DISRAELI AND GLADSTONE AS LEADERS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1746, 23 August 1905, Page 73

DISRAELI AND GLADSTONE AS LEADERS.

\ (The “Outlook.”)

It was strong evidence of the present indifference on the part of the public to the House of Commons that even, its late achievement, in the art ot- brawling" excited but a, tepid interest. Few people rose to indignation about it. were content with a word of bored contempt or a reflection on ‘the psychology of crowds. Poor House of Commons ! Even when it barks no one listens. Whether this obscuration be only temporary or

marks definitely a. change in the balance of our institutions, there can be ho question that the House is under a cloud of indifference at present. Mr Lucy, therefore, who presents us with a fresh batch of stories and observations about, it, set himself a hard task if he proposed to writ© a popular‘'book. / It Would be natural if h v himself were hardly conscious of the change, since for soma ny years he observed the House of Commons when, the eyes of the nation were fixed oil if. As a matter of fact; he was quite aware of the change and has a precise reason to give for it. .“It is impossible,”’ lie says, “(to. overrate the declension of interest in the proceedings of the House, of Commons consequent on the withdrawal, first of Mr Disraeli, then, long after, of Mr Gladstone,” and he goes on to speak of the constant attendance of those, two leaders, in addition to* their personal greatness, as giving an impetus to the debates. That, no- doubt, is true so far as it goes,, 'but we may look a little further. Mr Disraeli and Mr Gladstone entered the House when its prestige and power were very high, and they never lost the idea of its consummate importance. Their own authority in it was very dear to- them. No such overpowering association has impeded the criticism of the present Prime Minister’s peculiarly analytical intelligence. However false be the charge against him of intentionally flaunting the House of Commons, an observer cannot but feel that he is more conscious of its waste of time and obstruction to the real business of government than of its dignity. But it is not fair to regard this difference of attitude as a voluntary or wilful, desire to diminish the authority of the House. The cause is rather the other way. It is true, however, to say that Mir Disraeli, Mr Gladstone, and—in an even intenser degree, since his activities were the more restricted—Sir William Harcourt were above all Parliamentary men, and that no- important politician at present isi that. Mr Chamber lain has professed with perfect sincerity his sense of the dignity of the House and his reverence for its great tradition, but his greatest triumphs lie outside, all the same. There are interesting personalities in the House to-day —not many, perhaps, but some. —only it is not in the House that their significance is most felt. Mr Disraeli and Mr Gladstone were more fascinating figures than any of them, to* ho sure, but in regard to House of Commons anecdotes the point of departure is not the same.