WELLINGTON.

Otago Witness, Issue 37, 31 January 1852, Page 2

WELLINGTON.

" Your petitioners therefore earnestly implore your honorable House to interfere and literally lave them from destruction : And they make this appeal with confidence, because their complaints are just; and because appeal to your honourable House is the only constitutional mode left them of seeking relief from any injuries 'the policy of the Local Government and Colonial Office may inflict upon them. For it is undeniable that the form of Government they are placed under is a perfect despotism ; that they have no vote, or voice, or influence whatever, direct or indirect, in the framing of any laws or ordinances they are bound to obey, even those which most materially affect them ; that they are ruled by the will and judgment of one man, and three individuals completely subservient to him. They are unconscious, indeed, by what process they have been deprived of all those reasonable privileges which by the British constitution are considered the birth-right of every Englishman ; by what species of argumentation they can be shewn to have forfeited even those rights (such as the disposing of their own property), which great and unquestioned authorities have long ago pronounced to be ' rights in nature,' and 'founded on principles of natural and civil liberty.' But of this they are not now complaining. They have often been shocked by the assignment of power over them to persons who, in more instances than would readily be believed, have put the infamy of their characters

(From the Wellington Independent, Jan. 1.)

beyond doubt, and justified the aversion of the community they dwell among, by acts of public or private delinquency necessitating at last their reluctant removal."

Such were the words used by Mr. Domett in 1844, in the monster petition to Parliament — a petition which was drawn up by himself, and signed by nearly the whole of the male adult population of the Cook's Straits settlements. The settlers of the Southern Province complained in Mr. Domett's petition, not only of the absurd, mischievous, and ruinous policy pursued by the various Governors, but they complained (amongst other things) more especially of the " assignment of power over them to persons who had put the infamy of their characters beyond doubt, and justified the aversion of the community they dwelt among by acts of public or private delinquency necessitating at last their reluctant removal." The settlers in that petition protested against the gross immorality practised by certain parties clothed with official authority; they pledged themselves to expose and resist the attempts then being made to lower the standard of public and private morality, and to introduce into this colony the code of morality which existed in the penal colonies during the period of their greatest degradation.

Does the same feeling which then prevailed still prevail ? Is the tone of morality amongst this community as high and strict as it was in 1844, or is it so far lowered as to tolerate acts which, at the time the monster petition was written and signed, were scouted from one end of the Province to the other ? Is that which in 1844 was deemed so gross and disgraceful a crime as to rouse the indignation of the whole body of the Cook's Straits settlers, and induce them with one accord not merely to call for the dismissal from office of the delinquent, but to compel, " to necessitate his reluctant removal," now come to be regarded as a mere peccadillo, as a trifling offence, as a private matter of which the public have no right to take cognizance, and with which they have no concern, and no right to interfere? Is that which in 1844 was branded with infamy, and considered by the whole community as a most gross outrage, now viewed by our fellow-settlers in an altogether different light ?

These are questions which must be answered in the affirmative or the negative. They are upon us, whether we like them ,or not. There is no possibility of evading them : for silence, be it remembered, will be construed into assent ; and therefore as the ■press is the only organ of public opinion, and affords the only means, under the present despotism, of obtaining redress, we feel ourselves bound to put these questions thus plainly and explicitly, and to apply such a test as will compel an answer being given to them.

The allusion made in Mr. Domett's petition " to persons who had by acts of private delinquency justified the aversion of the community they dwelt among" referred more particularly to Mr. M. Murphy, who, at the time, filled the office of Police Magistrate. It pains us beyond measure to go into such details as we are compelled to do ; but as Sir George Grey has hitherto declined to afford the community the slightest satisfaction for the disgraceful proceedings of which we are complaining, His Excellency has left us no choice in the matter. Mr. Murphy was detected by a policeman in an intrigue with his wife ; the husband inflicted a severe personal chastisement upon h-im ; but the justice of the public was not satisfied ; Mr. Murphy's brother officials " cut him" at an offficial dinner given by the then Crown Prosecutor ; the settlers followed the example thus set them, and brought the facts of the case before Governor Shortland. His Excellency, without one moment's hesitation, dismissed Mr. Murphy from the various offices he held under Government; and ultimately, Mr. Murphy finding that he was spurned and scouted by every one, was obliged to leave the colony.

But is the recent conduct of two of our present officials one iota less disgraceful, one whit less deserving of the reprobation and punishment bestowed upon Mr. Murphy ? Can acts, which in Mr. Murphy's case were visited with such a severe but just penalty, be now perpetrated with impunity ? Let us state, as briefly and delicately as we can, the facts, and then let our fellow-settlers take their own course.

We will first refer to the conduct of Mr. . A gentleman with whom this official was on terms of intimate friendship — to whose house he had free admittance — and whose hospitality he was repeatedly in the habit of enjoying — brought over with his family from a neighbouring settlement a female domestic. Mr. disregarding and violating all the feelings of friendship — setting at nought all the customs and usages of society, clandestinely introduces himself into his friend's house, and succeeds in seducing the domestic. This was bad, and disgraceful enough— but the sequel is still worse*

The girl returns to the settlement, from whence i she came, and almost gets married to a respectable settler. But Mr. is not content ; he obtains leave of absence from his official duties, and pursues his victim to ; arrived there, he avails himself (we understand) of the temporary absence of her husband, and carries her off to a country district ; they are detected— turned out of the house they were living in in the middle of the night, and found considerable difficulty in gaining admittance into any other ; the husband at once institutes legal proceedings ; Mr. consents to pay one hundred and thirty pounds to stay them, and to hush the matter up, and then returns to Wellington, resumes his official duties, and, regardless of the injury he has committed, of the misery he has caused, appears to glory in his shame, and apparently expects to be received in society on the same terms as formerly ! We believe that all these facts, and many more, (which we forbear at present mentioning) were brought before Sir George Grey, and yet His Excellency takes no further notice of them than to forbid Mr. visiting at Government House : as if this were any satisfaction to the settlers for such a gross outrage. When a subordinate official is, after many years of faithful and arduous services, charged with an offence of, comparatively speaking, a venial nature, His Excellency has no mercy, but inflicts the heaviest penalty in his power— removal from office. His Excellency, however, is evidently not a Brutus ; for when Mr. appears before him accused — nay convicted of a far more heinous offence, His Excellency, instead of passing upon him the sentence justly due to this crime, contents himself with giving him a simple reprimand, accompanied it may be with a warning to be in future more cautious in his debaucheries.

Let us now turn to the case of another high official, and we approach it with still greater reluctance and pain than we have felt in dealing with Mr. , both because the party in question has in former days rendered important services to his fellow settlers, and because we do not believe that he regards his own conduct with any other feelings than those of regret and contrition ; but to proceed with the painful task which Sir G. Grey has imposed upon us. Some considerable time back, a hio-hly respectable settler (one who had seen better days) finds himself obliged to return to England on account of his private affairs.; he leaves behind him a wife and a young family, for whose support during his absence he is obliged to trust more to the benevolence of the public and the mother's private exertions, than ta any means he can place at their disposal. The ladies of Wellington, however, interest themselves in their behalf; and after a period of great trial and suffering, and privation, Mrs. , succeeds, by taking in needlework and keeping a school, in earning a sufficient livelihood for herself and family. All for a time goes on well. Unfortunately the official (to whom we are alluding) forms her acquaintance, and ultimately induces her to violate the vow utfered at the altar to her husband— that forsaking all others she would keep only to him. The rest of the tale need scarcely be told. She is obliged to leave, returns, bringing with her the fruit of her crime, and is again sent away to a neighbouring settlement. In the meantime, her husband (so at least we are informed) writes out that he has established himself comfortably in England, and that the return to him of his wife and children is alone wanting to complete his contentment and happiness. Let any one of our readers imagine himself (if he can) placed in the position of this husband and father (and many may find themselves obliged to leave their wives, their sisters, and their daughters behind equally unprotected as Mrs. was) and let him then endeavour to conceive with what feelings he would learn that his wife had by her conduct placed an insuperable barrier between him and her. And yet these things are to be passed over in silence ! We are told by some few, who would fain impose upon these communities a code of morality in accordance with their own practices, that the Press has no right to allude to such matters — that the public have nothing to do with a man's private character, as long as he discharges faithfully his official duties. Low and degraded indeed must be the moral tone of a community before such, a doctrine can find any acceptance. We admit, as readily as any one, that under Free Institutions it can seldom be requisite for the public press to take notice of such matters as we have commented upon, for a quiet hint from the Representatives of the people is always amply sufficient to enforce justice and redress ; but under our present despotism the Press is the only weapon that can be wielded against such acts, — the only means the settlers possess of making the Executive listen to their complaints, and afford them satisfaction for great wrongs. Those who thus deprecate the interference of the Press virtually maintain

that the example set by the chief officers of the Government is of no importance to the public welfare— that the officials may commit the grossest outrages — may debauch the wives, the sisters, the daughters of the settlers, and 'jet that these who pay them have no right to complain. But to argue with men, who, while they profess such extreme delicacy for the feelings of the culprits, display such indifference for the misery and wretchedness of their victims, would be to insult our readers. That we ourselves were sincerely desirous to avoid going into the present details we have given sufficient proof, in the time we have afforded Sir G. Grey to adopt such measures as would both indicate his own displeasure and satisfy the public.

It remains to be seen whether society will not vindicate itself from being supposed to countenance such scandalous transactions, and whether the settlers will not appeal for redress to higher authority.