SKETCHES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 40, 7 October 1867, Page 3

SKETCHES IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

No. 4. FIRST IMPRESSIONS AND RECOLLECTIONS OP A STRANGER IN THE GALLERY. Mr Travers.

The member for Christchurch is rather tall in stature. He has light sandy hair and complexion, and appears about forty-five years of age. He appears on all occasions when in the House to be prompt, resolute, and energetic, full of confidence and self-reliance. His egotism and love of distinction is transparently visible to any ordinary observer. His tone and manner of occasionally lecturing hon. members is very injudicious on the part of an ambitious man.

If Mr Travers has any consistent political principles by which his conduct in the House is guided, I must confess that I failed to dis-

cover what those principles really are. He is not a man of deep reflection, he does not take time to think, lie appears to take one rapid glance at a question, and at once to form a confident and decided opinion on it. Although no orator he is a very good speaker, and makes a better speech in reply to other members than when he is himself the first speaker in a debate. He sits beside Mr Bunny on a front bench above the gangway on the government' side of the House, lie attends the sittings of the House very regularly, and instead of sitting or reclining in an indolent listless attitude, much of his time is occupied in Writing with great rapidity. He is in much request on Select Committees. His keen and penetrating powers of noticing details, which is a characteristic of all successful lawyers no doubt makes him a most useful member on committees. If Mr Travers would confine more of his attention to the improvement of measures in passing through Committees, he would in my opinion be more usefully employed than in making abortive attempts to introduce measures into the House. Thoughtful and reflective men that will revolve a question well round and look at every side of it before forming a confident and decided op inion, are the only safe men in charge of measures introduced into the House. They can see if the alterations or partial amendments on the measure under their charge would he consistent with its fundamental principles. My attention was first attracted to Mr Travers by his decided and energetic “No,” to a statement made by the hon. Mr Stafford in reply to a question asked by Mr Armstrong as to the intention of the Government about the Judges of the Supreme Court periodically changing their circuit.' Mr Travers offered some ob-

serrations after Mr Stafford had done speaking in a manner that gave me an impression that his views were influenced by a legitimate and honorable ambition in connection with the question brought under the notice of the Government. His recent change of residence from Christchurch to the seat of government has not tended to lessen my first impression. When I first heard Mi Travers on the Local Government Bill I thought that he was a strong anti-provincialist, but it was not long before I discovered so many inconsistencies in his views that I was at a loss whether to attribute his contradictory words and acts to want of reflection or to mere bunkum on the part of a man who wanted to make political capital. When he made his speech in reply on his motion to transfer the'control of departments from the Provincial to the General Government, he used strong and bitter language to his opponents. lie compared the provincial party to a pig contented to wallow in the mud, when beslobbered all over with filth, and being satisfied with its mud-crusted hide. If Mr Travers was really in earnest it* his attempt to transfer the control of departments, he would not run-a-muck against five departments at once, and abuse everybody for letting things be as they were. If Mr. Travers did not merely talk bunkum for the sake of making political capital, he would in my opin ion be more conciliatory in his language to his opponents and would only try to get one department transferred at one time, or even less than that, but such a useful practical mode of proceeding would not be sensational enough to enable Mr Travers to make a fruitless oratorical display in a great debate. (To be continued.)