THE WISE MEN OF WELLINGTON.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11783, 12 October 1901, Page 1 (Supplement)

THE WISE MEN OF WELLINGTON.

[BY TOnUNOA.]

Early in November a terrible blow will fall upon this »long-suffering country. Parliament will adjourn.

We shall no longer be cheered o' morning by the words of wisdom that fall from the lips of our seventy sages. The political manna now provided for us daily will cease as completely as though we had already eaten the new bread of another political dispensation. It is true that the sun will still rise as early as possible and the stars still shine, when the clouds let them, but the glory will have departed from Wellington, and we shall be reduced to our normal condition of government by telegraph.

This is a serious matter and one which demands an effort. All the thrilling phrases which leap to the lips of the born orator and bum the pen of the ready writer must be marshalled in order to arouse the public to a sense of the danger of letting Parliament prorogue. On an occasion like this we must show the old " united front" and stand " shoulder to shoulder." We must remember that it " behoves" good old platform word " behove"to " rise as; one man" and to let the Government know that " we, the people of the colony," have got " our eye upon them." We' must have a measure passed at once making the sittings of Parliament as perpetual as an incubator's and securing to us this safeguard of our liberties, this bulwark of ou. progress. The French saved their Nationfor at least a week— making the sitting of their famous Convention perpetual, eternal, and everlasting. We can do the same and, really, we need saving badly. There was one sad time when modern England had no Parliament, when the Huntingdon brewer cleared away the "bauble" and trusted to God to deliver him from Sir Harry Vane. What deadly and terrible times those were! There was actually religious liberty in England, and a man could think as he would. Oliver Mas such a tyrant that the very pirates were afraid of him, and the Duke of Savoy didn't dare burn Protestants when he heard that Oliver objected, and foreign kings looked unhappy at the very name of Englishman; and Charles the" Second was such a.kindly fellow that he couldn't be cross with anybody, not even with the Covenanter-hunters of Scotland or with the Dutch when they sailed up the Thames or with the French woman whom Louis sent over to twist him round her little finger. Oliver drove the Parliament out, the wicked man : and Parliament brought the King back, dear devoted patriots. And unless our Parliament sits regularly we shall have a Cromwell growing up in New Zealand, and what will our politicians do then, poor things.

Joking apart, one of the modern mysteries is why a practical and sensible people like the Anglo-Saxons continue to tolerate the talky-ta.lky of Parliaments. There must be reason in it, for the shrewd Saxon never does anything and never allows anything to continue unless it has a practical value. He snaps his fingers at theories. He is only unhappily doubtful when you corner him as a philosopher attempting to deal with politics. There never yet was a really successful British philosopher who came down from the clouds and tried to tread solid earth— always end by denying themselves. For the gulf between the seeming and the real, the theoretic and the practical, the ideal and the possible, is so great that the world belongs to the people who will tolerate and even' encourage the dreamer but never go out of their depths in accepting him. Every Britisher is a free-trader, excepting when he wants to corner a market. Then his backslidings must make the ghost of Cobden moan. And we are all land-nationalisers, when the native does the landowning, but wo all grip tight on the land titles that happen to come our way. As for woman's rights—ladies and gentleman ! does any sensible person really doubt that the world is ruled by the strongest and ablest? The Anglo-Saxon will give his womenkind votes, because he knows that he does not thereby give his bigger body and bigger brain. But, being practical, why on earth do we tolerate Parliaments? They must have a use, but what and where is it?

Before you could buy a'morning paper for " tuppence " Parliaments—literally " talk-ing-shops"were very necessary. The wise men met together to talk—in the "Witanegemote"—and they had their work cut out to post one another in the affairs of the country, and had no other way of forming an opinion as to whether the King was toeing the line. But now ! Why, the up-coun-try shepherd who reads his Weekly News with diligence knows more of what is happening in Wellington itself, much less m the country at large, than any non-newspaper-reading member of Parliament, were such a curiosity possible. Our members know all that is to be known, through the press, long before they pretend to discuss measures on the floor. Their discussions and debates are mere empty farcesall opinions being made up beforehand or modified in the lobbies but still they are kept up through that instinctive desire to justify existence which makes a toddler look cheerful when there are lollies about-

No Parliamentary opinions are now altered by debates and discussions. This is a truism. Members talk to their constituents, but they only talk at one another. They waste time in meaningless reiterations, and naturally fall into bad habits. Satan finds work for idle tongues as well ••is for idle hands, and from the snarling, wrangling, and jangling which increasingly marks Legislative Assemblies there is evidently plenty of idling in connection with them. Possibly Parliament is a barometer of the political temperature of the public— It is certainly an expensive and complicated barometer, one of the luxuries of civilisation.

The enthusiastic Parliamentarian who takes up the national time to inquire if the Minister for Railways bus considered the advisability of putting a lamp over the s;deentrance to the Manukau railway station at least takes himself seriously. As a factory shareholder he would leave the question of providing a lantern for the night-watchman to the manager, but factory shareholders' meetings are* conducted on business principles, and the attenders have no time to waste on trivialities. It is different with the national business. Or perhaps these trivialities enable Parliament to put in its interminable mouths without, passing too many measures. Imagine the mountain of statutebooks which would be piled up in four months by a Parliament that rolled up its sleeves and attended strictly to business. The very thought is paralysing. If we must have long-drawn-out sessions by all means let the time be wasted in bueketfuls. It is the least of two evils ; very much the least. But all this does not explain why we retain out talking Parliaments. Why do we? With all respect to the members generally, it must be admitted that Parliaments no longer otter great attractions to the most prominent and representative citizens. It is increasingly difficult to get good men to accept candidature. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see any particular difference between the average candidate. Large numbers of c'tizens keep away from the polls altogether. To take a keen and active interest in party politics is becoming more and more anti ; quated. Is this good or bad? The conservative instinct which is every normal man's heart laments it, but then we art; an extremely practical people, and evidently think that we jog along fairly comfortably anyway. .As Lord Melbourne unfailingly remarked during the stormiest years of British politics, uc method really matters much. So long as the public is able to assert itself on occasion it seems cheerfully indifferent to the details of governance. Fifty years age we made a little tin god of the ballot-box. It was to cure all political ills. But really it was only changing our political clothes, the old suit having become sadly outgrown, and giving everywhere, at the seams and buttons. It was thought ve should get rid of the Monarchy, abolish the Lords, and secure Paradise through the representative chamber. Imagine anybody today quoting the representative chamber as

an ideal bodv! We shall keep it, d com. s, for it has its uses, and we must have some sort of machinery to make laws some* nan congenial to the public taste. But we already hear of patent patches, warranted to mend those parts of our grandfather's political pants which did not prove everlasting. We are to have referendums. elected executives, all soils of things. These proposals keep us busy, and enable the machinery of State to pound away uninterruptedly. Our national practicability probably comes m when we allow no changes to interfere with the policeman, and usually hesitate to consider as final anything which interferes With our necessary freedoms. . . When we really come down to realities our political safety depends upon our stolid, distrust of individuals, as incapable of auto-' cratic; control, and upon our equally sti no confidence that all ordinary individuals can safely be ordinarily trusted. We have i if-d our King with golden fetters and reverential formulas until he is no more than the recognised rallying point of the swarming British hive. We have balanced the hereditary, or the nominee, against the elected until the two get into a hopeless knot whenever they gettar out of the beaten track. We keep a watchful eye on the policeman, and lend a ready ear to complaints against those in authority ; but M - e back the policeman just the same, and submit to authority as a matter of form—when it does not push us too hard. Then we push back, and finally compromise. Compromise with whom? Who knows? "Wo just compromise with somebody, with the vague other fellow, and things go on smoothly until the next time. * But, really, this endless talking of Parliament is pushing our forbearance too hard. There is nothing romantic in it. as there is in the glitter of the monarchy ; nothing sedate in it. as there is in the gravity of a historic hereditary chamber. We could get more ardent exchange of personalities in a police court report, more eloquent speeches in a country debating class. A compromise is certainly needed single, month's session yearly, no talky-talky allowed, would about fill the bill. Would this prevent us still remaining free and self-governing Britons?