AUCKLAND AND WELLINGTON

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1530, 27 June 1901, Page 49

AUCKLAND AND WELLINGTON

Some controversy has taken place in regard to the respective merits of th® Royal reception arrangements at Auckland and at Wellington. “Comparisons are proverbially odious, but as they have been invoked,” writes “ On® Who Was There/’ “it is as well to have the matter settled onc e and for all. First, then, it must be admitted that the Auckland decorations were mere elaborate and effective than those of Wellington, which covered more ground and had of necessity to be in places somewhat ‘long-drawn-out.’ th© same reason the reception itseif in Auckland seemed more hearty. Th© route there was just long enough to enable the populace to spread itself evenly along both sides of the line of procession. Thus, from the time their Royal Highnesses landed from the boat until the tim e when they first took refuge within the portals of Government House itself, their ears were greeted with one continuous, almost unvarying chorus of applause. In Wellington, despite the prophets and the sons of prophets, experience showed the route to have been too long to secure any such effect. In places the butter was spread very thin, and the reception was ‘flatter’ than that of Auckland for that reason. Again, at Auckland the pyrotechnic display was as superior to that of Wellington as an arc light is to a damp squib. It was, in fact, a major item on the Northern hill of fare. Th© veterans’ dinner at Auckland was a more spontaneous and hearty affair than th© c.n e at W ellington; and the Government House reception there was a mere " cordial and enjoyable function than the one her© (prlncjpalfy . because there was more space available), though the Auckland women were not nearly so graceful and well-dressed as their Wellington sisters. But none of the Auckland functions approached in brilliancy the reception at Parliament House in Wellington; bad as Wellington street© were, Auckland’s were quagmires in comparison • "with one exception (that of the South British Insurance Company, whose display was unique), Wellington’s' illuminations, public and private, quit© put Auckland’s in .ihe shade; ’Wellington’s arches ware greatly superior to- • those exhibited in Auckland, with th©: exception of the municipal arch in the latter place, which was a singularly beautiful creation (but which again was outstripped in effectiveness by the Maori arch at Rotorua, which was facile princeps); Wellington's Volunteer parad© was incomparably better than that made bv Auckland province, the men being better set-up and uniformed, and- tbe horses of better , stamp and mettle; the arrangements for public accommodation and comfort were uetter and cheaper in Wellington than in. Auckland; the harbour facilities were more complete in Wellington than in Auckland; a greater, more various and more valuable collection of addresses was made in Wellington than "in Auckland; there was more sustained enthusiasm iu Wellington than In Auckland, shown by the fact that whilst the Aucklanders practically played themselves out in one frenzy of exuberance, tho Wellmgtonians were afire with loyalty and excitement, exhibited in various ways, from the moment their Royal Highnesses stepped on to the wharf until they went aboard th© Ophir to sail for Lyttelton. Taken by and large, therefore, Wellington outstripped Auckland in the effectiveness of its display and the ‘warmth of its welcome.”’