Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5177, 25 October 1877, Page 2

The state of affairs in Parliament is curious. Three weeks ago the Atkinson Ministry seemed to have a firm hold of office, and to be backed by a large and united majority. Spite of the violent and unbridled attacks of a heterogeneous Opposition, it had got bravely through much of the session. The Native Lands Bill and tho Incidence of Taxation had been postponed for a year, various dangers, including the “ Waka Maori,” had been skillfully surmounted, and its future course seemed smooth and pleasant. Within a week it was dethroned, and replaced by the most unpopular section of the House. Had tho Middle Party suspected that their action would have put Sir George Grey in power, it is probable they would not have turned out tho former Ministry. The country has been governed during the past few days, and will continue to be governed for a very short time longer, by a Ministry that has been from the very hour of its birth in a hopeless minority—a Ministry which has not and never could gain tho confidence of the House or of tho people—a Ministry in which the best men of the party refused to take part. Had Sir George been backed tip by a powerful Ministry, his excellent opening speech might have helped to keep him in during the rest of tho session and through the recess. Sir George Grey and party will bitterly feel and keenly resent any effort made to turn them out of office; but if tho Atkinson party are strong enough we fail to see any reason why they should not expel their expellers. It doubtless is very annoying for men like Bees, Sheehan, Stout, and others to find that they cannot have their own way in everything. Talk as they list about being ruled by a brutal and a tyrannical majority, to the will of the majority all must bow as long as government by party shall exist. They should learn that it is wrong to push anything to extremes. Compromise should be the order of the day. We cannot help, however, dreading a repetition of former degrading debates —debates in which one party accused the other in plainest words of fraud, crime, deceit, and all manner of evils. We fail to see why debates in the House should not bo conducted more courteously. Members might at least learn to talk with calmness and moderation. Can anything be more undignified, more rude, than the gestures and tones with which certain members abuse their foes ? Do any of them think that their speeches are more killing or wound more severely because a member jumps up in a towering rage, splutters out anathema after .anathema, roars at the top of his voice, and behaves like a vulgar " noisy cad in a street row ? Do they suppose That listeners think their frequent interruptions of speeches either witty or gentlemanly. It appears as though very few members are aware that they are engaged in serious duties, that they form parts of a grave deliberative assembly, that tlleir constituents expect them to act with calmness and" modera-

tion, not with violence and frivolity. They never sufficiently realise the dignity of Parliament, they forget that each one should strive in his own person to raise not to lower the tone of the House. Individual members, too, should take to heart the lessons taught by the late political crisis, and learn that one of the most damning follies an ambitions young man can commit is unbounded indulgence of tongue and temper. The late crisis and its results show clearly that the men who are most likely to' become Ministers of the Crown, the men who will certainly win honor and renown, are the moderate men. The men who speak but rarely, and then only on subjects they well know; subjects, too, of importance to the country. These men make no enemies, and gain a reputation for knowledge and ability. In the multitude of words there is folly, said the wisest of men, and nowhere is this better illustrated than in the House. There are clever, well-educated, versatile members, who are everlastingly talking—men who talk so often and so much that they offend friend and foe. Who are most listened to, carry most weight, inveterate chatterers like Rees, Stout, Travers, Gisborne, Lusk, and Barff, or quiet men like Johnston, Sharp, Russell, and Stevens ? No one thing is more certain than this, that any member, however learned and clever, can effectually ruin himself by overmuch talking. The reasons are few and not far to seek. The great talkers’ speeches are rarely carefully prepared, the data unsound,’ the facts inaccurately stated. So wide and so varied are the topics treated by Parliament, that no man can be an authority upon all of them ; and when a chatterer talks of those of which he knows least he makes so many blunders that members despise him, and suspect he knows but little of other topics upon which he fluently and fully gives his opinion. Moreover, there springs up, consciously or unconsciously, this feeling, which a few formulate thus—“ Who is this man that he should be always thrusting his opinions upon us, and lecturing us all round V’ Very soon a feeling of resentment arises. Even when he thoroughly knows the subject, and is really able to teach members, his speeches are useless, because few listen, and still fewer accept his views. Many a great talker who thinks himself a power in the House has really reduced himself to a nonentity. The odd thing is that very fluent men like Rees, Stout, and Travers fail to see how they defeat their own ends, fail to see how powerless they are to influence men’s minds. Is it because they are too vain, too utterly wrapt in their own conceit ? In “ Hansard ” may be found speech after speech, and even in the middle of good speeches paragraph after paragraph, which would not have been there had their authors not talked so much and so often that they had not time to get up the facts or weed the rubbish. A good, thoughtful, well-worded, logical speech will take any member a long while to prepare, yet some members make a dozen big speeches a week. The moment one of these wordy men gets up many members quietly leave the House, and those who stay evidently are busy about other things, and turn to him a deaf ear. Even the best friends and most ardent admirers of these men cannot fail to recognise the ruin they are bringing on their own heads.