Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4766, 1 July 1876, Page 2

A very interesting discussion took place yesterday upon the report of the Committee on Standing Orders, which recommended a number of alterations. The first point upon which a debate arose was the suggestion that no new business should be taken after half-past twelve, and many speakers availed themselves of the opportunity to deprecate the system of late sittings into which the House has fallen. One of the oldest members, Mr. MaoAndrew, expressed the opinion that the country gained nothing by it in the long run, for if members, after being engaged on committees in the morning, sat from 2.30 to 12.30, it so thoroughly exhausted their physical powers that very little attention could bo paid to questions cropping up after that hour. The usual stock arguments were brought forward in opposition, and the loudest in complaining of the impediment being thrown in the way of public business was Mr. Stout. The fact is that to the door of Mr. Stout and a few others of his garrulous character, who are continually rising to points of order and making speeches in which no points are to be found, must be laid the charge of impeding public business. Columns _ after columns of Hansard are filled up with the vaporings of hon. members,, who act under the very mistaken notion that a long tongue makes amends for paucity of ideas. If hon. gentlemen generally would follow the example of a few excellent members who speak only when they have something of value to say, and who are always listened to with pleasure, then Mr. Stout and his confreres would not only increase their influence, but would materially shorten the session, and obviate the necessity of late sittings. Another matter which the report of the committee brought before the House was the now obsolete privilege which allowed a single member to exclude strangers. The committee proposed that that power should be possessed only by the House collectively, and that not until a vote had been taken, without discussion, could the strangers be excluded. A long time was occupied in debating this matter, but the real point at issue was touched by no one except the Premier. The argument of non-necessity for a change, because no member had abused the privilege, was exceedingly weak, and the affected fear of a dominant majority excluding strangers to stop the mouth of a minority was inconsistent. As one member pointed out, such a question could be settled in calm moments with far greater satisfaction than upon some occasion when, amidst the irritation of party strife, the difficulty presented itself; and it a majority of the House cannot be trusted with the power, it is very unreasonable to argue for a continuance of the privilege to individual members. But all this was wide of the mark, and Sir Julius Vogel put the matter very pithily when he pointed out that the real issue was whether the Press watched the proceedings of the House on sufferance, or in the exercise of a perhaps unwritten, but nevertheless indisputable right. Sir Julius showed that this was the high ground which was taken by the member who brought about the change in the British Parliament. In England the change was compulsory, and it would be much better for the Parliament here to yield the point gracefully before some member, who thought hewas.badly treated by not having the nonsense he talked reported, procured the concession by his habit of daily clearing the House and refusing to allow the Press to remain.