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

New Zealander, Volume XVII, Issue 1551, 27 February 1861, Page 5

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

To the Editor of the New-Zealandku

Sir, —This curious, one-sided ministerial speech would hare passed for what it is worth, so far as I am concerned, were it not, that a portion of it, is an unprovoked and therefore a most ungracious attack on the newspaper press of New Zealand. As, however, Mr. Stafford has deemed it his duty to attack the press, in accordance with the moral law, of “ doing unto others as he would wish they would do unto himself,” he can have no just grounds of complaint, if the press by way of defence and retaliation, —if you will, — returns the compliment. Had the public journals throughout the Colony been in the habit for months back, of publishing strong, yea, furious and vindictive leading articles, headed “ Down with the Tottering Stafford Ministry!” the Premier, even under such a provocation, could not have been more severe in Ids animadversions on the press than he was in his speech at Nelson, It does not say much for his generalship; I venture to declare, that he could not as a public man, have perpetrated a mare downright silly or suicidal act, unless he courted his own unpopularity, defeat, and prostration—and unless he desired to be the author of his future downfall. It was about as ridiculous and as rash an act as that of the poor fellow who attacked the windmills. Had it not appeared in the first person, leaving ns to presume that it had been revised aud corrected by himself, we might perhaps have concluded that some wicked rascal of a reporter hail been guilty of misrepresenting him. Having found great fault with Mr. Stafford’s logic in my former letter in which his reasoning appears to be at cross purposes with himself, I will Jay before your readers a few sentences, so as to allow him to speak for himself, and thereby obviate any charge of misrepresentation. When I read them, and took ,the trouble to compare one with the other, in my endeavours to find out at what he was, driving, I came to the irresistable conclusion that he had lost himself—that ho had become so bewildered and confused as not to be aware of the true import of what he was saying, or that he had snatched at anything that came uppermost for the moment as a fortunate, timely, and lucky idea just to enable him to round a period— so that ho may sip, cough, take breath, turn over his notes, and prepare for the next topic. In alluding to the want of information on the part of the public journals and their general misrepresentation of the Ministry, he says that—- “ One prominent reason for this is owing to the fact that during the period for which wc have hold office, there has been no public journal in New Zealand which has represented the General Government, or has been at all acquainted with our acts, still less with our opinions on the great public questions m which the public is at present interested. “ This absence of a general colonial press, although to be accounted for as I have just stated, is a real loss and subject of regret to the Colony.” Might not this absence bo attributed to the neglect of the Ministry, for not having appointed a new Minister, at £BOO a-ycar, to fill the office of Censor over the colonial press ? Again—“lf you think the policy of the Ministry wrong, be it so ; but ascertain what that policy really has been and is, let it be well known before you condemn us. And remember what I have already told you, that no fair or true representation of our policy, is to be found in any of the newspapers ot the Colony, while much that is unfair and untrue does appear in some of them.”

After telling his audience very plainly that they could get no reliable information from the newspapers, and omits at the same lime to tell them how or from what source they were to procure correct information,

he winds up thus—“ If, on the other hand, you arc of opinion, upon a fall knowledge and impartial consideration of our conduct, that we deserve support, then elect men who will support us.” In another part of his speech, quite disconnected with his lecture on the press, and showing the worse than uselessness of the colonial press, Mr. S. says — “We also supplied periodically accurate statistical information, which did not previously exist, and we furnish this information to all the public journals, to reading rooms, and to mechanics’ institutes.” It would appear from this that though the journals fee., &c., have been supplied with a little information of a certain kind by the General Government-yet as regards the policy of the Ministry, the whole qt the people in New Zealand were still in profound ignorance, —a policy too by which the Colonial Secretary particularly urges that the Ministry should be judged. Under this stupid and blissful ignorance they had elected himself; and under this ignorance he calls upon his audience to elect men to support the Ministry. These are the grounds according to his own shewing, that he asks for support to the Ministry ! The press has been so lamentably neglectful, or so grossly corrupt, or both, that it was utterly impossible for the people to get a proper knowledge touching the policy of the Ministry.

Query. Do not the people know too much of the ministerial policy ? Has not the Colony paid very dear for it ? Have we not already had too much of it ? At Nelson, where Mr. Stafford says ignorance reigns —the Minister and his policy have met with support. At Auckland, where the people can attend the debates and where they have opportunities of knowing more—they reject the policy of the Ministry by a large majority. Will Mr. Stafford attribute the cause of his being compelled to sit, for the future, on the bleak side of the House, that is, on the opposition benches, to a want of information anvngst the people or to the fact that the Colony as a whole knows too much of both him and his policy? Is it not much to be regretted that the Ministry did not send the right kind of information as to their policy, when they sent the statistical information to the public journals, fee., fee. ; for if wc are to judge from the remarks of Mr. Stafford the whole of the press of New Zealand would have been much better shut up silent altogether, so far as the General Government is concerned.

Mr. Editor, I now proceed to try the Colonial Secretary's position on another scale. Shortly after the commencement of the late Session, Mr. Richmond, the Colonial Treasurer delivered a very able and argumentative speech on the introduction of the Native Offenders’ Bill. It was allowed by both sides of the House to have been a real display of eloquence. Mr. Forsaith was about to quote from that speech, in a day or so after, as it was then published in the New Zealander , but before he did so, he wished to ask Mr. Richmond if be had been correctly represented in that journal. Mr. Richmond rose and admitted at once that the report was substantially correct. The long financial statement by Mr. Richmond subsequently appeared in the New Zealander. Yet Mr. Si afford would try to make it appear that no means had been afforded the Ministry of making known their policy. Mr. Carlcton raised a question of privilege on a most trivial charge against the New Zealander lor mis-reporting. Similar mistakes to the one in question at times occur to members of the House of Commons, as may be gathered from the short letters of explanation which frequently appear in the Times from gentlemen wishing to set themselves right with the public. This charge of Mr. Carletou's was ably and effectively met by Mr. Gillies, who rose and observed in a rather indignant tone, that it was high time such an old absurd fiction of the House not knowing that reporters were present, and considered essential requisites to their proceedings, was dropt in the Colony at least, and that so long as there was no proof of intentional mis-reporting, he thought no hon. member had the least reason to complain. Mr. Carleton backed out of the charge like one that had been snubbed, and there the matter ended —the House apparently acquiescing in this termination of such a frivolous case from an hon. member who at all events, one would think, ought to have known better, being connected with the press himself, besides knowing, as he must have done, that the conductors of the journal had about as much to do with this slight mistake as the man in the moon. I mention this case to shew how necessary it is for a public man to have a well grounded reason for attacking the press, or he will receive but little support from either side of the House or the public. But what will be thought of Mr. Stafford’s indiscriminate attack upon the press, and his accusations of misrepresenting the Ministry and of circulating false information, when I state as a positive fact that the Colonial Secretary himself, in his place in the House, on several occasions, in as pointed a manner us he was able, absolutely complimented the whole press of the Colony! With the single exception of the paper which published the “blood for blood” article, he awarded the highest praise to the newspaper press generally throughout New Zealand for the manner in which it had dealt with the conduct of His Excellency the Governor and the Ministry. The “article” just alluded to, was the one that had been quoted in the House of Lords, What could the. Colonial Secretary expect to gain by telling his audience that they could not avoid bcingiaa state of ignoranccas to his merits or demerits of laic,when they re-elected him as their representative? What a compliment to slap in their faces! His own words go to prove that they have supported the man, while they were totally ignorant of his policy’. He condescended to give his hearers a short sketch on the composition of the House in the last session. lie did not venture to tell them how the Ministry were likely to be affected by the elections in the next session. However cheering the results may be in the Soutli—when his mind reverted to the North, the result must produce a corresponding gloom. In the last session there were but five Auckland members who manifested a steady opposition to the Ministry, Messrs. Daldy, Forsaith, Graham, Henderson, and Williamson. Against which number the Ministry could always count upon seven sure votes on Ministerial questions —Messrs. Farmer, Campbell, Clark, Ilcale, Haultaiu Symonds, and Carlcton. Dr. Lee was away all the session. But the other six of this list voted as docilely and as regularly to the ring of the bell with the Ministry as ever a body of soldiers moved in obedience to the words of a drill sergeant, “ as you were,” “ right foot foremost,” “ march.” Mr. Carlcton tied his hands behind him, goosc-like, early in the session, by giving a pledge not to oust the Ministry. He did this with the view of coaxing the Government not to vote against his motion for inquiry. The Government opposed his motion —they outgeneraled him in this respect, and had him nailed down to his pledge all the rest of the session. They refused to release him, though they were asked, several times to do so. “ Poor fellow,” said Mr. Graham, “ the hon. member is ready to cut his throat with vexation.” Mr. Carleton’s only alternative was to make terrible cutting speeches against the Ministry, and then cither pairoff, or vote for them. But now , the case is quite different, the tables have been turned. The six “ docile” (I have to thank Mr. Stafford for this word, as applied by him to Mr. Brandon), supporters of the Ministry are ail out. Two of them did not show their noses for any where. The other four, Clark, Heale, Haultaiu, and Farmer, have been replaced by opposition members. In ihe place of Dr. Lee a thorough provincialist has been returned. If Carlcton is returned, he conics in unfettered, with an oft-repeated declaration that he has no confidence in the present Ministry. On a number of questions touching the domestic policy of the present Government instead of its being seven government supporters to five oppositionists—as in last session—the case will be very different. The numbers for Auckland members will stand as eleven oppositionists to four Ministerialists.

The Ministry only held office during the hist session by the chapter of accidents. Dr. Lee was away. Mr. Carlcton was fettered, and two of the Otago members did not come up. Had Carlcton been free and the other members in their places, the Ministry must have been in the minority on two out of the three of their Ministerial questions. What has the Stafford Ministry done for Auckland that they should expect the support of Auckland members? Who made Nelson the first port of call? The Stafford Ministry. When they wanted an addition to the Ministry, did they take an Auckland member into their confidence? When they wanted a Land Commissioner, did they select him from the Auckland members? When’they created a new office for the Registrar of Deeds, did they offer it to an Auckland member? When they wanted some Bills to bo drafted, did they not overlook the Auckland Lawyers, and get them done at Nelson? Did they not propose building the Gaol and Asylum at Nelson? For what has Auckland to thank the Stafford Ministry? Mr. Stafford spoke of the qualifications of the present Ministry. Though Mr. Sewell has been nicely managed, to keep him from taking office in a new Ministry, it would be an outrageous libel on the House to say that all the Ministerial talent is centred in the present Ministry. The question is, can two members out of the Opposition bo found to supply the [daces of Mr. Whitaker in one Mouse, and Mr. Richmond in the other? If this can be done, there is no difficulty whatever in selecting men from the House to replace Messrs. Stafford, Tuncrcd, and Weld. The two latter gentlemen never made any great pretensions. Mr. Weld had the generosity to admit his incapacity to render Mr. Richmond that amount of assistance which he could have desired. Mr. Stafford, who was equally as helpless and not a whit more assistance to Mr. Rich-

mond, never had the generosity to acknowledge anything of the kind. How many times was Mr. Richmond battling with the Opposition till he was fairly exhausted, without receiving any help from Mr. Stafford? Why there are the qualifications of more than half-a-dozen Staffords centred in Dr, Featherston. As I said before, if talent sufficient to supply the places of Messrs. Whitaker and Richmond can be found, there is no danger about a new and a more talented Ministry being formed,should the present one be turned out. I should not have touched upon this point, had not Mr. Stafford boasted of the qualifications of the present Ministry at Nelson, and had not the question been frequently put during the election, Where will you get men from to supply their places if you turn the present Ministry out? 1 believe there is no difficulty iu this respect. Yours, &c., Argus.