POMP AND TITLES

Marlborough Express, Volume LI, Issue 158, 6 July 1917, Page 7

POMP AND TITLES

CEREMONY DECRIED IN

PARLIAMENT.

[from our coreb»pondbnt.] 1 WELLINGTON, July 5. The question of titles and ceremony, probably a comprehensive one, received n great amount of attention in the House of Repiesentatives to-day. The various speeches made were rather conflicting regarding the desires of the people, and the subsequent voting on tne Bill which caused discussion showed what Members of the House thought of the matter. The fact that the Bill was thrown out on its first entry into the Chamber was a most singular, one. : •

Mr Payne had four Bills on the Order Paper to-day. The first one was the Political Corruption Bill. In explaining the provisions of the measure, Mr Payne said that it was common talk that a certain Minister. was soon to ba placed upon the Supreme 'Court Bench, merely because hc> >vas a Minister of the Crown and not because he had any qualifications. Another Bill was the Suppression of Titles and Abolition of Pomp and Ceremony Bill. H.e explained that the portion of the Bill relating to titles was aimed at those people who had done absolutely nothing for their cquutry and were' receiving honors merely because they tacked themselves on to the political party in power. The Bill provided that any man who, had been penalised for political corruption should never be allowed to . sit again in Parliament. The'latter portion of the Bill dealt with the abolition of "gold chains, red cloaks, and V absurd-looking breeches", worn by many men holding public positions. He failed to understand why any sensible man should strut round like, a glorified peacock. ,; Mi Hhrimarsh (Wellington South): took Tip the thenie, and: delivered a most vigorous speech ". -He ; asked •why civil servants should be decorated, >just because they were civil servants. \ How did the authorities discriminate between civil servants and ordinary persons? All were working for a living, .and a civil servant was no more entitled to honor than anyone else. He pointed out that it was well known throughout England that titles were proffered for* a contribution of £50,0C0 to some fund or other. Lord Roberts had a lessor title than a retired butcher, a ourveyor of pepper, and a wholesale grocer. Titles were not given no v for merit, and they wero of no value whatever. The country had come down to a disgraceful worship of wealth, and it could he no better +"or it. He hoped they jvould endeavor to cultivate a more healthy opinion in that matter. He referred to several men this country who had been knighted, and he brought Sir Joseph Ward, mm later Mr Massey, to their feet to refiiuo the charges made. Sir Joseph Ward definitely stated that never had one penny been paid to any party funds by those who had "been honored by the King. ; Mr Massey challenged any Member to disclose anything wrong in his administration, and he hoped that -.Members would immediately desist in 'their,isilly suggestion^. The debate was concluded by Mr Vigor Brown (Napier^, • who suggestpd thr:t sorce recognition should he shown of the great work done by th*l women of thf- country in their endeavors in connection with the Avar. . Mr M.isscy-replied.that the matter was' at present under consideration by the Imperial authoiities.. A most unusual circumstance followed. -..Ordinarily the first readings of Bills are carried without dissent, ; "but irrthc case of- 'Jeoz Bill decided opposition was s-hown, and the first division of L tho session eventuated, thy rotisigJseing 48 against four, and the Bill Jivas thrown out.