The N.Z. Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1905. TONE OF PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5669, 17 August 1905, Page 4

The N.Z. Times

(PUBLISHED DAILY). THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1905. TONE OF PARLIAMENT.

91VB WHICH 18 IMOORPORATHD VHE " WELMXSVQS tHDBPXMDffMT.” ESTABLISHED 1645,

Time was, and that not so very long ago, when New Zealanders were wont to boast of tho high’ character of their Legislature, as compared with the Parliaments of other countries, and especially of tho freedom from offensive personalities and disorderly scenes that characterised its proceedings. There was good ground for tho boast, and every lover of his country must have desired to sec maintained that standard of decorum and gentlemanly conduct befitting a deliberative assembly representing an advanced and .educated people. It is to be feared, however, that our Parliament has of Into entered upon tho down-grade in these matters; and the protest and warning uttered yesterday afternoon by the Premier aro well-timed, and fitted to cause serious reflection. ‘‘Onr public life,” said Mr Seddon, referring to some remarks made about Ministers’ travelling expenses, “Is being lowered, and to a groat extent degraded, by bringing np those personal matters.” He went on to say that, if this sort of thing continued, a condition of affairs would be reached in this country that has characterised Legislatures elsewhere, with disastrous results. There is full justification for these observations. An American gentleman now on a visit to this country has noted tho language recently used in the House of Representatives, about “petty defalcation,” “corruption,” and “fraudulent practices,” and has expressed his surprise at finding, in a Legislature with a high reputation for orderly debate, members using epithets which he declares to be as rude and objectionable as any that have ever been employed in the Congress of the United States. Even it wo allow the ordinary discount for national prejudice, there is in a statement of this kind sufficient to give pause to our Parliamentarians, and make them resolve to take whatever stops may be necessary to maintain a high level in the amenities of Parliamentary life. In the matter of administrative purity, the amount of money involved does not affect the principle; and dishonest or illegal practice is worthy of discussion; and wo certainly do not think any representative of the people should be discouraged in his attempts to sweep away abuses by the plea that he ought to look out for offences of peculiar enormity and never mind tho peccadilloes. Tho converse of the saying is true that ho who is faithful in little things will be faithful in great. By all means let every legitimate effort be made to secure clean administration, down to the smallest details; but the doing of this need not involve tho use of violent, exaggerated, and abusive language, on mere suspicion, or on tho flimsiest of evidence. The reformer who desires to do effective work must first of all be sure of his ground, and then he must he careful to use no stronger terms in characterising the abuse he has discovered than the facts of tho case warrant. It is because these rules are ignored that tho reputation of our Legislature is in danger of being sadly smirched. If men, for tho sake of a little cheap and transient popularity, indulge in sensation-mongering, describe perfectly legal actions as dishonest, characterise small irregularities as national crimes, and employ the strongest epithets in denouncing those responsible for such doings, and if all their vituperations are afterwards shown to have been quite unwarranted, how can they hope to arouse public attention or command popular confidence if they should at some future time be in the position of exposing real and grave improprieties that may have taken place? Onr plea, then, is for the cultivation of a deeper sense of responsibility by tho representatives of the people, for the placing of a curb upon unbridled licentiousness of Language, and for the avoidance of those tactics that tend to arouse personal feeling. It is, unhappily, only too obvious to those who

have closely watched the proceedings of Parliament this session that the aim of a number of members has been to get placed on record the harshest and most offensive expressions towards those from whom they happen differ on some public question. The Speaker has repeatedly had to exercise his authority to compel the withdrawal of violent epithets and unworthy imputations; and in too many cases the offenders have withdrawn with a palpable grudge, as shown by such remarks as—‘‘Well, I withdraw the statement, but I feel it all the same,” or “ I am sorry that Parliamentary rules will not permit of mo stating what I think” of the person or thing referred to. In a company of gentlemen such withdrawals would not ho accepted as in any sense apologetic or reparalory, and it would bo well if the Speaker of the House of lleprcsentatives were to insist in every case upon offending members submitting with proper grace to his disciplinary rulings. The hotter feelings and instincts of members would undoubtedly support the Speaker in any drastic measures ho might adopt to restrain the few who have almost reduced to a fine art the process of insulting and irritating their political opponents. It will be a sorry thing for New Zealand if the present lowering tendency is not checked : for, a.s tho Premier justly observed, the result will ho that the best men will cease to take part in the public business of the country. In that case tho danger is that the high functions of legislation and administration would tall into ibc hands of an unscrupulous or pachydermatous class—men devoid of high aspirations and fine feelings, who will hold office by virtue of their callousness to insult, or their superior power of vituperation. Let ns by all moans keep onr administration pure; but lot no ono deceive himself with tho thought that this desirable end is to bo attained by the use of offensive language, or by tho casting of undeserved aspersions upon public men and public servants.