My Country Notebook

Otago Witness, Issue 4042, 1 September 1931, Page 59

My Country Notebook

by

Murihiku.

(Special fob the Otago Witness.) In Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand there is much criticism of Parliaments, and a desire on the part of taxpayers to curtail State expenditures. The failures of the national incomes in the three countries mentioned is forcing people to consider plans for increasing the State’s income or of enormously reducing expenditure.

There are some who rail against the parliamentary system. “ This one man, one vote will be the ruin of us! ” is their constant wail. “What we want is a Mussolini! ” echo their friends. But British peoples will not stand for autocrats, whether they are of the Fascist or Bolshevik type. We have a sort of genius for muddling through—very illogical at times, but our systems seem to work.

When we hear men railing against the decadence of modern parliaments we realise that those men are not students of history. Armchair and newspaper critics have, from time immemorial, been able to abuse parliamentary institutions. Parliament does not hit back —except with increased taxation.

It is a long time since Queen Elizabeth passed away, but evidently, even in those days, the elected House did not hurry with its important business. Lord Bacon relates that Mr Popham, when he was Speaker, and the Lower House had sat long and done in effect nothing, coming one day to Queen Elizabeth, she said to him, “Now, Mr Speaker, what has passed in the Lower House?” He answered, “If it please your Majesty, seven weeks.” That Elizabethan debate seems to be the forerunner of our New Zealand discussions known as the Address-in-Reply.

Parliament was extremely touchy in olden times. When anyone committed a breach of privilege, the accused one was humiliated in many ways, but a Mr Murray, in February, 1750, stopped the practice of ordering delinquents on their knees. An election for the city of Westminster took place in 1751, when Lord Trenthanx was returned against Sir George Vandeport. Serious outrages having been committed by a mob, one of the ringleaders—Mr' Crowle, an attorney—was summoned before the House of Commons. The delinquent was commanded to kneel, and was duly reprimanded by the Speaker. On rising he wiped his knees,'and said he had never been in so dirtv a house before.

In New Zealand to-day there is much criticism of a three-year Parliament. It is interesting to notice that the criticism of to-day was current 130 years ago. Sir Richard Steele (1691-1729) wanted five-year Parliaments as they have at Home to-day. In a speech on the subject he said': “ Ever since the Triennial Bill has been enacted the nation has been in a series of contentions. The first year of a triennial parliament has been spent in vindictive decisions and animosities about the late elections. The second session has entered into business, but rather with a spirit of contradiction to what the prevailing set of men in former Parliaments had brought to pass than for a disinterested zeal for the common good. The third session has languished in the pursuit of what little was intended to be done in the second; and the approach of an ensuing election has terrified the members into a servile management, according as their respective principals were disposed towards the question before them in the House.” Here in New Zealand we often hear it urged that a four-year Parliament would give two working sessions, but the general principle of holding an election every three years is still recognised under the law. V * ¥

To those who imagine that handing typed speeches to the press is a comparatively new idea, it is amusing to be reminded that John Wilkes, who died in 1797, made a speech in Parliament of which no one heard a word, and said aside to a friend, who urged the fruitlessness of the attempt at making the House listen, “ Speak I ■must, for it has been printed in the newspapers this half-hour.”

The party system K an integral part of the British parliamentary system. But every now and again some form of temporary coalition is formed to deal with a great national emergency. In Britain to-day we find Labour members, Conservatives, and Liberals getting together—none of them permanently losing their party attachments—but for a period of emergency working as harmoniously together as they can. In New Zealand, Mr Forbes some time ago proposed a plan whereby Reform and United should join together to oppose Labour. Mr Coates’s last suggestion is a different thing altogether—he suggests endeavouring to evolve a plan in which Labour will not be shut out, but in which Labour will co-operate.

On the score of economy there is a proposition to postpone both the licensing and the general election. Certainly, the expense is great, but we need to read the old records to see how things have changed. Mr ’ Lowe, in the debate in the House of Commons in May, 1866, said: “We had a paper laid upon our table this morning, giving an account of elections from “S ” downwards. I take the first few large boroughs, and I will read the expenses. The expense of the election for Stafford is £5400; Stoke-upon-Trent, £6200; Sunderland, £5000; and Westminster £12,000. These are the aggregate expenses of all the candidates. 1 take them as they come without picking and choosing. I will now call attention to two or three counties. I will take the southern division of Derbyshire. The election cost £B5OO, and this is the cheapest I shall read. The northern division of Durham cost £14,620, and the southern division £ll,OOO. South Essex cost £10,000; West Kent cost £12,000; South Lancashire, £17,000; South Shropshire, £12,000; North Staffordshire, £14.000; North Warwickshire, £10,000; South Warwickshire, £13,000; North Wiltshire, £13,000; South Wiltshire, £12,000; and the North Riding of Yorkshire, £27,000 —all legitimate expenses, but by no means the whole expense. Now, I ask the House how it is possible that the institutions of this country can endure if this kind of thing is to go on and increase?”

To show how costly these old elections really could be, in 1807 the most expensive contest took place for the representation of Yorkshire that ever distinguished the annals of electioneering. The candidates were Viscount Milton, son of Earl Fitzwilliam, supported by the Whig Party; the Hon. Henry Lascelles, son of Lord Harewood, proposed by the Tories; and William Wilberforce, Esq., on the Dissenting and Independent interest. The election was carried on with doubtful success between the two party candidates for 15 days, but Mr Wilberforce was at the .head of the poll for the whole time. It terminated in favour of Mr Wilberforce and Lord Milton. This contest is said to have cost the three parties nearly half a million. The expenses of Mr Wilberforce were defrayed by public subscription; and such public zeal was manifested in his favour that more than double the sum necessary was raised in a few days. Lord Brougham notes that “ The committee which conducted Mr Wilberforce’s election for Yorkshire in 1807 state their expenses of £38,000, with every resource of the most rigid economy, and great voluntary assistance in labour.”

How were these enormous totals arrived at? Partly by straightout buying of votes, partly by entertaining. The following appears in the Annual Register, 1761, as an exact account of the articles consumed at dinner only by the voters of a small borough on the day of electing their members, independently of veal, mutton, poultry, pastry, etc., and a preparatory breakfast, which last alone cost £7so:—Consumption at dinner: “ 980 stone of beef, 315 dozen of wine; 72 pipes of ale; and 365 gallons of spirits converted into punch.” There are some amusing reminiscences of dinners of this type. Frederick Douglas, Lady Glenbervie’s son, who sat in Parliament for the family borough of Banbury, has narrated what occurred to some recreant electors, who had ventured, though vainly, to oppose Lord North’s nomination of the Mayor, shortly before the annual dinner, to which his lordship was in the habit of sending venison. The old steward, while carving it, sent plenty of fat to the obedient voters, but made the rebels feelingly sensible of his displeasure by exclaiming, as he dispatched their respective plates, “ Those who didn’t vote for my lord’s Mayox’ shan’t have none of my lord’s fat! ”

In England the straight-out buying of votes was very prevalent, but that was altered by the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. At Hedon, a small borough and seaport on the Humber, now disfranchised, it was usual to give 20 guineas fox - a single vote, and 10 fox’ a divided one. Before an election there was no actual promise made, but the voter would say on being canvassed, “ You will do what is usual after the election, sir, I suppose?” and the candidate would reply in the affirmative. Many of the poor electors did not wait for an election, but borrowed of the member sums of money, for which they gave a promissory note. (I understand this custom still survives in New Zealand, but the lOU’s are not worth much!) When an election came, 10 or 20 guineas was receipted upon the note, the residue of which still gave the candidate a hold upon the elector for a future occasion. This was told by Mr Chaytor,. of Spennithorne, who long represented the borough. To show the extent to which corruption prevailed, when the Reform Bill was spoken of to some electors in Stafford, they expressed their pleasure at it, and hoped that there would be introduced into it some plan for the better payment of poor voters! Oldfield, in his “Representative History,” states that the free men of tlie borough of Grampound had been known to boast of receiving 300 guineas a man for their votes at one election. Respecting the general election of 1526, the Times of June 20 of that year has the following: “During the election at Sudbury foux - cabbages sold for £lO,

and a plate of gooseberries fetched £25; the sellers where these articles were so dear being voters. At Great Marlow, on the contrary, things were cheap, and an elector during the election bought a sow and nine young‘pigs for a penny.” The good old daysl