Untitled

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18761, 15 January 1923, Page 4

“For the real performance of its duties as a great democratic representative assembly the House of Commons ought to look to the Chair and to the occupant of the Chair as the real symbols of its corporate and continuous identity.” Sr declared Mr Asquith on November 20 when congratulating Mr Whitley on his re-elec-tion as Speaker. Three days later some of the new members, including more than one of the “extremists of the Clyde,” appeared to make light of the customary courtesies of debate, as well as of the time-honoured obligation of adopting a respectful attitude towards the Chair; but it is not improbable that these lapses were due to the gaucherie incident to. a novitiate stage rather than to a studied disregard of the reasonable traditions of parliamentary life. Nothing could have been move unexceptionable than the remarks of Mr Clynes, whc at the time of the election of Speaker was still acting as leader of the Labour Party. In offering the Speaker an assurance of support in maintaining the authority of the Chair, he had (he said) the certainty that the members of his, party were unanimously with him. The dignity and power of the Chair would be-guarded by its occupant, but “it rests upon, members, it occasion should arise, to join with the Chair in maintaining and in asserting its authority ; and so far as we are able to do that we shall be happy to join with every other party, and -with any other group, in the House in maintaining tho authority of the Chair, without which it is impossible for the great traditions of this great and ancient institution to bo carried on.” In another of Mr Clynes’s remarks there appears to have been b hint of resentment of the notion that Labour representatives wore disposed to underrate the obligation of orderly behaviour. It is likely enough that both ir. the new House of Commons and in our own new House of Representatives the considerable increase in the number of Labour members will tend to enhance the vigour and perhaps tho unconventional liveliness of debate; but there is no ground for anticipating- a deterioration in essential manners.

Years have brought much of the philosophic mind to that now mellowed veteran of parliamentary combat, Mr T. P. O’Connor. Ho iu now “Father” of the House of Commons, and as he meditates upon his paternal position, with its quality of popular acceptability, he may well be haunted by ghostly memories of days when, so far from being a eolitary and pacific

relict of a memorable political phalanx, he was always t& be found in the thick of the battle. To this distinguished parliamentary survivor of the Irish Nationalist Party, with an'appropriateness which had a spice of piquancy, was entrusted the task of proposing the re-election of Mr Whitley as Speaker. He was in a happy vein, and his speech felicitously illustrated the good humour and wise philosophy to lie alluded in indicating the qualities necessary or desirable in the occupant of the Chair of the Mother of Parliaments, and, indeed, we might say, of all important deliberative assemblies.

fie must have humour, and good humour. Good humour is a great quality of the British people, whose wise philosophy is to take all things seriously, but never tragically. The House of Commons requires a Speaker with some humour, because sometimes it is subject to gusts of passion. Sometimes it is likq a boys’ school, and sometimes like a girls’ school—(laughter)—but it can always be brought back to self-control by a kindly appeal to its always present sense of humour. I have seen many evasions when even passions almogt tragic in their intensity have been brought loack to reason by a timely word of humour from the Chair,

In the bygone days to which we have alluded “Tay Pay” had occasional misunderstandings, so to say, with Mr Speaker Brand and Mr Speaker Peel, and perhaps his love of the House’s slightest laws and accessories is a flower of late growth.

Young members who desire to study the history and lessons of the House oi Commons have only to look around. The smallest rules, and the most modest piece of furniture,‘ha\-e their lesson. The Tula lyhich forbids a member to put his two feet beyond a certain point on the rug on the floor recalls the Knights of the Shires, who came to his House dangling their swords. The portcullis at the ooor marks the successful struggle of the House for liberty; and the man mujt be dull of imagination and cold of heart who does not realise the greatness of its heritage through all the centuries. A whisper in this House is carried across land and sea tp the farthest ( corner of this worldwide Empire. A word of this House can bring millions of armed men to fight for the security and liberties of the Empire.

Altogether a sage and pleasant speech, indicative of fine and lovable qualities of mind and heart. •

The action of the film censor in the Old Country in excising from a picture version of “Oliver Twist” the scene in which Fagin instructs OJjver in the genteel art of pocket-picking has naturally upset »ha Dickens Fellowship, and has brought out, it is pleasing to note; so weighty, a champion as Mr G. K. Chesterton in scathi protest. Mr Bernard Shaw also contributes to the discussion, but his observations seem to be somewhat cryptic. The censor’s scruples will arise, of course, from his deep regard for the morals of the young people who were likely to witness the picture. But it would seem to be a logical argument that if this amusing scene in "Oliver Twist” is not fit to be filmed, the very book itself is open to suspicion, and on no account to be placed in the way of young people,. Such a reflection upon the masterpiece, with its outstanding moral, that gives us Bumble, the Artful Dodger, Sikes, and the wicked old Jew, is of course intolerable. Reverting to the tale itself, it will be remembered that one morning, after breakfast, the innocent and unsuspecting Oliver is edited by a very amusing and thrilling game in which “the merry old gentleman,” the Dodger, and Charley Bates take part, for his and their own delectation. Subsequently, when the other boys have departed, there ensues this pretty little scene;.“Is my handkerchief hanging out of my pocket, my dear?” said the Jew, stopping short. ....... “Yes, .sir!” said Oliver.

“See if you can take it out without my feeling it, as you saw them do when wo were at play this morning.” Oliver held up the bottom of the pocket with one hand, os he had seen the Dodger hold it, and drew the handkerchief lightly out of it into the other. “Is it gone?” cried the Jew. “Here'it is, sir!” said Oliver, showing it in his hand.

' “You’re a clever lad, my dear,” said the playful old gentleman, patting Oliver on the bead approvingly. “I never saw a sharper lad. Here’s a shilling for you. If you go on in this way you II be the greatest man of the time.”