Te Wananga. Published every saturday. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,1877.

Wananga, Volume 4, Issue 38, 22 September 1877, Page 370

Te Wananga. Published every saturday. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,1877.

Instead of our leading artiele this week, we have thought it advisable to give cur readers the views of the leading journalists in the Colouy, on the remarks which fell from the Hon. Mr. Orunond during the debate on Mr. Rees"s motion f .r the app<.;n;n:.- "~t • f a Select Committee of the Housv or' l-iepuj.-e-wtati'. ~■>. tw enquire into all dealings with Native lan is !,v landed proprietors in Hawke's Lay. We quote the following from the •• Ota--<. I>aiiv Times," of the 10th instant:—'-The eharu-vs which. from time to time have been preferred a;rai:.-: Mr. Ormond and others, in onnecti-:; with certain Hawke's Bay land transactions, have at length culminated in a debate which is far from being Creditable to our Parliament. We liave already expressed a

saong opinion that such charges should never have hem made m the House. n:,W those hrh™ - tVm £ere prepared to substantiate them before -he Supreme Court., which. we have conte-led ?• th proper tribunal to investigate them. 'Mr R e Vow ever who has perhaps been the chief matter, has at length moved that the wlVle c'ircnm stances connected with these transaction; louhlTc inquired into, and rep,nednnou bv a S.-W* f nill nnttee of the House. Tho ho'. ,„-,•, M,. " ■ -R-01l well lo blame, .. r having rented the : ipp.,; tlt:jll . nt of such a Commute, as he was almost in'i-! hv the Government t, do sc. Although , ve sh ,, ;;! ; c , see the wind, dealt with bv n,< r.\„ r £ of law, the negation f The , e bv a Pariiamentarv Committee ;< undonVo/li,- •, , »•<.■• ■> t , , % i • . "."Juo.oa!; a constitutional mcuhod of bringing out the truth r—nrdino- them before the light of dav Mr R<w- «nn l ° • r. ,-, -° . -. •, - ur - -»- c *-S .> .speech, movmjr for the appointment ot tim Committee, seems to have been brief and unusual!v moderate in ?r* tone In that particular sp,ech. it is not alleged that anvthing fell from his l, ps to give offence to ins opponents. Moreover, it appears to have been admitted on all hands tuat tne Committee wr.s fairlv constituted. Ml this we .eo: round t- say injustice to Mr. Bees, who too olteu merits censure fa- his action in the House. Mr. Ormond was t:-,, lh>r to .peak v. the nation, and -hero can oe no dou •: that hU s;eec]l _ sented tne earetuby pent-up thou-hts of the past few weeks. He had evidently ta'cen crreat T.ain- with hrs preparation, and had careful!v rehearsed the bitterest parts. This is r iU ite in keeping with the tactic* lie has pursued on termer occasions when baited bv hi* enemies. He has bottled tin his wrath hided h : * time, and when he thought the hour had arrive :" ha* let them have the ir.il bonerit of hi* studied invective He is certainly a s.-voiv a!!-r. .u:.d hitter, and to *om-' k::..w:.;.■.:••.. •■:-.. .. : "'.'. v.:; /'.'';•:■''. V v> :i ::;;;,: said a .... . i:..~ .:' [.. ;...- }[ a;- .. ;t: .d :- .. v '. _ ,'.7j v ne\t*. rni':-.u:.ar,-iy. he -.v.-nt :■■,-, far. * Mr. Ornae.e i> a Mi:d*t.-:•.■:' the L'r..u-::. an I i: was h's dutv n ■ c-ndeav.,ar t • maintain tin..- dignity ..;' that Tosltioi: when >;•..•:»!; from the Ministerial baches." Even although he I::r.I been a private member, his attack upon Mr. bees was in the wo.-t possible taste : and certa.nly. i,,.,ki. ; g a; the w.y ; U at un-mb, r -,-nerallv conducts himself in ;'..■■ .'..— nib! v. w L - thought that Mr. ( : rm.n:d. after pryina i :o h > would have been able to : r :._- some ni'<re serious charge against him than that . ■:' having parsed through the bankruptcy Court. The fact of Mr. Rees having done so may Lot even have involved on his part the commission of a moral offence, as it is weil known that misfortune has compelled mauv honourable men in our midst to compound with thencreditors. Again, it was poor revenge upon Sir George Grey to fdl ?he "\-Gover.'.o'/ that it was notorious that he : -peak the truth. His accusation, nn reover : Sir Geoige of having b<?en mixed, up. when t.o- v ,-rnor of the Colo:.v. in an attempted purchase land from t'ne 2>atives"at Lake Taupo, has, so fur, proved to be a ware's while •

'his boast that the letters which, would prove the charge were in the next room and could be produced chcued Altogether. Mr. Ormond's speech was discreditable to him and was an insult to the House. -Nor can ,he lightest excuse be offered for the intemperate and unparliamentary language used by Mr. Whitaker when defending himself and his colleagues. itn such an example shown by the leaders, it will more disfigured m the future. We look hopefully however, to the good sense of the bulk of the meml bers and to the tact and firmness of the Speaker to prevent the reproduction of such a debate as took place at the close of last week. In the meantime, the offenders be punished by being compelled to retire from ornce. That they would hare had to *o some time during the session is very likely ; but the conduct of Mr. Ormond and Mr. Whitaker has rendered the fall of the Ministry imminent. The anjrtr of Major Atkinson, Mr. Bowen, and Mr. M'Lean must indeed be great when they perceive that their colleagues have by their indiscretion lost them the one chance they had of remaining in office. The time won d no doubt many case have been a critical one jorthem but by the employment of those judicious tactics ..f which Sir Julius Vogel was a master when in ofncc, tney might have pulled through to the end o, _tne session ly the skin of their teeth. But their fate is sealed, and within ten davs we shall prof.ahly learn the names of the new brooms. We do nr,t , th : nk l here is m "<* chance of a coalition Ministry being lormed. The House is evidentlv not in a numonr to be contented with anything "short of a clean sweep. " ° The following is taken from the " Lvttelton Times" <;. tLe 12in instant :_•• The debate that ended yester"l> '■', l V';' Ho . l ;.:'' "* Kq>rese:itatives is in many ways '■;' :!l .\? : !. ;: :'.'\- . t: " ?r t ! 1,?1 " ab ° nt jt tliat strikes the '.'~"' ,v, ' : >:: . ;i: - :s !, -5- 1- "* i* a Grange commentary on :.:; . c ; ' lllii;:L : V^:es>io:. s by Mr Ormond, Mr .. • i: " l '\' : "- ; \ ; -' 1 Ministers gen orally, of their readiness V- "' ; :m., the charges freely made in the in the matter of the Hawke's Bay land transa:'llJl:- > - , 1 I ll0 "L 0 f . w ! 1 ° naade th e charges were always by Ministers to call for an enquiry. Thev wore always asked why they did not press their .■uvusatiou.s m definite form, and demand investigation i:iey were a.ways informed that the Government! .firing n.-thmg more than that the charges should !- probed, wore willing to facilitate the probine in every way that was in their power. When at last -Mr l.oes moved tor a committee of enquiry, hie proposal was strange to say, met with strenuous opposition. Ministers had discovered that as many or the transactions were to come before a court of law it would be very improper thai evidence _ should be produced before a committee the publication of which would give undue advantage to one of the parties in the pending suits. 1 lu-y went lurther, and characterised the motion of jMrKees as a disgraceful attempt—Mr Ormond at least did so—on the part of that gentleman to get at evidence that would be used against his clients in a Court of Law. The foroe of the objection is not

very evident, for if there is anything in it, it cut both wayß. If Mr Rees Should, through, the Committee he asked for, see the hand, of his adversaries in certain suite, those adversaries would by the same means see the hand, of Mr Rees. Such being the case, it is not clear why enquiry by a Committee of the House Should nave been objected to. It looks very much as .if the objectors were afraid that certain evidence to be adduced in certain cases would not bear sifting. Whatever the reason, Ministers who had courted enquiry, refused to submit to it when it was asked for. The reason they gave was, that they objected, for a reason evidently poor, to the particular form of enquiry asked for, while professing readiness to submit fo .another method, namely, enquiry by commission. But Mr Rees pointed out that certain cases to come before the Courts might be struck out of the field of investigation, and so took out of the objection whatever slight force it might have had. Ministers were, hjowever, obstinate. They used their majority for a paltry reason which was moreover emasculated by the offer of a concession to stifle the enquiry they had all along courted. But they did not stop here. Not content with simply resisting the demand, for investigation they strengthened their position by the free use of the style of argument known to polite society and Universally reprobated as the tu quoque style of reasoning. It was natural enough, we freely admit, that After sustaining the continual fire of accusation as they have done, Ministers should have retaliated at last. Counter-charges though they cannot clear accusations made, are in this case at least, not surprising. But they should be true and they should not be inopportune. It was the height of absurdity, to say the least, for these counter charges to be kept in petto until the motion had been made for referring the accusation to a committee of enquiry. Clearly the time for preferring the counter charges was so illchosen that their sole effect on public opinion will simply be to intensify the belief that Government are absolutely afraid of inquiry. Being untimely, are the counter-charges true ? The chief of them may be fronped in two divisions—those with which Mr Sheean was associated in Mr Ormond "s speech, and those lie sought to fix upon Sir George Grey. The former relate mostly to the very land questions the subject for inqniry of the motion of Mr Rees. The use of them by Mr Ormond in the debate on that motion is simply a begging of the question. That question is whether the accusations against the Hawke's Bay settlers, or these counter-charges made by Mr Ormond are founded on fact. In the session of ISTS Mr Ormond and Mr Sheehan had a grand field-day in the House on these very subjects, but nothing came of it. It is, however, worthy of note that neither then nor on the present occasion was any denial given to the*allegation of Mr Sheehan that, as "Mr "Wakefield put it in 1875, " systematic machinations were organised to induce the Natives not to go on with their claims before the Court."

We now come' to the charges which Mr Ormoad made against Sir G. Grey. Of these the only one ■which at present it is necessary to notice is the one in connection with the proposed Taupe Company of 1867. The position of Mr Onaond irrthirmatter is

net agreeable. He founded the charge upon the contents of certain letters, which he declared were only •waiting the demand of the House for their production. The charge, as we understand it, is that Sir George Grey, by throwiug obstacles in the -way of the company—which his position as Governor enabled him to do—forced the company to let him have an interest. It is unfortunate for Mr Ormond that as soon as the letters on which this charge was founded were demanded, it was found that they could not be given up. As the owners of the letters made objections to their production, they cannot have permitted them to have been in any way used. Their use by Ormond looks very like a breach of confidence. This being so, it is still further unfortunate for Mr Ormond that Mr Cox, who knew the contents of the letters thoroughly, should have given a different version of their contents. Mr Cox said that the letters entirely fail to substantiate the gravamen of Mr Ormondes charge against Sir George Grey, and he implied that Mr Ormond's tongue had run away with him. After this Mr Ormond substantially reiterated his charge. The question is, who is right ? Until tbe letters are made public it would be hazardous to decide. The probabilities are, however, entirely against Mr Ormond. He has only lately become acquainted with the letters, and does not seem to have done more than glance at their contents, while Mr Cox has been familiar with them for years. Moreover, Mr Cox was one of the parties to the transaction of which the whole of the letters have been shown to treat. Mr Cox, too, comes to the discussion of the matter not smarting under denunciation, which is not Mr Ormond's position by any means. The charge then against Sir George Grey is open to suspicion. It looks like an unfair deduction from promises, the use of which was a breach of confidence. The production of the letters is now more than ever necessary. Whatever the story they tell, it will not affect the position of the Government. They have resisted enquiry into charges for which they professed to court investigation. In doing so they have made counter-charges which do not appear on examination to be sound, under circumstances not much to their credit. The position is about as miserable a one as a Government can occupy. We take the following from the " New Zealand Herald" of the 11th instant.—The statement made in the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr. Cox, member for vV'aipa, leaves Mr. Ormond in an exceedingly awkward position, as well as all these who, taking for granted that the particulars given by him were true, and that Mr. Cox would bear him out, proceeded to attack Sir George Grey. Mr. Ormond, oa Thursday last, after having replied to the accusations made agaiust him by Mr. Rees, procceeded to carry the war into the enemy's country. This is a bold but dangerous manoeuvre, and Mr. Ormond would have been safer to have confined himself to the defensive. He (we give the summary of our special correspondent) "charged Sir George Grey with having, while Governor, prostituted his high position as the Queen's "Representative, by dealing in land in a manner which he (Mr. Ormond) termed disgraceful. H had letters to prove this. Mr. Ormond said that 300,000 acres of land at Taupo were to be taken up

By Mr. Cox and others, and at one time Governor Grey—then possessing full power over natives lands ---was favourable. Suddenly a hitch arose, and Mr. X VisitSd Sif Geor S e Gre y, a nd was told by him that he wanted a share in the land, and he got a share. After being included in the company, he said, " Hurry on this transaction: scatter a little ground-bait. : ' And so on. In answer to this, Sir George Grey said he was anxious to promote settlement at Taupo, and promsied to aid what he considered a good object, but he had no interest in the company. He further read a letter from the Hon. Colonel Whitmore. who was a member of the company, to the effect that Sir Geor<»e Grey was not a member. Mr. Whitaker on Fridav night, said "he believed Mr. Cox's statement as he knew Mr. Cox to be truthful, and Sir George Grev not/' If Mr. Ormond's statement had been -correct, then the members of the company were much to blame for endeavouring to bribe Her Majesty's representative. But we let that pass. Mr. Cox was not in Wellington when Mr. Orniond made bis speech, but hearing that h:s name had been nride use of. he returned to° "Wellington, and mad- a statement in the House of Representatives. He had every temptation to put the st •rv as favourably as he could for Mr. Onion-!. as that Minister had prof<'<s-d to >peak on his authority, an-i as he ( Mr. (.'ox) is a supporter of the Minister. ' Tiiat is indee ! bis obvious tendency, and jet his speech amount-, we think, to a complete exoneration of Sir George Grey from anything which could p-s>iM\- b e termed corrupt or disgraceful. All his collection with the plan, taking for granted everything that Mr. Cox has stated, as susceptible of a perfect!v fair explanation. Mr. Ormond's statement was to the effect that Sir George Grey had been corruptly connected with the proposed company—•• Sir George Grey then nig full power over native land:- " '■ prostitnt-'d his high position as the Queen's iv?»r.--s-'utative by dealing in land in a manner whici'i he i Mr. - Orniond I term-d disgraceful "—and th : s :- specifically coutradieted by Mr. L'o.x, who sivs :—- ; lie h* 1 lie* er entertained any idea of Sir I'eorge l.ir.jv being corruptiy commuted with the transaction."* Mr. ''ruioud. to supp.u-;, the charge •d" corruption, made it appej-.r that Sir (Jeorg,. (.Jrey hud caused a hitcii. which %\-: t s oi>ly removed when Mr C-x called uium !,im and promis-d him a >hav". This Mr. Cox also deiii. s. and it is dear he could : over have given Mr. Orniond any author'ry f-r snyng so. People now will begi M to tiiink that if .Mr. Ui'inona's defence of his own transactions is like his accusations of Sir Ge,.y.<-,. > 'rey, then it., is not much wortii. It s hoped ti at members will now get to v.n.-rk, and that the bad language whicii lias i-een indulged in will