THE DIGNITY OF PARLIAMENT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1577, 22 October 1912, Page 4

THE DIGNITY OF PARLIAMENT.

The debate which took place in tho House of Representatives last evening on tho report of the Public Accounts Committee respecting the unpleasant incident at Friday night's sitting of the Committee, was far from edifying. It will be recalled that at the sitting of the Committee referred to Sir Joseph Ward, while giving evidence on oath referred to a, suggestion hv the Chairman of the Committee that he should answer a question or refuse to answer it, as an "impertinence." The member for Awarua followed up this remark by loaving the commit-tee-room in dudgeon. When the matter was reported to the Houso last evening it soon became very plain that certain ' members cither did not understand the importance of the issue or were purposely trying to discount or contuse it. Without touching on the details of tho questions in dispute there are cerbain points about which all arc agreed. In the first place no one disputes tho main fact that Sir Joseph Ward did use the language complained of, and that he was referring to the Chairman of the Committee when he used it. That being tho case the only question remaining to be answered is whether or not such a remark is Parliamentary. If it is not Parliamentary it does not matter in the least that Sir Joseph Ward or anyone else using it did so under a sense of injustico; there is only one course open to the Committee and to the House. And that course -is to insist on the withdrawal of the unparliamentary language. What would the House think of a member who, when directed by Mr. Speaker to comply with his (Mr. Speaker's) idea of the rules of debate, told Mr. Speaker that it was a piece of im-' pertinence for him to so direct? The House would stand aghast at such an insult to Mr. Speaker _ and through him to Parliament itself. And if tho member in question attempted to arguo that ho was entitled to use such language because Mr. Speaker had been wrong in his ruling, would the House tolerate such conduct for one moment? Of conrsc_ it would not. The member behaving in such manner would be censured and probably suspended for the rest of the session unless he made ample apology. Members apparently do not fully realise that what applies to Mr. Speaker and to the Chairman of Committees of tho whole House, applies equally to the Chairman of the Sessional Committees. These Committees are a pavt. of Parliament, and any insult to, or disregard of, tho ruling of a Chairman of one of these Committees, Jβ an insult to Parliament. There is a recognised and quite legitimate method of challenging a Chairman's ruling or his conduct, but his ruling must first be obeyed, and the challenge can then follow in the proper manner. Mb. Malcolm put the matter very clearly last night, nnd it is difficult to see why the House should hesitate about coming to_ a decision on the only point which at present concerns it and that is: Did Sir Joski'ii Ward use unparliamentary language and refuse to withdraw'it? If he did so then the House, if it has any regard for its own dignity and the future conduct of its business, has a plain and obvious duty to perform.