THE ADDRESS IN REPLY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 134, 5 June 1880, Page 4

THE ADDRESS IN REPLY.

["New Zealand Times," June 2 ]

The debate on the Address in reply fo the Governor's speech was one of the d ( ulle6^prphably that ever occurrejd oh ' srich an occasion. This was certainly not owing to eny lack of war material. Colonel Tritable moved the address, in a remarkably . ill-judged Bpf eqh~-.a, speech, we do not hesitate to say,: which will go fer to relieve him of the andden reputation for good sense, and political experience that he acquired on his first appearance in the House. It was inordinately long, and nearly its whole length was filled wi(h matter which would have been belter left out. Colonel Trimble, seemed entirely to have misunderstood his functions. Instead of inviting the House to carry the address as proposed, he challenged them all round to move an amendment upon it. The only wonder is that some one did not acoept his challenge just out of devilment. A good many Government supporters, we venture to say, would have felt strongly inclined to vote for the amendment, if it had been so worded as to convey merely disapprobation of the manner in < which 7 the address was moved. If

Colonel Trimble's notion of supporting, a Ministry is, to excite as much ill-' feeling against them as possible, we r sfi'obld v BB7 r the sooner he is relegatecf to the back benches and placed undfer the guardianship of the Whips the better. Captain Russell was soldierly, s'raightforwarc!, and , goodnatured, as (ueVal ; 4>ut7he.' displayed a clearness of view and a practical knowledge of -public .affaire which he has oot hitherto led his hearers to suppose he took the trouble to. cultivate. His fresh, muscular style was a great treat after Colonel-Trimble'd previous preachment, and went far to remove the bad irapreceion which that most injudicious delivery had created, Mr Macandrew was ' almost too meek and mild „in 4l the of his moderation. There* j.q, "no, prettier sight then that of the lion lying down with the lamb ; burMffMacandfew's kindly criticiem of :the ; Addreßß, and gentle advice bs to how the Ministers might perfect their policy, and. strengthen their position, 'suggested rathei the velvet-covered claw,a of the tiger than (he rough hard • paws of-tbe nobler beast. Whnt he had to'db, though, he did very gracefully, and he certainly set an example of courtesy and' good feeling, which can hardly be too closely imitated by his followers. Dr. Wall is wa3 irresistibly comical, as he always is, at firet ; but speedily relapsed, as he always d«es, into a terrible bore. We often wonder- how such a clever man — for with all his absurdities he has more than an average share of brains — can be content with the role of a Jack Pudding. He seems to have no sense

of- responsibility whatever, but to deem every other consideration subordinate to that of making what he calls a "jork." And precious poor " jorks" he makes, after the froth of the first few minutes has blown off. He was obviously talking against time, top, yesterday, in order, to give Sir George Grey the glare of the footlights in the evening; and we must say we thitjk the doctor ought to be above applying his. abilities to such services as that. The Maori gentlemen did not do much towards enlivening the debate. Will the time ever come, we wondeV, when the members will have the courage to get up and say what they all think already, namely that Maori representation is a sorry farce, and that such speeches as we heard through the interpreter yesterday render our debates a humiliating ' burlesque of Parliamentary discussion? As far as mere logic is concerned, though, there was not a pin to cbose between Mr Moses Tawhai and the eminent statesman who followed him. The poor Maori's idea that the Native Lands Bill is necessitated by the money that we owe to England is not really a bit more grotesque than Sir George Grey's contention that the ' property tax raises the price ofthe loaf.' "We never heard Sir George. Grey make a sillier speech, or a more elegantly worded one, than he made last night. The contrast between the luminous beauty of his language and the meanness and confusion of bis ideas was positively startling. It was like <! Hoop-de-dooden-do " performed on a grand organ. Mr Hall had him at every point. In spite of his faulty delivery — and we have seldom heard him less fluent — he made a really sound, sensible, and effective speech. He said, in short, all that was worth saying, and both sides of the House unmistakably acknowledged it. But why did he get into such a pelter about T)r. Wallis'a " insinuations ?." Why take notice of a little vicious dig in the ribs like that? We might as well ask, why does a lucifer strike when it is rubbed ? The poet answers this question in the happy line —

For 'tis" their nature to,