THE Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, FRIDAY, 27th JANUARY, 1865.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume V, Issue 219, 27 January 1865, Page 2

THE Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, FRIDAY, 27th JANUARY, 1865.

Extra-pahliamenxary orations such as that of Mr. Stafford (which we conclude in this number of our journal) have at all times a great deal of interest, not only to the body of electors to whom they are immediately addressed, but to the whole country, in bringing as it were in one view before the public the most prominent events of a past session, and giving the critical opinions of those whose principles are pretty well known on those events. There is many a trite saying concerning after wisdom, and the ease with which faults can be found in what has been done by others, but which the critic himself would have failed to have done so well—all which are doubtless true enough. But in such cases as that now under review, where a person undertakes to take the helm of the State vessel in a troubled sea, we have good reason to look for results that shall prove the ability of the pilot and afford a warranty for the confidence placed in him.

Mr. Stafford commences liis address by an eulogium on Mr. Weld, but as this praise of the man does not seem to be borne out by the criticism on his acts that follows in the course of the speech, we must regard it as a pure adornment which it is not intended should mean a great deal, and we shall therefore pass it by and- at once proceed to the pith and marrow of the speech itself. The programme laid down by Mr. Stafford as points worthy of attention, and which were the immediate cause of the calling together of the Assembly as needing immediate action, comprised the relations subsisting between the Governor and his Ministry, that likewise between the Home Government and the colony, the interference of the Colonial Office in the carrying out of our native policy, and the financial condition of the colony.

The forcing of a quasi responsibility upon the colony in native matters at a time when it was (through Imperial mismanagement) in a state of warfare with the natives, and even while declining to accept of this responsibility, is on the whole well stated by Mr. Stafford, though we think he fails to point out that the reservation made by the Colonial Office on “ points of Imperial interest,” even when bestowing it, left the Colonial Legislature, as far as actual management of native matters were concerned, exactly where they were at the time of the Sewell Ministry under Governor Browne, the omission of which leads to some censure on the Governor, which we think is not entirely deserved, in consequence of his checking the war policy in accordance with instructions from home. Here it is that we differ from Mr. Stafford and the late Ministry. We censure Sir George Grey as much as they can do for checking a policy that was in fact his own. But they all seem' to reason as if they had a real control in native matters, which Governor Grey knew they had not. This was the root of the unseemly quarrel between them, and probably a cause of the action taken by him. We do not I elieve that one word can be said in justification of the course he has pursued, but that he is deserving of all blame for the continuance of the war, through his ill-timed concessions and delay where promptitude of action was required. In fact, on all points except the well-founded conviction that his authority for action was to be derived from the Colonial Office and not from the Colonial Ministry. He wished to show, and did in fact show, that he was not hound to obey their behests, hence the delay—yet that he could do what they wished when it pleased him, hence his action, when too late to be of equal service.

Mr. Stafford next proceeds to criticise the action taken by the Assembly, and clearly enough shows that the above important

matter of the control of a native policy the colony is left just where it was, the exception “ Imperial interests ” and the “prerogative of the Crown ” being the exact words of the memorandum between Governor Browne and Mr. Sewell, and quite enough to deprive the colony of all real voice in native matters, and so in effect to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Governor, the Assembly having failed to do anything in the way of imposing, or even attempting to impose, any certain course of action upon him.

Mr. Stafford proceeds to criticise the scheme of finance and taxation of the Weld Ministry, and here he has certainly room enough for criticism. He seems to have only just become alive to the necessity for a system of direct taxation, and does not hold out much hope that it will be adopted for some sessions to come. We hope his conviction of its necessity will be shared by many, and that he may soon have an opportunity of showing his sincerity. No one can dispute the justice of his remarks upon the financial embarrassment of the colony, the mismanagement in raising the heavy loan and consequent loss, but we fail to see any recommendation of retrenchment or economy. Large prospective expenditures are passed over, though they could have been delayed for a time, and an efficient remedy for existing evils is not given. In his remarks upon the separation question, we trace a good deal of the fallacy we have before had occasion to note as being common to its advocates. Like him we can excuse the “rampant” feeling manifestedhy the citizens of Auckland upon losing the position of capital of the colony, but we are far from believing that there is here any sufficient ground for such a political change; and as to the reunion of the two colonies at the close of the war (Mr. S. himself seems to talk of five or ten years), this cau only be looked upon as a little oil on the edge of the wedge. Credat judmis that the Southern colony would be content tu submit readily to a reunion after separation. After a careful examination of the speech, we confess to a feeling akin to disappointment. A first and rapid perusal (like a hearing) of the speech impresses one much more favorably than a more attentive con sideratlon of its general parts will warrant. We have, however, placed it before our readers, and given our opinion on its more salient points, which, as will he seen, is on the whole in accordance with it, though some parts are certainly open to objection. It is well for such addresses to be brought prominently before the public, as we believe that their free discussion tends materially to the formation and promotion of an enlightened public opinion, which in its turn reacts favorably on the legislation for public benefit.