MORE DESPATCHES.

Evening Star, Issue 4259, 20 October 1876, Page 2

MORE DESPATCHES.

A batch of letters from Sir George Grey to toe Governor, and from his Excellency « t^PSF B "' 0 were kid on the tables of both Houses last night. The first of these is fronvSir Geo, Grey, and is dated the 17th inst. He expresses surprise and sorrow at the statements contained in his Excellency's despatch of June 21, to Earl Carnarvon, and offers an explanation in regard to them. In reference to the alleged conversation with Mp Dargaville, Sir George demes that he ever met that gentleman on the date or at.the place mentioned by him; ! and then proceeds to answer the charges against him made in the Governor's despatches. These charges are, he allege*—(l). In im properly dictating as Superintendent of Auckland a part'cular resolution to the Provincial Council of that Province. (2). Some implied charge, not openly or fairly stated, of attempting .to get the command of i the Auokland Police Force to use it against the General Government; and (3) of being the author of reports that the General Government might attempt to use the Queen's vessels against the Colonists, if any of the Provinces, as a last resource, resisted the bringing into operation of the Abolition Act. The first charge Sir George answers by Svrag it a denial, and referring his Excelncy to the speeches in Parliament ofariembers of the Auckland Provincial Council. To the second he makes answer that there was nothing unlawful or unusual in his Beeking to have the, control of the Police force, as other Superintendents have—a control the General Government had agreed to hand over to hjm, but which he did not accept, "out of tenderness for individual interest,' which it had been represented to nun would suffer,. owing to the temporary character of the change. And in reference'' to the third charge he makes reply— I first heard of the supposed intention of the General Government to use, under certain circumstances, the Queen's vessel and its marines against the people of New Zealand, from a supporterof the Government, wme time before any.ofthe "circum. stvncea alluded to in your Excellency's letters I attached importance to that siatement, from knowjng that on a previous occasion the Government here had made arrangements fordoing this in the case of a trivial disturbance, which, they were capable of easily suppressing by police and special constables, as they m fact did, &y complaints Jw«* t £ Im ! 0t WM , in circulation to the effect that the Qtt«eu's vessels and forcible measures were pl ° y^b^^ JwPPorters of thbAbolition pohoy against Her Majesty's subjects here, a rumor which undoubtedly myself or any other peri son might be wrongfully accused of having originated, but that the supporters of the Govlrnmeiit Abolition measure used threats that this would be done. Now, certainly I could not have been the means of inducing them to: use such threats, nor could I in any way be responsible for their doing ™- J^*' 8 yaw despatch of 21st Juni was made publio did myself or the public know FmVTJEJi °? P* BU^eot - It Vin my belief, greatiy tojbe regretted that they were not sooner made public Threats of the kind I a^ite hay ° been . mad e »T supporters of the bolition measure of the Government in mrnreseuce—sometimes as warnings, sometimes In a manner offensive to me. Members of the Assembly $S ?** day ' m eiX plnceß m Parliament, testifled to the same circumHtaoces. The publio Press has done it Bo not think tins can be denied. TW J^!^ I l S? Ua^W| W 0, *a«* Political effect at «£iH me V Now ' *hese wandngß or threats are generaUy disapproved of. It is easy to laughat kfeSn the y> cannot of'course be carrieoTout StaSteSftV ° puuo ? lthßt

Yesterday Sir George Grey forwarded to F* Excellency an extract from an editorial in the 'Guardian,' in which the writer made the positive personal statement that "the threat about the man-of-wat was started by the Ministerialists." Sir George Grey further asked that Mr Eargaville. should be informed of this statement. Hu» Excellency, in his reply,' which' is dated yesterday; -s deals matim with thfe chargesnamed.by Sir George. 'He deiiies in the first place that his despatch in any way charges >ir George with improper conduct as Superintendent; and points-to speeches made in the Auckland Provincial Council as sufficient justification for his own statement that the feeling in Auckland against Abolition was riot so. as his Honor seemed to suppose. As to the second oharge, his Excellency Bavs that aperusal of his despatch wiil Show that, from the first word of it to the end, he made no allusion to the Auckland police or of his Honor wishing to obtain the command of it His Excellency goes on to say ; rtS2 *s& **°riy incidentally mentioned by Mr Dargaville in his letter at iSe the conversation, in which he Btates that you "saidr C«.» A. wbat IS - more » * a" 1 easily believe it within the range of posaibdity tha. we may yet'see a Britash man-of-war in that river (the W&temata) JE£. h £ g — B "P** u ? udß to ooSree us into admission to some intolerable-measure of the Government The subject must £«£?££!!?#£* of Keneral conyersitioli at the time, as! have a distinct recoHecWdn of it* being told to me in Wellington soon iftw• toeff°J2S!ft W *«*» Place,"and bdtore.M* Dorgaville's information was tendered. As regards the third charge, I hare no.reason whatsoever for supposing that Mr Dargaville would deliberately invent such a statement as he has placed in writing, nor do I understand your Honor to deny that snoh a conversation did take place, although yon state that you do not recollect it, Under these ctepumstanoes, with these statements before w, I think it was not an unfair inference for me to draw that you had yourself been the first to give currency to a report similar to the one of which you complain to the Secretary of State. You now state that the threats of the kind you allude to have been made by supporters of the Abolition measures in your presence, and I think it very possible that many very foolish remarks may have bean made by injudicious advocates on sides of the question. But I have yet tp learn that such threats have in any way been counteracted by anyone in authority, and your Honor must- be further perfectly aw i? e J*"** '', the Colonial Government have' no authority whatever over Her Mtjesty's forces, and that any xequisition to the captain ofa nun-of-war must emanate from the Governor himself j and therefore when you stated to the Secretary of State that you believed there were substantial grounds for fearing that opposition to the Minißtrv murht involve the City of Auckland being cannonaded by Her Majesty's ships, you oistfinctly implied that for the purpose of supporting the Government of the day I should, in your opinion! - be capable of personally ordering the bombardment of a defenceless city, an atrocity which, even in ™£& £*%£— d a* 8 * I *?* any officer who comv**™****- 8 tt V" 9 and one which I think required much. strongeTividence thin a newspaper report or mere rumor to justify.