SIR GEORGE GREY AS SUPERINTENDENT.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VIII, Issue 2020, 15 April 1875, Page 3

SIR GEORGE GREY AS SUPERINTENDENT.

Ike New Zealand Times has an articl 6 upon Sir George Grey's speeches, from which we make the following extracts :—

Sir George Grey Las made quite a strong pointof the land revenue question. He has been cheered to the echo in Aupkland, where every one swears by " Grey and the land fund." It is just like Auckland. Auckland has her reward in having elected two of the foremost men in the colony as her Superintendent. Colonel Wynyard, when acting-Governor, was the first Superintendent of 4 uckland; and Sir George Grey, twice Governor of the colony, is the last of the line. The intermediate links are hardly worth mentioning. They never did anything worth notice beyond this, that Mr .Robert Graham, who acted as bottle-holdor to Sir George at his election, "got the province intoamess" which Mr Whitaker was paid for getting it out of. The only other noteworthy feat of a Superintendent of Auckland was that of the late Mr Williamson, who was a consenting party to the financial compact of, 1856, which placed £45,000 in his hands for appropriation, being the refund of Auckland's payment on account of the Ne* Zealand Company's debt. This was the price of " the birthright of Auckland." And we must say that the late Superintendent of Auokland was always "loyal to the Compact of 1856." He was declared over and over again in the House, and out of it, that he would never be a party to unsettling that financial arrangement. Why should he ? It was the beginning, middle, and ending of_ his political | existence. He has consistent ;—a man of principle, who stood manfully by his ads, whether right or wrong. Sir George Grev says he has had £10,000 of Imperial money, and if we are to accept his own statement of its the leavm hid in a measure of meal in the parable was only a slight sensation to it. If the ten thousand pounds in question did not extinguish the whole native title to the islands of New Zealand it very nearly did so. But then, Sir George is an Irishman, and in his case "very nearly" may mean anything or nothing. We take it soberly to mean something. Now, what was this something? What did Sir George Grey buy with the £10 000 of which he speaks, and where is the estate ? We do not insinuate that he did not buy land, as he says he did! we only want to know where the land is. We have searched the records diligently but cannot find any trace of it. But we shall tell the Auckland electorate what we have found. And we'trust our Auckland contemporaries, who write so glibly but know so little of the laud question, will attend to what we say. In 1853, when the Constitution M was brought into operation, £268,370 15s was charged against the Crown lands of the colony, in liquidation of the New Zealand Company's debt, and section 74 of the Constitution Act appropriated onefourth of all laud sales in its liquidation This included Auckland, although there was reason in her case for disputing the equity of the allocation. However, it was law, and Auckland paid £45,000 on that head up to 1856. In addition to this sum of £45,000 paid for the New Zealand Company's fourths and interest, out of the lerritorlial revenue of < uckland, between the Ist of January, 1853, and June, 1856, amounting to £155,558, the province of Auckland contributed £40,839 for the purchase of native lands, of which only £32,205 was spent within its borders, lie is a sum abstracted from the revenue of Auckland province whioh, if it bad been paid put out at interest twenty yearn ago, would now be sufficient to pay

for the" education" of the wholo of that province for several years to come, on the existing scale, but Sir George Grey's £10,000 does not appear to havo had anything to do with it. Furthermore, and by way of illustration, we may add that of the sum of £92,662 paid by the Governor i for native lands during the same period, fi43.800 was expended in Wellington, whose total land revenue was £14,579 Perhaps Sir George Grey will explain these anomalies. '1 he financial arrangement of 1856 was declared to be an adjustment of the public liabilities on account of land. We need not recapitulate its terms. These are well known to all public men. So far as the North Island is concerned the terms were unfavourable, but the Auckland Superintendent and majority, tempted by the bait of £45 000 relundof their own money, bartered away their interest in the colonial land revenue. It was a foolish bargain no- doubt, and one which never could have been possible but for the narrow jobbing spirit of provincialism. However, it was completed. The •' compact" was made in 1856, and two years later it was ratified bylaw. Pow does tiir Geo. Grey propose to alter this state of facts p He has proposed nothing practical. Ho has declared that the Imperial statutes, under which this his been done, are illegal, but then no one pays any attention to such extravagance. The amusing part of the whole affair is, that while Sir George Grey was Governor, he was himself, as representative of his Sovereign, a party to legislation which he now declares to be illegal. Was he then simply desirous of pleasing his Responsible Advisers and the Colonial Uffice, which he now declares to be the sole study of a constitutional Governor ? If so, let us ask the Auckland electorate, what faith can be placed on the sincerity of their now leader; and if it be not so, what are they to expect from his judgment.