LORD LYTTELTON AND SIR GEORGE GREY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume IV, Issue 220, 9 December 1854, Page 4

LORD LYTTELTON AND SIR GEORGE GREY.

(From the Home News.)

Mr. John Robert Godley has addressed the following letter to the Morning Chronicle in reference to the charges preferred against Governor Sir George Grey : — Sir, —I cannot, consistently with the duty which I owe to the colonists of New Zealand, refrain from asking your permis°ion to say a few words of comment on the defence lately made in Parliament, and in your columns, of Governor Sir George Grew

I beg to remind you that the charges brought against him are ;— 1. That he abused the power alleged to have been vested in him by the Colonial Minister (under the provisions of the Constitution Act), of making regulations for the disposal of the Waste Lands, pending the convocation of the General Assembly. 2. That he disregarded the injunction of the Supreme Court, restraining him from carrying his land regulations into effect. 3. That he unnecessarily delayed to convene the General Assembly, thereby inflicting on the colony the innumerable evils incident to a protruded interregnum. 4. That he appropriated the revenue of the colony without the authority of law.

Now, Sir, I maintain that no serious attempt has been made to answer specifically any one of these charges, except the second. The answers have been to something quite different from these.

As regards the first, it has been elaborately argued thai the Governor had legal authority to deal with the waste lands as he thought lit. This is questionable. However, it may be so. Bat it is not to the point. The charge made is. that, even if he had the authority, it never could have been intended that he should use it in the way he did. Parliament gave to the colonists the control and management of the waste binds, and vested in the Governor the p')\\er of regulating then), until the General Assembly should meet; evidently for the purpus? of enabling him to deal wish isolated cases which might arise in the inteiiin. Yet the Governor took advantage of this provisional power to efleet a complete and sweeping change in the whole system of land disposal ;to do, in fact, the very thing of which it was the special function of (he General Assembly to consider the expediency. Then, it has been attempted to show that the changes made by Sir G. Grey in the land system were beneficial and salutary. Again, I say, ibis is not the question. Of the policy of such changes the colonists not the Governor were the proper judges; and to deprive t! em of this their riyht was to violate the spirit of the act in perhaps its most important provision. Again, as regards the delay in convening the A^cmbly, there has been no defence against 'Aid real accusation. It has been shown, indeed, that the Governor issued the writs within the inne appointed by law, which is not denied. But I bnve looked in vain for any attempt to show that ho might not have bad them returned in time lo convene the A-sembly in October, IS;j:s, instead of May, 18;Vl. And that, be it remembered, is the charge. Lord LyUckon proved it conclusively mid in detail. He proved

it by a proclamation* of the Governor himself in which he names 90 days as the maximum period necessary to get the writs back from the farthest point in the colony. He proved it by the unanimous protests of the Provincial Councils, composed in part of Sir George Grey's' friends, who state that they cannot conceive or suggest any reason why the Assembly should not be convened. He proved it by going through the distances and the times, so us to make the case of unnecessary delay manifest and selfevident. To this elaborate and detailed proof no answer whatever has been attempted. I am, therefore, entitled to infer that none could he made. As regards the illegal appropriation of the revenue, all that has been said is that some lawyers have held that he was justified in strict law. Ido not understand how that can be, for the words of the act which lie violated are so clear and precise, thai it can hardly be called a lawyers question. But at any rate, as we have never been told who the lawyers referred to were, what case was submitted to them, or how they justified their opinion, I think we are entitled to say that a statement 50 vague and unsupported is not a defence.

To the second of the charges which I have enumerated, namely, the disreiraid shown to the injunction of the Supreme Court, and to thiu alone, an answer has been made which really meets the accusation. If the case be as stated by the Duke of Newcastle (I presume on the authority of the Governor) I even admit that the answer appears sufficient. But that considerable doubt han^s over the facts is evident from a perfectly different line of defence having been adopted in the Commons. Upon this point we must wait for further information.

On that part of the defence made for Sir George Grey, which consists of an eulogium ou his general merits, I will only say that it is irrevelant. Those merits might properly be pleaded in mitigation of judgment, if lie were under condemnation, but tbev are no answer to specilie charges elaborately proved.

I have but one word more to say. lam sure, sir, yon are wrong in supposing that Lord Lyttelton waii disappointed at the result of his appeal. He made that appeal with no other object than to discharge himself from responsibility, and to show the colonists of New Zealand that (as he said himself) one voice would be raised in their cause. His own conscience and their gratitude will be to him a sufficient reward. Your obedient Servant, John Robhht Godley.