PARLIAMENTARY PERSONALITIES. No. XI.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5469, 7 October 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY PERSONALITIES. No. XI.

(Bv a Stranger in yiiE Gallery.) It the Stranger had been conducted blindfold into his.usual seat in,the gallery during, the last few days and had not been acquainted with the'forma of the House, or thevoioes. of the speakers, there can. be no doubt he would have gone .away with the firm conviction that he had been listening to a legal debating society discussing the proper limits of power to bo allowed to Judges. Mr. Tole, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Macfarlane, Mr. O’Rorke, and Mr. Rees are, we believe, all “ learned" members, as the phrase goes, and moreover, are all returned by the Provincial District of Auckland. If legal advocacy and trained special pleading can obtain a full measutc.of justice to that hot corner of New Zealand, it is almost sure to secure .it. It ' is a common every-day occurrence to hear cases - and precedents quoted - in the House as if our legislation here was strictly limited, by what had been done elsewhere. If legal lore is so much favored by Auckland electors, probably the House may be congratulated on the amount of argumentative talent supplied to it ; but at the.: same time there can be no doubt that the inhabitants of the district may congratulate themselves upon being relieved for a season from such an oppressive weight of forensic power. Mr. : Whitaker's name is so well known, and his conduct in the House so carefully regulated, that a critic’s duties can be ooutained in a few lines. It may be adinitted that a speech of 1 about' two hours’; duration, such as that delivered by Mr. Whitaker upon introducing his Representation Bill, is rather a trial for any audience. Able and lucid though it was, an attempt to explain clearly a modified form of Hare’s system of Parliamentary election failed to clear up completely the fog that surrounds the method in the minds of those who tried to follow him. In this one instance Mr. Whitaker may ba said to have attempted a little too much; as a general rule no man in the House is better worth listening to. His subject is not viewed by him through legal spectacles that seem to shroud ono side of a subject in darkness and shod a glow of light upon the other. : Ho treats any matter brought before him in an impartial manner, and occasionally : throws out a suggestion, that affords food for reflection to thinking, men ; such was the one made the other night- that the whole of the land revenue and ail-thc proceeds of the landtax should be paid over to a separate account, and be applied only to meet the charges on loans and expenditure upon ■ public works. It is a pity, that his delivery is at times marred by. a certain weakness of voice. Mr. O’Rorke as Chairman of Committees no doubt deserves praise for his able conduct of the business,. If the hour, is late and the clauses of the Bill are unimportant he can rattle through a measure in committee in a way that delights those; who are weary of the debate. A contumacious member meets a stern rebuke, and quickly-finds that the authority of the chair is not to be defied. Like most other sons of Brin’s Isle Mr. O’Rorko strongly resents any attempt to tread on the tail of his coat; — while asking pardon ’ for the liberty; it is impossible to resist the temptation of adding the remark that the tails of his coat are of the full length allowed by fashion. During the passage * of “ the Electoral Bill through committee, until the debate upon tho addition of the freehold fratjichise for Maoris como on, Mr. O’Eorko's

conduct as Chairman of (Jom-mtiecs seemed to be almost above reproach. That decision ; is. .open to - grave, question upon the following grounds -The Bill as brought before.; the House 'contained no provision to allow a vote' to Maoris as landowners but whose land is held by themfree from all the usual responsibilities of land held .by Europeans. When-room was mad© for the insertion of this innovation tho clause , was passed with Mr. Bryce’s and Sir Robert Douglas’s amendments hanging over it; either of these amendments .would-have removed -a great deal of the injustice that has since ’caused so much public comment. The latter amendment was thrown oufc;by the casting vote of Mr. O’Rorke. It has been long au acknowledged ruling that a casting vote should be used in the direction: of v limiting innovations and maintaining the existing status of affairs. Because it is a serious and undesirable responsibility for one man to bear if he incur the onus of the introduction of* a new law. As Mr. O’Rorke’s decision tended to introduce a sweeping innovation rather than the preservation of - the Bill in its original form, and as he failed to exercise his power as chairman to limit the extent of its application, we hold he was guilty of a serious error of judgment. His reason for not doing so would have been satisfactory from anindepeudent inemb&r,. but not aa emanating from the chair. A good clear voice, with a pleasant brogue, are points in Mr. O'Rorke's favor. Both Mr. Whitaker and he may be congratulated Upon their freedom' from the special pleader style of debate that a legal training generally induces. * Want of space compels- us to limit our criticism of Mr, Tole to a few lines. A quiet pleasant voice, and aa unassuming manner, are hopeful signs in, a young member. ' Upon one or two occasions Mr, Tele has distinguished himself by the acquaintance he has shown with his subject. A strong Government supporter in most cases, it is quite pos-: sible that his independence of thought may bo sometimes withheld from expression from party motives —a praiseworthy moderation in a young man, and implying good promise In the future. Looking over the above criticisms, Auckland must be held to have chosen, wisely in choosing lawyers—at least so far as those three are concerned.