SKETCHES IN PARLIAMENT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2697, 9 October 1871, Page 2

SKETCHES IN PARLIAMENT.

Under this heading, a humorous writer in the Hawkes Bay Herald sketches with the hand of a true artist some of the scenes which take place in the Assembly. He is particularly happy in his delineations of the Otago members. Of the actions of some during the Goldfields Bill debate, he says :—Mr Murray, a long solemn looking creature with a red beard, who was called by Mr Haughton, “a raw hobbledehoy from some bucolic constituency in Otago,” and who has, after all, nothing in him, took occasion, as usual, to give us liis sentiments on the subject. It will give your readers a good idea of his reasoning powers, when I mention that he argued that goldfields were not an unqualified blessing to a country, because he had known of cases in which cattle and even human beings fell into the holes dug by the miners, and had got their legs broken ! Mr Haughton observed that he thought Mr Murray rather mistook the position he held in the House, He had occupied nearly a week of their time. Mr Murray squeaked out “ question,” (he always squeaks). “Ah ! you won’t stop me with your question,” said Mr Haughton. “I’m too old a stager for that,” He proceeded to remark that Mr Murray had thought it necessary to get up apd lecture the House on every conceivable subject, political, social, [and economical, and now on mjbing. Hadn’t be better wait a litcle and see really wbat his powers were? rather than be continually airing his want of power. This gives a very faint idea of Mr Haughton’«i speech, which was a masterpiece in its way. I hope the raw fraternity may take it to heart. Those of the new members who are really men of ability, such as Mr Pearce. Mr Hecves, and Mr Johnston, hare scarcely spoken at all, while never a debate passes but some dozens of these “hawbuckees,” from diggings and other outlandish districts, think ic necessary to let everyone know what their view on the subject is. Mr O’Neill, a broad faced jovial looking Irishman, replied very briefly. His reply, indeed, had reference solely to the goldfields experience of Mr Reynolds, who had spoken against the motion. Air Reynolds; be said, had never been fifty miles

"jay from Dunedin, except on one occassion wnea he went up among the farmers to canvas on the subject of education; “and then they nearly drowned him.” I can give no opinion as to the accuracy of the statement. When the question came to be put, some difficulty was found in putting it in such a way that anyone could know what he was voting for, and a subsidiary discussion arose with regard to this point. At last the amendment about referring it to the Goldfields < ommittee was put, and a division was oiled f.r after the doors were locked ; t till they would not stop talking, and then they had to be instructed that they must speak covered and seated, so member after member—among them, of ourre, the “Smiler” and the “Howler” (which is a better sobriquet than that which I have before suggested for Mr Thomson, and more in keeping with the analogy 0 f the other)—put on their hats and gave vent to their opinions. The scene was in the highest degrea disreputable, and one almost felt that parliamentary business in this country was in a state of complete disorganisation. At last the votes were taken. The amendment was negatived, and then to our horror we heard that the whole debate was opened up again, and that everyone was at liberty to speak on every amendment again. However, anyone who attempted this would trespassed too far on the patience of the House for endurance, so no one did, and all the various forms and degrees and reductions were negatived in silence, the duty being left as it wag before.