Mr Vogel in Auckland.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 260, 22 September 1874, Page 6

Mr Vogel in Auckland.

Mr Vogel, before proceeding to Sydney, addressed his constituents of Auckland City East. The Daily Times correspondent telegraphs as follows respecting his meeting:— ‘‘ The curiosity to see Vogel was very great, po few of his constituents knowing him personally. This led to their constantly rising In expectation as the people entered on the stage, and at last, as the Premier entered in the crowd, all stood up, crowding over each other to catch a view. Vogel evidently mistook this for a compliment, especially as there was considerable cheering, and appeared much pleased. The feeling of the meeting at the beginning was a compound of anger and curiosity. Russell made a mistake at starting by speaking of Vogel not only as a member, but as holding in his power the Government of the country. There were loud arid angry cries of dissent to this. Vogel rose, and was applauded by knots of people scattered about, but was coldly received by the mass. He was gaining ground when he unhappily mentioned Gillies, whose name was greeted with three cheers. This angered Vogel, who lost temper. He maintained that a man must travel through the length of the Colony before he would be able to give an intelligent vote on politics. O’Rorke’s name drew more cheers. Vogel then got worse, and told the constituency he could do without them, as every town in the Colony had asked him to stand. They did not need to be told that it was considered somewhat an honour to have a Minister as a member. He was not likely to ask their suffrages again, and he wanted rest from his very arduous labours. He had a burning desire to see them in the same prosperous condition as the South before quitting the scene of his labours. He then gradually recovered his temper, and get on very well to the end. He wound up with a peroration, showing his usual good tact. Although his speech before had been contemptuously defiant, he sat down amidst applause. Vogel spoke out plainly on the land fund. He said it was not to be touched, and directly contradicted Wood’s statement that he had said to the contrary.”