MR STOUTS LETTER.

Evening Star, Issue 4419, 28 April 1877, Page 1

MR STOUTS LETTER.

Mr Stout held any other position than that of a representative of this City, wo should not consider it either necessary c» *° no * ice his letter on the subject Gwernn s reception which appeared lathe Guardian’ of the 23rd. instf P ThS such a letter was ever written' his beet mends must regret; and npbn the question* able taste which dictated it SchitiSrid place, it is not our intention to comment. Wo* Shan Simply, m ourremarks, confineoursblvea to a refutation of some of the more darimi* j misstatements and advanced, whi^^ stamp the letter as a deliberate aSint tIC nusleadthe public with regardtothe official ?? ad ™ t of highest. Executive offi3»3| the _Crown within the Oolony. . Probably; Stout is not responsible for the headim? ( Why was the Governor Hissed ”-Xcrat taitous aMumptioh, ' and hot supported by. faCtsj but this certainly makes it significant as a text upon which to discourse tS n j ? political enormities committed by Lord Normanby, including his" failing to «* the force of Parliamentary minorities, and to appreciate the patriotism of Sir Georgß Grey and Mr Macandrew. Now for.the l •^ e a • by a charaoter:istic fling at the “ love of the British nation for aristocracy, ” which would induce a warm welcome to a Marquis, even if credibly nn dued;with a taU and horns. tSSIfcZ lieve,' is very true, but why Abefifiomstafhf to i be branded as possessing, this hereditary taste. we are atalosTlxL conceive. Snobbishness is not 'confined % an y political, party, land it is pos* ; thafc Sir Georgb Grey’s adorers would be fewer had he not a title and a princely income. Mr Stout then proceeds to define the duties of « Governor, and. in this matter we have no point of difference with him. The commission of the present Governor was pubfished in the Parliamentary papers, and lays down very'clearly what is t. be done and What is not to be done by him, and it would therefore be very easy and certainly satis* factory if Mr Stout would point out in what respect or respects Lord Normanby has infringed its provisions, instead of making general accusations with regard to personal motives, which, from the nature’ of . things, are simply, under the circumstances, impossible. With regard to the specific charges made in the letter, we will briefly, dispose of them. They were Ml - brought forward time after time in Parliament, and consigned to the oblivion which their triviality merited. First quoted is a despatch m July 1875, wherein the informs* tioa is conveyed of a merely formal rei arrangement of the Executive consequen ft upon bir Julius Vogel’s absence during the session then imminent. The Governor had*in this matter, clearly no. option- but to accept the resignation, nnd to entruit the formation of the Ministry >to a gentleman possessing the confidence of Part fiament. That he acted rightly was proved by the fact that this Ministry commanded a very large majority when the Bouse met, but Mr Stout designates the action taken as a juggle to disarm opposition.” Nexffl we have a most original idea that Lord .Normanby advocated the claim* 0 f Mr Pearce over Mr Montgomery as Consul for Sweden and Norway. We do riot suppose (the subject ever occupied his Excellency’s thoughts ; but the clerk who wrote the very unimportant despatch probably knew Mr -Pearce and did not know the other gentle“an» w bo is a Canterbury resident—-hence the description in one case and not in the other. The despatch next quoted is, we think,-rather unfortunately referred to. It' was written in 1876, after the question of Abolition had been settled by a sweeping majority of the House of Representatives, and, in forwarding the Abolition Bill for Her Majetys assent, the Governor was fully' justified then by public opinion, and has been justified by subsequent events, he stating that the Bill to give effect to the constitutional changes, “ would give general satisfaction, and be supported by a considerable majority in the Assembly.” This, however, is made a matter of grave censure by Mr Stout, We now come to the. despatches ■ relating to Sir George Grey. Whatever may have been said in these was absolutely neky the language, oral and writteri, of oir George himself ';, and when subject to grave changes by that very astute gentle:man, Lord Normanby would not have been true to himself and the character of his race, had he not taken care that the whole facts of | the case were submitted to the Colonial office; and of these, facts, Sir George’s personal actios formed no insignificant part. The able commentaries of Ms Excellency upon the unconstitutional proceedings of Sir George and his party give this particular despatch a special value as a. State paper, and were entirely approved by both Houses, of the Legislature. That the Governor has “ party leanings ” we are not in a position to affirm or deny. As an intelligent mm, no doubt he has Ms opinions upon subjects s6 r closely interesting to him as the politics of New Zealand j but that he has ever in any way displayed these in his official actions we utterly deny. His duty has been, in all matters whore the laws of the Empire are not infringed, to act in accordance with the advice of his Ministers, and to give them his confidence so long as" they possess that of the representatives of- the people. ' WHat possible right the minority have to- dictate to him we are at a loss to conceive, but we are assured that in the as in the past, they will dictate in vain.