The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1883.

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2767, 6 August 1883, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 1883.

Things are coming to a pretty pass in the House of Representatives. The debate on the Property Tax on Tuesday degenerated into a furious interchange of personalities between Mr Dargaville and the Colonial Treasurer. This was followed next day by an '" altercation" between those two Members ; and the whole of Friday's sitting, lasting until half-past one o'clock on Saturday morning, was occupied in an excited discusßion on the motion of the Colonial Treasurer for tho appointment of a 1 Select Committee to enquire into the allegations made by Mr Dargaville concerning himself and the Premier. Anything more absurd or improper than the whole of this proceeding could hardly be imagined. It is directly opposed to both the letter and the spirit of the rules of parliamentary debate, and that being so, it can only result in confusion, waste of time and prolonged ill-feeling. The practice of Parliament with vespect to offensive words used by a Member in debate is perfectly clear. If such words are to be taken notice of

.it all by the House, they must be immediately taken down at the time when they are spoken. If any other Member speaks before they are taken down, or if tho Member who uses them is allowed to continue his speech, no notice can be taken of them afterwards. If they are taken down, and the House find they are objectionable, the Member who has used them must at once withdraw them, or the House may censure him, commit him, or even expel him, as they may see fit. If the words are not taken down, then it is assumed that they are not objected to and the Member cannot be called to account for them at any later stage. The object of this most salutary rule is to preserve tho freedom of debate by protecting Members from the persecution of those whom they may have irritated, and particularly to preserve the dignity of the House by preventing disputes and quarrels from being prolonged. Matters of offence, in short, must be either dealt with instanter, or else be ignored altogether as matters of offence. Every Member has a right, of course, to answer, deny or refute any allegations that are made against him, and even if he has already spoken in the debate, he is always allowed an opportunity of speaking again by way of personal explanation, when he deems his ionor or good name to have been reflected on. In this case Mr Dargaville's words were not objected to at the time when they were spoken. He was allowed to continue and conclude his speech without interruption. Other Members spoke after him. The Colonial Treasurer replied to him at some length, and exercised to the full his right of denying the allegations now complained of. The debate closed. The House adjourned. Three days passed away. Tet, after all, the Colonial Treasurer brought Mr Dargaville's allegations to the notice of the House, and moved for a Select Committee to enquire into them. Thereupon, naturally enough, a violent discussion arose, and everything took place which the rules of the House are expressly designed to prevent. When Mr Montgomery drew attention to the Standing Order which requires that words objcetccl to must be taken notice of at the time when they are used or not at all, Mr Conolly replied that Mr Montgomery wholly misconceived the question, because the Standing Order referred to " words of heat," while Mr Dargaville's allegations were used deliberately. But as a fact, Mr Montgomery was perfectly right, and Mr Conolly only betrayed his inexperience and his ignorance of parliamentary practice, by his remark. If he had read. May's Treatise carefully, he would have known that " words of an objectionable character are never spoken but in anger "; that is to say, it is assumed that all objectionable words used in debatn are " words of heat," and the practice of Parliament recognises no procedure based on any other hypothesis. Then, the Minister of Justice and others on the side of the Government, sought to represent that the object of the appointment of the Select. Committee was to clear the Premier and Treasurer from the imputations that had been cast on then). But in reality it is quite plain that the object is to punish Mr Dargaville for his speech on Tuesday in a manner different from that prescribed by the Standing Orders, and by parliamentary precedent. The Colonial Treasurer expressly stated that Mr Dargaville's charges must be "sifted or unconditionally withdrawn " ; and Mr Conolly himself, at the end of his speech, hinted at the expulsion of Mr Dargaville in the event of the Cornmittoe reporting unfavorably to him. And the House, with that object on the part of the Government clearly before them, consented to the appointment of the Committee. Now, either Mr Dargaville's speech was unparliamentary, or it was not. If it was, then it ought to have been taken notice of at the time. If it was not, — and Mr Conolly admits that it was not — then it is monstrous to set up a new form of procedure in order to punish him for making it. What is to become of the business of the House if any Member may at any time move for a Select Committee to inquire into allegations said to have been made in debate days, or weeks or months before ? If this can bo done, moreover, what is the use of the Standing Order prohibiting any allusion to prior debates, which Standing Order, says May, "is a wholesome restraint upon Members, to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded, for otherwiso a debate might be interminable ?" The whole of the proceedings of Friday night, we are convinced, were themselves grossly unparliamentary and out of order, and we cannot imagine what the Speaker was thinking of to countenance them. We say unhesitatingly that the House could not have got into such a ridiculous and undignified position if Sir Maurice O'Rorke had discerned and performed his duty. It is hard, indeed, to say whether he as Speaker, or Major Atkinson as leader of the House, is most to blame in a matter which reflects the utmost discredit on all concerned. Apart from the flagrant violation of parliamentary principles and practice committed by the House, the appointment of this Committee is a sheer piece of folly. What good result can the Government or anybody else expect to derive from it P The Colonial Treasurer, smarting under Mr Dargaville's sharp invective, and eager for revenge hopes, no doubt, to bo able by the aid of his majority, to crush that outspoken Member, to bring him on his knees, perhaps to get him expelled, at least to silence him. Some few simple-minded Members possibly have an idea that the Committee will really bring to light the relations between the Bank of New Zealand and the Ministers. It may safely be taken for granted, however, that neither will Mr Dargaville be punished nor will the relations between the Bank and the Ministers be disclosed. The Bank will take preciouß good care not to allow the Committee to pry into its affairs ; and as for Mr Dargaville, he need not trouble himself about the Committee's report. It will most likely be unfavorable to him ; but that will not matter, because the House dare not act upon it. They dare not punish a Member for a party speech by a party vote. The precedent would be too dangerous. Already they have gone a great deal too far for their own dignity or reputation for common sense ; but there is a limit of wrong-headedness and vindictiveness beyond which even the i House of Representatives, under Mi^or

Atkinson's leadership, will not venture to go. The only result of the appointment of the Committee, therefore, will be to cover the House and the Government with ridicule, and probably to give rise to freah altercations, angry discussions, hysterical speeches, and disorderly scenes. New Zealand polities aro certainly getting into a fine condition !