New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4551, 21 October 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21.

A closing act of the present Parliament was at once fitting and graceful. A few straightforward words on an equally straightforward report from a committee, and a resolution was passed which completely refutes the disgraceful assertions, the contemptible inuendoes against an absent man that have thickened the political atmosphere for months. Sir Julius Vogel has during the session been a mark for snarling and malevolent detractation from the mouths of those who were dumb in his presence. Unfortunately, on more than one occasion, the seemingly half-hearted loyalty of some who should not have seemed half-hearted, has had the effect of lending an apparent confirmation to ugly stories, to petty gossip, and to statements and insinuations made in debate that havebeen growing and growing until to some they assumed a tangible shape. It is very easy to persuade those who are ready to believe, and there were only too many disappointed politicians, and it may be enemies, envious of Mr. Vogel’s success, who were ready to believe any rumor against him, even though it had no bettor foundation than Mr. Bridges’ portentous, “ If you only

u knew what I know.” And so_ reports and scandals culminated, until it is really not too much to say, that with the exception of a staunch few, most people began to think that “ there was something m “ it.” And now it is made plain that nothing more baseless than the accusations (for rumor has latterly really accumulated into accusation) against Sir Julius Vogel could be conceived. It is difficult to write of this matter, for it is difficult to find language sufficiently calm to characterise an affair the writing about which tempts to the use of the very strongest terms of reprobation. Mr. Bridges has received an indemnity for his statements by Act of Parliament. He stands indemnified against civil process at law, but no Parliament can shield him from or indemnify him against that public opinion which will now arraign him. In this instance, he 'aunot protest against his judge, for it was before that judge those whom he accused by his inuendoes had ultimately to to come. It was his

“Well wo know”—or, “We could an if wo would’’— Or, “If we list to speak"—or, “There be an if there might” that produced the reports and statements which at last culminated in an examination before a Parliamentary committee. His ambiguous givings out caused the name and fair fame of this colony’s foremost man to be tarnished by the breath of public suspicion without there being in reality the slightest foundation for such suspicion. Uselessly, causelessly, needlessly, Sir Julius Vogel s private affairs have been made the subject of inquiry to satisfy Mr. Bridges’ inuendoes, the cause for which must be found in Mr. Bridges’ evidence, that is, if anything can be found in his evidence except the fact that he was prepared to accuse anybody to substantiate nothing. Wedonotcare towriteof Mr. Bridges’conduct throughout this business ; it would be unpleasant to criticise his evidence. Were we to draw attention to its shiftiness, to its lack of straightforwardness, and to its utter want of common candor, we might be betrayed into saying something which Mr. Bridges would doubtless deem highly offensive. But in truth it needs little criticism, little remark. Its perusal can only result in general condemnation of its author. We are quite. content to leave Mr. Bridges’ public reputation to the judgment of those who read the report of the committee and the evidence taken before that committee ; and this we can do without one word of comment, or one attempt to guide the formation of an opinion. It is pleasant to turn from this to that generous testimony, accorded alike by friend and foe in the House yesterday, to the utter refutation of those calumnies against Sir Julius Vogel, to the complete vindication of his public and political honesty, which the committee’s report affords. It is also pleasant to note the frank and sincere manner in which Sir George Grey testified to the willingness of the Bank of New Zealand authorities to throw open every avenue of information within their control. The short but impressive scene in Parliament has in a moment, as it were, placed everything right. The honor of our earliest and most important banking institution is untouched. Sir Julius Vogel is still the Sir Julius Vogel to whom a majority of the country willingly extended the control of the country’s affairs, and Mr. Bridges is—.well, he is Mr. Bridges.