ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 635, 3 September 1851, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Wellington, 29th August, a Sir, —It is very evident that Mr. GoMg viewed with some alarm.. the beneW'". which are likely to spring from the »‘J* remarks made by Sir George Grey «nr 1 to the evil tendency of the coloni2 in «. n of the Canterbury Association, and nn J the scheme has been so thoroughly exp * that the eyes of the Canterbury opened to the delusion created ,n ,. "l® t b e Inti eagerly seized the opportunity whl f? o f jtpublic meeting at Lyttelton gave tacking the Governor and the uo a but unfortunately for Mr. Go—ey, on that occasion exhibits so muon feeling, and is so full of false assort presentations, and recriminations, a t|5 U the force of his attack, and to . maK r e . ur diiies* comparative ease to expose the, a puthis arguments and the

P ojje - , . nflli? Mr. Godley well knows that it ib tti on his part to withdraw the atte - ]ci me nt * Canterbury settlers from the nonthe engagements ofthe Associate fft | e j r coi»' on colonial politics, so as to sSOO i a tio’i plaints against the bad faitu 0. — _ wgretfi until such time as he has from the country: thus it is be vouring by every art of sophist ? 4 f j of which he is convinced, and g» (Jodie/ j vances which do not ®? ls4 ' ~m en tin making an attack on the Gove terms, intends evidently that 1 a|J j s o apply personally to Sir G. w

from his not being betrayed “ by any provocation however strong, into an unseemly personal controversy with the representative of the Queen,” and with whom ‘‘he is not going to bandy reproaches and insinuations,” his speech is in every respect similar, as regards abuse, reproaches, and insinuations, to the violent attacks he made against the New Zealand Government through the columns of the London Morning Chronicle, and yet so inconsistent is his character, that under the Government he then abused and continues to abuse, he is positively holding an important official situation, which, although hitherto he has received no emolument, gives him patronage and immense influence, and besides, to depict this inconsistency in stronger colours, he is compelled by holding his office, to assist in practically carrying out measures passed by a Nominee Council, and framed by an irresponsible Government.' The first complaint made by Mr. Godley against Sir G. Grey is, that in replying to the ■ request that Canterbury should be formed into gha separate Province, the Governor very improperly alluded to the Association’s Land Regulations : now, in turning to the paragraph complained of, one finds it there stated “ should it, however, be desired by the Canterbury sett tiers that any addition should be made to this block of land, it will be necessary that his Excellency should be informed what addition is sought to be obtained; and further, whether in the event of the Province being so enlarged, it is intended that the peculiar regulations of the Canterbury Association for the sale of land should be put in force throughout the whole of the so constituted.” The letter containing this passage was considered by the settlers to be both courteous and satisfactory, and yet Mr. Godley must needs, ata public meeting, put a very unfair and illiberal construction upon it, for he said in reference thereto,—” no such proposal, therefore, was made or could have been made by me, and his Excellency’s allusion to it, hypothetically, in his reply, is entirely uncalled for and irrelevant.” Now this is a palpable instance of Mr. Gcdley’s desire to misrepresent and to convey a wrong impression to the minds of his hearers, for it is most untrue to say that his Excellency alluded “hypothetically" to it: what he wanted, as appears from F the passage already quoted, was to be made acquainted in an explicit manner with the wishes of the Canterbury settlers, for they, equally with the Governor and Mr. Godley, must have been aware that the operation ->f the Association’s Land Regulations could not be extended beyond the boundaries of the present block of , land without the interference of the Imperial -Government, Mr. Godley’s remarks on the Governor’s reply must certainly be consideied :as both uncalled for and irrelevant, and they betray a strong desire on Mr. Godley’s part to ill feeling towards Sir George Grey; jinueed this desire is shewn throughout the whole of his speech. Again Mr. Godley, who was not going to be betrayed “ into an unseemly personal controversy with the representative of the Queen,” or to bandy reproaches and insinuations,” in unmeasured terms attacks Sir G. Grey for stating in Council that an attempt was being made to extend the Canterbury block, and he cunningly attempts, to show that this assertion was made on very insufficient grounds—in fact —made on mere “ remembrances” and “rumourswishing it to be inferred that Sir G. Grey was perfectly reckless in what he said, so long as he could create in the minds of the members of Council, and of the colonists, a spirit of opposition against the Canterbury Association. Mr. Godley, at the very time he was insinuating poubt as to the truthfulness of the Governor’s statement, well knew that Sir G. Grey spoke correctly and. from the very best authority when he said in Council “ that any information on this subject, in the possession of the Government rested, he believed, solely on his own personal knowledge. All he knew regarding it was, that the Agent of the Canterbury Association had read to him the draft of a letter in which, as far as he remembered, was a recommendation that an application should be made for an extension of the block of land which was to be subject to disposal under the peculiar rules of that settlement. He had, however, heard rumours oh the same subject from other Sources.” That Mr. Godlev was actuated bv most improper motives there can be no doubt, otherwise he would have distinctly said that he |“ 3u or had not made such a recommendation, but he admits nothing, and the public even now ire only made aware through the Governor of the fact which Mr. Godley cannot deny, that le, Mr. Godley, the Association’s Agent, has nade such a recommendation. Although Mr. Godley affected a chivalrous eeling and was not going “to bandy reconciles,” one finds him hurling against the jovernment fierce invectives, taunting it with r xr ng d° ne 80 little towards the colonization « New Zealand, and ‘ drawing a picture which s as false as any unscrupulous opponent of Government could have desired. The Canterbury lettlers, Mr. Godley knew, he could practice deception on, but how he could have committed e gregi°us a blunder as not to be aware that tus dishonesty would be exposed, as soon as his ipeech was circulated through the neighbouring settlements, it is difficult to conceive. I am, Sir,. Your obedient servant, Detector.