The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1884.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7224, 25 April 1884, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1884.

If tho letter of Mr Alfred Saunders, which we publish in another column, were merely an aspiration for the establishment and spread of political ox-ganisation in New Zealand, we should agree with him in every particular and cordially. Political organisation is badly wanted in this country. It is possible to have too much of it, as they have found out in America, where the total effacement of healthy individuality in all political contests, is the theme of much regretful writing and speaking. That some individuality, rather more than a spice, at such times is good, is a sentiment which commends itself to the independent judgment of most Englishmen. Max O’Eell, in his brilliant little volume, has observed this healthy tone of the John Bullian mind, and has ascribed to it much that seems to the superficial ooserver incomprehensible. For instance, most Continentals and Americans have nothing but the harshest criticism for our railway system, which, especially in the matter of the treatment of luggage, they denounce as barbarous to a degree absolutely unbearable, Not so this new critic. These islanders, he says in effect, would laugh in your face if you were to ask to have your luggage booked. They like to keep their eyes open, to do things for themselves, to be brisk, alert, independent. It is against their nature to he “ done for ” like a lot of children. They consider themselves old enough to look after themselves. The military arrangement of everything abroad would never do with them. So it comes to pass that, a man sees his own luggage into, the luggage van, at the beginning of his journey, and when it is over, goes to the luggage heap, says, “There are my trunks,” gives his orders to a porter and a cabman, and goes off with a sense of manly independence about him. That is Max O’Bell’s, view. Applied to politics there is much in it. It is not advisable for us to have all our thinking done for us by party organisations. But party organisation is, nevertheless, necessary. Without it there can be but little political feeling, and without its educating effect the force of opinion can never be directed in the best manner in any desii’ed direction. At present we are without organisation of any kind, and as a consequence political force is used wildly, recklessly, and’ wastefully. We live, too, in Centralistic days ; when Government has become a mystery dwelling afar off. Concerns of Government, our people have been encouraged to believe, are of no practical interest. The idea is that the soul of man should he occupied chiefly with matters of local rating, so that politicians may enjoy a soft, fat peace distantly. The result is apathy, and its consequent general ignorance of; approved political mAhods. Therefore, also, we agree with Mr Saunders in wishing that things were better organised amongst us.

At the same. time it is clear to those who reflect that the comparison made by Mr Saunders is as unfair as it can possibly be. In the first place, the Birmingham meeting, which he has selected for comparison, was a great party demonstration, arranged to celebrate the beginning of a new era of political reform, with the whole strength of the great Liberal party making itself felt in support; while the meeting at Papanui was a mere meeting of constituents meant to hear their member give ah account of his stewardship. In the second place, the meeting at Birmingham "was in the friendliest accord with the speakers. Mr Eolleston’s meeting was, on the contrary, exceedingly hostile. If Mr Bright and Mr Chamberlain had deserted the principles which had given them their career, and had neglected the interests of their constituents, perhaps their reception might have been less orderly and pleasant. As a matter of fact, the Papanui meeting, for a hostile meeting, was wonderfully orderly. Very much more so than many meetings that have been seenin the Colony, and some of them, as we pointed out, of greater pretensions. And, as Mr Saunders is fond of English comparisons, we may ask him if he has never, even in that land of organisation and well “ educated political feeling,” heard of rotten eggs, flour bags, cat-calls, and rowdiness of word and action. In the third place, Birmingham is the one place in England where political organisation has reached a high level, a level by many deemed dangerous to the public welfore. We do not agree with that view, but we mention the organisation in order to show that, however good Birmingham may be as a model for our imitation, it is not fair to judge Papanui (and that tinder different circumstances) by the Birmingham standard. Comparison is about as possible between these two as it is between Lombard street and the proverbial orange, and we therefore see nothing at all disheartening in the treatment of Mr Bolleston by his constituents at Papanui. Of course people are saying things, for people will say anything at such times. The great fact, after all, was that a vote of Noconfidence sas unanimously passed. Mr Saunders weeps because this result was arrived at without organisation. He ought to realise that this absence of preparation only makes the result all the greater, the more significant, the more important, and, above all, the more reliable as a spontaneous outburst of sincere conviction.