Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1882.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1230, 21 December 1882, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. Published Every Evening. GISBORNE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1882.

The first day’s debate on the re assembling of the House of Commons at St. Stephen’s was marked by the violent attack of Lord Randolph Churchill against the unconstitutional course the Government had ad jt . . in calling the House together by adiov.mment. Amid cheers and laughter, grouua, and hisses Lord Randolph rose and moved that the House do now adjourn, as a protest against these proceedings. The veteran Premier, always calm, and never taken by surprise, cast round and warded off Lord Randolph by preferring to the announcement made in August last. Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir H. Drummond Wolff struck a warning note to the Ministerial party in reminding them that without care it might be perfectly possible to dispense with the close of Sessions altogether, and carry on a Session by repeated adjournments throughout entire Parliaments. The onslaught of Lord Randolph Churchill was remarkable for its vigour—the Radical Press calls it “audacity ” —and fairly forced the House to a division, which, however, negatived the proposition for adjournment by 209 to 142, or a majority for the Government of 67 ; and Mr Gladstone moved that the Procedure , question have preference of all orders of the day and notices of motion, which proposition I was carried on division by 98 to 47, and the ’ House adjourned. On the following day the I adjourned debate of the 20th of February . last on the new rules of procedure proposed i by the Government was resumed upon the ' resolution :—“ That when it shall appear to I Mr Speaker or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any <lebate to be the evident sense of the House or of the Committee that the question be now put, Mr Speaker or the Chairman shall forthwith put such question ; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the quesunder discussion shall be put forthwith ; provided that the question shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than 200 members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than 40 members, and supported by more than 100 members.” Sir H. Drummond Wolff moved an amendment to the resolution by omitting the ■words : —“ Or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House,” in order to protect the chairman from any suspicion of partisanship ; pointing out that the introduction of even the Speaker’s name was calculated to damage the high position which he held, for assuming that the Speaker was elected, as he would be with every change of Government, as a partisan, there was nothing to prevent his collusion with the Government of the day. And again, it might be that a motion impugning the character of a Minister would be greeted with cries of impatience which the Speaker would interpret as the sense of the House, and perhaps the Minister who was about to be impugned would at once propose a cloture, which might be adopted by one-third or two-thirds of the House, it is immaterial which. A long and wordy debate followed Sir Henry Wolff’s speech, but no decision was arrived at with regard to the amendent beyond an admission by the Premier that it had so much to recommend it that provision would be made at a subsequent ’stage to give at all events partial effect to it; but what those provisions would lie all efforts to extort a specific explanation from the Government, wholly failed. Lord John Manners, Sir R. Cross, and Sir Stafford Nothcote strongly protested against the incomplete character of the scheme which the Government were forcing upon the acceptance of the House. From the whole tenor of the debate it seems cer tain that cloture is as yet more a shadow than a substance. The Government despite the time they have taken, and the unusual course they have adopted in calling Parlia-

ment together -.at such a time for the e xpress purpo3° of forn mlating the new rules o f procedure, have no t as yet decided on any hand aud fast form w Inch shall be adopted. In fact they cam e to the House without a proposition. Without a doubt Sir H enry Wolff struck hard in his amend ment at one of their weakest points ; ant i Mr Gladstone,, on being urged by Sir Staf tord Northcote to m.ake a definite statemi snt as to the proposals respecting casual chaii men, before askin g the assent of the House 1 o the ! resolution giving to Chairmen of Comn ritees j the same penvers of cloture which they pro- ’ pose to confer on the Speaker, was utterly I unable to make any satisfactory reply. He i certainly said that he did not contemplate | any change in the form of the resolution, but that he would, suggest some means appoint- ! ing casual chairmen, which wo uXI supply ' some guarantee for their impar iLJity ; but i what that mode is to be he did not give an j inkling: and it is more than ■ wol.al.’.e Gmt ’ he will find much food for thou £ht before he ; lights upon any mode that will prove satis- • factory to the House. The procedure debate would ba resumed on the evening of the ’ 26th, up to which date our fi'ies do not cany us ; but from the evident sense of the Com'l mons, it is clear that cloture is, as yet, not thoroughly believed in or trusted. English- ■ men are hard of belief where anything like j an encroachment on the liberty of the sub- | ject or freedom of discussion is concerned, | and even if the Gladstone Ministry succeed ! in passing every clause brought forward, I they, or any other Ministry, will have to be i gravely cautious in making any use of the powers so conferred on them of peremptorily ’ closing debate. A thoroughly un-English , and despotic measure, it is only the demoi cratic tendencies of the age which allows the introduction of a whip which may, at some future time not far distant, be used to j sorely lash those who first sponsored the j advent of so foreign an innovation on ' British rights and privileges. The porten- ; tous magnitude of the debate may be gathered from the fact that the total number of amendments to the new rules are 139, standing in the names of 115 members. The remaining amendments to the first resolution are 42 in number, and when at maturity they are disposed of, Sir Stafford Northcote has undertaken to move that the clause be negatived.