The Globe. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1876.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 729, 20 October 1876, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1876.

Although we regret that his Excellency the Governor was induced to adopt the tone which he did in his now famous despatch to the Secretary of State, it was nevertheless a complete and triumphant reply to the points raised by Sir G-eorge Grey, and the defence made by that gentleman, which we publish elsewhere, scarcely touches the points at issue. Sir George Grey makes no attempt to take up the various questions therein discussed, and make good his former position. He totally ignores the ground taken up by his Excelleucy as to the powers of the Assembly to abolish the provinces, and makes no answer whatever to the point made, that the province of Auckland is not unanimous in its opposition to abolition, as proved by the fact that the Provincial Council of that province passed a resolution in favor of abolition in May of last year, and rescinded it next day only by a majority of one, aud that at the direct instigation of Sir George Grey himself. There is no one in the colony more skilled in the art of correspondence that the great proconsul. His reply to the Marquis of Normanby is an additional illustration of his powers in this respect. The Governor's despatch was a well reasoned document, in which the arguments in favor of abolition were handled with skill, in spite of their party bias. Sir George Grey's professed reply purposely avoids every argument used. He professes to summarise the despatch, and find three points in it requiring answer; first, his conduct in relation to improperly dictating in Mb office as Superintendent a particular resolution to the Provincial Council of Auckland; second, an implied charge of attempting to get the command of the police force of the province of Auckland, to use it against the General Government; and third, of being the author of reports that the Government of the country might attempt to use the Queen's vessels against the inhabitants of the colony, if any of the provinces should resist the Abolition Act. Sir George Grey then proceeds to reply to these charges. As regards the first, his Excellency most properly pointed out that no such charge was ever made by him. The circumstance of the Auckland ; Provincial Council resolutions was quoted to show that the people of that province were far from being unanimous on the question of abolition, as was asserted by Sir George Grey in his former despatch. His Excellency expressed no opinion whatever as to Sir George Grey's action in the matter. In the second place, his Excellency never accused Sir G. Grey with attempting to get the command of the police force of Auckland, for the purpose of using it against the General Government, and his defence of his conduct in this connection is equally beside the question. The fact is that the despatch of the Marquis of Normanby, however we may question its taste, was a crushing reply to all the arguments used by Sir George Grey and his party, and the reply to it has been framed with great skill to parry the blows there given with such vigour. But, however skilful the attempt, it has been a failure, and his Excellency's letter mercilessly lays bare all its weak points. Who is to be held responsible for originating the report that force would be applied for to enforce abolition, is a question of comparatively small moment. Sir George Grey kne w quit© well, when he wrote his despatch, ib&t no Colonial Government had any such power, and he must have known that no Government would take such a step, yet he deliberately libels the colony to forward party purposes, and to secure, if possible, Imperial interference, fto language is too strong by which to characterise such conduct, and the castigation he received at the hands of his Excellency was richly deserved. Wo are only sorry that it was not administered by Ministers instead.