“DE MORTUIS.”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20451, 4 July 1928, Page 6

“DE MORTUIS.”

Both Houses of Parliament were occupied yesterday afternoon with obsequial observances which have no parallel in the proceedings of any other Parliament in the Empire. The death of a statesman who has occupied the most exalted office and has remained a member of Parliament until the actual time of his death may form the special occasion for the passage of resolutions in the Houses of Lords and Commons appropriately expressive of a sense of national loss, but it is only in the most exceptional cases that a procedure of this nature is followed. But it is not considered necessary, even in such instances and even when the death occurs during the currency of a session, that there should be, as custom has ordained in New Zealand, an adjournment of Parliament as a mark of respect to the memory of the statesman whose public services are recognised in the resolutions. The practice in the Parliaments of the Empire generally conforms to the practice in the Mother of Parliaments. When Mr Pratten died in Australia a few weeks ago, both branches of the Commonwealth Legislature, being then in session, marked their respect for him by adjourning. On the death being reported of Senator Grant a few weeks later the House of Representatives suspended its sitting until the evening. A distinction was thus made between a Minister of the Crown and a private member of Parliament. There would,'however, be no obituary resolution and no adjournment in the case of the death of a former member of Parliament. The practice in New Zealand has gone to lengths that do not seem necessary. It is certainly fitting that Parliament should record its sense of regret concerning the death of. one of its own members during the currency of a session, and where the death is that of a member of the Government or of a past Government or of the leader of a party an adjournment of the Houses for a day may constitute a proper expression of respect for the departed. But the existence of any necessity for the observance of similar rites in the case of members who have died during the recess is not apparent. And when the observance is extended to include expressions of regret concerning the death, and marks of respect to the memory, of ex-members, who may have occupied their seats in Parliament many years ago, possibly for very short terms, the practice is reduced to the level of a pure formality. One of the resolutions that was carried yesterday recorded, in conventional terms, the “ high sense ” of Parliament of “ the faithful service ” rendered by a gentleman who occupied a seat in the Lower House for two sessions nearly fifty years ago and whose contemporaries did not include a single member of either House of Parliament at the present time. The competence of the Parliament that is now m session to appraise his services to the country must be somewhat questionable. A more serious objection to the practice that is adopted consists in the fact that a discrimination, doubtless unintentional but none the less actual, is made between the past members of Parliament whose services are recognised in the memorial resolutions at the opening of each session. Last year the death during the recess of an exmember of the Upper House was overlooked. This omission was belatedly repaired yesterday, but, while the resolutions that were then passed acknowledged the services of eight members and ex-members of Parliament, the death of a former member of the Lower House was disregarded. This would be simply inexcusable were it not that it may be attributed to a faulty system in some public office of recording the deaths of former members, The fact, however, that mistakes of this character have been made and are liable to be made strongly reinforces the argument for the abandonment of a practice which, as we have said, is not observed in any other Parliament in the Empire,