The Oamaru Mail

Monday, March 2, 1885.

Ought a man to be blamed for having red hair or a squint, or other peculiarity? Here is an interesting subject, when all others have been exhausted, for some debating society? Can a man be blamed for his mental idiosyncracies any more than for his physical characteristics? We do not think he can. There are some people whose life is a microcosm of their mental habits. About some men we can predict exactly what they will do or say on any occasion. Even in their eccentricities there is a rule. These thoughts occur to us when reading the speech of Mr Robert Gillies, the member for Bruce. We never read a speech of his that did not begin well—generally in praise of some one—and end with a "but." Indeed if one were to speak of Mr Gillies himself he would have to follow his own method, He would say of him, "He is a capable business man, anxious to do well for his day and generation, fairly benevolent, well meaning; but "—. There comes in that "but," that so long kept Mr Gillies out of political life, that mars his political career, and seems to us to be likely to mar it. Now, just as Mr Gillies is so are his speeches. They have always the "but." Indeed, so well is this known amongst his friends and acquaintances that the very fact of Mr Gillies' beginning to land any per on or thing causes them to prepare for a depreciatory criticism. We remember being struck with this in reading one of his speeches at a church soiree. For ten minutes he lauded everything, and then came the "but." When, then, we read in his Milton speech a reference to the Premier laudatory in its terms, we were certain that the "but" was coming, and it came. Mr Gillies could not find in any political act or utterance any fault with the Premier, "but" he did not agree with his religious opinions. We did not know Mr Gillies was SO particular in the matter of creeds. He made no reference to Sir Julius Vogel's creed. Why did he not? We believe that, if at a Jewish meeting Sir Julius Vogel took the chair, he would be introduced as the Colonial Treasurer of New Zealand, and no doubt his co-religionist who introduced him, or proposed a vote of thanks to him, would express his gratification at his position. Would Mr Gillies quarrel with that? Would he think such a statement antagonistic to Mr Gillies' Christian creed? Now, we read the Dunedin papers very closely, and we have not seen in any of them a record of anything done by Mr Stout since he took office as Premier about which Mr Gillies can quarrel on religious grounds, save that he delivered a Christian address on Christmas night—an address which the most orthodox Christian could find but little fault with—and that Mr Gerald Massey stated he was glad to see Mr Stout Premier, and in the chair at his lecture. If a Premier is not to speak on theological subjects because he represents a people of divers creeds, we presume a member of Parliament ought not to speak at church meetings. Has Mr Gillies taken up this position? Does he not enunciate his views? Nay, was he not doing what he condemned in introducing religions subjects at a political meeting? What right had he, as representing persons of divers creeds, including Freethinkers, to use his position as a member of Parliament to insult some of those persons? But it was Mr Gillies with his "but." We believe that Christianity is harmed by such a speech as that of Mr Gillies. He assumes that if Mr Stout attacks Christianity it will be injured Mr Gillies is a man of weak faith. Christianity is not defended or strengthened by such a Gilliesian defence. It is by living the life that men are led to become followers of Jesus Christ. And if Mr Gillies would only show by his life that the Christian religon has made him better than free thinking Mr Stout, we feel sure he would do more to promote true Christianity than will such weak references as he made to religion in his Milton speech. And here let us say that the only two or three other parts of his speech worth noticing are, first, his utterly un-Christian remarks about the Dunedin "rabble;" second, the record of his votes in the Assembly; and third, his attention to local wants. The first showed that the smell of the rags saturated with kerosene that were burned in Dunedin are still smelling in Mr Gillies' nostrils. We are afraid that calling his fellow citizens "rabble" may tend to give a further pungency to future displays of insincere page break political opinion. We shall see. Then the thing that made Mr Gillies oppose the South Island Ministry, as we may well term it, was that they pledged themselves to do something to make the East and West Coast railway. Seeing that the Ministry Mr Gillies supported promised and did exactly what the first Ministry promised, we must say that Mr Gillies' explanation is neither sensible nor satisfactory. The fact is, Mr Gillies looked upon the making of the Westport harbor as the most important thing for the Parliament to do; and he did not like the railway made lest the Westport colliery interests might suffer. And then, like most other politicians, Mr Gillies has to appeal to local requirements for support. He dealt with no political principles, with no reform. His political watchword was Kaitangata Lake—and that took. It is this reference to local needs that tends to degrade politics. The constituents are taught to look to the member who will get the most cash out of the Colonial Treasury, and this is why there are no properly-defined parties in the House, and why votes for local purposes are more thought of than political principles. "But" Mr Gillies is Mr Gillies, and our criticism must; end. To have expected any other speech from Mr Gillies than that which he gave his constituents would have been to expect that he would have belied his past history. The "but" was inevitable.