The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, FEB. 11, 1880.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LIII, Issue 5916, 11 February 1880, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, FEB. 11, 1880.

Sir George Grey’s speech at the Thames does not as reported throw much additional light on the political situation of the last session, as far as the people outside of Grahamstown are concerned. Two thousand people heard the speech, and applauded it, but nobody can applaud the summary report which was telegraphed over the Colony, because that report was incomplete, and very badly put together. In this matter, Sir George Grey has not been served as he had a right, considering his position among the statesmen of the Empire, his services to the Colony, and the part he has recently played in its politics, to be served. The Telegraph has developed a new art for the annoyance of mankind. It is not necessary, in these days to confine one’s benevolent wishes to the writing of a book by one’s enemy, “Oh ! that mine enemy might make a speech, which I might summarise, and scatter broadcast among his hostile critics!” This ought to be the new reading of the old proverbial wish. Its realisation certainly opens out a delightful field for

the malevolent. Subsritution of non sense for sense, of the slipshod and vulgar for the polish of style, of poverty of diction f° r com man o language, of boorish taunt for de ica. satire, of reckless assertion toi caie fully reasoned comment. Truly, a man would as soon think of appealing o e world by summary as alover would think of captivating his mistress by sending er the photograph of his face as it appears in a spoon. But if his nva could, manage to take an impression from that spoon, he would view the matter from a different stand-point. The generosity that is the leading characteristic of rivals would lead him to have the counterfeit presentment multiplied and scattered far and wide. With what thoughtful consideration would he deplore the plainness °f the face ! How delicately fic m k® would he on the excellence of the likeness ! How loftily critical he would he of the unfortunate twist of the features! Wow this is exactly what has happened in the case of Sir George Grey’s speech. The distorted incomplete counterfeit presentment has been commented upon with the above excellent taste by Ministerial organs. But we must not forget that they deserve great credit for their moderation. They have refrained from sadly moralising on the incompleteness of the speech. Neither have laid the blame of their misprints and had punctuation on the hapless orator that they detest so strongly. They have certainly in these respects risen above the pettiness' of partisan warfare. We were not aware that the Ministerial press of this Colony was half so well conducted. There is, under the circumstances, not very much to comment upon in the speech. One thing stands out clear however, and unmistakeable. It is that Sir George Grey made some reference to the criticism he has received from the English newspapers. • This has been exulted over as a proof of his extreme sensitiveness. No other New Zealand statesman, we have been informed, condescends to notice what the English journals say of him. This is absolutely true. It is only a neat way of saying that no English newspaper condescends to notice any other New Zealand statesman. The superior virtue of Sir George Grey’s opponents is, of course, transcendant, but we doubt very much whether it would prevent them from condescending to notice what might appear concerning them in print in London. We know some who would give their eyes if they were capable of doing something above the, dead level of vestry politics, which would attract outside attention ; who, if they could point to a career of Imperial interest, would never condescend to soil their hands with any merely Colonial subject requiring human sympathies ; who might even lose their heads entirely if anything approaching to greatness were thrust upon them. To return to Sir George Grey and his English critics. We do not know what the mob is that is supposed to have caused Sir George Grey’s downfall. We do know that when he was almost in a minority in 1877, he appealed to the people of New Zealand, whose verdict, given at various public meetings, secured him a majority in 1878. We alqb know that when, in 1879, there was a majority of fourteen against him, he appealed to the people by dissolution of Parliament, and returned to Parliament with the majority against him considerably diminished. It was not the people of New Zealand, then, that caused his downfall. The people of New Zealand, then, are not the mob, for it was, we have been informed, the mob which drove him from power. There was disloyalty on the part of Sir George Grey’s own party, and some trafficking. That was the cause of his downfall. [ls there then, a mob in Parliament which dealt the blow ? We leave the unravelling of this mystery to the Ministerial organs. The fact is, that Sir George Grey has, in his political attitude, been grossly misrepresented. When striving for justice he was accused of setting class against class. The people who roused class jealousies were the hostile critics of Sir George Grey, and they did so in defence of their privileges. We gather from the mutilated report of his speech at the Thames, that he said —and he said it truly —he had always done his beat to persuade the people of New Zealand to follow justice and right. Under the circumstances, he may well treat with contempt the taunt, that he had been punished for pandering to the instincts of any mob. Another matter to which Sir George Grey referred was the Christchurch Election Committee’s Report, and the consequent disfranchisement of the Christchurch constituency. This he was right in stigmatising as directly contrary to the law of England. In England the law permits a man to stand at a general election for two or more constituencies and to he elected for them all, giving him the option of selection. In the Colony we have imported the law of England and are bound by it. A competent authority has declared that the law was not only imported but in operation. Set Sir George Grey was unseated, and the Christchurch constituency that elected him was disfranchised. The injustice of the proceeding is monstrous. It is, as every one knows, a consequence of the vicious system of relegating the settlement of election questions to Parliamentary , Committees—a system which the Colony retains after Great Britain, satisfied by a lamentable experience of a hundred years, discarded twelve years ago. Mr Hall had last session a Bill before Parliament for discarding the system, but after his party came to power, very little more was heard about it. Gratitude to the system probably prevented the Bill from being gone on with after the nomination of Mr Richardson. But though the Hall Government were properly grateful, the country cannot be satisfied to continue the absurd practice which, in the matter of disputed elections, substitutes partisan whimsicality for the settled principles of law. Sir George Grey has announced his intention to return next session to the attack of the iniquitous system. All sensible fair dealing men must join in the best wishes for his success.