SNOBBERY.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2149, 23 November 1875, Page 4

SNOBBERY.

In the fulfilment of that mission which, j it has appointed" itself to carry out, and ■which no one recognizes its ability to discharge, the Timaru Herald not;infrequently mistakes impudence for independence, puerility for powerful writing, and snobbishness for penllemanly feeling. In its issue of November Ist, our contemporary furnishes proof of what we have said. It admits to its columns, in a semi-editorial, garb, a series of articles under the beading "Notes," professing to deal witM^passing events; One of these* rioies in the issue we have mentionedi||ccupies a column'of space, and reiterates in the worst .possible; taste, and in very .indifferent' English, the scandals so recently disposed of by the report of the Public Accounts Committee. Mr StafFord, whom popular opinion supposes-to be the idol of the Timaru Herald, gave, it may vbe remembered, the weight of his personal and political reputation to the resolutions of the House of Representatives which endorsed the committee's report, and acquitted Sir Julius Vogel of the unfounded charges which had long been made common rumor on no more sure foundation, it turned out, then the inuendoes of Mr Bridges. At the time Mr Stafford gave his confirmation to the report of the committee no surprise was elicited, though it was well known, from utterances of his during pre-. fious sessions, that he was not unwilling lo lend an car to rumors detrimental to Sir Julius Vogel, and, indeed, to give them the benefit of a little eloquence on Ms own part in the House. Still, it was felt that in the face of the report Mr Stafford could do no less than he did; and therefore his frank acquiescence in Sir Julius Vogel's vindication was accepted, as we have said, without surprise, inasmuch as it was merely what should' have come from any man of honorable ieeling under similar circumstances. With thi3 in view, the " Note " in the Timaru Herald seems to us to utter the speech which certain supporters of Mr Stafford would fain have seen that gentleman utter, and which perhaps it would not have astonished some if he had uttered when the Public Accounts Committee's report canie up for consideration. . For the " Note "is evidently, the production of some personal, as well as political enemy of Sir Julius, whose malicious disposition will not permit him to accept the judgment of an impartial tribunal, or the disgraceful breakdown of the, testimony on which he relied. So he. continues to iterate charges which lie forces himself to believe, simply because they nre made against one whom he dislikes. And it is in doing this that the Timaru Herald, whose self-designated mission is that of an independent newspaper, is impudent, puerile, and snobbish. Impudent, because it insults public opinion which has carefully given judgment on the matter in hand; puerile, because it calls out names against its foe liire some petulant schoolboy who has been beaten at iisticuffs, aud considers if z vituperation a mark of bravery and independence: aud snobbish., because with the most ■ execrable taste it permits itself ic comment on Sir Julius Yogel's domestic life and private concerns,' Had we space at our disposalwe should gladly reprint the article of our contemporary, in order that our readers' might judge if bur comments were not fully justified; but we cannot say that want of space is altogether a matter of regret to us, as we have no inclination to furnish the people of Wellington and the colony with a speci» men of journalistic literature discreditable' to the profession. The writer of "Notes" is mean enough, in order to support his case, or rather shadow of a case, to draw attention to Sir Julius Y°ffel's personal habits of hospitality, and to his mode of living as a gentleman. The writer is at pains to impress upon us that in the conduct of his household affairs the late Premier showed a marked contrast to some who preceded him.' We can well believe it. The writer, like all snobs, is ashamed of his own language, and calls a household a menage in order to air his French and his vulgarity at the same time. But adopting the expression, we can well believe that Sir Julius Vogel's household, or menage, did differ very materially from those of certain predecessors. If Sir Julius Vogel chose to consider that amongst the,more pleasant duties of his office was to be ranked a liberal entertainment of friends and foes, and thereby to 1 follow the precedent of English Ministers, whose duties in society have to be filled with just as much care as their duties in politics, then he bad a perfect right to choose for himself, and he certainly did by his conduct in this .respect offer a most agreeable contrast.to the species of shabbygenteel style which spme. before him had maintained.. A shabby-gentility ,which was not above little chafferings that were made public and;notorious in Wellington and need not now bo recalled. One thing may be said, tbat/at least Sir Julius Vogel has.not grown rich by parsimpniousnesSj has not neglected the social duties of his. office in order to put up bis ministerial salary-; and if he created comment by bis hospitality, has not,' afcle.asfc, provoked criticism by a style of entertaining approaching to positive meanness.—^N.Z. Mail. , v\