The Waipawa Mail FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1883. “AS HONEST AS THE DAT.”

Waipawa Mail, Volume 5, Issue 518, 31 August 1883, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 1883. “AS HONEST AS THE DAT.”

Sir George Grey is not happy always in the titles chosen by him for his Bills. Perhaps the nature of the questions dealt with by him precludes i “ taking” titles. His last projected measure has a most uncouth name, and is called “ The Restrictions Extinguishment Invalidation Bill.” But it must not be judged by the uncouthness of its title. It is a remarkable Bill, professing to deal with a remarkable—a most extraordinary state of things. It is practically one of the results of the debate on the second reading of Mr Bryce’s Land Laws Amendment Bill. During the debate on that measure, Sir George Grey is reported to have said that, of 21,079 acres of native reserves parted with on the advice of the Government, during the last two years, 13,281 acres went to the family of the Premier. Sir George Grey, who took his figures from a return made by order of the Upper House, urged that the sale of the land was contrary to the spirit of legislation. He maintained that, at the time those reserves were made, they were made inalienable, except by lease, by a clause known as the “ restriction clause,” in a special Act dealing with native lands ; and yet the lands were sold, and sold to relatives of the Premier, Mr Whitaker. It is asserted ; that the firm of Whitaker and Russell have acted as agents for the sale of large blocks of native reserves, and that the purchaser has always been an exceedingly good young man named Buddie. This Mr Buddie is undoubtedly a most striking example of juvenile integrity and success in life. He is, to begin with, young, and a standing contradiction to the old proverb that “ those who are beloved of the gods die young.” Mr Buddie is not dead yet, manifests no immediate signs of dying, but is yet beloved by the gods. We can offer no proof of the latter assertion, for evident reasons, but it must be true, because the gods love good people, and Mr Buddie is a good young man. He is the son of a deceased missionary | who, doubtless, left the gilded spheres of luxury in Europe that he might convey the glad tidings of the Gospel I to the poor benighted Maoris. Mr! Buddie will, we think, have inherited all his father’s good qualities, in accordance with the law of hereditary transmission. Added to this he is a burning and a shining light in the Young Men’s Christian Association, and is looked upon by unprejudiced people as a praiseworthy model deserving the closest imitation. The only fly in the Buddie pot of ointment is the detraction of the censorious. These say that one fact alone—the fact of Mr Buddie being a lawyer—neutralises all his strong bias to good. Very few, however, believe in any part of the latter statement, except, of course, the undeniable fact that Mr Buddie is a lawyer, and the accompanying strong conviction which obtains that he is a member of the firm of Whitaker and Russell. Whether he be a member of the latter firm or not we cannot say ; we have our thoughts on the matter, but prefer to keep them, leaving to others a like privilege. But, if he be not an integral part of the firm of Whitaker and Russell, his name is associated with theirs in an undesirable manner, by people who are, doubtless, noted for their wickedness in general, and their hatred of good young men like Mr Buddie in particular. It is rumored that when Messrs Whitaker and Russell became agents for the sale of the Maori reserves—which, be it remembered, were not advertised as for sale to the general public—they were agents for Mr Buddie, who purchased the lands. We are not able to distinctly assert, owing to lack of specific knowledge, that the rumor referred to is a falsehood. Doubtless it may be one, as most rumors affecting good young men turn out to be. We have not come to the worst part of the rumor, however. It wickedly goes on to assert that though the good Mr Buddie was nominally the purchaser, he was not so really, and that he has not got the deeds of the properties he is supposed to have bought, but that the Whitaker family have. Now one would have thought, while these terrible charges of corruption were floating about, and floating about, as is no doubt the case, without a tittle of truth to support them, the Ministry would consider any man a friend who moved for returns, and an enquiry into the matter, so as to triumphantly rescue the Buddie reputation, the Whitaker reputation, and, incidentally, the reputation of the Ministry, from undeserved infamy. But it did not turn out that way. Major Atkinson, backe<L by his virtuous majority, refused thei returns on the peculiar ground that! Sir George Grey would “twist”! them. Perhaps Major Atkinson was | right; he usually is ; and is proved so many times weekly by Government newspapers. But he told Sir George Grey he might have a committee. This was accepted, and Sir George Grey wrote to the Colonial Treasurer asking him to grant facilities for appointing a committee. But, as every one knows, it is only fools who never ; change their minds; and Major [ Atkinson, who is no fool, changed his

intentions with regard to a committee, and refused to aid in allowing the House to appoint one. Foiled at every turn, the wily and wicked Sir George drey now brings in his Bill with the uncouth title. It is really a Bill to annul the purchases said to have been made by the Whitaker a gg r ©gation, of native land supposed to be inalienable by legislation, but apparently not inalienable enough to be overlooked by the firm of Whitaker and Bussell as agents, and the good Mr Buddie as purchaser. Now we confess to a good deal of sympathy with Sir GJ-eorge Grey in this matter. He is, as everybody knows who has read a paper connected with the “ genteel” interests, a depraved and wicked man. It is as well known, also by the same class of readers, how holily and justly, and with what a burning and disinterested zeal for the welfare of the country, all those connected with the Ministry, from Whitaker and the good Buddie downwards, always act. Just so ; and from a prima facie view Sir George Grey is all wrong and the other crowd all right. But here is the crux of the question, and the cause of our sympathy with an acknowledged bad man : Were the reserves in question inalienable ? If so, how came the sale, either to the good Buddie or to any one else? Were they alienable, and proper areas for sale ? If so, how is it they were not advertised for sale, either in the newspapers or the Gazette, so that the outside public could have competed with Whitaker and Bussell and the good Buddie ?