MICHAEL DAVITT ON THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Evening Post, Issue 128, 1 June 1895, Page 2 (Supplement)

MICHAEL DAVITT ON THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

♦ In his first lecture iv Adelaide Mr. , I )avitt made the following interest- , fii g remarks : — The anomalies of the , . I ouße of Commons had often excited ( she wonder of those who were , oquainted with the Legislatures of ] •.her lands. What would South Vustralians think if in the House of , Vssembly there were sitting accom- • .odation for only one half of its members? The House of CotnniArs -temed to have been designed with •lie object of excluding aa many members as possible from the business transacted within its walls, and I'ccommodatiun generally was quite inadequate. The rules and customs were no less anomalous than the chamber itself, and everything spoke oi antiquity and rigid conservatism. 1 His actual experience of the House of Commons extended over portions of only two memorable sessions, but he had been identified with politics! for 15 or 18 years, and he could speak from an intimacy with the House and a large proportion of its members such as few other laymen could claim. After commenting on the delay in and unbuainess way of conducting work in the Commons,' Mr. Davitt said the one thing which favourably impressed a new member «f the Commons was its general' sense of fairness towards a speaker, twery new member got a patient and indulgent hearing, and he obtained precedence over an old member by an unwritten law of Parliamentary courtesy for his maiden speech. He paid a high tribute to the courtesy, impartiality, and kindness of Mr. Feel, the late Speaker. Lawyers were numerous, and when they spoke they got bare justice but no lenient consideration. (Laughter.) There was a prejudice against the lawyer-legislator, who more than any other member was open to the suspicion of having Hiitered Parliment for the sake of office. Outside platform oratore also found it hard to gain the attention of the House. Listening to Mr. Gladstone, with his unique personality and marvellous gifts, one felt mesmerised by an influence which blunted every disposition to be ci itical. One of the many qualities of Mr. Gladstone's Parliamentary oratory was the charm of his courtesy to opponents, and to the charges and insults which were levelled at him at times he seldom ever spoke a barbed sentence in retaliation. As speakers, there was some resemblance between Peel and Gladstone, but the comparison was decidedly in favour of the latter. Since Mr. Gladstone's retirement Mr. Balfour had become the most conspicuous member of the House, and ha was almost sure to succeed his uncle. Lord Salisbury, as leader of the Tory Party, if the Unionist combination came back to office after the comiug elections. Mr. Balfour ' had become one of the few general favourites of the Commons. He was courteous to opponents, free altogether from that bitterness of party spirit which had vitiated Mr Cnainherlain's political life, one of the best debaters, and most cultured, and probably one of the best informed members of the House. In Mr. John Morley the House possessed vine of the straightest and moßt transparently honest and sincere public men to be found contending for popular rights in any part tf the world, lie was one of the favourite speakers of the House, and since Mr. Gladstone's retirement the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, in his judgment, the most popular man in the Commons. As a reformer, Mr. Morley could be called an advanced Radical and no Socialist. But anti-Socialist though he might be, there was no warmer friend of the labouring classes in the present Parliament than he. Mr. Chamberlain was the best nil-round speaker in the House His style was faultless from a Parliamentary standpoint, and no man knew better how to command the attention of the House. There was no ambiguity in his language nor the least difficulty in understanding what he was driving at, for his arguments were always the best reasoned and strongest that could be advanced. But he was defective in imagination, breadth, and extent of information and magnanimity and had a latter day of narrowness of views. These faults, added to a bitterness of partisanship which was ecarcely ever absent from his utterances, rendered the Liberal-Unionist leader less formidable an opponent than he otherwise might be. Ho was the hardest hitter in the Commons, but it was said that Mr Chamberlain did u'ot like to be followed by Mr. Asquith — the ablest and most advanced Home Secretary who ever held that post." (Hoar, hear.) His broad sympathy with the labour cause, his great Employers' Liability Bill, his equally great measure for the amendment of the factory laws, his resolve to put down sweating and to ameliorate in every practical way the conditions of the wage- ' earners, made him the most progress- . ive Minister who had ever held the seals of office. Two of * ,tlie favourites of the House, 8 iv a strictly personal sense, were ' { Colonel Saunderson and Mr. John- . sion, leaders of the Ulster Orange Party. Both were listened to by all 9 parties with indulgence, and though 9 their speehes were too often remarkable for strong personalities rather r t han common sense, they did not give i rise to feelings of a too angry nature > vii the Irish benches. Mr. Johnston's 3 bugbear was " Popery," and his dread was that Home Rule meant i Homo Rule in Ireland. Colonel 1 Saunderaon was a more prominent * personality in Parliament than Mr. Johnston. He had frequently pro3 yoked scenes by his bitter personal - attacks on the Irish Party, and he " had become famous for bis threats of j lebellion in Ulster should Home . Rule ever become law. But this kind of argument had more often ■ provoked laughter than fear. Mr. * Saunderson sincerely wished to proB mote the good of his fellow-country-i men, so far as this could be accouif plished without interfering with the * 1 mded interest, or in any way changing tho existing system of ruling a Ireland. Mr. John Burns, the r 1 ibour leader, was oue of the most - conspicuous figures at present in the J House. He was thoroughly earnest in his mission and well informed 0 on all the bearings of the great 1 question. (Hear, hear.) He now 8 ranked among the limited number of I recognised first - class • Parlimentary B speakers. Such an exponent of the ; great labour cause was long needed -' ia the Commons. John Burns was 8 a Socialist of the Constitutional \ school, and he had brought the House \ of Commons, by his presence, face to face with the men and the movef ment which must henceforth com- [ rnand the anxious attention of the s foremost statesmen and thinkers of , the Imperial Parliament. As one 1 who entered Parliament with Mr. 9 Burns, whohadknown him intimately for the past seven years, and who had frequently advocated the cause of r labour, he wished to assure his ' friends and admirers iv the , Australian Colonies that John Burns had g nut changed except for the' better * (Cheers.) He had not retrograded. 8 He was the same honest John Burns s that he had been, and would, 'he " believed, ever be. Before long they - would have an opportunity of j welcoming him to the colony, and r judging for themselves the stamp of ; a man he was. (Cheers.) Mr. Koir } Hardie had not been a success so far ' in Parliament. He was a man of considerable ability and varied i information, who could not fail to 3 impress the House favourably if he ■ possessed taot. Mr. Hardie had taken ' t pains to tread on all the corns of the House of Commons, to despise its

customs, and ignore the human side 1 of that asembly. He could not, unlike t John Burns, perceive how any good c could come from the Liberal Party, nnd that was why he had not bo far 1 shown that capacity for leadership j which was necessary in order to in- 1 duce working men to place the i advocacy of their cause in his < hands. <