The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1912.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3459, 26 February 1912, Page 4

The Gisborne Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1912.

No one, we should say, would be more amused at the

Slightly Exaggerated.

way in which

•our evening contemporary over-rated the speech delivered ,by Mr IV. D. S. MacDonald m the course of the Address-in-Reply Debate than the popular member for Bay of Plenty himself. It may be remembered that it was seriously contended by the Herald that Mr MacDonald’s speech had really occasioned quite a lot of jubilation among the supporters of the "Ward Party. Such, indeed, was the effect of the speech—it was even represented—that it had ‘’introduced the possibility of his selection as the man who might rally round him the Liberal and Radical forces.” For our own part we are not oven sure that Mr MacDonald even contemplated that lie would require to take part in the debate —at any rate at that particular juncture —in which event he may not have prepared himself for the occasion. This miuch we gather from the New Zealand. Times, which declares that after Mr Sidey resumed his seat there was a wild clamor from the Opposition benches for the Division to be taken. It was, moreover, the position that there was such an interval without an offering speech that the mover was actually called upon to reply. Just then, however, Mr MacDonald took up the running. When it is borne in mind that the member for Bay of Plenty is the Junior Whip, is it not then highly probable that he spoke—prepared or unpreparedI—-merely 1 —-merely to prevent the debate from collapsing—which was a contingency that would have just suited the Reform Party? Under such circumstances it would, indeed, have been very remarkable had the member for Bay of Plenty made a speech which m regard to its matter and the manner of its delivery, might have put new heart into the party, which is soon likely to lose its present leader; but what also strikes one very forcibly is the fact that should 1 the Herald’s political correspondent be correct, all the other Ministerial journals failed to ap~pveciate the importance of the speech, and. in addition were so short-sighted as not to see that Mr MacDonald had incontestable claims to the position -of leader of the c -'Liberal” Party. (As a matter of fact we suppose that Mr MacDonald must smile audibly at the suggestion in our evening contemporary that lie was entitled, at this early stage of his political career t-o- be in the running for the leadership of the Party with members of much greater experience as, say, Hon. R. McKenzie or Hon. T. Mackenzie —to leave out o.v consideration Sir Jas. Carroll and Hon. J. A. Millar, who are reported as indifferent on the question —or, again, that lie should be considered to have as yet qualities of leadership comparable with those of, say, Mr Laurenson or Mr Russell). What did happen as regards the reporting of Mr MacDonald’s speech in the daily press outside .Gisborne was that- only very short notices were given. Of the actual speech itself, the New Zealand Times, which is

the official 'organ of the Ministry, found space for only eight sentences, occupying 3'6 lines. It would, indeed, seem that the Opposition at any rate were more anxious to get to the momentous division than to have further time wasted' for it is also stated in the report to which allusion has been made that the cries of “Dividel” wore so loud from the Opposition at one stage that Mr Speaker had to appeal to the sense of fair play in the House to secure a hearing for Mr MacDonald. To be perfectly fair to Mr MacDonald it should he added that t heNe^^jTea_ land Times credited him with" showing improved debating capacity, and with having got wliat were, from the “Lvljeral’’ point of view, some good points home. It will thus ;be seen that in reality Mr MacDonald's remarks on this occasion attracted very little serious attention.