The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1884. MR WAKEFIELD AT LEESTON.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1275, 9 December 1884, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1884. MR WAKEFIELD AT LEESTON.

The Lyttelton Times’ treatment of Mr Wakefield (its darling of a few months ago) is not at all creditable. We do not desire to pose as Mr Wakefield’s champion ; nor will we admit that we sympathise very much with him. He deserves severe castigation and he is getting it. But there is a limit to everything. There is fair, and unfair, criticism, and it is because he has been treated unfairly that we enter our protest. We write not to defend Mr Wakefield but in the interests of justice and fair play. The Times gave only a garbled report of his speech, and yet criticised him severely. It did not give its readers an opportunity of reading Mr Wakefield’s side of the story, but it painted him as black as it could from its own stand point. That is mean. The paper which has been controlled by Mr Wakefield has criticised unjustly, unfairly, and severely, but we have never known it to suppress an opponent’s speed). However, the criticism of the Times cou'.'d not injure anybody with thoughtful readers. It came nearer to Jim Blaine’s account of his grandfather’s ram as told by Mark Twain than anything we have read. It had neither head nor tail ; it did not deal with one fact ; it did not refer to one statement ; it was vulgar Billingsgate—the froth of the wash-tub. If it had upset Mr Wakefield’s argument it would not have been so bad; hut it did not attempt it, because, probably, it could not. Mr Wakefield for once in his life worked on the right side, and it is not easy to refute assertions made by clever men when tlnse assertions are correct. Mr Wakefield claims to have worked from patriotic motives. He may have done so, his own conscience alone could veiify or refute this assertion, but such is the character he hap established for himgelf now that

be will find it difficult to nuke people 1 believe bim. The helots of Greece 1 used to refuse the gifts of their oppressors because they feared they were meant to harm them, so badly had they been treated. So it is with people as regards Mr Wakefield now. When he does right they do not thank him for u, because it is generally believed he is working for some ulterior object. He did his best to show he did not seek office, and it is not our business to prove ibecontrary just now. Hesaid that the majority of Canterbury members signed an agreement refusing to support the first StoutYogel combination, but f?ir Julius Vogel talked them all over except himself, He also urged that it was in obedience to great pressure he consented to join Major Atkinson, In analyzing these statements we find that Sir Julius Vogel was in favor of a Land Tax while most of the Canterbury men were Property Tax men to the back-bone. They were also in favor of economy while Sir Julius’s panacea for our ills was excessive borrowing. It would not be wonderful therefore if the first impulse of the Canterbury men was to oppose Sir Julius, but there is room for . farther reflection. Was it Mr Wakefield through having been disappointed in not getting a portfolio who talked them into opposition in the first place ? Between Mr Wakefield on one side and Sir Julius on the other it would not surprise us to learn ihat the Canterbury members were for some time as undecided as an ass between two heaps of hay. It would not surprise us also if he found it difficult to join Major Atkinson. The fact that he joined him impresses us more than anything else with the belief that a ministerial portfolio is not Mr Wakefield’s pet aversion. He would like to be Postmaster-General without a doubt, and here we find it convenient to say that he ought never to have left the Atkinson Party. He belongs to it politically for he is a Property Tax man. But, as Goldsmith said of Edmund Burk he is

“ Though equal to all things, for all things unfit: Too nice for a statesman, too proud for a wit ; For a patriot too cool, for a drudge disobedient, And wanting in tact to pursue the expedient.” He left the Atkinsonians through impatience of being a follower, and be will have to follow probably for the rest of bis natural life.

But when Mr Wakefield turns to criticise the borrowing policy of Sir Julius Vogel we find ourselves in full sympathy with him. He held that though ostensibly the great financier only proposed to borrow £1,500,000 he contemplated the expenditure of £7,000,000 made up as follows: Westport harbor, £500,000 ; Greymouth harbor £250,000 ; District railways, £600,000 ; North Island line, £1,500,000 ; sinking fund, £3,000,000 ; annual payment into the sinking fund, £25*0,000, besides some other moneys which made it up to £7,000,000. The expenditure of such a large sum in the present condition of our finances could not be justified, on any ground, and whatever motive prompted Mr Wakefield to oppose such proposals he certainly did what was best for the colony. He was, however, rather weak in his defence of his action in opposing the West Coast railway. He had given a promise to support that when he was elected and be no doubt found, it difficult to defend himself. His principal defence was that Sir Julius Vogel had said that any Government which handed any line of railway to any syndicate ought to be hung for it, and be considered that if they gave land to a company for making a railway they ought to meet with the same fate ; that Mr Stout had been preaching land nationalisation for years, and yet now they felt no compunction in alienating £750,000 worth of land to any syndicate which would make the line. He showed up Sir Julius and Mr Stout pretty well, but did not exonerate himself at all. He had pledged himself to support the line, and that Sir Julius Vogel and Mr (Stout changed their minds was no excuse for him at all. His excuse was that he did not believe in giving the land to a Company, but that was not the greatest objection to the Bill. The most objectionable feature of the measure was that after the line was made the Government would be compelled to work it, and pay 35 per cent, of the gross proceeds to the company, because the colony would undoubtedly lose by the transaction. He was more forcible in dealing with the District Railways and the South Sea Island scheme, and on the whole be made a very good speech. It is a pity he has not used his fine abilities to better advantage. If he did he might have been anything he liked, but as matters stand at present nothing but patient consistency and studious avoidance of personal attacks practised tor years will regain him the ground he has lost.