The Evening Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The evening News, The Morning News, and The Echo. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1880.

Auckland Star, Volume XI, Issue 3198, 21 October 1880, Page 2

The Evening Star. WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The evening News, The Morning News, and The Echo.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1880.

For tho cause that lacks assistance. For the wrung tb.it needs resistance. For the futu.-u in the distance, ml the coo that we can >U

Loquacity is one of the social evils of the ngc. A mau is nothing now if uot talkative. From the debating class to the political platform and the Legislature in but a hop, step, and jump to tho man who is ({lib of tongue and brazen of bearing. Men now-a-days attempt to be eloquent before they can speak ; they affect the (lowers of rhetoric before they understand the parts of speech. The fincat nations of tho world, as Carlyle says, 'are Roiny all away iuto wind and tongue." Many of the i>io>t observant writers of the day lament the rapid decline of our Parliamentary institutions through this increasing tendency to loose discusiiou ami stump oratory. Upwards of a century ago David Hume.in one of his essays, rcgtcitcd tho decline of eloquence in the Kiigliah Parliament, nnd he thought that the average class of political orators had reached the limit of their aspiration by ordinary talents and a slight application. Iv tbeto days genuine eloquence is rare even iv Parliament, but of oratory of a sort there U more than at any time in the world's history. We live in a fast a?e, in an age of telegraphs, railways, and keen commercial and professional compntitition, an age in which luouey-gottinfj is the ruling pas.-iion and the cultivation of the intellect is a secondary consideration. The study of rhetoric has grown out of fashion nnd loose extemporary discourses, devoid of uritur nuci uiutttud, mid almost of argument, pervade our public assemblies. Where a speaker has devoted no previous study to the subject under discussion, but gets up to speak ou the spur of the movement, trusting to some ya*ue inspiration to supply ideas and to his own awkward ingenuity to shape the language, he usually drifts about in a confused incoherent rigmarole of pointlean nonsense, often exhibiting lamentable ignorance of the topic, and blindly reiterating old and exploded political theories. These are tho class ot men -who compose the majority of our House of Representatives, who protract the sittings with profitless discussions, obstinately obstruct business, and render practical legislation almost impossible. They are tho modern "stone■wallers."

Onr forefathers were not given over to Biich a deluge of talk as prevails everywhere in these days. The speeches in the Bible and Homer are models of brevity. Hector and Achilles briefly harangued each other and proceeded to blows. The Athenians, when rhetoric began to be degraded, ordered exordiums and perorations to be disused. It is a remarkable fact that eloquence flourished most in Kome when the public affairs were in the worst condition. Persia and Macedonia never produced any famous orators, and it has been said that Greece and Kome produced bat one accomplished orator each—Demosthenes and Cicero. Socrates and Plato defined rhetoric aa "an art to flatter and deceive.' A couplet translated from Horace says:—

" Let him avoid as ho would hanging. Your folks long-winded in haranguing.

Steele relates in one of bis essays how Bocalini in bis "Parnassus" indicts a laconic writer for speaking that in three words which he might have said in two, and condemns him to read all the words of Gaicciardini, of whom Pr Donne said that if lie were to have described the creation, the world would not have been big enough to contain the, books. Our immediate ancestors had a prejudice against great talkers. They regarded them as dangerous persona to bo avoided. Protracted wordy Parliamentary debates are a comparatively modern vice. The "Spectator" points out that our legislative assemblies are losing the best characteristics by which alone they weie fitted to do the peculiar work entrusted to them—the comparative apathy, the relative taciturnity, the preference for discussions conducted through a few selected combatant, tbc obedience to a few fixed centres, which once marked the great majority of their members. Everyone must air his vie ws at great length, whether he has anything to add to the general stock of infoimation or not, and if he cannot retain an audience he talks to Hansard, the press, the strangers' gallery, and his constituents. He is continually crying out in the words of Carlylc, " Ho, everyone that wants to be persuaded ot the thing that is not true, com'! hither." Thus Mr Seddon last session monopolised a large part of the session and of " Hansard " to himoclf, and there were witnessed such disgraceful scenes as that which occurred over the Deceased tVife's Sisters Bill, when a few truculent windbags forming a hopeless minority, after every possible argument on the subject had been exhausted, and the House bad made up its mind, contrived to protract a hnal decision for some hours, to waite valuable time, and to demoralise Parliament. Obstruction of this character has become a public scandal and some means will have to be found of sapprcssing it along with the " larrikin nuisance" and other social pests. In all the colonial legislatures this tendency to "stonewalling" is increasing, and it has now spread to the House of Commons, formerly one of the moat, dignified deliberative assemblies in the world. It was only on rare occasions, such aa the bitter struggle over the Reform Bill, that such scenes were witnessed as are tr pront since the Home Rule party became i power in the House of Commons. Informer lays Parliament was the arena of argument, in which the best intellect and genius of the country was collected aqd brought to bear upon the political problems of the day. The weight of a debate exercised a powerful influence on the votes, but it is not co now. That work is done by the press and tho great writers of the day. The telegraph, the railway, and (he ereat newspapers simultaneously disseminate the thoughts of the master-minds of the nation on all the great questions of the day, the intellect of the country is collectively concentrated on these absorbing topic;, the constituencies are as well informed i upon them as their representatives and sometimes better than they, members go to Parliament with fixed views, and the arguments adduced in debate are in a great measure anticipated. The divisions on almost all important questions

arc pre-arranged daya before by the whips in tic lobbies, aad a keen observer can foreteir tiie result, as our s-pecial reporter at Wellington has frequently done, many days before the division take 3 place. i It is open to question whether the existing forms of debate aie not too clastic for the presentciicumsLitice?. They gradually assumed their existing shape iv the process of a long B'.rupglc tor liberty ot speech, ,vhen it was not abused, vhen public men were addicted to tacituinity, and the great political battles were decided by the oratorical encounters of the party champions. It used to be the proud boast of the English Parliament that no arbitrary limits wore fixed upon the freedom of debate, aad that minorities were absolutely secured against being over-ridden by unscrupulous majorities. In these days the noisy minority ofteu rules. Privileges ■which were valuable, and as such, were held dear, are now abused and diverted from their proper purpose, and the spectacle has now unhappily become too frequent of small minorities exercising there extreme riahts, not as formerly to vindicate yreat principles, but for the sole purpose of retarding the progress of legislation and making the task of conducting the Government of the country almost insupportable. Now in what Carlyle calls " the age of palaver,'' any half-dozen resolute malcontents may take advantage of a variety of forms to indefinitely obstruct the decisions of Parliament, and to wear out tho patience of the Government and the constituencies. In the House of Commons recently, aftci the fullest explanations bad becu given by the Government nud the subject matter of debate had becu exhausted, a motion was mado to report progress, ami this motion, or ita counterpart, was again and again repeated tor about cloven hour?, until the Government gave way, and the contest was brought to a close. Similar scenes have occurred in all the colonial Parliaments and have directed attention to the urgent necessity for imposing some salutary check to the capricious loquacity ot obstinate minorities composed of such men as Seddon, Speight, Reeves, George Jones, nud other* of tho samo class. The Reporting Debates Cou-.mittee had this question under consideration last session, but failed to suggest any practical solution of the problem. The passion for " seeing themselves in Hansard " was too strong a temptation to members. One suggestion was that the length of the reports should bo left to the discretion of Mr Barron, a geatle mau thoroughly qualified—much better qualified probably than tho Comaiitteo for the task, but it was seen Unit this would not materially curtail the speeches delivered in tho Houae. What is the remedy? It has been suggested I hat tho lloinc should have the power of closing its debates whenevor a majority decided that tho discussion had lasted long enough. But this is a power which might be misused by a " tyrannous majority." We believe that ouc practicable eolation of the difficulty would be to giyo the ranjority the right to pronounce by its immediate vote whether n speaker should bo heard after ho bad spoken say huH-an-hnur. This of ceurso would not apply to Ministers, and would be exercised only on main questions*. But it would compel member* to condense their speeches, and to take some pains with them. It would curtail the diilu.se and unimpressive talk; and would restore that self-respect and dignity which modern Parliaments have been gradually losing.