MR MERVYN AND "THE HOUSE."

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3042, 6 November 1871, Page 3

MR MERVYN AND "THE HOUSE."

TO THE EDITOR,

Sir—l have read with considerable pain your local in yesterday's Times with regard to Mr Mervyn, and also the telegram on which it is founded. I think, in inserting the local in question you have gone further than a confessedly unreliable and very inexplicit telegram would seem to justify. The first offence with which Mr Mervyn is charged in the telegram is a fierce attack upon Mr Reynolds. I think that hi thus acting, Mr Mervyn has been injudicious, as former experience ought to have taught him that "he could not wet a goose by pouring water on its back" —an illustration for which I acknowledge my obligations to, the House of Representatives. 1 feel confident that most of those who are acquainted with both the honourable gentlemen in question will allow that even admitting your observations on Mr Mervyn to be just, they -would apply more forcibly if instead;of "Mervyn" you had inserted '' Reynolds." The next count against Mr Mervyn is that he refused to sit down when called upon by the Chairman to do sd. This proceeding is not to be justified, but may be excused on the ground that the Chairman may have been wrong in his ruling, as lie obviously was at a later stage when he refused to order a division unless demanded by two members. But I apprehend that Mr Mervyn's objection to allowing the question under consideration to pass was exceedingly well founded. From what appears in previous'reports, I surmise that it was to the proposal to make the grant to Road Boards available for stopping the. gap ih the Provincial revenues caused by the Payments to Provinces Act that Mr Mervyn was opposed. I feel confident that a cahh and impartial consideration of those proposals will lead the thinking portion of the public to thank Mr Mervyn for his action in this matter. It is an energetic protest against gross injustice. I feel confident it will be found that he was prompted solely by a deep conviction of the injustice of the proposal, and that no personal consideration had1 ahy weight whatever with him. A I wish I could speak with the same unhesitating confidence.of all» the representatives. I contend that Mi- Mervyn had a perfect right to obstruct what he conscientiously believed •to be wrong, and I shall require a great deal more than the incoherent telegram ;bn which your paragraph is founded to convince me that Mr Mervyn has exceeded the bounds of Parliamentary precedent. Did not Mr Fox and his friends take the very same course in order -to get into 'office, and afterwards boasted of doing so ? Mr Mervyn was alone in the- matter—so much the worse for the others. —I am, &c.^

Impartial;,*

Lawrence, October 3rd/ ' • . p.S.^—l observe 1 have forgotten the solemn reprimand by the Speaker, which concludes your report. If any reliance is to be placed upon your correspondent's- previous reports, it is simply a new instance of " What's his name■?" reprovifigsin. Impartial.

[Our correspondent's reasoning is a good deal wide of the mark. Mr Mervyn's, attack on Mr Reynolds may or n^ay not have been deserved, but that has : nothing to do with the question. What we blame Mr" Mervyn for is for not at once acquiescing in the ruling of tbe Chairman. If a membei* is tobe excused (as our correspondent says he may) for persisting in conduct ruled out of order because he may think the Chairman, not himself, to be in the wrong, then such rulings are altogether useless. As for Mr Mervyh's persisting in dividing the House when he knew he could gain nothing by it, we call it a wilful waste-of the time of the House. Argument in this matter, however, is unnecessary. Mr Mervyn apologised, and thereby is self convicted of improper conduct. —Ed. O.D.T.]