These two fluent speakers were fol lowed by three of our Canterbury cele brities, and I certainly cannot say that they carried our colors very high. Poor Mr Walker hastened to put in his claim aa leader of the Opposition, and was evi dently full of points and lively hits, but words will not come at his command, so that most of his early sentences were never finished, and if his speech is intel ligible in Hansard it will owe that quali fication to some friendly reporter. Still there is a charm about his manner, and a brightness about what he intends to say that was in strong contrast to the more able speakers that preceded him, but whose attitudes and manners were far less Parliamentary. When Mr Walker sat down the Premier gave some evidences of. his intention to reply, but fate had ordered otherwise. Mr Taylor's happy face and well-nourished frame jumped up before him, and all serious debate was at an end. The young New Zealand party were not at all com plimentary in their remarks about Mr Taylor's eloquence, and Mr Taylor's won derfully sharp ears heard more than was intended for them, and serious conse quences threatened, but nothing could baffle him, especially after he drew the roars of the House with his denunciation of what he called the "airy system" of voting, and pointed to the wonderful success of the present system, especially fn Sydenham. This, of course, brought up Mr Verrall to supply another proof of the complete success of single electorates. But he proved no match for Mr Taylor in the com petition for theatrical honors, especially as the long recess had supplied him with no new ideas about the State Bank.
