A GOVERNOR'S REVENGE.

Lyell Times and Central Buller Gazette, Volume VI, Issue 272, 8 May 1886, Page 4

A GOVERNOR'S REVENGE.

The fuller information which we print in this morning's issue regarding the Bryce Eusden trial confirms the impression we had formed at the time the trial took place. We said that it was difficult to understand how a man in Mr Rusden's position, with no personal knowledge of the individuals of whom he was writing, could bring himself to asperse the characters of a number of leading men of this colony in a book which purported to be a history of New Zealand. In the case of Mr Bryce, we added, his remarks displayed a malignity and vulgarity which pointed to the existence of "personal animosities he could "only have been reflecting from "others." If it should turn out, we concluded, that men in high places had made use of Mr Rusden to ventilate views and gratify animosities which they themselves had not the courage to enunciate openly, "the " popular feeling will be largely one of "indignation against those who have " been meanly working behind the " scenes." The fairly full summary of the case telegraphed by Reuter from Adelaide enables us to arrive at a tolerably clear idea of the nature of the defence set up on behalf of Mr/

Rusden. The defendant explained to the Court the methods he pursued in preparing his history, He undertook the task, depending upon materials supplied to him by the Bishop of Wellington and Sir Arthur Gordon, taking his information also from Blue Books and the New Zealand Press, as well as from personal conversations 1 with Maori Natives. Mr Rusden stated that when he compiled his history he had heard nothing as to the slaughter of wives and children of Natives. In consequence, however, of information obtained through Sir Arthur Gordon and Bishop Hadheld, he wrote the paragraph which formed the subject of the action. He ad- ■ mitted that he had been led into a j"gross error" with reference to Mr : Bryce's action, and had prepared a list of errata, but had given no orders to attach it to the book. We are satisfied that when the public of New Zealand realise the full 1 meaning of Mr Rusden s admissions ■ the feeling will be one of strong inI dignation against the real authors ,of the libel. The feeling will be 1 strengthened when it is remembered ' what the relations were between Sir j Arthur Gordon and the Government I of which Mr Bryce was a prominent (member. The Blue Books for 18H2 i contain a long series of memoranda lon the subject of Native affairs, in j which the Governor took a very j decided view on one side, and MinisI ters on the other. On more than one ; occasion Sir John Hall was compelled Ito remonstrate in decided, though courteous terms of the manner in which Sir Arthur Gordon deemed it his duty to act. Mr Bryce, also, was compelled to comment upon treatment such as he begged to submit " he ought not to have been snbjected to by his Excellency." After complaining that Sir Arthur Gordon had included in despatches to the Secetary of State newspaper extracts attributing certain sentiments to Mr Bryce as regards the condition and management of Native affairs and other matters, he went on to say that he was justified in protesting against treatment which "involved unfair- " ness far 'exceeding that which is "inflicted by the ready acceptance 41 and endorsement of such state--11 ments," and went on to point out that in the extracts forwarded words were " omitted " which were " essen- " tial to the true meaning of the whole." It will thus be seen that the relations between Sir Arthur Gordon and Mr Bryce was not of the most friendly character. Sir Arthur found that he had a strong and resolute man to deal with, and the manner in which he acted throughout the whole business was not creditable to one who occupied the dignified position of the Governor of the colony. But we scarcely expected that Sir Arthur Gordon would be guilty of attempting to stab his opponent in the fashion it turns out he has done. It appears that the passage charging Mr Bryce with the murder of women and children formed no part of Mr Rusden's history as originally written. In was inserted afterwards in consequence of information supplied by Sir Arthur Gordon and Bishop Hadfield. The statement made on the above authority, the author of the book admits, was a "gross error," and ought to have been known to be a gross error had the slightest care been taken to inquire into the truth of it. An impartial jury of Englishmen have declared the passage to be a gross libel, and have expressed their sense of the injury attempted to be inflicted upon Mr Bryce by awarding £SOOO damages. The verdict is really one against Sir Arthur Gordon and the Bishop of Wellington. They are the persons who endeavored to injure Mr Bryce in the estimation, not only of his fellow colonists, but in that of the people of the British Empire. The exposure of their disgraceful conduct has been complete. We never, we are sorry to say, held a very high opinion of Sir Arthur Gordon as a Governor. His disqualifications for the position were notorious at the time he was in the colony, and this latest exposure of his methods of dealing with those he disliked should make it impossible for him to hold office again in any freelygoverned community. We have no sympathy with those who hold that the colonies should elect their own Governors. But if the Imperial authorities consider family influence rather than personal fitness for office when making appointments, they need scarcely be surprised if the number of those who look upon nominated Governors as quite unnecessary be largely increased. A succession of Governors of the Sir Arthur Gordon type would seriously influence the sentiments of even the most loyal of I colonists.—Canterbury Press.