Wanganui Chronicle AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINEA." THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1882.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIV, Issue 9662, 26 October 1882, Page 2

Wanganui Chronicle AND PATEA-RANGITIKEI ADVERTISER. "NULLA DIES SINE LINE A." THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1882.

Last week the Canterbury Press published an article containing some very interesting comments on a recent gathering of the followers of Mr Montgomery. Our contemporary says :— " The Opposition, hating failed to elicit approval from any independent quarter, | hare constituted themselves a Mutual Admiration Society. They hud n grand gathering on Friday last at a banquet given to Mr SlcKcnzie, the member for moeraki, at Pahnerston, where they praised one another and themselves to their hearts' content. Mr Macandrew assured them, from his own personal knowledge, that they were superior, both in Parliamentary ability and in personal deportment, to the .House of Commons in the palmiest days of that chamber, an assurance which was received, no need hardly say, with vociferous applause. All the other great men present bore an equally nattering testimony to their own high qualifications and those of the other members of their party ; each speech unmistakeably conveying the impression that the speaker considered Mr McKenzie the most gifted and powerful politician in New Zealand except himself. In short, the affair was excellently managed from the point of rievr of a Mutual Admiration Society, and in that respect it may fairly be pronounced a great success. Wo like to hear of people being happy and comfortable, however peculiar their ideas of bliss may be, and it is, impossible to read the rejjort of Mr McKenzie's banquet without feeling a certain sort of amused satisfaction in the luscious gratification of harmless vanity in ■which these worthy creatures so freely indulged." But the principal feature in the night's entertainment to which the Press directs attention is a speech delivered by Mr Stout, who, though no longer in Parliament, is still an aotive politician, and a probable aspirant to' political honours in the future. Mr Stout is regarded by his friends as occupying a position in the van of liberalism, and by his opponents as a clever man whose judgment is very often and very widely at fault. At the McKenzie banquet he saems to have laid himself fairly open to the oastigation which, he subsequently received at the hands of the writer in the Press. Our contemporary Bayß : — " It has hitherto been held that the Presought to be a medium for the free and un, fettered expression of all shades of opinions and it has been considered a most unworthy line of conduct, eminently detrimental to the public welfare, to seek 'to gag a newspaper by damaging its business prospects, on account of differences of opinion. Mr Stout, however, dissented emphatically from tills view, and undisguiscdly maintained that any newspaper which does not support his party in politics ought to be ' boycotted ' and ruined as speedily ns possible. lie entreated the country settlers not to read the papers which criticise the Opposition, and not to encourage men of business to advertise in them. Ilis remarks on this point were so interesting — bearing in mind that he claims to be a Liberal of the Liberals — that we Hunk them worth giving in full. Having remarked that the leading papers were not in accord with his views, he thus proceeded :— 'He would tell them who was to blame for this — it was the people who wore to blame, for if they determined not to encourage a paper tliat did not represent them it would soon change, for a paper was purely a commercial speculation. What hnd largely inlluenced the newspapers was the auction advertisements, and really the auctioneers had had more fo do in shaping through the press tlio political opinions of tho people of Otugo Ihun almost any of Ihum could credit

If country farmers would only say, we read auoli and such a paper, we don't read tho other, the auctioneers would take care to advertise in that paper, so that the balance of power was really held by the country settlers. He did not think for this purpose it mattered which of the papers was most extensively road in Dunedin ; the question was, which of them was read in the country, and therefore they should take care wh.it papers they encouraged.' . This is Mr Stout's notion of liberty of tho Preßs and popular political education . Bach person is to read nothing but what appears on his own side of public questions, and is to shut his mind absolutely against anything in the shape of public discussion. That is one of Mr Stout's rules. The other is that every one who docs not agree with another in politics is to do his best to ruin him in his commercial affairs so as to reduce him to silence or subserviency. By the universal adoption of these two principles, Mr Stout hopes to make the Opposition ignorant, bigoted, norrow-miaded, and violent enough to form just such a Liberal party as ho would like to load. Ho is probably right in his estimate of the effects of his principles — if he could get them adopted. We are happy to believe, however, that ho thoroughly mistakes the temper of the people of this country, no matter to what party they may belong ; and that we shall never see such principles as those he advocates gam any but a very restricted and very transient acceptance here." ! In the course of his speech Mr Stout; -was very eulogistic of Mr Montgomery's conduct as leader of the Opposition. On this the Press remarks : — " But Mr Stout is surely laughing at U9. ' The Opposition judiciously conducted by Mr Montgomery !' No,— that is too much of a joke, and little as Mr Stout is usually influenced by a sense of humour, we must give him credit on this occasion for having played off: a broad piece of irony on his un- • suspecting convives at Mr McKenzie's banquet." A. good deal more might have been said on the subject, but perhaps our contemporary was right in dismissing it almost in a sentence. It was admitted on all hands that Mr Montgomery's leadership was a miserable failure. We do not allude to the fact of his having been the leader of only a section (though certainly Ja large one) of the Opposition. He showed himself totally unable to control those who were nominally his own followers ; and his own conduct in the campaign was little short of imbecile. If the Opposition were split up into sections at the beginning of the session, they were in a worse 6tate at its termination, for by that time they had become a disorderly mob. Nor can we Bee the remotest probability of there being a really compact Opposition in the House a at present constituted, unless new and important questions were to arise, and through their agency parties were to be reorganised and hardened. At present all the true liberalism and striving after progress appears to be concentrated on the Ministerial side of the House.