SPIRIT of the PRESS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 705, 4 September 1885, Page 17

SPIRIT of the PRESS.

Why is it, we wonder, that our great Parliamentary debates are always so /dreadfully dreary and disappointing nowadays? It is not an accurate explanation to assert that the debating power of our House of [Representatives has fallen off. So far from this being the case, its average debating capacity has distinctly improved. The lights of other days have faded, it is true, and we have perhaps no Parliamentary orator of the present day fully equal to Mr James Edward Fitz Gerald, as he used to be in days gone by, or to Mr [Reader Wood, as he was but a few sessions ago, before his remarkable dramatic and rhetorical powers were unfortunately lost to the House. On the other hand, we have never had any public speaker in Hew Zealand who could greatly surpass Sir G-eorge Grey when he is at his best. But unluckily he has seldom been heard at his best of late. Then, again, Major Atkinson is a singularly able and slashing debater, a master of attack, and a peculiarly incisive and effective speaker when at his best. But he, too, has persistently fallen short of his own standard this session. So have Sir Julius Vogel, Mr Ormond, Mr Wakefield, and other speakers from whom the House generally looks for “ something good.” Mr|Stout and Mr Ballance have, en revanche, been almost invariably in excellent form; they have nearly always spoken well and debated efficiently. Mr Pyke, too, has seldom been happier or more tellingly humorous than this year, and in Messrs Scobie Mackenzie, Fisher, Buekland, Guinness, and others, the Bower House has gained distinct acquisitions to its debating capacity. And yet the debates are so dull and dismal ! That of last night week was no exception to the rule. Unless, indeed, it was the exception which proved the rule, by being exceptionally tiresome and tedious. It proved, in fact, a melancholy disappointment to the very large audience that had assembled to listen to it. Seldom has a fuller house been seen than at the opening last evening. All the galleries were simply packed to suffocation. But the House steadily thinned down as the evening wore on and one dismal funeral oration followed another. In our judgment Major Atkinson committed a grave indiscretion in tactics when t he decided to move his resolutions seriatim. By doing so he weakened their force, not only individually, but also in the aggregate. Collectively the six resolutions did undoubtedly traverse the Ministerial policy very thoroughly, and, if carried, could hardly fail to force either the resignation of the Government or an appeal to the country. But taken in detail their force seemed to evaporate. We do not see why, pursuing the rule which has guided their line of action hitherto, Ministers should not accept a defeat on each of the resolutions separately and consent to carry out the expressed wishes of the House. Each resolution simply proposed an amendment to a specific fragment of the Ministerial policy. The Government, if the resolutions were carried successively, might say:—“Very well, gentlemen, we will endeavour to reduce our Public Works expenditure to a million, and our general Estimates by L 30,000; we will not float another loan this year ; we will not go on with the East and West Coast [Railway and the North Island Trunk Bine ‘at present,’ as you have expressed your wish to that effect.” Such has been the practice of the Government on many previous occasions this session, and they might just as well do the same thing once more. Most likely it was the subsequent perception of this weak point in the position taken up by tne attacking party that deprived Major Atkinson’s onslaught of its accustomed fire and effectiveness. He seemed to be “ fighting in handcuffs ” through the obligation which virtually rested upon him to confine his subjectmatter to that of the specific resolution he was moving, an obligation not always strictly respected. Mr Stout’s reply was a fair piece of forensic special pleading, marred by the very weak and illogical references to the “ Continuous Ministry,” allusions which sounded peculiarly absurd out of his mouth, seeing that the present Government is in strictness the real old “Continuous Ministry” revived, as we pointed out recently, for its founder and Treasurer and Public Works Minister are those of the

former “ Continuous Ministry,” and Sir Julius Vogel, who formed both Administrations, actually claimed the name for his Ministry as a compliment. So Mr Stout only makes himself ridiculous when, he talks about “ the Continuous Ministry’s anxiety to get back to power,” because if there be any Continuous Ministry at all it must certainly be that now sitting on the Treasury Benches, by virtue of its including Sir Julius Vogel and Mr Richardson, who were longer members of the former Ministry than any of Major Atkinson’s late colleagues. Surely this very undignified bandying of nicknames might now be dispensed with. It is unworthy of Mr Stout’s ability or position. We cordially admired his loyal championship of his colleague, the Treasurer. That was both manly and honourable, none the less so because of the difficulty of the task. But if the debate itself was wearisome and vapid, the latter part of the evening’s—or rather the morning’s—proceedings were sufficiently sensational and exciting. Major Atkinson’s first resolution was lost by a large majority. Mr Macandrew’s amendment thenbecame the substantive motion,but only to be immediately met by another amendment moved by Mr Pyke, embodying a sweeping condemnation of the Ministerial policy. This, in its turn, was negatived, but only by the narrow majority of four. A direct vote of want-of-confidence was then moved *by Mr Hislop, and the Government were only saved from defeat through a motion for adjournment being carried at 5 minutes to 3 on Friday morning by the casting vote of the Speaker, amid a scene of extraordinary excitement and uproar.