THE COLONIST AND MR. KYNNERSLEY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 224, 22 September 1870, Page 2

THE COLONIST AND MR. KYNNERSLEY.

To the Editor of the Nelson Evening Mail. gi X—An K —An article which appeared in the Colonist of Tuesday last,is so entirely unfair in its wholesale denunciations of Mr. Kynnersley, that I hope that, in the interests of fairplay (which I think is ever valued by the people of Nelson), you will allow me space to point out in what particulars the said article exceeds, or falls short of, or utterly misrepresents, the truth. The talented writer of the article closes his remarks by pathetically crying, "Eheu! when will people open their eyes and see ? " Sir, as far as my experience of Nelson people goes, their eyes are generally open, and I am going to give them a chance to see the truth. In the first place let us consider the accusation of obstructiveness and insolence. As to the insolence, I utterly deny that Mr. Kynnersley was insolent. Would the editor of the Colonist like him better if he had sat quietly to be sneered at and insulted by the Colonial Treasurer without in any way defending himself ? I fancy not. I should hardly think that the said editor would have displayed such meekness himself. What did the alleged insolence amount to ? When Mr. Yogel sneered at Mr. Kynnersley as being " an inexperienced young gentleman," he replied, and was much applauded by the Ilouse for the reply, that he confessed to being young, and admitted that he was a gentleman. Sir, I consider ihat a most happy way of turning aside the sneer of the great man. The editor of the Colonist knows that it was a happy reply and so he tries to make it appear insolent by altering it a little. He states that Mr. Kynnersley '' thanked God he was a gentleman." Sir, Mr. Kynnersley said nothing of the kind. He modestly aud jocosely admitted that he was a gentleman, possibly knowing that in the eyes ot some of his opponents, there and elsewhere, that was oue of his least easily forgiven faults. The editor of the Colonist thinks that he " ought to define his terms." I daresay he would do so if requested. He might say, if pressed, that gentlemen did not tell lies about people behind their backs. If he said so, I should entirely agree with him.

The Editor also accuses him of saying that " some men have ability, and some honesty," and sarcastically asks whether it " has ever entered the fertile brain of this young gentleman that there may be some men destitute of both"? I think it likely that such a thought has entered his brain, and moreover, I think that when he sees the article under review it will occur to him that scurrility often flourishes ia men so destitute. Now with regard to Mr. Kynnersley's obstructiveness. He did on one occasion, and on one occasion alone, obstruct the passage of a Government bill; and I will here take the opportunity of expressing my opinion that had there been more obstructiveness to the Financial schemes of the Colonial Treasurer in that House than there was, it would have been more to the honor of New Zealand's Representatives. I however intend to pursue that subject at some future time, and so return to the question before us. It is -well known, I suppose, that Government (by which term of course I. mean Mr. Yogel) took the " Wetland Boundaries Bill " out of the hands of those hon. members who had charge of it, aud promised to bring it forward as a Government measure. It became a question of common honor with the Government to support it, as the Westland members had given it up on that understanding. Sir, in the insolence of power, and feeling, I suppose, strong enough in their majority to dispense with those troublesome notions about good faith by which most people are hampered, Government put off the affair from day to day, until at the very last week of the session they declared that the Bill should be discharged. It was then Sir, that Mr. Kynnersley, being determined that justice should be done to the petitioners, that at all events the Bill should be brought before the House and stand or fall according to its merits, took the only course which was open to him to take. He obstructed the Government business with the simple desire of obtaining justice from the Government. Against the sneers of foes, and the entreaties of friends (who thought the thinrj hopeless), he persevered, assisted by Mr.Harrison; their courage wasrewarded,andthe Government yielded to pertinacity what they would not yield to the claims of honesty. The Bill was brought before the House and was, after consideration, thrown out. 1 myself was not in favor of the Bill, nor was Mr. Kynnersley, but that was not the point ; the point was that the expressed wishes of the inhabitants of the Grey valley should have a fair hearing; that the Bill should be brought before the House and stand or fall on its merit ; that point was carried. There is one more statement in the article under consideration, to which I feel bound to allude. It is to the effect that Mr. Kynnersley was aware that Mr. Harrison was going to recommend him to the office of County Chairman. It is in fact insinuated that his action in the matter waß somehow influenced by expectation of that, or some other office. Sir, I know that the statement and the insinuation are utterly false. To those who do not feel inclined to take my word on the subjeot, let me put the thing in his way. Is it at all likely that Mr. Kynnersley could have expected any good thing from the Colonial Treasurer, a man who had the most open and undisguised dislike to him, and who never missed an opportunity of insulting him ? It clearly i 3 not likely. I ncust apologise, Mr. Editor, for taking up so much of your space. I have not written this letter with any view of defending Mr. Kynnersley, that gentleman is quite able to defend himself. I rather desire, Sir, to defend my fellow co'onists of Nelson, from being misled and hoodwinked. I wish them to hear both sides aad judge for themselves, and to recollect that the people who indulge in slashing invective and violent abuse of those whom they choose to consider as their foes, are not always sure to be in the right. I remain, Sir, yours, &c, A. Shuckbtjrgh Collins.