THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1871.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 66, 22 December 1871, Page 2

THE Thames Guardian AND MINING RECORD. FRIDAY , DECEMBER 22, 1871.

Mr. E. J. Wakefield has once more emerged from his seclusion. He lias written three letters to the Wellington il Evening Post.” headed “ A Wandering Parliament in which he purports to reply to Mr. Header Wood, and the thirty-ifine members who asked that the next session of the General Assembly should be held at Dunedin,

Now, the motion may have been unwise in itself, but so far as Mr. Wakefield lias proceeded in his argument lie lias not convinced us that it was unwise. It is true that he has concluded his last letter, extending over a column in length, by intimating that it was “ to he continued and in some future letter he may possibly succeed better. Meanwhile, we must say that his efforts heretofore have failed. But Mr. Wakefield’s letters contain readable matter. There is a heartiness about them, when he digresses from his theme, which is refreshing to observe. Nothing, for instance, could be more hearty than his attack on Mr. Donald M\T ionn and the Native Department. The Native Minister does not enjoy Mr. Wakefield’s confidence. He is not a believer in the “mystery man,” and he plainly says so. But lie has great faith in himself. His belief in Wakefield, and nothing but Wakefield, amounts to idolatry. When one worships one’s self and one’s forefathers—- “ the ashes of the mighty dead,” and the animated dust of the living—it is invariably with a perfect devotion. This Wakefield worship has become a species of fanaticism on the part of the lion, member for Christchurch; and therefore, when we find him quoting Wakefield, and repeating Wakefield, and narrating the traditions of the Wakefield family, wc do not charge him with vanity or egotism, but simply recognise it as a public profession of the faith in which he was born and bred, which has been the cherished ideal of his manhood, and wc doubt not will be the stay and prop of his old age. Well, it may he vain conceit; hut childhood and age are vanity, and why should middle life be other? Mr. Wakefield has his own shrine at which to offer incense. Let us not invade its sanctity, or too closely pry into the motives of the solitary worshipper thereat.

It may he true that these letters are rather discursive, but so also were the celebrated “ Round about Papers” by Mr. Thackeray, which they resemble in this single particular. There is, of course, no more analogy between Thackeray's graceful style, and Mr. Wakefield’s ponderous sentences, than there is between the subjects of the two writers. Mr. Thackeray was intentionally discursive and gossiping; Mr. Wakefield is so intentionally. He imagines, “ good easy man,” that his letters are models of severe logic. But that is another amiable weakness of his, which naturally springs out of the great Wakefield doctrine of Wakefield perfectibility. And we sec good reason for comparing the member for Christchurch with the author of “ Vanity Fair.” Thackeray wrote a*hook; so did Wakefield. As Mr. Thackeray wrote letters, so likewise lias Mr. Wakefield written letters. The parallel between these two men of letters is, therefore, most complete.

But Mr. Wakefield writes to instruct by serious counsel. His witticisms tiro elephantine rather than pungent; and when lie attempts a joke, as he sometimes docs, it reminds us of the awkward hut futile attempts made by a tame elephant in "Womball’s menagerie, to stand upon its head. The creature, which as a creature is remarkable enough—“ fearfully and wonderfully made”—rendered itself beyond comparison unsightly. As an clepliat therefore, should eschew tumbling, so should Mr. Wakefield eschew wit. Let him stick to the serious business of life, and he will command respect if success be not always possible. Doubtless our friends in Council, Mr. Clark and Mr. John Williamson, will feel grateful to Mr. Wakefield for placing the Wakefield brand upon their reputation. He says : —“ Only straightforward Mr. Clark, member for Franklyn, an Auckland district, and able Mr. Williamson, former Superintendent of Auckland, and one of the members for Auckland City West, had the courage to vote against the motion,” That is really very pretty. Let our readers mark the fine distinction which Mr. Wakefield has drawn between these two courageous public men. “ Straightforward Mr. Clark “ able Mr. Williamson.” How subtle the distinction ! “ Straightforward Mr. Clark,” but not “ able ;” “able Mr. Williamson,” but not “ straightforward.” Thus, the great discriminator of the Assembly hits off the character of two of our public men. He may be quite right in his estimate. We are not discerners of spirits, and cannot olfcr an opinion. Perhaps some one who is better acquainted with Messrs. Clark and Williamson than we are will inform us on the point, when, should it prove to he a libel on these gentlemen, wc shall afford them an opportunity of vindicating themselves through our columns. Meanwhile we congratulate the House of Representatives on the fact that Mr. Wakefield reserved his speech on Mr. Wood’s motion for publication in a cheap form in the Wellington “ Evening Post.”