Auckland Provincial Council. SPEECH OF MR. B. W. STAFFORD TO THE ELECTORS OF NELSON ON SATURDAY, THE 12th JANUARY, 1861.

New Zealander, Volume XVII, Issue 1548, 16 February 1861, Page 3

Auckland Provincial Council.

SPEECH OF MR. B. W. STAFFORD TO THE ELECTORS OF NELSON ON SATURDAY, THE 12th JANUARY, 1861.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY IL>, 1861. The Speaker took the Chair at 3 o'clock, p.m., and read the Prayer. One-third of the members not being prcsrnt, the Council was adjourned by the Speaker until tomorrow. Members present:—Messrs. Busby, Cadman, Griffin, May, Mcrriman, Pollen, A. O'Neill, Vcrcoe, White. OIIDEItS OF TUB DAY. 1. Manukau Harbour Endowments Bill—second reading. 2. Report of Committee on Water Supply—to be considered. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1861. Mr. Speaker took the Chair at 3 o'clock, p.m., and read the Prayer. One-third of the members not being present, the Council was adjourned by the Speaker until tomorrow. Members present:—Messrs. Cadman, Griffin, King, May, Mcrriman, Pollen, White. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1861. Mr. Speaker took the Chair at 3 o.elock, p.m., and read the Prayer.

One-third of the members not being present, the Council was adjourned by the Speaker until tomorrow.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1861. The Speaker took tho Chair at 3 o'clock, p.m., and read the Prayer. : One-third of the members not beirtg .present, the Speaker adjourned the Coiuicil until.Tuesday ftcit. Members present:' —Messrs. Brcnnan, Cadman, Dignaii, Merriman,' White, Pollen, Coolahan.

To the Editor of the New-Zeaeaxder.

Sir,—l find the abbye, spieec'h in (he supplement to the Southern Cross of Friday fast, The Editor of that journal, in directing the attention'Oi its readers to this speech, introduces it in the following rather wa'srgish • manner,---''We publish in to-day's issue a speech delivered at Nelson by Mr. Stafford. It is well worth perusal, giving as it does a sketch of proceedings in,the late session, taken from a Ministerial point of view. It really quite reminds one of the old country to hear of Ministers of the Crown starring it in the I provinces during the recess. The Colonial Secretary's cxpl'crta'ttonjr seem to have becti received very well at Nelson, but we feet ,shat his colleague in the Wairau will find some difficulty fn getting returned again." This paragraph evinces on the par"t of the writer an attempt to dive into a hidden motive, and also contains an oblique hint that Mr. Stafford's speech' was evidently intendod " to help some lame dog over the stile." This nppears to be a correct inference from Mr. Stafford's own words, used, let it be remembered, after the Nelson election was over, where fee says,— " If on the other hand, you are of opinion, upon a full knowledge, and impartial consideration of our conduct, that we deserve support, then elect men who will support,us." This language was doubtless intended to have d more extensive influence than that of merely procuring a lu'votfrab'le resolution from the meeting in behalf of himself. Were I ftsked, fpr my opinion as to which of our Auckland joii'rf.'Hs had acted the more friendly part towards Mr. Stafford, the one which re-printed his speech, or the other which gave the resolution of the meeting only, I should decide at once in favour of the latter, at least before his honourable colleague, Mr. Richmond, or Mr. Gisborne, were at hand to rescue him from the gripe of Lindley Murray. Your cotemporary might have added that a Premier's speech delivered in any of the large provincial towns in England is frequently a model of oratory, comprising eloquence, sound argument, and grasping conceptions on the leading topics of the day, while he would be entirely wide of the mark in characterising the speech'delivercd by the Premier of New Zealand, asin any way approaching in any respect these qualities. What particular object Mr. Stafford proposed to gain by this worked-up-first-person speech, he best kriows. Probably it was a difficult task to get up a second charge of conspiracy and treason, with the view of arraigning the conspirators and traitors before the public, for the time being, to afford a chance of grasping at a little political capital, hence the necessity of trying what could bo done by a purely one sided explanation. Mr. King's astounding etter, though heralded forth as being calculated to perform such wonderful and damaging exploits, was not even a nine day's wonder. Mr. Stafford's speech we may safely predict, will not set the Waitemata on fire. It is faulty, very faulty, considering the position and pretentions of its author. The grammar is intolerable, as Mr. Boylan said in reference to the reso- ! lution of the public meeting a fifth boy of Dublin would be ashamed 1 of it. Some of flic sentences are so wretchedly constructed as to seem to convey no meaning at all, or the very reverse of what is intended. It exhibits no attributes of the able statesman, the logician, or the philosopher—it contains no'evidence of extensive literary attainments. It was customary with Mr. Stafford, in his place in the House, fo tell the " young greens" when they happened to refer to pub- | lished parliamentary debates, that no reliance could be placed in, their accuracy, if they were reported in the third person. Mr. Stafford appears to have guarded his own speech against this fatal objection by taking care that it went forta t'6' the.world revised, and dressed up in all the perlections of the mat person. In addition to its bad grammar, worse logic, and palpable unfairness—as a Ministerial explanation, in the true and strict sense of the word, it is far from being honest, and certainly a reflection on its author, because it very adroitly smooths over many porta of their late policy, and altogether evades all mention of other prominent parts, which have been considered, and held up, as the most objectionable by the opposition. In order to prepare his audience for the long statement Imj was about to make, and to induce them to accept it. as truth; he endeavours to make it appear that'tliey had" been kept iii blind ignorance as regarded the acts" and conduct of the Ministry, that considerable misapprehension existed with respect to the Government] •' and that no little misrepresentation of the conduct and policy had been industriously circulated in some quarters; while no means of explaining our conduct to the public generally, >r of making known our views and intentions have been afforded to us."— Mr. Stafford proceeds to deliver a lecture concerning the newspaper press of the colony. His onslaught is indiscriminate, no portion of it having properly represented the Ministry. That the public press was purely local and provincial, and from such a press as a matter of course the Ministry could not expect but to be misrepresented,—"there is at pr sent cither a total absence of information both as to the administration of the General Government, and the opinions of those who administer it, or what is worse still, only one sided and false information. In alluding to this subject, I regret that it can be said that the Nelson press is especially open to the accusation of having neglected to supply to its readers information as to the proceedings of the recent session." Now, if the Auckland press misrepresented the Ministry—from what source was the Nelson press to supply its readers with; correct information? He further on tells the people, " that scarcely anything worthy of the name of a rejKirt of the proceedings of the Legislature could be found in the Nelson newspapers." Stafford, while regretting that; the Nelson press had not attended to this part of its duty, pays a compliment to the Hawfrc's Bay Herald for reprinting tho first debates on the War, and the debate on the " New Provinces Act."

In speaking of the leading opinions of the newspaper press in connexion with the reports of the proceedings of the House—he has drawn no distinction, but left his audience to conclude that the Ministry had been misrepresented in every respect. But if the Ministry were so mis-represented during the late session.why does he impute neglect to the Nelson press for not giving its readers more of this misrepresentation, and compliment the comparatively small paper, the llawkes Bay Herald, for giving so much? Have the Editors or thejreporters, or both, bceninthehabitofmisreprescnting'the Ministry? If so the Nelson press was a friend to the Ministry by declining to give a wider circulation to this misrepresentation. How, again, could Mr. Elliot defend him and his colleagues if he did not* get the correct information? From what source did he get it if not from the Auckland papers? Did Mr. Stafford keep up a constant correspondence with Mr. Elliot with the view of keeping that gentleman well posted up in regard to the policy of the Ministry? Or did Mr. Elliot rely on a portion of the press, for his information which Mr. Stafford has several times declared in his speech did not represent,—but misrepresented, the Ministry. Mr. Stafford exhorts his hearers to try the Ministry on correct information, and then positively tells them there is no means of getting it. He meets the charge which has been made against the Ministry, concerning the dreadful all-absorbing monster centralism, by avoiding the " New Provinces Act," —the very part of their policy on which this charge was founded. This Act allowed the few to decide against the many in referenco to the application—though all the district may be represented alike in the House. It completely ignores the representatives of the district—takes the power out of the House of Keprcsentativcs and places it in the Executive—the objectors of the old Province having no voice or power to prevent it—the conditions being complied with there is no court of appeal. Yet this is not centralism! Mr. Stafford likewise evades the relaxation of the Arms Ordinance in 1858, by which the natives were allowed to procure Arms.

Though many days at the commencement of the session were taken up in proving that Wi Kingi had no title to the land in dispute—that Teira had a good title, and on this the merits or demerits of the War was based—to wit, McLeans's evidence: yet, Mr. Stafford has now shifted his ground, and repudiates the idea of the Government going to war on the question of 600 acres of land. He did not tell his audience, that although he was anxious that they should bo in possession of every particular, as to the real origin of the War, he himself voted for Mr. Sewell's amendment, in order to defeat Mr. Carleton's motion for inquiry. He also omitted to give his audience any information as to the merits of the " Native Offenders' Bill," the " Arms' Bill," and the " Militia Bill," —and ho went very smoothly over the question of Finance, though these were the most objectionable points in the Ministerial policy—which ought to havo been met and explained away before the Ministry could expect to silence the opposition, or hope to retain office. But having trespassed already too much on your space, I must conclude for the present. There are other faults in this speech, a notice of which may form the subject of a second letter. , _ _,_ , v w .~* e.»

To the Editor of the New-ZealasDek. Sir, —A letter having appeared in your paper of the 6th inst., signed by A. S. Andrews, making grave charges against the ferryman at Onehunga, I beg a small space in your paper to refute the statements irtede. Mr. Andrews states that on Sunday last be went to" Onehunga and had to wait nearly an hour for the ferry because, the boys were bathing. They were doing so, but did not keep the gentleman waiting ten minutes. The bbys iteturhe* and kept watch until after sundown, as Mr. Andrews expressed his wish to return in the afternoon. The boys went'hoflM! for their supper ana* returned to the 1 ferry house fof the" night, without hearing anything of Mr. Andrews. Fernkpt Mr. A. would state if the two young'nidir who brought him back for what he says He' paid two shillings were not Maories, and if the Dingy did! not belong to the ship Raven, and if he did not pay on the Wharf in- ■ stead of the compulsion he speaks of at Marcgnrei whtcif makes" it appear voluntary on his part. I would also'give the necessary information to Mr. A. by stating that Captain' Wing is the harbour master, and the undersigned is the contractor for the ferry. The price advertised is from sunrise to sunset, not for all hours of the night. I would also ask- Mr. A. if he or any of his friends were ever charged more than the authorised fare whether by day or night and by whom, and is it for the good of the public that hia remarks were put in print or to do the two orphan boys an injury who worked the ferry. I rather think I Mr. A. is the tool of his friends if possible to under* mine the character of your humble servant through 'political' differences. With these remarks I must conclude. Tours, &c, J. M'Ghee. P.S.—I must decline any further reply should Mr. A. feel inclined for newspaper controversy as my time is too much occupied. Onehunga, Feb. 11, 1861. To the Editor of the New-Zealajjder. Sir,-—ln your issue of Wednesday last is the report of proceedings in the Resident Magistrate's Court of the previous day relative to a breach of the Harbour Regulations. lam not aware by whom such report was furnished for insertion in your paper, but I think the reporter, whoever he may have been, should in fairness towards me, have stated the whole, instead of a portion of the proceedings. The case, as reported, leads the public to infer that I had entertained a contempt for the Court, and had set the law at defiance, and that the counsel for the informant had consequently applied for a warrant for my apprehension, which was granted. The facts of the case are these : On receiving a summons to appear on Tuesday for a breach of the Harbour Regulations, I communicated with a professional gentleman on the subject, who promised to attend the Court on my behalf, stating at the same time there would be no necessity for my appearance. About 12 o'clock on Tuesday I was apprehended on a warrant, and taken to the Court in the custody of a police officer. Before the proceedings commenced, I begged the Bench would acquit me of entertaining any disrespect towards it, for my non-appearance, as I had only then found that my legal adviser had not attended as promised ; there was a misnomer in the summons, but such was not the reason for my nonattendance. I was ignorant of what had been said on the case being called on for hearing, and I was much surprised to find in your paper of the following morning such language as that used by the counsel for the informant, without the slightest allusion being made to my explanations to the Bench. I leave the public now to judge whose conduct is most "disgraceful," your reporter, the counsel for the informant, my legal adviser, or Your obedient servant, I

J. O. Hamlet. [An explanation of Mr. Hamley's complaint will be found 1 iri a further report of this case.—Ed. N Z."|