The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 197, 20 September 1854, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

Wednesday, September 20, 1854. By the " Phoebe" we have received English intelligence to the 24th May, whi6h reached Melbourne by the " Ocean Chief," and Wellington by the " Onkaparinga" from Melbourne. By the ''Norman Morrison," news reached us up to the 12th of June, which reached Sydney by the " Lady Jocelyn," and Wellington by the " Water witch" from Sydney. The news will be found in another column. : No decisive blow has been sti'uck yet. The Turks have been generally successful on the ' Danube, and several prizes have been taken by the British fleet in the Baltic. An; En-.

l^gjish steamer the "Tiger" went ashore near J Odessa, and was captured by Russians. Capt. Giffard was killed in defence of his ship. England and France are still making vast preparations for carrying on the war with vigour. Austria seems to be inclined to side more decisively against Russia, Prussia still wavers. There is no news from Auckland.

The other Provinces of New Zealand as well as ourselves, have been visited by flights of letters both signed and anonymous, addressed to the press and to private individuals ;. but all emanating from those indefatigable letter-writers, the Messrs, Wakefield. Copies of the New Zealancler without number have found their way to "people who never received an Auckland newspaper before. Such strange and vigorous efforts to spread one side of a story, at a time when so much business of importance is on hand at Auckland, denotes a consciousness of a very bad cause. Half the zeal and energy displayed to further their own cause, if directed to secure the public interest, might have saved us the misfortune which has fallen upon the country through the unsettled state of the Government. But the Wakefield genius luxuriates in disparaging -by inuendoes, and by imputing mean motives to honourable opponents. " Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo," is Mr. Wakefield's motto. "If I cannot succeed by fair and open dealing, I will try what underhand working will do for me." What would the country have said to Mr. Fitz Gerald, or Mr. Weld, or Mr. Sewell, if they had spent the time which they devoted to the public service, in writing to the Provinces letters on personal questions, in making copies of their own speeches for the press, in furnishing notes of their opponents' replies, and in directing the newspapers reporting them to private individuals all over the colony. Really all these proceedings would not be worthy of notice but that they are those of men who ; pretend to the character of patriots, zealous alone for the public welfare, and careless of their own interests. We will not now speak of Mr. E. G. Wakefield's interminable speeches in the House -^— all tending to the same object, all impeding the business of the House— perhaps these are his least cffences, although " he draws out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument;" nor will we dwell upon his repudiation of his former principles-.--this is a sin rather against his own reputation than against the public; nor upon his false promises to his constituents and the country, for they no longer deceive anybody; but we are bound to draw attention to the underhand manner of attack through the mouth of another, or by private letter, or by care fully-worded reporting. He puts into the Governor's "mouth language which he dare not use himself—language conveying false imputations and unworthy of his Excellency. He is met and unmasked boldly and openly; accused of his falsehood to his face, and challenged to prove his insinuations. He sneaks out of the House without answering the accusation, and sets ]to work with his pen to spread his disparaging remarks as

special correspondent of one paper, and disinterested cor respondent of another. This is what he calls rescuing his Excellency, and doing his duty to the country. A strange conscience, and a strange theory of duty* We have spoken at different times very plainly of Mr. Wakefield's conduct, but not too plainly. We have always held that mere differences of opinion on political questions do not justify such severe language as is often bandied about between political opponents: but where a man's career has been a system of unblushing falsehood eversince he has appeared amongst us and taken a leading part in the management of our affairs ; when the tone of public morality is in danger of being debased, when the character of the honourable are insidiously attacked to gratify the ambition of the crafty, when public interests are sacrificed to gain private ends —then it is the duty of the press to speak plainly, and not to "pass toff timidity and indecision under the specious cloak of moderation and impartiality-