Politicians would then speak and voto according to the standard of their in dividual intelligence, or at least they would be free to do so ; and as in tho estimation of the public and public writers their intelligence adequately or inadequately grasped what was reason ably best for tho public interests, so would they be judged by judges free at least from tho despicably demoralising bias of party. Of the three speeches wo Lave lately published on the Land bill, that of Mr Duncan is undoubtedly the best from what may bo termed the literary point of view. This is the most surprising thing about it. It reads as though it were the production of a man of an easy, almost graceful delivery. This must bo no less gratifying to Mr Duncan's friends than it is surprising to all those who have simply beon un prejudiced listeners to oratorical efforts made by him in this district. But after all it is the matter and not the manner of a man's speech that we should judge him by. And judged by its matter alone the speech of Mr Duncan, which we published on Wed nesday, is a highly creditable porform ance. That is, portions of it taken by themselves aro most excollont. And this language applies, for example, to bis remark that the practical efficacy of a land law depends upon its adminis tration, and that the best law badly administered is for tho time being at anyrate not worth the paper it is written on ; to his description of tho cropping system and its injurious effects in many instances ; to what he says about the evils of the Government trying to make rnonoy out ofa land-buy ing maniaamong the people; to tho appli cability of the Land bill to the gold fields, and to the necessity for radical legislation in regard to riparian rights, etc. But the argumont of Mr Duncan's speech is that tho bill, as a whole, is not suited to the district he represents, and that therefore he will not vote for it in his place in Parliament. 