The Standard AND PEOPLES ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED BEVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1874.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 215, 21 October 1874, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLES ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED BEVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1874.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

We have the authority of the Bay of Plenty Times for stating that Mr. WtLLtAM Kelly, the member for the East Coast in the House of Representatives, will take “ an early opportu- ■“ nity of addressing his constituents •“ in Poverty Bay, and of giving an “ account of his stewardship during

“ the late session of Parliament.” So, at least, runneth the paragraph clipped from that paper, and which will be found in another column.

Situated as the Poverty Bay settlers are, it is, perhaps, a matter for congratulation that even one can be found to take an interest in their welfare, the more so as that one does not ascribe his political existence to any very large substantive support accorded by them at his election. But, nevertheless, it is a matter of remark, and legitimate comment, that this is the first occasion on which Mr. Kelly has considered it necessary to “ give an “ account of his stewardship ” to the settlers of Poverty Bay. Persons of a reflective turn of mind are generally apt to trace effects to causes ; and we should sadly, and wrongfully, misjudge the electors of Poverty Bay if we rashly conclude that they are not able to see a cause —a motive power—moving Mr. Kelly to pay this district a postsessional visit, other than for the purpose of merely telling them what he has done to further the prosperity of their district in Parliament. Were that Mr. Kelly’s only object, a sheet of notepaper, and a two-peuny postage stamp, would be found a far more economical means of communication, than a trip in a steamer-—which would cost him some weeks’ absence from home —as well as spare him the humility of confessing that the district lias outgrown his knowledge. It is a remarkable fact in the political career of most men that when the House is about to fall about their ears, they are on the look out for other shelter, —that a moribund Parliament sets them to work with an appearance of faithful energy, and a devotion to the cause of the electors whose real interests, in nine cases out of ten, have seldom or ever been thought of until, perhaps, the Appropriation scramble takes place, and then the biggest log gathers the most moss. As their political life is drawing to a close —when the harvest time approaches, in which rewards of approval or condemnation are meted out according as their stewardship may have been faithful, or otherwise —then do the political zealots fly about after the flesh pots of electioneering suffrage. We do not say it is thus with Mr. Kelly ; but it seems strange that since he has represented the East Coast district in the Colonial Legislature, he has twice, in each session, passed by on his way to and from the seat of Government, without evincing any desire to meet the settlers, as a portion of his constituency, and either ascertaining their wants or soliciting their approval. Mr. Kelly, certainly “dropped” in two years ago and stayed a few hours, but cui bo no ?

We are glad, however, that Mr. Kelly is coming ; although, under the circumstances, it would have been well if bis advent bad been foreshadowed in some more direct way. It will shew either that he has done all that could be done for us—the evidence of which is not apparent—or that he was not aware that we really wanted anything done at all; in any case he or his constituents will be gainers by the visitation. Viewing the matter from our own standpoint, and with rather strong feelings as to the treatment Poverty Bay has received from the General Government, it somewhat puzzles us to know the exact idea (other than that we have interpolated above) Mr. Kelly, as a representative man, has of “stewardship.” We assume the word is correctly applied, as the Times says Mr. Kelly has “ requested ” that such an announcement should be made. It is obvious that the possibility of an expression of disapproval coming from the Poverty Bay Settlers, cannot have presented itself to Mr. Kelly’s mind, or he would not be so desirous of courting it. He may have discovered some new method of describing the geography of New Zealand, or have been under the impression that Tauranga and Opotiki were the East Coast, aud that the thanks of the Settlers of Poverty Bay are due to him for the part he took in getting those districts so fair a share of Parliamentary aud Governmental patronage. It cannot be denied that Mr. Kelly asked a few minor questions of the Government, which are interesting to us as a community ; but we fail to perceive in what other way he has acted on our behalf which calls upon him to give any further account of his “ stewardship,” at this particular juncture, than is already recorded in the Annals of Parliament.

Still, we repeat, we are glad Mr. Kelly is coming. If he cannot give such “ an account of his stewardship” as will be acceptable to the people—should he fail in satisfying them as to what he did do—he may be able to throw some additional light on things that he did not do. The Settlers will be glad to learn why, during the session just closed, when their entreaties were both loud and deep, a deaf ear was turned to the voice of their complaint. Why their roads are locked up by the Government, who refuse to make them, and won’t let any one else; why they have not had a share of immigration settlement; why no provision is made for the erection of publicbuildings in Gisborne; why their bridges are not built; why they have no lands to which population can be invited ; why, amidst the crash of borrowed millions, the Poverty Bay district has had to stand aloof, a il nt spectator, and non-participant—why, in short, a thorough and general neglect has characterised the conduct of the Government towards a portion of the country whose Settlers’ blood has

flowed profusely enough in the past to support the authority which falls away from them in the hour of their greatest trial and need. These, and many other queries, Mr. Kelly’s constituents in these parts would like to know something more about; and we again express our satisfaction that they are likely to have an account rendered by the steward to whom they have entrusted the management of their affairs.