The Evening Star SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1873.

Evening Star, Issue 3249, 19 July 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star SATURDAY, JULY 19, 1873.

We do not think our contemporary the Daily Times has acted judiciously in departing from the usual routine of reporting Parliamentary proceedings, by recording the debates in Committee of the House. It is bad enough to report the utterances of faction when members have only permission to speak once ; but it becomes intolerable when one or two members jump up upon every reasonable and unreasonable occasion, throw every impediment in the way of business being proceeded with, and tax their ingenuity to hamper and impede the progress of the session. It is impossible to record all the sayings of these triflers with public trust and time. Their drivelling is not worth printing, and would not be read if printed ; and if selections are made from the speeches, according to the judgment of the reporter, like most other selections, they are very likely to give a very one-sided and partial view of the merits of the case. Free selection in such a case is unfair. Yet it is only right that the public should know something about their representatives. We should be glad if it were possible to classify our members, as brokers do their teas. It is not difficult to divide them into Ministerial and Opposition—that is plain enough—the difficulty is to classify each side of the House according to member’s merits. On the aide of the Opposition, for instance, we have the rabid and uncompromising opponents for opposition’s sake j such as Mr Reid, Mr Gillies, and Mr Stout. We believe their very natures are made up of “ opposition,-’ and that rather than have nothing to oppose, they would amuse themselves by destroying their own arguments. Something like the fabled creature of old, they would consume themselves, and come out from the fire in a new form. Mr Reid uses his keen political vision, racy eloquence, and acquired knowledge of details, not for the purpose of helping to perfect measures; but to mercilessly pull them to pieces. Mr Stout flounders upon any flaw, real or fancied, right or wrong—it does not matter to him—in order to pitch into the Executive. If knocked down twenty times, up he rises, stout as ever, ready for another tilt. He reminds one of a Malay running a muck in the Ministerial camp. We warn him—his weapons may wound, but in the end his tactics will bring him to grief. Mr Gillies, since his championship for the Superintendency, and his second election to the Speakership, has put on a mighty fine outside of lofty political transcendentalism. No common mission his. Nobody can listen to those solemn, sonorous tones, telling of the purity of motive and noble self-sacrifice that should characterise leaders among men, withoutasouse of grovelling grubbiness, that tells us such purified beings are fitter to live among archangels than to be badgering a poor, unfortunate Provincial Executive. 11l natured people do say that all this brilliant clothing of light is borrowed for the occasion, and that if the whited casing was stripped off, personal animosity would be found written on the breastplate, and specially over the region of the heart of each of these leaders. As for their followers, they may fairly be divided into the prejudiced and the ignorant: the first hailing mainly from Southland, and the latter from nobody knows where originally. One poor innocent ventured the other day to say that his constituents expected him to proceed with business, and not act the part of a bore; when up started Mr Reid, as champion of the bores, and iii withering tones asserted his right and intention to say what he liked, how ho liked, and when he liked. Our poor member sat down annihilated. Wo cannot fairly classify the rest without renewed observation.