New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5552, 14 January 1879, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1879.

In these dull days, when the wanderings of the Native Minister, and his varying receptions by the Maoris, form chief items in the political news of the Colony, it must bo somewhat refreshing to those who fake an interest in the sayings and doings of our public men, that the postsessional orations of honorable members have of late become a little more frequent. During the last few days no less than three of these guardians of the commonwealth have been holding forth to their expectant constituents. Of Mr, Wakefield’s speech we have already taken some notice, and it is unnecessary to go over the ground a second time. He unquestionably possesses high oratorical powers, but is perhaps never stronger than when engaged in the task of denouncing his political opponents. That task, it must bo admitted, he at times performs with a merciless disregard of all considerations except the complete discomfiture of his antagonists. The Government organs are content to describe his language as “abuse,” but that is an entirely wrong word for tho occasion. Abuse inflicts no wounds, but we are much mistaken if some of Mr. Wakefield’s sentences did not cut pretty deeply into Ministerial cuticles. For at Temuka tho shortcomings of Sir George Grey and his colleagues, but more especially of the former, supplied the principal theme of his discourse, and afforded a splendid and legitimate opportunity for the full display of his special powers. If Mr. Wakefield, however, had been a little more cautious and far-seeing in 1877, he would, in all probability, have saved himself the unpleasant task of this recent Temuka oration, and the country from witnessing the political crimes of the most incompetent, and at the. same time unscrupulous, rulers it has ever had the ill-fortune to be saddled with. It was by the casting vote of the Speaker on tho division taken on the 6 th of November in that year that the Ministry were enabled to hold office. But whatever may have been Mr. Wakefield’s errors of judgment in the past he holds sound views at present on most of the great political questions of the day, and his Temuka speech was a masterpiece of its kind. We next come to Dr. Hodgkinson, who, if not celebrated for the brilliancy of his oratory, has nevertheless made his mark in the House as its champion member for the delivery of long and prosy speeches. He is, moreover, noted for his persistent stubborness in what he believes to be right. The former accomplishment he appears to have displayed to the fullest advantage in his recent address to his constituents. His audience at the commencement of his speech was a fairly large one, but he had no mercy on them, and talked tho room so nearly clear of occupants that it was absolutely necessary to stop the oration in order to secure the necessary number to duly move a vote of thanks to, and confidence in, the honorable and venerable member. The vote, we understand, was carried unanimously, and under such circumstances, that is, witli only two or three of the speaker’s personal friends in the room, it would have been strange had it been otherwise. The burden of Dr. Hodgkinson’s lengthy address was the awful amount of our colonial indebtedness, and the rata of its increase, which he regards as unqualified evils, requiring prompt and drastic remedies ; evils which, in his opinion, are chiefly if not solely attributable to the abolition of our former provincial institutions. When we see men in the position of the Premier and the Minister for Public Works, bent on restoring those institutions, or forcing on the country something very much of the same sort, we need not be surprised at Dr. Hodgkinson and others of like mental calibre following suit. The big men have a keen eye to their own future political importance when they rant about the restoration of Provincialism in a new form; the little men, and amongst them we are compelled to class Dr. Hodgkinson, are influenced by an honest though mistaken notion of what the welfare of the State demands. The picture drawn by this gentleman of the general state of colonial affairs was gloomy in the extreme, and we have no doubt that the funereal expression of his visage during the delivery of his most mournful periods gave them ample point and emphasis. He was troubling himself and his hearers in vain. Under no circumstances will New Zealand go to the bad, though her prosperity may be to a certain extent marred, and her progress retarded, by the vagaries and idiocies of Ministries like the present one, backed up and supported by shallow and narrow - minded bigots such as Dr. Hodgkinson. We give him credit for sincerity, whilst we entirely disagree with him. Tho greatest blow which could be administered to New Zealand’s prosperity would be the restoration of Provincialism in any shape or form. It is "dead and buried, and that it may return no more to haunt either the present or future generations is the wish of all intelligent men whose mental vision is not blinded or obscured by hopes of personal aggrandisement. The last of the trio of speakers to whom we alluded at the commencement of our article is the Hon. K. Stout, who addressed his con-' stituents at the Queen’s Theatre in Dunedin on Friday last. Mr. Stout is a gentleman who for many reasons is entitled to the respect of both friends and foes ; and owing to his present official position, and the part lie played during tho last session, his utterances were looked forward to with very considerable interest. His speech at Dunedin can be best described as a disappointment. It was to a very large extent a vindication of his p.wn public character and conduct, the general uprightness of which, according to his own honest convictions, no one will feel inclined to doubt. Nor was he unmindful of the political reputations of his colleagues. He said all that could be jsaid in their favor, which was, of course, very right and proper. It seems strange that Ministers, who are continually

telling ua that they have nothing to vindicate, nothing to excuse in their career, should never by any chance make a public speech which is not almost entirely an apology for or a defence of something which has taken place in the past. Their “organs” inform us daily that everything urged against the Premier and his colleagues is abuse, and not worthy of an answer, and yet both “organs” and Ministers spend no inconsiderable part of their time in replying to that which, according to their own assertions, should be treated with contempt. Mr, Stout’s speech was no exception to the rule. He did not say much about the future, but he was very diffuse about the past. He entered into a long explanation concerning the Tapanui Railway, but whether accidentally or of malice aforethought, ho avoided all reference to the facts which caused the opposition journals—- “ The Times ” amongst the number—and a large proportion of the general public to apply to the Tapanui railway affair some hard but well-deserved names. Many other subjects were treated by Mr, Stout in an equally unsatisfactory manner, and ho concluded with a most shadowy outline of what the Ministry purpose doing in the future, that is, if Providence and the people will so far extend their patience and forbearance as to afford them the opportunity. Coming from Mr. Stout, the speech must be regarded as poor. It is poor in the sense of furnishing little food for reflection or hope. _______