PUBLIC OPINION.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 June 1927, Page 1

PUBLIC OPINION.

THEIR LORDSHIPS TO THE

COMMONS

“The true reason of the difficulties of your Lordships’ House lies in the change of attitude of the House of Commons. If they will discuss a Bill' up till the very end of the session—all the important Bills—why then, between the time the Bill reaches your Lordships’ House and the prorogation there is very little interval. That is the heart of the difficulty. Is it conceivable that the House of Commons will take less time? I do not mean to say we have any authority in this matter, but I am only putting the question to vour Lordships as observers of affairs. Do you think it is likely that they will restrain themselves, that they will restrict their observations and all the petty manoeuvres which go to make up so much time? I do not believe a word of it. They will not restrict their observations, they will not shorten their proceedings, they will always carry on as long a.s they can.”— Lord Salisbury, speaking in the House of Lords. A PEER’S COMPLAINT. “ There are about 700 peel's who are members' of this House and anv business ever done here- is done by about fifty or sixty. Tlie reason is that nobody takes the business seriously. When T say ‘ nobody ’ 1 mean the hulk of the members of this House. They do not look upon it as an act of duty and a responsibility placed upon them. This is the kind of tiling you hoar: ‘ Are you going down to the House of Lords? What for? There will be nothing going on to-day, there will be no division. The Government would rather you said nothing, the Government want to get away, they want to get the thing through, and it is far better to say nothing.’ AVbenever anybody does put down a motion you bear mutteriiigs of < What a bore.’ Let us be perfectly frank about if. That is what it conies to.” • Lord Carson. A SCENIC ARTIST. “Air Churchill, not in this matter alone, uses a big brush. He lias something of the epic manner and a style that in its conscious richness suits that manner, so that if his narrative is marked hv the particularity of his own individuality, it has largeness of outlook and a certain elemental brooding force, and may therefore, become. for most readers, the classic record of Europe’s Getltsenuino. It will do no barm if that is its fate, for it demonstrates as clearly as need lie the dreadful futility of war and the smallness of man compared with the forces which a modern war lets looser’ —Liverpool “Post.” THE ART OF THINKING. “In the multiplying activities of our present day there appears to be more than a little danger that the habit—if not the capacity—of thinking may lie lost. In limited fields, perhaps, much careful attention is given to what is to he done; but the thinking which leads to a balanced judgment on a. debatable subject even of immediate interest, is not conspicuously prevalent, and is probably a. decreasing (yia.lify. There are men who have thought their way for themselves, down to the first principles, and on. them built a coherent philosophy of life and to them appeal can lie made for a judgment, with ilie confidence that they will he able to give a reason for their conclusion. But these are not a majority. Afore frequent is the acceptance of a plausible sophistry, or a smart aphorism which becomes a “slogan” and then does duty for a formulated judgment. A collection of such smart catchwords loosely held together in the mind is made a substitute for thinking, and life becomes a patchwork of unrelated episodes and jumbled incoherences without ballast or unity.”—Yorkshire “Post.’’ A PAR'LIAAIKNTARV PRAYER. The following prayer was offered in ail American Senate by President Glenn Frank, of the University of Wisconsin : To “Almighty God. Lord of all Governments,” he petitioned, among other things: “Save us from thinking too much about the votes of majorities when we should be thinking about tlie virtue of measures. ‘•'Save us from indulging in catchwords when wo should be sea veiling for facts. “Save us from thinking about (lie next election when we should be thinking about the next generation.” WHY THE DOG. “it is surely a very melancholy tiling ilia! surgeons should ask u.s to believe that, although tin' species of animals arc .so many and so varied, the universally beloved dog is absolutely essential to the vivisectin'. Ido not- wish to discuss the question of vivisection generally. but to put before men of science and the puhli- one perfectly plain and simple issue, which is this: Granted that vivisection is necessary •for the welfare and progress of mankind, why should one particular species of animal be essential for the purpose of research ?”—Sir Leo C.hiozza Afoncy. in the “Daily Chronicle.”

IF I WERE A AIILLIONAfRE. “ If 1 were a millionaire” (I seem to hear you say), “I’d live on but a modest sum and give the rest away. I’d found a home for aged folks, where they could spend in ease, the twilight of their fading lives, a.s happy a.s you please. I’d make n fund for widows, too, to save their homes from wreck, and see that every month that passed each one received a cheque. A home for homeless animals I’d heavily endow and make, a happy huntingground for every lone bow-how. I’d scatter seeds of kindness with a free and hand, but a.s 1 am not a. millionaire, I can’t. But though you’re not a millionaire, and never can !*■ one. you still can practise giving, and you’ll find it lots of fun. The happiness of helping needs no Rock feller’s pile. It doesn’t take a million to win an orphan’s smile: it doe.su t take a million to make a garret bright; it doesn't take a million to bring happiness beyond the happiness of kings. So when the chance of giving comes, remember every time—it you haven t got a dollar, do your bostest with a dime.”—From Calendar, First Baptist Clniri-h. Res Atonies, Town.