South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1884.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3514, 10 July 1884, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1884.

Professor Bain has recently expressed bis belief that the deliberation of representative assemblies would be shortened and made much more effective if all motions were discussed by means of printed arguments. He thinks the dramatic element finds too much place in Parliament. The learned Professor has merely formulated an opinion which is fast gaining ground in the community, and he may thus be the means of hastening a reform which is sadly needed. Anyone taking up an issue of “Hansard” may easily convince himself of the reasonableness or otherwise of the proposition ; those who have witnessed Parliamentary debates will have made up their minds on the subject long ago. Our legislature, furnishes abundant evidence of the need for reform, for the House of Representatives has on many occasions become a mere “ talking shop ” in reality. If we examine carefully the effect of oratory in deliberative assemblies, and the influence it really exercises over a u division,” we shall be surprised to find it very small indeed, and if this be really the case the time devoted to it is sadly wasted. When a motion is proposed in an assembly of representatives it is to be presumed (1) that all the members have already some knowledge of the subject; (2) that when it is before them they will address themselves to a consideration of it; and (3) that being men of more or less reasoning power, they will come to a conclusion on the subject in accordance with their own convictions, and the requirements of their constituents and the country, and (4) that outside the house they will ventilate t he subject very fully in the course of C( ■mversation with their fellows. Ninetew ths of the members arrive at conclusions by these processes, and are absolutely uninfluenced by a whole night's “ speechifying.” The most eloquent speeches have absolutely no effect whatever on the minds of practncai men on the subjects with which, they are fully acquainted, and which, they have thoroughly investigated. If prolonged debates and lengthy speeches were merely useless it womld not be so bad, but over and above their uselessness, they are absolutely harmful, for they introduce a personal tone into public affairs and load to divergence, the discussion of side issue, and too often to angry

personal wrangling, and when the division comes on the parties walk out just as th.ey would have done bad it taken place before the debate began. Does anyone for a moment suppose that the speech on the recent noconfidence motion of Mr Steward had the slightest effect upon the division ? We do not think so. It had been planned, and certain members were pledged to support it. No speeches from the Government benches made a single proselyte among the Opposition, and no one withdrew from the Government side through any eloquence of ehe Opposition. We are not prepared to advocate any startling change in parliamentary practice, but we certainly think our political philosophers might with advantage to the community, watch the progress of future debates, and give us the result of their observations, with a view to reducing the length of speeches. The best orator of them all may accept it as a simple fact that oratory in legislative assemblies is a lost power. And our experience goes to show that some of the most really useful members of Parliament are those most seldom on their legs. We must not be understood to imply that a silent member is the most admirable, but we do say that a considerable reduction might be made in the mere talking which accompanies the actual business of a session, and that such a reduction would be attended with the best results.

We cannot read without pity and horror of the spread of Asiatic cholera in Europe. It is now a good many years since England was visited with this fearful scourge, and it was then remarked that its ravages were infinitely less dreadful than at the previous visitation of 184:9 owing to the spread of enlightenment and the improved physical condition of the people. It was also remarked that those who escaped the plague most, in London, were the Jews. Though they often lived in very crowded neighborhoods and exhibited no more cleanliness than their Christian fellowcitizens, they escaped the cholera,while the latter died off right and left. It was traced to the purity of their blood, the excellence of their food, and their sobriety. At any rate the sanitary scientists of the day drew some valuable lessons from this immunity which the Jews enjoyed. Since that time, wonderful and extensive improvements have taken place in English cities, both as to housing and the feeding of the people, and we must hope they will stand the dreadful test, and that London will never again know such horrors as were witnessed on previous occasions. That the disease will play havoc among the masses in some of the crowded unhealthy cities of the Continent, we may expect, and harrowing details are certain to reach us. We can hardly be thankful enough for our absence from the theatre of such disaster, for the health-giving climate of the colony, and excellence of our physical conditions, and it is a matter for congratulation that sanitary science and health legislation are here so much encouraged and attended to. On the goodness of food, the purity of air and water, the sufficiency of clothing, and on temperance, depend the health of the community, and we may learn from the sad story of cholera visitation, how important these things are. If there is one subject more than another which is practical and important, it is this of the laws of health, and those who have the education or direction or care of others can never strive too earnestly by example and precept to inculcate a knowledge of those laws.