TRAPS FOR YOUNG M.P's.

Otago Witness, Issue 2409, 3 May 1900, Page 65

TRAPS FOR YOUNG M.P's.

SHOWING HOW THEY ARE OFTEN

CAUGHT NAPPING.

The first great trial of the budding M.P.'s nerves arrives with his first introduction to the Hoxrse of Commons. If he comes in for the first time at a general election, he gets off easily enough. At such times the entire House is sworn in by fours and fives, and the ceremonial attendant upon the solemn " I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance io her Majesty Queen Victoria," is robbed of much of its dignity and impressiveness by the very immenseness of tbe operation.

But 'suppose that, on the other hand, our budding Disraeli has come in at whab is known as a by-election. Ho will not readily forget his experience. In the first place, he must be introduced by two friendly members, who must •be prepared to swear to his " identity." The eventful evening arrived, he finds himself relegated to a back seat at the far end of the Hou c :e. Here he sits and vainly endeavours .to appear unconcerned whilst the stereotyped round of members' questions and Ministers' replies is proceeded with.

Then ensues an ominous pause, during which 6GO pairs of eyes are turned upon the shivering mortal who is to afford the next item 'upon tlie bill. Simultaneously, the impressive accents of the Speaker are heard somewhat vaguely inviting ''members" desirous to take their seats to come "to the table of the House, in order to be sworn in.

More like a criminal going to execution than the proud man he imagined himself but a few hours previously, the oath-taker steps down that historic aisle between his two introducers. After bdwing thrice (nine bows in all), they arrive at the table, where his friends promptly desert him. Then he realises, often for the first time in his life, what an insignificant thing a man really is. Next quickly follow the oath, the palsied signature in the members' boot, a hearty handshake 'and welcome from the Speaker, and all is over.

But the introduction is as nothing to the maiden speech. Even the finest of orators have frequently come terrible croppers, and, strangely enough, quite as often from trying to say too much as from paucity of verbiage. Such, for instance, were the maiden speeches of Sheridan and Disraeli, both of whose ambitions to achieve fame at a single bound resulted in the usual overleap. Similarly, too, the maiden speeches of Brougham and Canning were huge disappointments.

Upon the others hand, the modest _A.ddison~ only made two speeches in the whole course of his Parliamentary career. One speech was made in -the English, and the other in the Irish Parliament, and, so far as could be gathered by the members present, the gist of both was a threefold repetition of "Mr Speaker, sir ! " followed by an immediate subsidence into his seat and a bath of nervous perspiration. Tt was probably nervousness, too, that, added a touch of screaming farce to the maiden effort of Mr Pv. Gr. Webster, Conservative member for Eat>t St. -Pancras, who wound up his reaiaika by

sinking gracefully into the recesses of his new silk hat, whereat Mr Harrington (an Irish member) rose and grav.ely congratulated him upon the fact that his head was not in it at the time.

One of the finest, and at the same time one of the most characteristic, maiden speeches was that of Cobbett, -who opened his Parliamentary career wii.h the bold assertion, "It appears to me that since I have been sitting here " — it was his first night in the House — " I have heard a great deal of vain, and unprofitable conversation." Unpalatable as were his words, he had scarcely spoken half a dozen sentences before the rising ill-humour of the House was stilled in its admiration for the wonderful oratory of which Cobbett was so acknowledged a master.

Similar success fell to Lord Palmerston, who, although failing to greatly move the House by his speech, nevertheless showed so practical a grasp of his subject that, Mr Perceval immediately afterwards offered him the Cliancellorship of "the Exchequer. Despite his practical turn . of mind, -however, Palmerston was a master of quiet humour. As- he lay dying-, his- physician gently hinted at the gravity of his position. '"Die?" echoed grim old "Pam." "My dear doctor, that's ,the last thing I shall do ! " And it was.

Occasionally a newly-elected M.P. has the sen&e to recognise hfe 'own' oratorical shortcomings. Edmund Burke and a colleague were once returning thanks to the electors of their constituency. Burke, as usual, made one of his impassioned speeches, whilst his merchant colleague, who, curiously enough, was named Cruger, stood mutely by his side. Then, just as his audience were preparing themselves for a ludicrous attempt to simulate his gifted fellowmember, Cruger calmly took the wind out of their sails by remarking, " Gentlemen, I say ditto to Mr Burke ! " There are scores of Parliamentary formalities, in the omission or commission of which he may sin most grievously, without being in the slightest degree aware of the manner of his trespass. It 'is here that the young Parliamentary hand experiences his most uncomfortable moments. At the beginning of Lord Rosebery's brief Ministry in March, 1894, a certain new member, who shall be nameless, committed the unpardonable sin of walking out of the House with his hat on. . Now, although a member may sit with his head covered without exciting the slightest comment, he is bound to uncover (with one exception) so soon as he rises, whether it be' to address the House or merely in order to quit its precincts. Consequently, the House simply howled, " Hat ! hat !" at the bewildered offender, until at length Dr Tanner considerately removed it for him, whereat the .uproar ceased. The exception to, this rule occurs when a member wishes to address the Chair after the division bolls have rung for the , statutory two minutes'. ; This somewhat unusual time for wearing a hat often gives rise to curious contretemps, if by chance the would-be speaker has left his hat outside the House. There are at least two historic instances of this nature.

Upon one occasion, the late Professor rawcett, who was blind, donned the nearest hat, a soft cap belonging to his neighbour, ■Mr Joseph Cowen, a combination which convulsed the House with merriment. A similar sense of humour greeted the efforts of the late Mr Gladstone to retain upon his exceedingly large head the exceedingly small hat of a front Opposition man, which he hastily snatched up for a like purpose. There' are numerous other forbidden actions, for which new members not infrequently evince an heretical partiality. For instance, it is forbidden to introduce lier Majesty's name into debate, the idea doubtless being that the head of the State is above party controversy. Similarly, ilie House of Lords may only be referred to as " another place," the theory being that neither -house is aware of the other's doings until it is officially apprised of the same.

Again, , it is the height of indecorum to pass between the Speaker and the member who is addressing the Hou&e. Occasionally, however, this is done with a set purpose. For instance,- during the first week of the present session, the chief Unionist Whip,- Sir W. Walrond, deliberately committed this bre?.,ch of decorum, in order to draw Mr Balfour's attention to the fact that the, division to which his speech was leading up would be unsafe, by reason of the paucity of Unionist members present.