Wellington Independent FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1871.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXVII, Issue 3114, 3 February 1871, Page 2

Wellington Independent FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1871.

In our last issue we had the pleasure of congratulating the colony on the inauguration of a most useful measure of reform for which we are indebted to the Fox Ministry. We have been trying to think of any measure of equal utility and importance passed by the StaffordRichmond Ministry in their comparatively long tenure of office, but we have given up the attempt in despair. What ? Is I here not one thing for which we are indebted to them ! After a long-sustained effort, we have at last discovered that one really good thing we owe them, viz — the publication of " Hansard." We agree with the Hon. John Johnston, in his remarks on it in the Odd Fellows' Hall, in that ever-to-be-remembered speech of his, which transported Messrs Richmond and Travers beyond the bounds of ordinary decency and decorum. We admit that it has not served the object for which it was intended ; but, for all that, it has been eminently useful in letting the electors of Wellington know " the wretched past " of these two gentlemen. A careful and conscientious study of it before the polling day, is the bounden duty of every elector ; but, alas ! how very few copies find their way into general circulation. The Hon. Mr Richmond and Mr Travers are themselves shamefully ignorant of it, and if these political guides are so ill-informed as recklessly to assert that a thing is not there what is there, what can be expected of the prqfanum vulgus they alternately cajolo and denounce ? "We proceed to show how useful it may be. The electors of Wellington are naturally anxious to know the political character and history of the candidates that now seek their suffrages. For the present we shall confine ourselves to the two that make the loftiest pretensions to political truthtelling, we mean Richmond und Travers. The Hon. John Johnston showed very clearly how little they have to boast of in this respect. His masterly exposition of (to use a mild phrase) their political choppinga and changes will not soon be forgotten. Their passionate denials, accompanied with an indecent violence, of what is to be fouud in "Hansard" will not soon fade away from the memory of electors. For the present, however, we shall take them at their own estimate. Mr Richmond, we shall assume, is the incarnation of truth. With a "precious" " Hansard" in our hand, we will ask this question of Mr Richmond, " What do you really in your heart think of Mr Travers ? Do you believe that he speaks more with a regard to immediate effect than anything else? Do you not think all the claptrap we have heard from him the last two weeks was merely uttered to produce an impression on the "unlearned" electors, by which he might get a seat? And when it has served its purpose will he forget it all ? Han sard, vol. iv., page 114, contains Richmond's answer : — "The hon. member for Christchurch approaches almost every subject with a sort of forget fulness of the audience he is addressing. He always fancies himself to be speaking to | a jury. On all occasions the hon. member makes some attack against yoine person or other, and especially the Go-

vernment." It is very true that Mr Travers distinctly denied in the Odd Fellows' Hall "that he always fancies himself to be speaking to a. jury." But what of that? That is a very small matter to have out with Mr Richmond ! Suppose again we ask Mr Travers, who so earnestly supports Mr Richmond now, what do you really think of the man you now uphold as a statesman and an administrator, it being understood that what you say of the Ministry applies to its constituent members, who, we are told (truthfully of course), were agreed on all essential points, except Mr Hall. Hansard, vol. JI., page 10, contains Mr Travers' answer. "I can only characterise it (the Royal speech) as complete political pap, that the veriest babe in the colony would not likely be injured by. The complete absence of the Lindlay Murray element may perhaps pass without much comment, but tbe speech as a whole 'fails absolutely in conveying to* my mind the slightest scintilla of an idea as to the actual character of the policy the Government intend to propose to the country. True, we are told that loans are not to be tolerated. . . . They appear to have an idea that loans are obnoxious ; but the reason of this is that the money obtained by these loans has been woefully wasted, instead of being applied to developing the resources of the colony. It shows a want of practical knowledge to disclaim loans, for there is no wholesomer policy in a new country (Bravo Mr Travers !) than that of developing its resources by anticipating the future, and laying accordingly a certain portion of the burden on the same. I say, therefore, when this address states no loans will be permitted, it is merely playing on the fears (hear this, electors of Wellington) of those >vho give but little consideration to the true political aspect of these matters, and shews but little political capacity on the part of those governing the country." From these extracts (we will hear them described as garbled no doubt) let the electors form their own conclusions. If Mr Richmond is a political truth-teller, then we may dismiss from our minds all the eloquent speeches of Mr Travers for the last fortnight, and if Mr Travers is a political truthteller, it would be not only a folly but a crime to vote for Mr Richmond, whose war policy has been " a woeful waste of money," and whose antipathy to loans is " merely playing on the fears of those who have given little consideration to the true political aspect of these matters, and shows but little political capacity." Believing Richmond, we cannot support Travers ; believing Travers, we cannot support Richmond. Let the electors of Wellington believe them both ! ______