THE WANGANUI CHRONICLE AND RANGITIKEI MESSENGER. “Véritè sans peur.” Wanganui, February 14, 1861.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 5, Issue 222, 14 February 1861, Page 3

THE WANGANUI CHRONICLE AND RANGITIKEI MESSENGER. “ Véritè sans peur.” Wanganui, February 14, 1861.

Had Mir. Stafford not been kind enough to send us this week, a copy of his speech to the electors of Nelson,, on the occasion of his being returned as their member for the house of /Representatives,, we should not' have thought of remarking on it; for the simple reason, that as he says the Nelson press has not reported aright his sayings and [doings during the past session,., we could, not he certain of the report of his speech, as therein given being correct. The internal evidence would have led us in charity to believe his accusation to be true, at least for once for on an occasion of the kind we expected some more satisfactory exposition of bis opinions and policy than be has thought fit to give.

He first takes occasion to bewail the local ami uninfluential character of- the New Zealand press. It takes no interest in, and never adverts to,, the doings of’ the General Government,, unless when the said Government happens to displease the small provincialists in any local matter, /f this is correct, does it not strike' Mi\ /Stafford as the severest condemnation of the Ministry, that-the press can pronounce? No. one is so blind as he that wont see; and:Mr. Stafford cannot understand that it is the utter insignificance of. the doings of the ministry,, not the incapacity of the press to criticise them, which prevents the provincial journals from- in general referring to them. When, however,, they do advert to the conduct of the government,, it appears that their representations are “ one-sided and false.” With one or two exceptions they all concur in this candid estimate of its character,— “ Your faults are only two, — There's nothing right you ever say,

There’s nothing right you do.” This being the case according to Mr. Stafford, it is no wonder that he looks on the colonial press as ignorant and imbecile. Unfortunate Mr. Stafford ! Even his warmest friends fail to exhibit the merits of himself and his colleagues in a striking enough light. Our more than respectable contemporary in Nelson,.which during the last, few months has shown so much ingenuity (with so little effect) in covering the faults and blazoning the virtues of the ministry, comes in for a share- of the censure. “ The Nelson press,” says Mr. Stafford, “ is especially open to the accusation of having neglected tosupply to its readers information as to the proceedings of the recent session.”

High time it is that the Colonial Secretary should supply the information required, and give it forth to the world, as he has now done, in an accredited shape. Will it be believed, that in this defence ’of the policy and' proceedings of the ministry during the last session-, which would occupy five of our columns, with the exception of some statements in respect to the war, which we shall notice shortly, the only reference to the ministerial proceedings during the last session is contained in the following sentences ?—ln the recent session there were three ministerial questions, and we carried them all; the first, which affirmed the justice and expediency of the war, by the very large majority of 15 over the opposition. The ministry has received some beatings, and taken them, as all ministries do. The only questions of any importance on which the government were out-voted were resolutions with respect to the payment of the surplus revenues to the provinces. I may, however, remark upon this so-called beating of the ministry, that the real question at issue was only whether some 36,0001! or 37,000 Z should be divided among the several provinces at once, or over a period of about three years.” This, with the exception already mentioned, is the whole account given of the proceedings of the ministry during the last session, of which the New Zealand public have hitherto been so deplorably ignorant, and respecting which it was the object of Mr. Stafford’s speech to enlighten them. He does not even say what the other two ministerial questions were that were carried. Were the first Militia bill—the iVative Offenders act—and the ,/rras bill, not ministerial measures ? and were they carried, or could they have-been carried had the ministry proceeded with them ? Does Mr. Stafford not yet understand,, that the real question as to the payment of the money unjustly kept back fijom the provinces, was whether the Constitution act and a biff passed by the ministry themselves were to be cast aside at their will and pleasure; or whether the government was to be permitted to act in such a despotic, arbitrary,. and high-handed manner, and to set an example of lawlessness not desirable in the present state of the island ? With respect to the war question—the grand stronghold of the ministry— -Mr. Stafford’s statements are at once curiously candid and extraordinarily confused. He- says the war was not entered into for the possession of 600 acres of land ; that it was “ caused by circumstances which no government could control?” tli-at it was “the result of a series of causes that had been for some time in existence, and which made war a. certainty sooner oi later.” Now, if Mr.Stafford had intended to pass the severest possible censure on the war policy of the government, lie could not have done so more ef-. fectually than in these words which, are intended as its defence. It was not Wi Kingi, but the Maori King, that the government had in, them eye in beginning the war. They professed to> have one object in view, while in reality, they had another. Believe this, and it is difficult to find words to express the idea one must, have-off the utter incapacity of the government to grapple with the native difficulty. 2'his “ series of causes” had been fori some time in existence; it had been seen that the war, was impending ;• and what? did 1 the government do ? It tried no means till after war commenced peaceably to break up the King movementit put arms into the hands of the natives; it left the colonists unarmed and defencelessand it began a war with 1000 men, which the Governor himself believed could-not be carried on with- less than 5000, and which it is now* found cannot be brought to a< conclusion even with that- number. Can such incompetency be believed in, even on Mi\ AS'taffiord’s averment ? We would much rather hold the--opinion that the government did not foresee the consequences of the Taranaki embroilment, and that Ml*. Stafford is now shifting his ground, as his party has done more than once before, to suit the change of circumstances. But it may be asked—if this iV all that is said about last session, what is the rest of the speech about ? For the mort part it contains an explanation and defence- of some of the government measures in 1856 and 1858, respecting which we have not bean! any complaint. Mr. Stafford, conscious that little can be said for the recent proceedings of the government, brings forward testimonies to its previous good character, in the shape of several hills passed in those sessions. Some of these may have been good and suitable; we have not room- to comment on them at present; but their being adduced only shows thac he found it impossible to get up a defence of the conduct of the ministry during last session. The most satisfactory part of Mr. Stafford’s address is his prediction of the political death that must soon overtake him. “ Many reasons will soon compel me to withdraw from the public affairs of New Zealand.” He is drawing his cloak around him, that he may fallj with the dignity that befits the character he sustains.