Untitled

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9066, 29 May 1888, Page 4

The difficulties thrown in the way of the intentions of the Government to introduce their new Standing Orders, or, as they are commonly spoken of, Rules of Procedure, have produced a good deal of comment and some recrimination. That a great deal of last session was wasted in unprofitable wrangling is beyond question, and the unhappy verbosity of honourable members was then, as it has been since the birth of Parliaments, the cause of a great deal of valuable legislation being stifled. A natural impatience with this delay has prompted the desire to put a curb on this verbosity and on obstruction generally, and these projected Rules of Procedure are the result. With the worthiness of the object so far, there can be no question, but it may be very gravely questioned whether such a consummation as the limitation of parliamentary eloquence might not be too dearly purchased. This is a thing that should not be treated on party lines, for those in a minority to-day may be in a majority to-morrow, and the repression of exuberant eloquence is a weapon that cuts both ways. Profuse discussion is doubtless an evil, but there may be far greater evil involved in the suppression of discussion, and if once the power of closing the mouths of opponents is placed in the hands of a dominant majority, there is no saying to what lengths it may be pushed. Far better would it be to have hours and days wasted in profitless discussion than to do that

which would prevent light k>thrown on dark places, or the PT^ m? of evils which it might CaST* in the interests of a dominant tv? keep concealed. As this cannot I a should not be a party question, vrJfS to see why any censure should be«S on those who are using the recognS usages of parliamentary debate inorrl to prevent tins power of closure hei * put in operation. As it requires two thirds ot the members of the Housp suspend the Standing Orders anA ~11 these Rules of Procedure X?* sidered, members who object to th' imposition of the cloture are entirfl within their rights in withholding til quorum, and in so making u * e *5 the exact processes which have hep appointed as the dictates of prudent* for preventing interference with th freedom of debate. The new rules r , lnv } !8 wise, or they may be foolish ; but thos! who refuse to allow them to be con sidered are merely exercising tW powers which the wisdom of .our anceT tors have deemed right to be given to " minority to arrest the conquering march of an overbearing majority ; an( wa cannot help feeling that those who censure and scold them for exercising those legitimate powers are exhibiting a- spirit that savours much of pettv tyranny. y