THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1882. MR. HOLMES AT THE ODDFELLOWS' HALL.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2663, 19 October 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1882. MR. HOLMES AT THE ODDFELLOWS' HALL.

Me. Holmes has ' addressed his constituents with all that eloquence which is so natural to a member of the Liberal party. Eloquence is the strong point of the party. The head of the two sections of what we are now told is a very happy family is indeed one of the most remarkable men that the world has ever produced. We have Mr. Holmes’ word for it, that “ Sir George Grey possesses an eloquence that surpasses even that of the most eloquent of the Greeks and Romans.” Demosthenes and Cicero may now taka a back seat. Tho collected speeches of Sir George Grey will, of course, now form part of tho classics of tho nation. It is most satisfactory to know that wo have such a lusus naturae in onr midst. Under such a master it is no wonder that both sections of Mr. Holmes’ party shine in the tribune. We, of course, all along knew that the Knight of Kawau was a fluent and excellent speaker, but that he outtops the masters ef ancient eloquence is delightful reading. Those old fogies used carefully to prepare their speeches, and no pains were considered too great to round off their sentences and give them that polish which has rendered them the delight of posterity. Many of Sir George’s effusions are of an extompore nature, so all the more credit is due to him for the manner he has thrown tho Greeks and the Romans into the shade.

Mr. Holmes’ views on the duties o£ a representative and his practice in the matter are worthy of consideration. He declares that he entertains the idea that a person who represents a constituency in Parliament is a sort of accredited agent of that constituency. This is, of course, to a certain extent true, but Mr. Holmes endeavors to make capital out of tho idea as if it was a brand new one, and tries to show that ha has been somewhat singular in sticking to the principle throughout the session. But, to bo consistent, Mr. Holmes should have consulted his constituents at frequent intervals during tho sitting of Parliament. It is all very well to say that yon are an accredited agent, and yet act on very numerous occasions without referring to yonr principals. A number of questions cropped np during tho session to which Mr. Holmes made no reference in his speeches to his constituents, and, had he wished to play his role

to perfection, he might have sent down word to his numerous admirers and asked them what ha should do. But wo rather fancy that Mr. Holmes would not feel inclined to carry the matter to this length. In fact, ho “ lets the eat out of the bag” very considerably in a statement he makes with regard to his conduct on a certain matter being before the House. That matter was the Native Reserve Bill, a measure which the member for Christchurch South considered as an excellent one, and as cno entirely for the good of tho Natives. Ha supported it consequently for a variety of reasons. A numbor of the supporters of the Government, he tells ns, were against it, and the Ministry ware, in consequence, very anxious about it, and delayed bringing it on in committee as mucb as possible, until they could put their foot down and makes certain of carrying it. But the matter was taken up as a party question, and then wo see what becomes of the accredited agent. He immediately develops feelings which have nothing whatever to do with his constituents. Ho thoroughly approves of the Bill, but ho refuses to vote for It. He cannot quit® find it in his conscience to vote against the Bill, because ho had already given his hearty support to it when first introduced, but he can at least help his party so far as not to record his vote in its favour. The accredited agant, we thus observe, is lost in tho party man. No doubt if the very excellent reasons which had induced him to favour the Bill had been explained to his masters in Christchurch, of whom he is such a very humble servant, they would have told him by all means to vote for the Bill. Bat then how about the needs of his party and his future hopes of office P In point of fact, it is all nonsense on the part of Mr. Holmes to make himself out to be a man who went np to Parliament bound only by an intense desire to servo his constituency. In the beginning of his speech on Tuesday night we find these remarkable words—“ Now, it was for him to account to them to-night why he first went into Opposition.” Why, Mr. Holmes has been in Opposition all along. He was elected as an Opposition candidate, and it is rubbish to declare that there was over the slightest chance of his joining the Government ranks. At least, wo venture to say that that is the impresaion which his speeches left on ninetenth a of his hearers. In choosing between any measure which would alike affect the interests of his constituency and his party, hut in different directions, we have our own private opinion as to which interests would go to tho wall with Mr. Holmes. No doubt he would find words to explain his conduct on his return, but then all the party are so very eloquent! Mr. Holmes’ description of tho state of the Opposition is a beautiful piece of word painting. Instead of being disorganised the Opposition is described as consisting of two compact bodies, the one led by Mr. Montgomery, the other by Sir George Grey. “ And these two bodies, whenever there was the slightest pressure from without, became united, and there was thorough unanimity among them on all broad questions of politics.” We are very glad to hear of this, because it is a piece of real news. Opposition papers throughout the session lamented the want of coherence in their party. But, after all, it was a sort of Siamese twins businessThey were two bedies united by a fleshy hand of bread principles. It is stated that in the American war one of the Siamese twins favored the South and the other the North. But no doubt they agreed at that time on the desirability of possessing in common a large share of the creature comforts. This was the broad principle on which they were united. Is it possible that the broad principles alluded to by Mr. Holmes were of the same nature, and a desire for office was the only bond that connected Sir George’s and Mr. Montgomery’s parties ? The subject is a delicate one, and we prefer not to go into it.