New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, AUGUST 23.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4500, 23 August 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, AUGUST 23.

We are content to give Sir George Grey and Mr. Fitzherbert credit for the utmost conscientiousness in their advocacy of the cause into which they have thrown themselves heart and soul. When therefore we have occasion to point out to them incidents in that advocacy which cause us to differ from them, we desire to do so -without impugning their motives—to show, in fact, that they are making mistakes none the less grave because unintentional. And we are also anxious to indicate that, in drawing the attention of Sir George Grey and Mr. Fitzherbert to these mistakes and their consequence, we do not invoke the discussion of the much larger question, concerning which they and we are at variance, that, in fact, we are not now speaking to them in their character of opponents to abolition, but in the action they take as leaders of a political party. On a former occasion, in criticising that action, we took leave to show the gentlemen under notice that certain conduct of theirs would not be conducive of good either to themselves or the cause they represent. But in that case the consequences were merely likely to recoil on themselves and their party* and were not likely to produce an effect .carrying with it great evil to the colony ’at large. What we drew attention to was the tendency on the part of Sir George Grey and Mr. Fitzherbert to detract from the merits of their utterances by not alone making those utterances of too frequent occurrence, but by taking away from their force through the insignificance of the subjects to which they were devoted. But at the present moment we would call the attention of the two leaders of the Opposition to the disastrous results they may produce by their appeals to the passions of the people, by more than half-hinted threats of open and armed revolution. In this respect Sir George Grey, if not misreported, has not hesitated to use language which could without difficulty be construed into a threat that the Government of the colony might find the efficacy of their measures tested by a stronger resistance than a mere recourse to courts of law. Certain harebrained followers of his have, however, been more outspoken, and we have read menaces of sword, and brand, and powder which would have been supremely ridiculous were it not for the fact that there are honest fools enough in every community to be gulled into breaking the law and undertaking a risk in which the first deserters would be the cowards who urged them on, and were afraid to share the danger. Mr. Fitzherbert in his own person has been more outspoken than Sir George, and his concluding words at Saturday night’s meeting cannot be well mistaken, especially when read in the light which a connection of them with a portion of his speech on Friday night would afford. It is probable that both gentlemen when brought to the point on this matter, as we are now endeavoring to bring them, will disown the silly vaporings of their followers, and allege that what they themselves have said is merely to be taken as prophetic, as a kindly warning, in fact, to their opponents, of dangers which they see in the distance, and from which they would save friends and foes alike. Yet we almost insult Sir George Grey and Mr. Fitzherbert by supposing that their own sense does not show them that what a leader may in excuse plead as a warning his followers will too frequently take as a command. When an agricultural gentleman once told an excited mob to be sure and not burn down his enemy’s house, he hoped to escape the legal consequences of an act which was suggested by his words. When the Opposition leaders prophesy armed resistance and civil war, it is hard to acquit them of knowledge that their prophecies may assume hereafter the place of orders, yet we would fain believe, and indeed, as we said above, are almost content to believe that they are acting in mistake. We will assume this to be the case, for if wo did otherwise we should probably find ourselves writing in far stronger terms than those we now use. Assuming it however, our duty is plain and clear. Wo wish to show these gentlemen that their words may bear consequences which they do not desire and which they would bitterly regret. .The mere probability of such consequences in a community and a country like this may to some seem ridiculous, but it is evident that they do not seem so to Sir George Grey and Mr. Fitzherbert. And no one who knows the world can bo ignorant that times may easily come in the heat and fury of political battle when the ordinary weapons of politicians are exchanged by a few fanatics for those weapons which bring destruction on those who take them up, and work fearful evil for all. It is such utterances as those that have been recently made that bring about the change of arms wo have alluded to ; it is such utterances that bring about outbreaks which, in their power to settle the point in dispute would be laughable, were it

not for the serious consequences they involve for a few misguided headstrong fanatics, the first to be disowned by those who are really responsible for their acts, and the last to excite the pity of their opponents. Sedition is an ugly word, but sedition is quite possible in a colony whose inhabitants are no better and no worse than the average of their class. Such sedition as might be aroused would, as a matter of fact, be contemptible in its power to effect its avowed objects, but it would not be contemptible in its power to work evil, and it is to this, in short, that we invite Sir George Grey and Mr. Fitzherbert to turn their present attention ; it is this fact that we ask them to consider before using language such as has been more than once recorded in our columns.