the gentleman in question is adroit—very adroit. He met the charges made by Mr. Bryce by a most ingenious defence. Only, unfortunately, the facts on which such defence was made wore manufactured We refer our readers to a letter from Mr. McCarthy to the " Press " newspaper, which is published in our issue of today. Hero one statement made by the " special" is shown to be utterly false. The " special " had the following in his letter: —" The Government had appointed a reporter (Mr. McCarthy) to a position on the staff of Sir William Fox and Sir Dillon Bell (Royal Commissioners), on the express understanding that he should supply tho Christchurch " Press" and other Ministerial organs with ' approved ' reports of tho Commissioners' doings." This the " special" gave as a reason why he applied for the post of Private Secretary. Now it turns out that Mr. McCarthy had done nothing of the sort. He was one of the shorthand reporters to the Commission, and that was all. There was no understanding whatsoever that he should supply Ministerial organs with " approved " reports. The " Lyttelton Times " has stood by its correspondent through so many crises, that we suppose it will still argue that he is the wisest and most truthful of mon. The public, however, will have their own ideas on this subject, and those ideas will not materially differ from those they have held for a length of time.