Nuces Avellanæ.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XV, Issue 1200, 28 December 1858, Page 3

Nuces Avellanæ.

Our cotemporary, the Examine); invites us to answer some questions, proposed by one of his correspondents. We comply, not on account of any intrinsic interest attached to the questions themselves, — for some of them appear to be little better than childish, but because the propounder (we can scarcely be mistaken as to the authorship), is really a man of mark ; of acknowledged ability, though wrongheaded to the last degree, and sometimes given to descend below himself, as, for instance, in the inditing of those trashy " pensioner dialogues," which he has thought worthy of republication. As it appears, however, that the present set of questions, or " nuts to crack," are to be followed up by others, it is possible that the writer be merely laying a foundation for something better to come ; even as a mathematician solves the most elaborate problems by help of a few simple postulates. We are very willing to break a lance with so stalwart an antagonist, notwithstanding the risk of finding him too strong for us As yet, however, he would seem not to have done his utmost, but to have commenced, like a small-sword man before coming to earnest, with the "salute." We shall dispose of the questions seriatim.

NUTS FOR OUR CROSS COTEMPORARY TO CRACK. 1. What does the Editor of the Southern Cross consider to be the object of Government ? Is it to provide for the -welfare of the people ? Or is it to provide a theatre for the display of talents by those who are willing to undertake the toil of Government for the trifling consideration of a salary four times as large as they could earn by any other speculation ? We presume that he means to ask, what ougJit to be the object of Government in the present condition of the world. The object of the Jewish government was to keep the Jews apart from other nations — a close community ; and the principle of it was directly opposed, though for good and sufficient reasons, to what is now termed, (using the expression in its most extended signification) " the free trade principle." Also, in realisation of Machievelli'a great maxim, " the constant renovation of the State according to the first principles of its constitution. The object of the government of ancient Rome was, military conquest ; of modern Rome, the maiafcenance of a particular religion. The object of the East India Company's government was trade. The object of the T?rench government is the preservation of autocratic power j that of the British government, the maintenance of liberty, and the repression of licence. The object of the United States government, (as stated by some of the extreme philantrophic party) is the maintenance of black slavery, and the hunting down red Indians. The object of the general government of New Zealand is to render compatible, so far as possible, the interests of the two races of men (our questioner forgets to draw any distinction) j while the object of the Auckland provincial government is — loaves and fishei. If, as we suppose, he mean to ask, what | ought to be the object, we have mere^ to observe that he shows not a little self compla i cency in thinking to settle with a paragraph the

immense question that he opens up. Does h mean, the material welfare of the people — the moral welfare,, or both ? If the first, he must be reminded that the great, buast of modern times, —that of merely material progress, has been lightly described as " the cheapest and vulgarest | bo^st the world has heard " If the moral welfare, we ask, how far may government interference be extended without exceeding the legitimate functions of government ? To do justice- to such a question, not a paragraph, but a volume would be required. The second portion of the question, put as if it were the sole alternative, is in the worst style of stump oratory— one of the common-places of the old*fashioned radicalism, as distinguished from the philosophical radicalism of modern times, w hicb,— on account of the learning and high intellectual power brought to bear in its support— we are obliged to respect though unable to admit the conclusions. But the questioner appears to be half a century behind his time. He seems to be one of the old school who has outlived his generation ; one of the tyranny and oppression men, diversifying the subject occasionally by an outburst against extravagance. In Sir Walter Scott's diary, we read as follows : — " Perused an attack upon myself, done with as much ability as truth, by no less a man than Joseph Hume, the night-work man of the House of Commons, who lives upon petty abuses, and is a very useful man by so doing." But our own questioner merely puts a general proposition. Of course, we are aware as well as he that the providing of inordinate salaries ought not to be the object of Government. Perhaps the writer means to imply that it is so, in New Zealand There is but one answer to this,— a denial of the fact.' But we do not pretend to deny that the New Zealand is anexpensive one, — the most expensive, excepting, perhaps, that of the United States of America. We say, *' perhaps," having no means of forming an estimate of the estate expeuses, which must be added to those of the Union — a double set, to which, in complication and multiplicity, those of our General and Provincial Governments correspond. We suppose that the writer means to signify, the expenses of our General Government. There is no doubt that responsible government does entail heavy additional expenses. The cheapest government, or what might be rendered so, is a pure destism But responsiblo government entails the necessity of two sets of chief officers— the parliamentary officers, who may be changed many times in a session, and permanent under secretaries, who maintain the continuity of office work. Whether responsible Government, that is to say, the mauagemont of our own affairs by ourselves, be worth the monoy, is a separate question We are of opinion that it is ; though our questioner might perhaps be inclined, for cheapness, to revert to the despotism of Governor Grey. For it must be borne in mind that representative institutions, without responsible government to give them life, are a 9 nothing; — a body without a soul. They may obstruct, but they cannot work. Thfy may contain the materials for effecting collision of the people and of the executive ; they may bring about a deadlock; they may even carry the semblance of working smoothly, npon a kind of sufferance, until required for action, — but then, they prove insufficient for the purpose, and break up into hopeless confusion. In New Zealand we have already tried representative institutions, without responsible government, and they have failed. The allusion to the salaries of the ministers, as being "four times as large as they could have earned by any other speculation," is not only most ungraceful, but contrary to fact. For instance, the C Jonial Secretary, a large stock holder in Nelson, is absolutely a heavy loser by abandoning the personal superintendence of his own affairs — a loser, to an amount that, if stated by us, would scarcely obtain general credence We have certain knowledge of the fact. We have good reason to believe that the Secretary for Native affairs is also a loser, and that the Postmaster general is no gainer, — in fact, doing the work for nothing. We have not the appropriation acts of the adjoining colonies at hand, for reference, but believe ourselves to be correct in stating that the salaries of the chief officers in this colony arc the smallest of all. Every one knows what they are in New South Wales 3 but New South Wales can afford it. Ta.-mania is more to our purpose. There, where the Customs duties are less than our own, the higher salaries rise, if we remember rightly, to the amount of £1,200, or £1,250 a year. We do not wish to make the most of the case ; we are ready to admit that good and sufficient men might certainly be obtained for the carrying on the Government, at a much less rate of salary than £800 a year, provided that they also enjoyed certain tenure of office. But unless we are prepared to exclude from the Government of the country those who have business of their own to mind, we must be prepared to indemnify them for leaving it. In such a ca^e, the payment of a salary is the payment of a debt. The only wonder is, that in New Zealand, where there are no idlers, and very few men of independent fortune, a salary of £800, held upon uncertain tenure — possibly of a few weeks only, should induce a man to accept office, perhaps at the cost of breaking up a business, or an establishment. Love of power, or public spirit, we care not which, must be brought in to make good the deficiency of inducement. One word more about the expense of New Zealand government, and we have done The comparative statement of the expense of the New Zealand Government, as contrasted with that of other governments, based upon calculations of howmuch the population pay for it per head, does not contain the whole case. It would be unfair to raise an outcry about the expense of a skeleton legiment, because it contained so many officers, commanding so few men. Every one knows that the regiment will in due time be recruited. New Zealand has also to be recruited. The departmental machinery must be made complete in itself, without reference to the mere number of those for whom it works. The population and the revenue of this colony are steadily on the increase. The same staff that is now required, for completeness, would be able to administer a revenue three or four times larger than the present one, and, with the addition of a few clerks, conduct the business of a trebled or quadrupled population In each successive year, the comparative expense of Government will become less. If a farmer desire a machine for thrashing out his corn, he must buy a complete machine, to begin with. He would not buy half a machine, on the ground of only possessing corn enough to keep it in half work. But it is notorious, that the present ministry, before the recent additions to the staff, were ' over-worked. Whatever may have been their short comioga in other respects — and about those we have never been slow to speak, — they have obtained credit for work from their strongest 1 opponents. We respect hard work, and like to 1 see it fairly paid forLet us proceed to the second count of the indictment.

2. Has the learned Editor of the ' Cross' ever rend \ the history of British Colonies ? And, if he has, did q tie ever meet with such n. Constitution, as the present > Constitution of Now Zealand ? "We have read the histories of British Colonie° ; fi md have uot met with such a constitution as c that of New Zealand. We are acquainted Brith many very indifferent constitutions, as ! f paper constitutions always have hceu, and probably always will be. But we do not think fche worse of the New Zealand constitution beI'ause of its being unhke its indifferent predecessors. Its unlikeness, taken per se, is rather a point in its favour. Still, we do not admire this constitution in its original form. Those who are i'est qualified, and best entitled to amend it' — the General Assembly, have undertaken 6he task. Much was done in th« last Session, notably by the New Provinces Bill, and the introduction of the system of provincial stoppages. More will be done in the next Sessioa, unlessliindered by a renewal of the contest for power — that inevitable inconvenieuce attached to responsible government 3. Did the Editor of the ' Souchern Cross ' ever hear of a person named Edward Gibbon Wakefield? Perhaps a reference to the piety of Eneas in bearing his father on his shoulders from the burning ruins of Troy, may assist his recollection of such a person. Quid hoc ad lphycli boves ? What has this to do with the Constitution Act? But as it is not fair that the public should be made to suffer the pangs of curiosity, we shall make plain the allusion, left indistinct by our questioner. The member for the Bay of Islands once carried Mr Wakefield out of a boat on to the beach. In our opinion, had he suffered an old and infirm man to run the ri^k of walking through the water, he would have had cause for taking shame to himself. 15ut the questioner is of a different opinion. Having no tendency to apoplexy him.«elf, he objects to anything being done for those who have. It really goes against the grain with us to expend a single line upon anything so trivial ; nor should we, but that the 'appellant seems disposed to emulate the elephant, whose trunk is equally well adapted to the picking up a pin, and the pulling down a tree. 4. Did the Editor of the ' Southern Cross ' ever hear of a person named Edward Gibbor. Wakefield, having bpen, for a benevolent action, sent to study morals in Newgate college? Did he ever hear that instead of studying morals, he studied colonization under certain learned professois of that college who, " all for the good of their country," had been sent to study that science in Botany Bay. We must admit having heard of a fact so generally known. But bas the questioner ever heard such words as these ? Helas, que d'emnees de repe?itir faut il pour effacer une faute auz yeux dcs hommes ! une seule larme sujffit a Dteit. We quote from memory j perhaps not with verbal exactitude ; but the questioner seems never to have known even the purport of those words Mr Wakefielu"s system is still fair play ; but we much regret that any personal questions concerning him should have been re-opened. He is now politically defunct; and as he fell, so let him He. What few remarks we make are forced upon us. When Mr. Gibbon Wake Geld came up to Auckland, to attend the first Session of the General Assembly, we thought it hard that a man of more than oidinary talent should be borne down for life by fche weight of an early fault He had the opportunity afforded him, and we were glad to see it, of redeeming the past, and of rendering valuable service to this colony. We gave him fairplay, and were prepared to give him what help we could, should he prove himself deserving of it. But our columns will be searched in vain for a single line that committed us to him. We took the more prudent course of careful observation, and very soon found out that he was incurably addicted to walking in crooked ways. On the first symptom of a trick, — and for a trick, or an untruth, there is no mercy in the ' Southern Cross ' — we cast him off. Did we act rightly throughout, or did we not ? There can be but one answer. Thrown overboard by us, he was received with open arms by the member for the Pensioner Settlements, (Mr. Williamson) his newspaper, and his party, who were content to take up with our leavings. 5. Did the Editor of the ' Southern Cro<*s ' ever hear that the same Edward Gibbon Wakefield afterwards rose to great eminence as a professor of Coloniza.ion, insomuch that whatever was done at the Colonial Office he was the doer of it ' We have heard that he did rise " to great eminence as a professor of colonisation ;" but from the very foundation of this journal we have opposed his system, which is now defunct — even publicly abandoned by himself, in the House of Representatives, when he endeavoured to pervert land regulations to electioneering purposes. We have not heard that " whatever was done in the Colonial Office he was the doer of it;" although his system was adopted, for a while. 6. Did the Editor of the ' Southern Cross ' ever hear that the same Edward Gibbon Wakefield in conjunction with two orher person*, (probably he knows it was Mr. Sewell and Mr. Fox) got access to the Secretary of Stale, and persuaded him that they represented the interests and the wishes of the people of New Zealand, not, ot course, including Auckland : seeing that Auckland at that time did not contain much more than half of the white population, and two-thirds of the Maories ? Did the questioner ever hear that_ Mr. Weld, member for the Wairau, whose unswerving integrity is the admiration of this colony — it is un necessary to crowd our columns with other names — had also access to the Secretary of State, and took an active part in the framing of the Constitution Act. 7. Did the Editor of the ' Southern Cross ' ever hear or read that Sir John Pakington, the Secretary of State, acknowledged his obligations to the " accustomed ability " of Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield, in framing the present Constitution of New Zealand j And that Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone and o her statesmen who did know something of colonial matters, stated that they acquiesced in so extraordinary a Constitution only because it wns understood to be m accordance with the wishes of the Colonists themselves ? We have heard this, and something more besides ; that it was in accordance with the wishes of Governor Grey. Not that this very much mends the matter; nor,in point of fact, is it stric ly accurate. The minor details of the Constitution Act are nearly in accordance with Governor Grey's recommendations, and, credit, or discredit, as the case may be, has been somewhat hastily given him for the whole. But the Constitution Act, in matters of principle and real importance, varies very much from his recommendations ; as, for instance, in regard to the Legislative Council, the number of the Provinces, the postponement of self-government in the North, and the introduction of the nominee element into the Provincial Legislatures. 8. Did the Editor of the ' Southern Cross ' ever reid in (his own) paper a letter from Edward Gibbon Wakefield to the Duke of Newcastle, in which it was stated that he, Edward Gibbon Wakefield, was " one of the principal authors of the Constitution ;" and that the object of the Constitution would be defeated if Sir George Grey should call the General Assembly to meet at Auckland instead of at Wellington? To the best of our recollection (having no leisure to l efer to our files) we have read such a letter ; and think that the second of the two assertions was made with a reckless disregard of fact. If the Editor of the ' Southern Cross ' should be successful in cracking these few nuts, we promise him a few more, whenever he may feel disposed for such a desert. We are ready at all times, even at the risk of breaking our teeth. We are far from under-

valuing our opponent, even though, in the present instance, he ha» done more injustice to himself, than to us. We^may not impossibly get worsted in another boulj but shall never shrink from the thorough ventilation of any question, excepting in matters of religious controversy, that may be propounded But aa the appellant has brought against us "Seven D<"ndlf Sin 9" and one over— as af makeweight — culpatn lucrum ponenda, corresponding to the liWnltty of the baker's dozen, or the year and* a day imprisonment of English law, he may perhaps* find it in his conscience, next time, to give us credit for as many Cardinal Virtues