MR SCOBIE MACKENZIE ON PARTY GOVERNMENT,

Otago Witness, Issue 1989, 7 April 1892, Page 26

MR SCOBIE MACKENZIE ON PARTY GOVERNMENT,

On Friday night Mr Scobie Mackenzie delivered at Middlemarch a lecture on "Party Government and Party Leaders." He selected the subject, he said, because of late our system of Party Government had been subjected , to a good deal of hostile criticism, which" appeared to him to be of [a rather superficial , character. Last session a Parliamentary Com- ! mittee reported on the subject — or rather its chairman, Mr Eugene O'Conor reported, for he suspected the others had not much to do j with it — very adversely to party. Then a friend of his, Mr Melland, of Dunedin, had written a plausible and ingenious pamphlet against Party Government ; and in a desultory fashion the newspapers had devoted some articles to the subject, for the most part condemning party. On the other hand no one came out in defence, which Was a significant fact — significant that was of the strength and security of party as an indispensable element in our Constitution. They might depend upon it that when a system in full operation was sharply attacked, and no one took the trouble to say a word for it, it was a prodigiously secure system. He was himself treatiug the subject more as an abstract question for discussion than as an operative system in any danger."

No doubt they would be disposed to ask him to be candid and tell them whether the party system had not many objectionable features — many grave defects. In the first instance he would answer them, Scotch fashion, with another question — Was there any political or other system known to humanity that had not ? Take, for instance, our monarchical system. He was not himself an admirer of it ; but it was evidently a good system, since it was compatible with the most perfect individual freedom and security, with the fullest national development and prosperity. Yet there were grave objections to it. It was surely a grave defect that it might seat upon the throne of a great empire a fool, a sot, or a bigot — the very last *man, perhaps, that ought to be there. And, accustomed as we were to it, it was at least odd that it should seat a woman there — however good and sensible — and permit that woman, as m 1837, to be little more than a bread and butter Miss. On the other hand, under the republican system there is the fear of ambition, the brawling, the expense, and the corruption of the presidential election, and the sad fact that the best man never by any chance fills the position. In America Washington was doubtless an exception ; but that was before the evils of the system could begin to operate. Then there was our system of administering justice. It is a noble system, and might well be the envy of the world. But it was appalling to think that every now and then it condemned a perfectly innocent man to be hanged ; and permitted the most deadly oriminals to escape. It was awful to think that at this present moment there were no doubt innocent people suffering long and dreary sentences, separated from home and family, deprived of freedom, and doomed for ever to the sense of degradation and inferiority. Then there was our electoral system. It had given the lead to the world, but it had some distressing defects. It was very objectionable that some 501 persons should be permitted to return to Parliament a member to whom 500 persons in the same district were in deadly opposition. He need not say anything about systems of taxation. No system had ever been discovered which did not work injustice in detail, and probably never would. It was to be borne in mind therefore that to point out defects, oven very grave defects, in the party system was merely to say that it was a human system and not perfect. The whole question was whether, after striking a balance between the good and the evil, the good preponderated. It would be easy to show that it

did, and that very largely. It was Well, too, to remember that the universal tendency of the human mind was to exaggerate existing evils — those that constantly irritated us by being seen, and to ignore or underrate those not in operation.

He would now come to the real and alleged evils of party government. Mr Mellancl had given a very good and terse summary of them. Practically the charges amounted to this : That the system breeds rancour, hatred, and exaggeration ; that it lives in an element of conflict ; that it wastes a prodigious amount of time and money in unnecessary and irrelevant discussions ; that it renders a Government insecure, and therefore weak ; that it compels them to seek strength by corruption ; and that it neccessarily keeps one-half of the very best men out of office. Now, it is clear there must be a vast deal to be said on the other side of the question. All the great authorities are unequivocal admirers of party government. Edmund Burke, who was 100 years ahead of his time, and whose works are now a perfect storehouse of political wisdom, has bestowed a magnificent panegyric upon it. Macaulay shows that party has won us our liberties, and has relieved us of desperate evils that existed before party had fully developed itself. The Puritans were our first English Party, and they were driven into solidity to fight the vile prerogatives claimed by our kings. Bolingbroke, living in a corrupt age, declared that but for party, national interests would be constantly subordinated to personal interests. Peel, Palmerston, Earl Russell, Disraeli, and Gladstone were great believers in it. " Who can fail," asks Sir Erskine May at the close of a chapter of his Constitutional History, " to recognise in Party the very life blood of freedom ?" The late Mr Bagehot, the acutesfc critio of the Constitution we ever had, declares that party is "of the essence of an elective assembly, bone of its bone, and flesh of its flesh." Professor Bryce in his book on the American Constitution everywhere shows his belief in the efficacy of party. All these authorities, and scores of others that I could mention who saw the inner working of the system, the "very pulse of the machine," are not to be thrown aside by onlookers who get disgusted because they see a wrangle going on in Parliament, and conclude that if there were no party there would be no wrangles. Then it was to be borne in mind that party was a thing of growth and development. It was the result of the slow adaptation of means to an end. The system which has grown is always of necessity better than that which is made. It is so easy to strike out a taking constitution on paper, but, as someone tersely remarked, "the devil of it is to make it work." At the time of the French Revolution the Abbe Sieyes used to have a dozen of them in his pocket, but they would not work. They were to remember, therefore, that the system of party is the result of slow development, the outcome of long and painful experience, and was not to be lightly thrown aside, even if we could throw it aside when we choso.

He (Mr Mackenzie) threw in that last qualification because we can't get rid of party. It is there in spite of vs — that is so long as we prefer freedom and Government to tyranny and anarchy. For Government by majorities is Government by party. It is not that the two are essential to one another, but that the two are one. A majority is a party, which is immediately confronted with another party in the shape of a minority. Divide the room, for instance, on a particular subject, on the understanding that the majority must rule, and they would very soon find .parties in existence. So that to kill party .you must kill the rule of the majority — our system of Government. A doctor could easily kill a disease by killing the patient, but one could not call it a successful operation. But he would now come to details. Party we were told wasted a great deal of precious time and therefore a great deal of money. Look at those vile want-of-confidence motions. Are they not demoralising some one will say P And then the thoughtless onlooker adds in a passion — " Why don't they cease brawling and get to work ?" He had always noticed that the time of persons who talked in that fashion was not very valuable. For the brawling was the work. In the conflict of opposing opinions we got at the truth. It was the only way known to us. Opposing statements coming into violent conflict produced a sort of combustion the product of which was truth. Take pur courts of justice now. Fancy a judge saying to counsel, "I'm going to have no moie brawling, no more conflict of testimonj in this court. I want a quiet, unvarnished statement of the truth from one man." Supposing they were suitors with a case affecting their life, liberty, or other interest, — how would they like that sort of thing ? What would a man say? He would say — "Let the other man do bis worst, say all he has to say, and I'll give my story ; then judge between us." It is the.same in politics. The country is the judge, the two parties say their say, and the country decides which should have its condence. Of course some will be foolish and long-winded in their talk. But is it party that does that ? Try the experiment ; meet a man by himself in the street and let him tell bis story just to see how he proses and rambles. An impatient party on the other side would probably cut him short rather than add to his prolixity. Party or no party, you cannot prevent a man being either a fool or a bore.

But the much-despised want-of-confidence motion did something more than get at the truth. It forced it on the people, it educated them. That was strange, perhaps, but it was curiously true. The normal tendency of the mass of people was to be apathetic. No matter how vicious or corrupt a Government might be, so long as the corruption did not touch the individual pocket they desired to be let alone. The press were always writing good sound articles, but people took little notice of them. A man makes a speech, and it has no great effect. A parliamentary union composed of the very best men meets to discuss some important political subject, but no one paj'S the smallest attention. Why is that H It is because therej is no action at the end of it, no result. The human mind gets impatient of talk that leads to nothing. But the overthrow of a Government is a big thing. People are interested and excited. They inquire what it is all about. They read up and form au opinion : their faculties are stimulated into activity, in short. It would cause them some trouble to find any other process that would do it as well.

It was really amusing, to bear, people talk of the expense of the party system. As a matter of fact it was a prodigious guarantee of economy. Leave a Governmeut without au Opposition, or with a weak Opposition, for a month or two, and see how they would send the money flying. Think of all the billets that would be provided for relatives, and friends, and constituents. It is human nature. Could they suggest any system that would provide for such sleepless watch over an Administration as au Opposition does? How they pry into everything and ferret out everything, ask information about this and demand papers about that ! A strong Opposition makes a Government pause at every step to think whether it is

a perfectly justifiable step. It has constantly to ask itself the question, What will the Opposition make of this ? Suppose they, instead of a "brawlinj" Opposition, were to select 20 men, all of the standing of Supreme Court judges, and were to pay them L2OOO a year, do they suppose they would do the work of watching and criticising the administration one-twentieth part as well. Not a bit of it. They would go to their offices at stated times and keep their clerks writing letters, but the Government might safely be trusted to double upon thorn. So that you see the mere fighting over the ins and outs is far from being a bad thing. Nor is it a mere mercenary business. Everyone can't expect to become a Minister, and the man who has a big inc6me of his own is just as anxious to get the position as he who has nothing. Party system was the finest weapon known to humanity for compelling purity, caution, and economy. Woe botidethe country whose Opposition got weak or disorganised. The safeguard then was" that the Government, having no checks upon it, and no stimulus to economy or care, in time.came down under the burden of its own iniquities. But party was a safeguard against individual corruption. Here was where outside critics made such a ridiculous mistake. It was the " railsitter" and the free lance that Governments made for with offers of roads and bridges, and baits of all sorts of different kinds. There was no check on > such men. But when a man corruptly fell out of a party he had a terrible time of it. The government who had won him would naturally despise him ; his own party would not spare him. The man's life might be made a burden to him. He could assure them that tho most lax of men thought twice before they left a party for other than conscientious reasons.

But they were told party bred rancour and hatred. It' certainly does lead people to say very bitter and unwarrantable things of one another. Dan O'Connell told Sir Robert Peel (who was a very grave, austere man) that his smile was "like a silver plate on a coffin." Disraeli denounced his Governmeut as " an organised hypocrisy." He likened the Government bench, to "a row of extinct volcanoes." Perhaps^ the bitterness of the language js redeemed by the wit. Sometimes you get all' the bitterness, the abuse without' • the wit. It ia bad, of course, but it really does not depend on party. There is no reason why a man should not be keen and.effectiye without being abusive. But abuse goes on outside Parliament ; yet we would not abolish differences of opinion on that account. It is a trite remark that good men rise in nobility of character by being subjected to unmerited abuse. If the men are bad a little abuse within the bounds of decorum will do them no harm.

Well, then, it was said party kept one-half the best men out of office. And a good thing, too, he (Mr Mackenzie) thought. If an Oppo» sition performed -so important a function, surely itrequired good men at the head of it. Governments " of all the talents," like that of Lord Aberdeen^ for instance, rarely last. Too many strong individualities breed dissension, and the talent which is running to waste in the Government would be better utilised in Opposition. Then it does people good to be in Opposition. Adversity always does ; it is grand training for prosperity. Continual success in politics is as corrupting as continual success in any other walk of life. But the opponents of party have a curious | way of getting out of their difficulty. They say "Wje don't want to abolish parties ; we only want to abolish it in the Government." It was a very ridiculous' position to take up. If the majority is to rule outside Parliament, the representatives of that .majority must rule inside. A Government could not possibly be the stronger because it did not agree among its own members. If a 'fight in the House is bad a fight in the Government is infinitely worse. , Then the opponents of party evidently think they are suggesting something new when they say, " Let the Government be composed of all sorts." The fact was, that our system only became pure and even tolerable when we stumbled into the principles of Ministerial unity.,and mutual responsibility. It is really only ;.perhaps 160 years old, though the constitution had been moving that way since the revolution of 1688. In the time of William lUt party government had not fully developed, and he was in despair at the dissensions and bickerings of his Cabinet. His letters show a woeful state of affairs,. It was the fact that George I could not talk English, and therefore could not interfere, that gave the constitution full swing for development and perfected the party system. It was in operation at the time of George 111, and he never ceased to fight against it. His groat aim was to destroy the power .of the Whigs by mixing his Cabinet as much as possible. The result was that he predominated over his Cabinets all his life, much to our inisfortuiie. All history teaches that the more united a Cabinet is in association, thought, and opinion the stronger it will bo. Who would go back to the old days now ? To abolish party in tha ' Government is not to develop a new idea, but to revert to something we have long left behind — a vicious system which we outgrew and left behind us. But tho climax of absurdity is reached when the opponents of party tell us how they propose to set to work to abolish it. The pamphleteer already mentioned says a strong party must form for the purpose. You must form a party to abolish party ! — surely a very naive admission that without party you can do nothing. It would bo found that the opponent of party government, with all its want-of-confidences and its changes of Government, were either opposing in ignorance of the facts, or from a distrust of tho people, which was the mark of the narrowest Toryism. Why should a people be deprived of the right of instantaneously removing a Government in whom they had lost confidence ? It was a right they should take care to stick to. More than that, the power to do so was a magnificent safeguard against disturbance. It provided a bloodless sacrifice to an offended people. It was the flexibility of the English system that was so much admired by intelligent foreigners. . Take a Government like that of Lord Aberdeen, for instance. It contained all the ablest men of the day. It nevertheless allowed itself to be driven into the Crimean war, which was popular enough at first. But the war became disastrous ; the leadership was hopeless ; the troops had neither food nor clothing, and were dying of disease in thousands. A change came over the people ; their fury rose to a dangerous height. They must have a sacrifice or break into rebellion. A simple no-confidence vote does it all. The Government is defeated and retires. The people satisfied with the sacrifice, and the tumult subsides. The system is a grand one, but it is only auiiable to a free people. They had better take care not to allow false or ignorant teachers to destroy their pride in a system that maintains more real freedom than any other system in tho wide world. - Mr Mackenzie" then dealt with the question of party leaders, analysing the characters of the leaders of the present century and the qualities that contributed to their eminence.