PARLIAMENTARY PERSONALITIES.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5461, 27 September 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY PERSONALITIES.

No. X. (By a Stranger in the Gallery.) All persons who like to hear good English in a mellow bass voice will probably enjoy listening to Mr. Moss? Whether we agree with the sentiments expressed by that gentleman or not we must admire the moderate language used and the tone of debate adopted by him. As he is a new member the House may certainly be congratulated upon this acquisifciou|toitsnumbera. As the accuracy of some of the criticisms contained in these papers may suffer from the short acquaintanceship of their author with the parties criticised, he hopes his blunders may be condoned in the same spirit, Mr. Moss appears to be a man of thoroughly independent habit of thought and feeling, but as one who nevertheless constrains himself to give his vote very often to his party rather in accordance with a of party discipline than in very stringent conformity with his own convictions. His speech on Mr. Richardson’s resolution the other night confirmed us in this opinion. His next door neighbor in the House is another new member, and in many ways compares not unfavorably with Mr. Moss, Mr. Cutten made a witty speech, on the female franchise. It was open to adverse comment on the score that it very nearly exceeded the limits of strict good taste in the treatment of a delicate subject. However, the little speech he made against Mr. Richardson’s resolution the other night stamped him as a Parliamentary debater of no mean order. If his voice is not equal to that of Mr. Moss, it is deal and pleasant enough to listen to. The neatly-turned phrases in which, while he fully admitted the desirability of the resolution being acted upon, be yet determined to vote against it as. a simple piece of impertinence, showed at least a clear appreciation of the state ©f the question. At the same time we confess that it gave color to the impression that he too is one of those whose confidence in their chiefs is not easily shaken. It would have been interesting to see wbat tone the House would have adopted if this Tapanui question, instead of finding favor in the eyes of the House, had beengenerallydisapproved of. The affirmation of the principle of the resolution would not have found so many cavillers.

Mr. De Lautour is one of the powerful debaters in the House. It is true that as a very strong partizan, one of the real thick and thin supporters of the Government, he was not likely to find favor in the eyes of a stranger who had little partiality for or against either party. Impartiality in the treatment of any particular question is comparatively easy of attainment, but the confidence of any observer in the personnel and policy of the Government, or of the Opposition, must ultimately incline one way or the other. From that moment the critic's eye will be readier to see faults on one side than the other; his judgment will be apt to be a little bit clouded by his sympathies. Asking pardon for the digression, which has been called forth by the circumstances of the case, Mr. De Lautour shall engage our attention. In his speech on the Electoral Bill he severely criticised Hare’s system, and denied Mr. Whitaker’s right to introduce a Bill for amending the representation of the country now, because the latter should have seized the opportunity while in office. Thereupon Mr. De Lautour was immediately twitted with having replied to a speech that had never been made, and criticised a system that was not advocated. Mr. Whitaker also assured the House that, this scheme had long engaged his attention, and claimed that it was only now that the fruit of his labors was ripe. Upon, another occasion - Mr. Wakefield compared Mr. De Lautour to an auger who was brought forward toTiore the ears of the House with piercing arguments of a thoroughly party nature., We fear that the doub’o meauing of the expression was not altogether accidental upon the part of the member for Geraldine. However, there can be no doubt that Mr. De Lautour can command the attention of the House, has a ready wit, and great command of language. We confess that his voice strikes us as unpleasant, though his enunciation is clear. There can be no doubt that the fact of Mr. Richardson’s resolution being brought forward upon going into Committee, of Supply gave a party aspect to the question, and this is the only excuse that can be made for Mr. De Lautour’s thoroughly partisan and offensive treatment of a constitutional question. Party spirit is a most blinding quality if carried to excess, and seeing that his advocacy was at once declared to be ill-judged and calculated to wean support from his friends by Mr, Barff last night, Mr. De Lautour may pardou a hint being given to him that if he cannot moderate the violence of his party feeling he may be astonished to find some day that extremes are voted dangerous, and his allies are crying out “ Save us from ourfriends.” Y.