THE COLONIST. NELSON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1860.

Colonist, Volume IV, Issue 330, 18 December 1860, Page 2

THE COLONIST. NELSON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1860.

There are man}r ways of blinding the public by those who desire to plunder them. And no more common practice exists than to treat them as bad nurses do troublesome children, by threatening them with the coming of 'Bogie.' This practice is common with the so-called savage of the desert or the forest, and the so-called civilised law-and-tax-ridden denizens forming ' enlightened 'nations. In New Zealand at the present moment the same system is adopted by those who fatten best on things as they are. The people no sooner desire to be rid lof a man whose every act, private and public, exhibits a grossly selfish end, than up spring his admirers—and these, be it remembered, have had their * quid pro quo' —and threaten the public with a ' Bogie;' sometimes in the shape of a Fox—then •three F.s'—then the Triumvirate ; and conjure up all sorts of bad consequences from such a man or men getting into power. We trust that the public are logical enough to see that it does not follow that because one set of men is turned out, only one other set can succeed it. Does it follow, if Stafford [should be turned out of the Executive that Fox should come in? or if Richmond should vacate, that Featherston should be installed? or if Weld should retire, that Fitzherbert should take his station? We are not speaking of the respective merits of any of these men, but only cautioning the public against a common fallacy industriously circulated by men who know better, but who, for sinister or electioneering purposes, say * It is better as it is.' We trust that it will be long ere we are placed in the degraded position of England, which has been and is governed by two factions or clubs, one or the other removable at the will of a majority of perhaps the most corrupt assembly in the world, elected by a tenth part only of the people, and that tenth composed of the most squeezable materials. In saying this we speak advisedly and from facts which have been elicited at the late trials of members of parliament of all political creeds (so that the curse is general) for bribery and corruption in England. Nor do we hold the doctrine that because a ministry is met by an adverse or factious opposition, that it is bound to resign- We should like to see each member of the Executive responsible for his own acts and the well carrying on of the business of his own department; and before he be removed frovn that office., except by those who placed him there, some specific charge of dishonesty or incapacity should be brought against Him. Substantive acts of incapacity or worse have been proved against some or all of the ministers. The present ministry, without any occasion, allowed itself to be drifted into a war or insurrection, when unprepared to meet it; by which death, desolation, sorrow, and disease have been spread around the once fair and happy homes of our fellow-colonists, and that too after supplying the natives with arms for years past, and taking no measures to arm the Europeans. We trust the simple public will not be bamboozled by Mr. Stafford or his hired advocates in allowing a Minister's war to become the Parliament's or the People's war. The Provinces, constituted only a few years ago, have been mutilated by these ministers. A Militia Bill, which would have been spurned by the most despotically governed people in the world, has been attempted to be foisted on the public by the Stafford ministry. A measure was luckily defeated, which, if carried, would have placed the majority of our fellow-subjects under military law. Offices have been created for no other purpose than to give strength to a ministry by increasing its patronage at the public expense. For these and other enormities the Stafford Ministry has been fairly condemned by the Assembly, and such condemnation, we have no doubt, has been willingly confirmed by the Governor, and will be ratified by the public. We have been led into the above remarks by the heavy facetiousness of our contemporary amounting to allusions to iEsop's fable of Reynard the Fox, and comparing Mr. Herbert Evelyn Curtis to a ghost or vestal virgin) because we gave space to the explanations of one who had been (or imagined so) -misrepresented by his political opponents. We should have done the same (and we hope the Examiner would have done likewise) for any other i person similarly placed, whether we politi- I cally agreed with him or not. Mr. Fox's antecedents in Nelson are anything but agreeable to reflect upon; for by his easy j submission to the bullying of the original | land purchasers, we consider that this Province has been robbed of its fairest proportions. . Had the Colonist exulted at the idea of any public or private man being " hooted and groaned " at, or having " very narrowly escaped being ducked in the sea,'' it would have undoubtedly been pronounced as 11 ultra-democratical," and the paper dubbed as an " anti-social license " one; but such language from the model of the New Zealand press, we suppose, 'must be considered rather smart, if not positively witty. We say nothing oFthe yery stale and often hashed joke about the " big brother," which, calls to our mind the stereotyped simile introduced into almost every speech of one of our leading politicians, about the grandfather's clothes being placed upon the child. We do not profess to belong to the " brickbat and bludgeon " school of politics, and therefore we shall leave our contemporary to chuckle over such enlightened amusement. , To the late representatives we leave

the battle field about the truth or untruth contained in Mr. Fox's letter. We have read the debates as we could get them, but shall certainly not wade through them to see who is right or wrong: but we do remember something about one of our members pointing out the inconsistency of men who condemned the Governor for beginning the war, yet required him to push it vigorously to a close, while the Governer or his. ministry were sending strict orders to those in command not to be too rash. To show that we are not singular in our opposition to the Stafford Ministry, we call the attention of our readers to the extracts from the various papers of New Zealand relative to that Ministry. The Wellington Advertiser has nothing to say in its favor, although most violently opposed to the Wellington members. The Southern Cross too is silent on the matter. And even the Nelson Examiner is consoling itself with the idea that Ministries generally die out in five years. The attempt to give Mr. Stafford the credit of getting the steamers here, was very labored, and we believe not correct, as the Admiralty selected Nelson from the maps as the most apposite port for such a purpose. Some day we may have a word or two to say about the Crimean war, as it has been j alluded to by our contemporary. He says the Committee on that case was not formed to inquire into the origin, but the conduct of that war. We ask—how would the Governor j or his responsible (?) advisers have come out of such an inquiry, supposing the Committee to have been honest and independent, and supposing that their decision could not have been set aside by a counter committee chosen by the very men who had been guilty of acts by which the lives of our gallant countrymen were sacrificed in hecatombs on the altar of Diplomacy— not in War. j We trust the public unanimously will sayNo men like the9e shall ever reign again.