THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1892.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8959, 17 August 1892, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 17, 1892.

♦ We quite fail to understand this fit of nervous irritability with which our 1 representatives at Wellington have been attacked. But it ha* been of so violent a character that unless it passes off in a very short time, the constituencies will have to insist upon a dissolution as the only way of ending it. Members call each other names, and forthwith there are explosions of wrath, and the poor Speaker gets into sad trouble because he fails to satisfy members that he metes out strict justice to all. Scenes occur, we are told, several times a day, and the House becomes a mere bear-garclen. A member has frequently in the House threatened what he would do with his opponent when he got him outside, like little boys at school. We could understand something of all this, and make allowance for human weakness, if parties were closely balanced, and if some subject of importance, and causing great excitement throughout the country, were being discussed. But it is not so. The excitement in the House is not caused by keenness of political feeling. The leader of the Opposition is not diametrically opposed to any of the Government measures, and he has frequently complimented Ministers on Bills which they have brought in. The irritation arises apparently from pure cussedness, and from the absence of gentlemanly feeling amongst members. A few days ago, one member called Mr. Buckland "a calf," and that hon. gentleman replied that if that remark had been made outside, the reply would have been a blow. Another member, referring to a previous speaker, said that "the honourable gentleman was no gentleman," from which it must be inferred that members make a distinction between "honourable gentlemen" and " gentlemen." We are inclined, on calm consideration of the whole case, to think that they may be correct. This expression, however, judging from the fuss which has been made about it, is considered the most serious offence of all. There was a demand, not only for its withdrawal, but for an ample apology. Then there has been much gnashing of teeth because a member was referred to as, " a servile follower of the Ministry." That expression seems to have hurt the feelings of a good many. It may be very wrong to use such a phrase

in the House, but if anyone Wd it outside respecting some nobody would quarrel with him. It ft an old axiom that such expressions ire the more offensive the nearer they apj ro ach the truth. The spectacle which the House has shown lately of sensitiveness about the epithets menbers apply to each other, will undoubtedly have some tendency to leal people to think that after all they may not be so very far from honest fact. *

It is a very curious circumstance, that however sensitive members may be respecting what is said in the House about themselves, they display and allow the utmost freedom in referring to people outside. For instance, a short time ago a member referred to the gentlemen who had associated themselves together to contest the Picturesque Atlas claims, as having entered into "wholesale combination to commit perjury." A more awful charge could not be made against any man. The Speaker evidently thought it quite proper that a member should make such a charge, and only one member uttered a syllable of remonstrance. The case was the more serious because many of the parties referred to were actually before the petty Courts, and magistrates might be influenced by what was said, and allowed to pass in the House. We are zealous in favour of the utmost strictness, not because members are necessarily wrong when they use opprobrious epithets to one another, but because the squabbles to which they give rise, the motions, and notices of motion, are pure waste of the public time.

It is with considerable pleasure that Ave have to notice that the Labour members have not taken any active part in the bad language and undignified squabbling there has been of late. They have shown an example of good behaviour and dignified conduct that older members, who are supposed to have the manners of the most polished society, might very well take a pattern by. It is difficult to say how much blame should be attributed to the Speaker for the disorganised condition into which the House has fallen. Every allowance must be made for his inexperience. But we fear he has not the natural genius for the Speakership possessed by his predecessor in the chair, Sir Maurice O'ftoi'ke, for the want of which no " reading up" of precedents can compensate.

On the whole, we would recommend the members to calm themselves down, and to stop the exchange of abusive epithets. In that way they will be enabled to get on with the business, and to finish a session which is not likely on the whole to be a satisfactory one. Such conduct as we have referred to certainly does not raise the House in the estimation of the public. The inevitable result, if members go on as they have been doing, will be that the public will conclude that it is a case of pot and kettle, and there will be no escape from the conclusion that each is. as black as his opponent makes him out to be. Members also ought not to be too " touchy." If a member i 3 called in the House "a servile follower of the Ministry he will not do himself much good by getting angry about it. The inference from that will rather be that he feels the sting. His constituents will form their opinion from his votes and speeches.