WHAT THE VOICE OF THE SETTLERS HAS SAID.

Wellington Independent, Volume XX, Issue 2223, 24 June 1865, Page 3

WHAT THE VOICE OF THE SETTLERS HAS SAID.

We did not intend to say muck on Provincial subjects till the Council had met, but as a contemporary lias been moralising about the late elections, the subject Las been forced on our consideration. The Advertiser tells us " that the voice of the settlers, as expressed at tlio late elections, has been unequivocally given against the late Government and in favorof reform," a piece of information which if true, is surprising. It is not the majority of the settlers that is meant, but apparently the whole. Now we don't understand the Advertiser when it states this, any more than we do when it says, "Wo are respectable and mean to keep so," nevertheless the matter is worth investigating. Of course if the former assertion were true, then the voices and votes of the settlers would have been used to return a Council pledged to oppose the Government, but was this the case ? In the city, it is well known that the Government party elected eight out of the twelve men they supported, while in liangitikei and Karori the opposition did not return a single member. At the Hutt, Wairarapa, Porirua, and Wanganui, the opposition gained in the aggregate a majority ; but taking the total ; returns, the arithmetical result amounts to this, that those members who will cither sup- , I port the Government, or arc not pledged < against it, are more numerous in tho Council '. than the opposition. This is a fact admitted on all sides, an axiomatic truth, which all > who have looked over tho returns acknow- ' ledge, and it is therefore passing strange that any journal should say in face of it, " that the voice of tho settlers as expressed at the late elections has been unequivocally given against tho late Government," particularly when it also tells tho public " that it is respectable and means to keep so." It surely must be respectability in the PecksuiQlan sense, that is implied. We havo hitherto only spoken of general results, and if we look nt tho Snperin tendency election in that way, then it as strongly rebuts the Advertisers assertion. Dr Featherston was the representative of tho past, and had to stand or fall by tho acts of the late Government. Mr Borlase, the Advertiser told us, was the champion of reform. Now the Advertiser says, " that tho Superintemlency election speaks no less decisively to the same effect," that is to say, that in it, " the voice of the settlers was xinequivocally expressed against the late Government." Again wo say this is very strange. Dr Foatherston wasreturned by all thesettlcrs throughout the province, by a very large majority. In some districts that majority was overwhelming, in others moderate, in one or two caaes he was headed by a few votes, and in Wanganui alone, owing to the separation movement, did his opponent get a decided advantage. But

the general result was this, that when he ap- ■ pealed to the settlers throughout the proi vince, they elected him triumphantly, and threw his opponent overboard. Such being the fact, how does the Advertiser support its assertion ? There is certainly one thing proved by the late elections, which is, that the voice of the settlers both in town and country, has been unequivocally expressed against the Advertiser and that particular kind of political reform, which found champions in Mr Hichard Wakclin and Mr Edward Bull, who cither did, or do still, constitute the editorial " respectability" of our contemporary. We commit no breach of journalistic etiquette in thus pointedly alluding to these gentlemen, because the former in his address stated that his opinions were well known through the i columns of the Advertiser, and the latter was i at great pains to let it be understood that he ( was the " working man" of that journal. Mr : Wakelin after stating at a public meeting . that if Dr Featherston were elected he would not enter the Council, afterwards changed ; his mind stood for the Wairarapa his j boasted stronghold, and was rejected, whilo I Mr Edward Bull,despite canvassing, placards, j Mr Borlase's good natured backing, and the Advertiser to boot, got completely beaten in 1 the city. We are constantly told by the Advertiser itself that it is honest, fearless, j and devoted to sefokm, that it is tlie peoples' I paper, and that its sentiments are entertained by nine-tenths of the settlers, yet we find that two gentlemen put forward specially as exponents of its views are ignominiously dej featcd. Wo cannot explaiu this cxtraordij nary result in any other way, than by asj suming that however much tho Advertiser may believe in its own opinions and feel assured of its own respectability ; tho great majority of the public have little faith in either. That is evidently the reason \ why they would not have either Jupiter Stygius, or Jupiter Secundus— Mr Richard Wakelin or Mr Edward Bull. I .