The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1876.

Press, Volume XXV, Issue 3227, 4 January 1876, Page 2

The Press. TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 1876.

We have given ourselves the trouble to read another long speech of Sir George Grey's, in tbe faint hope that we might at length really be able to say that we had learnt something from it. It did seem impossible that an English gentleman, who has half bis life filled with credit the most responsible political posts, and who has during that time shown am pie resources in defending himself even before the potent authorities of Downing street, should make tbe number of speeches which Sir G. Grey has been making, both before and since the dissolution, without once giving utterance to anything which would live in the memory. We should have expected to hear from anyone in his position, if not occasionally a profound political principle, at. least some of those striking sentences which lighten up a whole field of debate, or some felicitous passage, evidencing the speaker's acquaintance with the best sources of political information. But in all Sir George's speeches there is nothing of the kind. There are no great principles, no terse sentences, no valuable quotations. There is a vast display of strong language, applied to nothing in particular, repeated with scarcely any variation from the first to the last of the long series of speeches which it has been our duty to wade through. Here and there in the wild waste of words a etray idea or two seem to struggle to life, rari mantes in gurgite vasto; but the unfortunate wretches are drowned before one can see whither they are floating. We once read an article somewhere "on the backs of " the books in a library." And really from the style of Sir G. Grey's speeches we should be tempted to imagine that he had been allowed-to run loose among some political friend's bookshelves, and having seen such names as Macaulay, Froude, and Carlyle, had carried away with him a general sort of idea that some of them were sura to say something about anything he was himself likely to have to talk about, and had got into the habit of flinging them in at haphazard whenever it became necessary to weight hie own somewhat vacuous style of observation.

In Sir G. Grey's address upon his election for Auckland City West he Ba y ß: —«I feel certain that no man " who would read the great historians " of tb.e present day —no man, for in- " stance, who would study the works "of Macaulay—no man who would " study the works of Bancroft—no " man who would study the works of " JFroude —no man who would etudy " the works of Carlyle—but would see " that the whole hope of the human " race consists in the establishment of •" such institutions as you had until " the Abolition Act took them away." "In conversation," he continues, "with the greatest men of the age, " they have all agreed with mc in " that. In their writings they have " agreed also equally with mc. It is " not my own thought." It is a pity, by the way, that Sir Gk Grey did not remember these important conversations, or at least did not recall these improving studies, when, as Governor of New Zealand, he sent home Mr. Stafford's memorandum asking for the very Bill under the powers of which the provinces have just been abolished. But it is idle for him to refer us to private conversations in support of his version of the published works of the authors he refers to. Sir George Grey was bound to give the passages of the eminent authors which he thinke make out his theory. It was his duty to satisfy us, not merely that they were supporters of local institutions —which, with the exception of Carlyle perhaps, would be no difficult matter— but that they supported him in his policy of refusing to allow the substitution, under the present circumstances of New Zealand, of local institutions adapted to our advancing growth in place of those which have generally ceased to be useful. The truth is that Sir G. Grey has run madupon an idea. Wheneverhehas read or heard anything whatever about local institutions, he claps it down at once as a point made in favour of his beloved provinces. We wonder that Sir George did not favour us with Maeaulay's celebrated illustration of the New Zealander standing on the ruins of London Bridge. It is true that, when Macaulay wrote the article, our provinces were not in existence ; but his prescient instinct must have foreseen their creation; and it was doubtless with an eye to the immense results to be achieved by so magnificent a conception, that he selected the New Zealander as the aptest type of modern vigour surveying the spectacle of ancient decrepitude.

Until Sir Gγ. Grey can succeed in identifying the eminent writers under whose wing he seeks to shelter himself with the precise institutions he is so bent on clinging to, he does not make his position one whit stronger than that of the most confirmed abolitionist. We have heard —Sir G. Grey is fond of conversations—one of this school of thinkers express himself to much the same effect with reference to the English authorities as Sir George himself —with the difference of bringing his reference to bear on the future instead of the past. "How de- " lighted," was this gentleman's exclamation, " would any English " statesman be if he had only the " opportunity of establishing the same " sort of local Government at home " that we are going to do out here." "We believe it is quite a mistake to refer to any English writer for anything more than general principles. No one who really knew anything of the set of the current of political thought in England would have troubled himself to collect such an array of authors as Sir G. Grey has supposed necessary to base an argument in favor of local administration. So far, the English references would be invaluable if they were wanted. But upon this point we are all agreed. The only question amongst us is, what kind of local institutions are best suited to our circumstances ; and on this matter we have no doubt whatever that the colonists themselves are by far the best judges. • Even the authorities in Downing : street, no matter by whom the Colonial ! Office happens for the moment to be tenanted, have come to make a practice of surrendering their judgment on colonial matters to the better knowledge of the colony concerned. In the present instance Lord Carnarvon has sufficiently indicated his intention to follow the example of his predecessors. We can only add that Sir G. Grey's lame attempt to fortify himself with great English names shows at once the desperate straits to which he is driven for an argument, and his inability to understand its bearing when he happens to meet with anything on the subject.