New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, JULY 10.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4773, 10 July 1876, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) MONDAY, JULY 10.

Since his return to public life, we have had occasion more than once to compliment Sir George Grey upon the fact that time has not impaired his often displayed talent for picking a quarrel or getting up a grievance ; and recent occurrences have shown that another great talent, the existence of which obtained general public recognition in New Zealand a quarter of a century since, has lost none of its lustre, viz., the talent for what was called “ systematic misrepresentation and inveracity.” Enemies of Governor ; Grey, whose ill-will survives the years, rejoice to see that he is still the same man whom they denounced long ago, whilst the friends of the ex-Governor, still numerous with all his faults, are fairly put to shame by his recent proceedings. ' The testimonials of Governor Grey’s early character on official record are legion. It is true that they are far from flattering, but of their truthfulness he himself affords hourly evidence in his place in Parliament in these latter days. Thera are men enough amongst us still who remember all the incidents of the long and desperate battle against his despotism, and for the establishment of free institutions, which lasted throughout the whole of his first term of office in New Zealand ; and for those who desire to refresh their memory, or for those who desire to learn the history of those early days, the Parliamentary blue books of the time have stores of information, which will repay the labor of research. We select a few of these testimonials as examples merely. On the 27th August, 1849, the Chairman of the Settlers Constitutional Association, Dr. Dorset, transmitted, in a despatch to Earl Grey, certain resolutions adopted unanimously at a meeting of that association held in Wellington ; of these we select two ; Resolution 1. Moved by Mr. Fitzherbbrt, J. P., seconded by Mr. John Mcßeth, — “ That the attempts of Sir George Grey, in his various despatches, to conceal the complaints and dissatisfaction of the colonists, to mislead her Majesty’s Ministers, and to avail himself of the distance which separates the colony from the parent country, for the purpose of obtaining, by means of suppression and misrepresentation, the sanction of the Home Government to measures having for their object his own maintenance in the possession of despotic power, and calculated seriously to retard the prosperity of the colony, render it the imperative duty of this association publicly to protest against the unfairness and dishonesty of his Excellency’s conduct, and to bring under the notice of her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, the general untrustworthiness of his despatches, more especially , of those dated the 29th November, 1848, and 2nd February, 1849, recommending the postponement for four years of the longpromised representative institutions, and the substitution in the interval of councils, which consist exclusively of Government officials and nominees, the colonies having no voice, influence, or control in making the laws by which they are governed, or in the expenditure of the revenue which they contribute.” Resolution 6. Moved by Dr. Featherston, seconded by Mr. Lyon,—“ That the various reasons assigned by Sir George Grey for postponing the introduction of free institutions, though very specious and peculiarly adapted to flnd acceptance with the Home Government (which, by reason of distance from the colony, and of certain prejudices to which Sir George Grey has addressed himself, is not in a position to form an independent opinion), yet they are in truth entirely without foundation, and based on premisses expressed or implied which are the very reverse of fact.” In November, 1849, Dr. Weekes, chairman of a meeting of the people of Auckland, transmitted to Earl Grey a petition with more than five hundred signatures, praying for the removal of Governor Grey, for the following among other reasons:—“That theyhave lost respect for his official character for veracity, on account of the systematic misrepresentations of his despatches, some being filled with

glowing descriptions of the prosperity of this colony—-merely fictitious. While at other times , they contain calumnious strictures on the characters Of individuals, compounded and forwarded with such complete secrecy and such utter disregard of truth that no man can venture to think ’Himself secure from being assailed—a grievance which your petitioners feel. the more keenly by- the conviction that' they are entirely in the .power, of such , statements,' being cut off from any official channel of ‘ communication with her Majesty’s Government, being denied the privilege' of representative institutions, through the unfounded representations of his Excellency.” . From"' Dr.’ Weekes’ letter we take the following on the subject of what ho calls the crowning charge against Governor Grey —“his utter want of official veracity ; ”_A < For the art of seizing' on trifling facts, magnifying or perverting them to suit the purpose of the moment; in conveying impressions he dare not assert; seldom risking being convicted of direct falsehood, but contriving openings for future 'explanations, or pleas of misrepresentation to fall back upon should his veracity be called in question ; in the guarded care with which he fortifies his misstatements by intermixing as much truth as possible, consistently with working out his ends, yet not without the courage occasionally to hazard a bold assertion where the gain likely to be commensurate with the risk, he has shown:a talent which all must regret to sae so ill-applied.” In a despatch to Earl Grey, of date October 8,1850, Dr. Dorset, commenting on a despatch of Governor Grey, says : —“lt appears from his own statement that the despatch in question was written by Sir George Grey before the petition to Parliament which induced him to write it had been seen by him, and while he was entirely unacquainted with its details. We will not dispute this statement, although the petition had been printed in the colonial newspapers nearly a month before the date of his despatch, and had, we presume, been seen, by those who informed him of its existence, and who, it might reasonably be supposed, would have informed him also of its contents. Nor will we enlarge on the want of dignity exhibited by him in his attempting before he had seen the petition to disparage those from whom it emanated, and to ■forestall its contents, of which he professed ignorance. But we may be permitted to observe that such a course was not indicative of much confidence in the force of argument used by him in his previous despatches of November and February, nor in the goodness of his cause. Nor if, as he states, he had in his contemplation when he wrote those earlier despatches the facts contained in that under comment, do we understand why he omitted them from- the former labored and most carefully written documents. We are inclined rather to attribute their subsequent appearance to that feeling which induces one fighting a desperate battle to aim at his adversary any blow with any weapon which he may be able to snatch in the heat of the contest, without considering whether the one or the other is consistent with the rules of honorable combat. ,

“We regret to observe iu the despatches under consideration several passages which appear to have been written with no other intention than that of misleading your Lordship, and which, though they evince some ingenuity and cleverness, are entirely unworthy of an officer filling a high appointment and enjoying the confidence of her Majesty’s Ministers. 1 ‘ Sir George’s cue appears to have been so to confuse the circumstances and statistics of two provinces as to oppose to.a petition, emanating from the Southern only, all the objections which could be found to exist in either, and, by jumbling the whole together, to make it appear in many parts as if what belonged to the North solely, really had application to the South also, and in the South specially. He confounds the boundaries and extent of the several provinces; leaves out whole settlements when it suits his argument, and again inserts whole settlements where properly they have no place; at one time referring with every appearance of precision to authentic returns, at another contenting himself with vague generalities and loose guesses; while the whole is so ingeniously put together that we defy any person not personally and minutely acquainted with the colony to detect the fallacy of the argument or avoid falling into the snare set for his understanding.” Now, wo might multiply these “testimonials” without end, if need were, or if our space permitted. Probably wo have said enough to prove to those who have watched and wondered at Sir George Grey’s proceedings in this session, and notably those in the debate on native affairs on Thursday night, the accuracy of our assertion that the talent which merited such testimonials has lost none of its original lustre. He is, however, putting his talent to a dangerous use in meddling, as he is now doing by his agents, in native affairs, with the view apparently of preventing the consummation which we all desire of peaceful relations with Tawhiao and his people. Opposition to the Ministry ought to take some other form. Sir George Grey himself, if he were Native Minister to-morrow, could not complete the work which Sir Donald McLean has now brought so nearly to a close. The man who shut out all hope of accommodation with the Waikatos by his foolish declaration that he would “ dig round the King till he fell ” and brought desolation upon the tribes, is not likely in these days to win the confidence of men who attributed, and with justice, all their misfortunes and losses in the war to him.