Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4801, 11 August 1876, Page 2

The speeches of the Hon. Mr. Stafford and of Mr. Baddance are so far the features of the debate on separation. That of the latter gentleman, if not the most excellent, is certainly the most remarkable. It would have been strange indeed if a veteran statesman and finished parliamentary speaker like Mr. Stafford had not been equal to the occasion, and had not spoken to such a question as is now before the House in a manner befitting one who has been a great party leader, and with the matter of a superior mind. But it is rarely indeed that from a comparatively young member is heard so masterly an address as that of Mr. Baddance. There was but one opinion expressed in the House and in the lobbies on its termination, and that opinion was, “The best in the debate so far, and not likely to be beaten.” Whilst we do not say that it was superior to that of Mr. Stafford, it would not unnaturally appear to be so, as there is always more applause for the success of the beginner than there is for the expected achievement of the tried and trained speaker. Yet it cannot be denied that for close reasoning, for broad views, and for an unbroken sequence of fact and argument thereupon, it would be difficult in any parliament to find a speech superior to that of Mr. Baddance. This may seem overstrained praise, but it is not. Mr. Baddancb’s address was worthy of any parliamentary speaker in any parliament, and was not less admirable in matter than in manner. The language was simple and well chosen ; never hyperbolical, never puffed ; and there was not a trace of vulgarity or personality from the first utterance to the last. The unavoidably condensed report of proceedings in Parliament which the space at our disposal compels us to give, prevents us, in justice to other speakers, from doing that justice to Mr. Baddance which his speech would otherwise warrant. But even from the condensation which we give it will be seen how full of matter and convincing argument it was. Mr. Baddance’s speech on the Abolition Bill last session did him infinite credit, and we then said that Rangitikei should be proud of its member. But Mr, Baddance’s speech of last night was far better, and deserved the enthusiastic cheers from all sides of the House which greeted its termination. He has in him the stuff of which statesmen are made.

Contrast with the speeches of Messrs. Stafford and Ballancb that of Mr. Macandbew, and the truth flashes home that provincialism is most demoralising to public men. It is exceedingly painful to find a man of the honesty and capacity of Mr. Macandbew declaring that “he considered the revenue of Otago far more important than any sentiment, and not only that, but more important to Otago than the unity of the colony.” A more selfish ungenerous speech has never been heard within the Assembly; its only redeeming feature was its sincerity and earnestness.