Untitled

Auckland Times, Volume 2, Issue 53, 16 January 1844, Page 2

The remarks of the Southern Cross upon the subject of the Colonial Secretary-ship, are such as We could easily foresee our respected cotemporary would make. A defeated disputaot, if he cannot keep his temper,*too often resorts to personal abuse, and our friendly cotemporary is particularly apt to do so,—but, fortunately, common sense gives to invective just so much weight as legitimately belongs to the motive of it. The facts are these: Mr. Freeman’s appointment was no sooner known to the little domineering party, familiarly recognized here as “ The Clique than the two most busy members of that cabal (of whom it is needless to say the editor of the Cross was one) presented themselves before His Excellency the Governor, and protested against a

nomination so disagreeable to themselves. Their interference, as tar as We can hear, was not called for; it Was not based upon any official disability on Mr. Freeman’s part,—and we profess we are much sur. prised that his Excellency did not give them a hint about impertinence. The “ Clique” had been flattered by a condescending notice it is true ; but nothing other than presuming ignorance would overlook the vast distance between the demonstration of a natural politeness, and the bestowal of a confidential ii fluettce. The remonstrance they made was principally supported by calumnious accusations, o( a very cruel domestic nature, which, being clumsily in vented, were capable of instant disproof. Mr. Freeman’s best defence is, that the representations of his ungenerousenemies had not the desired effect upon Captain Fitzroy’s mind—they did not shake the Governor’s confidence in his integrity or his ability,—and, he was an invited guest at Mrs. Fitzroy’s first party. His retirement was graceful, because he volunteered it, rather than be the means of making his patron’s first act an apple of discord.—We can readily believe that the editor of the Cross has no just conception of the word ‘‘graceful” in any of its significations,—how should he ! For ourselves : The pages of the Times offer a sufficient reply to our cotemporary’s malice. If we were such a 3 he would have us appear, we should not have the power so to conduct our paper as to ptovoke the jealousy and animosity of the presuming “ clique.”—We have no assistance in our office ; it is well known that the editor of the Cross dues little more than the personal abuse of that paper—for which province i% llle non tarn bootc/s, quam (id quod majus) natura expertus ,” We have not space now to notice the inconceivable nonsense he has fallen into in his article about free trade—it is easy to see that that is his. Query. When are the “Cross” subscribers crusty ? When their Saturday’s loaf is not doue Brown !