PARLIAMENTARY BILLINGSGATE.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XXX, Issue 76, 20 January 1872, Page 8

PARLIAMENTARY BILLINGSGATE.

It must be more or less advantageous for us from time to time to take a look at the proceedings of the other colonies. We may find them guided by principles of action that it may be desirable for us to imitate; or, on the other hand, even it we gain nothing in this direction, we may ah all events, from tbeir failures, learn ( what to avoid. The work they have to perform is the same as ours. Like us, it is their mission and their interest to people the wilderness; to extract from a country, the resources of which are but little known, the largest amount of wealth under the most favourable conditions, and to offer upon easy terms comfortable and independent homes to all those whom the extreme competition of older lands teeming with population drives off in swarms to seek a living under other skies. Like us, too, our sister colonies have the amplest powers conceded to them of managing their own affairs. Nominally a portion of the British Empire, and subject to its ultimate control, we and they alike are practically independent. We manage our own affairs as we think best ; our destinies are in our own hands ; and whether we succeed or fail, we can now have nobody either to praise or blame but ourselves. Upon communities clothed with such ample and important powers, there rests a large amount of responsibility. The steps that they take may be attended with consequences deeply affecting the present, and reaching even far into the future. For the conduct of their public business, intelligence and learning, prudence and experience — all the different qualities which are comprehended within the meaning of the word statesmanship, are wanted quite as much in the new country as in any old one; and there surely rests upon these Legislatures and Eepresentative men the duty so carefully observed among the statesmen of the mother country of conducting their debates and expressing their convictions with sobriety and earnestness, and at the same time with all forbearance and courtesy. It is not our intention to say anything at present on the subject of colonial statesmanship. It is a wide subject, and one which doubtless is critically commented on by those persons at home whose eyes are directed to colonial politics. But we have a few words to say on the tone of colonial de*bates and the bearing of colonial statesmen. There are persons, no doubt, who will look only at results and shut their eyes to the character of the steps taken. These persons will argue, that if the Act which is passed emerge ultimately in a wise and salutary form, it will matter very little whether on the second reading Mr. Smith has called Mr. Brown a liar, and has attributed to him and all those who differ from him that they are actuated by the most distinctly corrupt and selfish motives ; or whether in committee Mr. Brown, by way of retaliation, has punched Mr. Smith's head, and been, committed in consequence into the

custody of the Sergeant-at-arms. Scenes of this sort are more serious in their operation upon us than they may at first seem to be. "A Legislature in which these things ! happen, lowers itself in its own eyes and loses self-respect, and suffers in the estimation of all who value good taste and the bearing of gentlemen. The hypothetical case of Smith and Brown as put above, has we believe been literally realized more than once, both in American and Australian Legislatures. But short of the disgusting indecency of actual personal conflict, we read of things in our papers and in Hansard which are almost equally offensive to good taste and decency. We find members imputing falsehood to one another and other motives which, in the duelling days, would inevitably have resulted in coffee and pistols at no distant date ; and in defiance of all Parliamentary practice we find that when the Upper Chamber in any of the Australian Legislatures thinks it its duty to place itself in opposition to the wishes of the Lower Chamber, .its motives are analyzed, its conduct canvassed, its division lists even read out in the offended popular branch in a manner which we take the liberty of saying is entirely inconsistent with that British Parliamentary practice, which all the Australian Legislatures profess to follow. These remarks have been suggested to us partly by proceedings in our own Parliament, but more immediately by a speech of Mr. Duffy's, upon a recent occasion at Ballarat. The speech, as was to be expected, is able and eloquent, but is disfigured to a painful extent by the blemishes upon which we have been commenting. Mr. Duffy, whatever he may have been formerly, should not forget that now he occupies the position of Prime Minister iv a large and prosperous colony ; and in that position should weigh his words with care, and observe considerable sobriety and forbearance in his language. But Mr. Duffy's speech is not that of a Minister or man of responsible position. It is acrid aud angry in its tone, uncharitable, offensive, and unstatesmanlike throughout. Towards the pastoral interests of the colony, Mr. Duffy uses language of the most unjustifiable character. We used to think it was the duty of a statesman to encourage and support all industries within his territory, but Mr. Duffy has changed all that. The squatters in Victoria are, we presume, not popular, and Mr. Duffy wishes to be popular, so Mr. Duffy in his speech goes in at them as personal enemies, and scolds and threatens with a vehemence which reminds us of an angry fish-fag. No public man in England but would be ashamed to talk as Mr. Duffy did upon that subject. With regard to the Upper Chamber, Mr. Duffy permits himself to speak in the following manner,: — "I have always desired to maintain a second chamber as a check on hasty legislation, and I shall desire to maintain it. But if a second chamber employs its power in promoting the personal or class interests of its members, and thwarting the public interests of the community — if it meets, as it did last session, less than forty-six times at a cost of nearly dB4OO a sitting, merely to spoil or to destroy the work done by the representatives of the people — I would not like to insure its life in a democratic community." We wonder whether any language more vulgar or more offensive was ever used by a Minister towards a body of gentlemen duly constituted by law, and sworn to do their duty. It is | difficult to speak with moderation of conduct such as this. But we would remind ! Mr. Duffy of the lesson he may learn from other communities quite as democratic as those of Victoria, aud notably from the United States. In the House of Eepresentatives of the United States, there are lots of Duffys — intemperate, bigoted, and narrow-minded Irishmen, and there is language held there,- and resolutions passed, almost equal in indecency to the language of Mr. Duffy just quoted. But the effect of that has not been to increase the power of the House of Eepresentatives, but to lower it in the pubiic estimation. People are too apt to lose sight of the difference between a demagogue and a democrat, or perhaps we should rather say between a true democrat and a poor weak creature swayed by the nonsense and ribaldry of a demagogue. The democracy of the United States respects statesmenship, and honours judgment, prudence, and good taste, and the result in America is that

the House of Representatives occupies but a secondary position there, while the Upper House, or Senate, is universally recognized to be the body to which the Americans look with confidence to guide them in all their difficulties. A course of Duffyism will tend very much iv the same direction in Victoria. As regards our own Legislature, we are in the habit of blessing G-od that we are not like our neighbours over the way ; but still, what do we find? Sometime about the middle of last November, the Legislative Council made some amendments upon the Immigration and Public Works Amendment Act which were not acceptable to the Colonial Treasurer. We cannot tell what took place in the Lower House in consequence, but from the notice of subsequent proceedings, as we read them in ILansard, it appears that these proceedings were neither gentlemanly nor parliamentary. Colonel Whitmore, on the 15th November, rose to draw attention to the fact of the division lists of the Council having been read publicly in the other branch of the Legislature ; aud the fact was admitted. But this is not the worst. It appears that one of the chief agents in making amendments in the bill in question was Mr. Sewell, who had recently been expelled from the Ministry because he refused to father Mr. Vogel's bills without seeing them, or being consulted with regard to them. Mr, Sewell called the attention of the Speaker of the Council to the fact, that in the other branch of the Legislature reference had been made to him personally with regard to the action taken by him in the Council. "The Hon. the Speaker : In au offensive manner ?" " The Hon. Mr. Sewell: In a very strongly personal and offensive manner." Where the Speaker of the House of Representatives was to allow such irregularities as these, we cannot understand ; or if they look place in Committee, what was the Chairman of Committees about ? That they occurred at all, we cannot help regarding as very unfortunate. A thing of this sort, evidencing as ifc does a low standard of taste and political morality, does more to damage the credit of the colony abroad thanmauy serious blunders. If in the colony of Victoria Mr. Duffy forgets himself, and brings scandal upon his office, he will find in this colony a pretty close parallel in the person of our Premier, Mr. Pox. The conduct towards the Legislative Council, upon which we have commented, was the conduct of that party of which Mr. Pox is the leader, and could hardly have occurred without his sanction. But upon all occasions in the House when hard pressed and in straits, Mr. Fox is apt to become exceedingly personal, to have recourse to paltry and unbecoming shifts, .and generally speaking, to forget eutirely the dignity and the temper and the moderation of which a man in his position should set an example. Upon the occasion of the the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, Mr. Stafford very properly took occasion to review the proceedings of the session, and finding many flaws in the Ministerial armour, inserted his lance with very skilful and telling effect. Mr. Pox replied, and we must say that his reply is the feeblest affair we ever read. The speech he had to answer was a statesmanlike review of the seseion, in which the Ministerial failures were duly set forth ; the inconsistencies, jobbery, and extravagance exposed ; and the disastrous tendency of their measures foreshadowed. Mr. Pox's reply to this serious bill of indictment was a speech unworthy — we shall not say of a Prime Minister — but even of any Eepresentative man. Ifc offered no replies to the questions raised by Mr. Stafford, but consisted mainly of some very feeble attempts at wit, and of au attack upon Mr. Eolleston — a gentleman of the highest public character, aud of unimpeachable independence and honesty — who has had the audacity to differ from Mr. Pox. But Mr. Pox caught a Eoland for his Oliver. Mr. Eolleston quoted a despatch of Lord Kimberley's, who writes : — " I cannot avoid expressing my regret at the tone and language of Mr. Pox's telegram of the 12th of April, which I am sure, on reflection, he will see is by no means of a nature to improve and strengthen the friendly relations between the Imperial and Colonial Governments, which it is the earnest desire of her Majesty's Government to maintain." Not a bad snubbing for an uncourteous Colonial Prime Minister. And having quoted this digni-

fled reproof, Mr. Eolleston followed up his blow and improved the occasion by the following remarks :—": — " The House," he said, "is quite prepared, after the weariness of this session, to hear the buffoonery and gross vulgarity to which it has been treated by that honourable gentleman this evening applauded by his followers ; but the impression on the minds of honourable members, however pleasant it may have been for the time, and however they may laugh at the vulgar aud coarse declamation, must be that it was not the speech that should be delivered by the Prime Minister, of the colony." It is very unfortunate that those in office do not set to the rank and file of the House a better example. But we have said perhaps enough to direct public attention to a blemish in our institutions of Government which requires removal. We do not expect, however, anything much better than we have hitherto been treated to from either Mr. Pox or Mr. Duffy. They, we fear, are petrified in their bad practices.