THE MEMBER FOR STANMORE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5096, 2 September 1884, Page 3

THE MEMBER FOR STANMORE.

[The following letter appeared in the Lyttdlon Times of this morning :— ] Sir,— l read in your issue of yesterday the letter written by the member for Stuiiniore in vindication of his vote against the btout- Vogel Ministry, and I venture to say that such an amazing production never before emanated from a member of a New Zealand Parliament. To say nothing of its betrayal of the author's stupendous ignorance and conceit, it is the most illogical and contradictory letter I ever saw iv a public print. I think you will agree with me that had his vote not been sufficient to have demolished any reputation he may have had as a politician, the letter written in explanation thereof should be enough to damn any man's political career. The whole letter from beginning to end reveals a profound ignorance of the Queen's English. On the other hand, it is brimful of the silliest egotism. He begins, directly he sets foot in Wellington, by thinking that he can mould and fashion the Liberal party after his own sweet will. He says : " After an introduction to Sir George Grey I mentioned the matter to him about how necessary it was that he should see Mr Montgomery about consolidating the party. He agreed." Of course he agreed ; agreed to hoodwink poor Dan ; and Dan was not only too obtuse to see it, but actually went away with the impression that he was specially commissioned by Providence to shape the destinies of the nation. This is evident from what he says further on. "I, having taken an active part in trying to consolidate the Liberal party, and the desertion of Montgomery and Macandrew from what I considered their political principles, I said I would stick to my colours, and support Sir George Grey, and I think, by doing so, we have heard the last of these two men as leaders of parties." This sentence is inij niense. Does it mean that he has not only j taken an active part in trying to consolidate [ the Liberal party, but also in securing the desertion of Montgomery and Macandrew ? Whatever else it may mean, he evidently intends it to mean that his action has comj pletely and for ever settled the leadership lof " these two men." I have before me as I write a copy of the address circulated by Mr Reese before the election, and I find in it these remarks :— " I shall be very happy to throw in my lot with the Liberals of New Zealand, and endeavour, with the other Canterbury members, to see that Canterbury gets justice. I will not say that any particular man is entitled to be a leader. If I go to Wellington I will be assisted in coming to a conclusion by the old members of that party, and depend upon it, I will fight loyally with them. If Sir Julius Yogel is selected by the Liberal party as leader, you will find me fighting under his flag." How has he kept these promises ? I charge him with having broken, every one of them. He lias voted against the Canterbury members. He has said that one particular man, and that Sir George Grey, must be leader. He refused to be assisted by the old members of the Liberal party in coming to a conclusion, and when they chose Sir Julius Yogel as leader, he ranged himself under the banner of Ms opponent. Why has lie acted thus ? He tells us himself, " You all mind that I was a great admirer of Sir George Grey, and as long as I find him true and consistent, I will follow him." Here, then, is the key to the whole affair. The member for Stanmore is a blind, unreasoning disciple of Sir George Grey; and either cannot, or will not, see his faults. Why did he not tell his constituents this, instead of misleading them in such a shameless manner ? Simply because he knew that he would never have been elected if they had known it. But does his letter show either himself or Sir George Grey to have been consistent ? Just the contrary. Wo find Sir George after saying that " Yogel and Stout were intriguing to destroy the Liberal party by association with Yogel," actually proposing to take office at the head of fragments from the tails of the Atkinson and Yogel parties, and only refusing to take office himself under Yogel when he found he must occupy a subordinate position. With reference to Mr Reese's own consistency as shown in his letter, and beyond the indictment I have already made, I would point out that he admits it to have been a fight between Atkinson, whom he went to oppose, and Yogel, whom he went pledged to support. He attempts to excuse his vote, and throw dust in the eyes of his constituents by calling the Canterbury members of the Liberal party " Canterbury Tories — Mr Holmes in particular." These ridiculous insinuations against " Mr Holmes and two or three others" would be beneath notice were it not that they serve to show tbe hollowness of the pretensions of the member for Stanmore. Just two more quotations to further illustrate this gentleman's consistency, and I have done. He says, " I would ask you to look back and see who it was I had to fight against, and I think yon will see it was the Yogel eleiuent ;" and again, " Yogel may have another trial yet, and it is hoped he will get better men in next time." I will not attempt to reconcile these two quotations, but will leave it to the hon member for Stanmore himself ; he possibly may accomplish the feat. After hearing Mr Reese's own attempt at an explanation of his recreancy and inability to withstand the blandishments of Sir George Grey, well might a member of the meeting the other night appeal for mercy, for justice could not possibly mean less than complete ostracism from political life. — I am, &c, A TRUE LIBERAL. Christchurch, August 30.