CORRESPONDENCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 82, 31 July 1852, Page 8

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Lyttelton Times,

Sir, —I have been requested to putaquestion to the people through your columns —whether it would not be advisable to come to an understanding among; ourselves upon the point raised by Mr."Hamilton's letter ? I refer to the letter addressed by that gentlemen to the chairman of the Lyttelton Colonists' Society, which was taken up by Mr. Fitzgerald at our meeting-, on the 14th inst, without, however, any general discussion being elicited. Such an institution as our society, furnishes us at once with the means of pronouncing upon a subject of general interest, I may say of great importance, such as this is. It "stands thus: there are certain officers in New Zealand who may be considered to hold administrative places. Such are: the Attorney General, who is confidential legal adviser ; the Colonial Secretary; the Colonial Treasurer ; and others who are members of the Executive Council. These gentlemen are supposed to be consulted upon matters of State, and having therefore a voice behind the scenes of government, are not supposed, as a general rule, to be entitled to oppose its measures. All other officers, -whether commissioners, collectors, or clerks, are simply engaged to do a certain work, for the full discharge of which they are answerable ; but they are not consulted except for information. The first, therefore, are pledged upon all matters about which they have actually, or ought to have, advised with government; being, in fact, according to the theory and practice of our constitution, a part and portion of it. But officers belonging to the second class are obviously not part and parcel of the Government. It may very justly be argued that the degree of confidence reposed in either case, exactly measures the maximum and minimum of support to be looked for.

Those who are confidentially consulted, are reasonably expected to stand by the administration. ; or, if they disapprove of its measures, to leave it. On the other hand, those who are not confidentially consulted ought not to be forced to act as if they we^e. A change in the administration makes no difference in their routine; and each accordingly is master of his own line of conduct, of his own opinion, and of his own vote; otherwise an officer would cease to be a citizen. Does any one suppose that the administration of the day in England, dares to bully a subordinate out of his rights, as long as he does his duty at his own desk or in his own court ? Have we not conservative judges under a whig ministry ? Are the subordinates in the great offices in London at this moment all sworn Protectionists ? True, none but Protectionists are appointed under Lord Derby; but to remove the Free-traders already in office would be unheard of. Now, how is it that we find such a system rooted in England ? First, because the relation between Government and subordinate officers is simply a matter of contract. To bind the conscience beyond the contract would be intolerable. To place an officer's manhood into commission would be an invasion of natural right. His soul is still his own. His opinions do not become the property of the premier. And what is his own, he may use; for who would rate at a pins-fee a right which he dares not exercise? Secondly, the English system is the natural expression of a certain national largeness of soul, which, as it was originally the foundation, so to this day continues the best guarantee of our liberties. Were every officer obliged to watch the smiles and frowns of one or two great leaders, as a schoolboy eyes the birch ; were their daily bread and butter dependent on such servility, what a vast coalition would be immediately "on foot? Each change of administration would be swelled almost to the size of a revolution, as is actually the case in France ; and with what results they best know, who have watched the rise and fail of the late Louis Philippe d'Orleans! That man applied his great power, and still greater knowledge of men, to carry out a rigid system of centralization in France to its utmost length. He extended the cords, and threads of that immense cobweb, of which Guizot was at one time the centre, and himself the spider, through and through every department. By an enormous multiplication of petty offices he was on the point of debauching the whole French constituency. The livelihood of tens of thousands of families was bound up in the continuance of his system. At length the success of the plot was complete,—when suddenly a linger from Heaven touched him, and in one single day the

work of eighteen years was marvellously swept away. But if the question be put—What is it which threatens to produce the French system in New Zealand ? The answer is to be found in the history of the country since its first colonisation. Two currents of interest have unfortunately set into one channel. The first was that of the Governor for the time being-. Forced to respect, and as far as possible to obey, every change of high official opinion in England; forced to shape himself into compliance with every shift of a colonial office, consistent in nothing, save in its obstinate refusal of justice to the colouists, he must needs look about after a substitute for principle ; that being denied him, he must swim, or wade, or shuffle along, keeping things together as well as he can. Small blame to him then if, under such difficulties, he seeks to strengthen his hands by a large and well drilled phalanx of dependants. Such a prop however, is, after all, but an Egyptian staff, a mere reed—which oftentimes pierces the hand that trusts to it. The second current was the distrust with which the people very soon began to eye the whole band of officials. They were regarded, and are so still, as a separate caste, a superior order of beings, whose sole disadvantage was, that they were incapable of sympathy. Hence their very name has become a by-wovd ; and thus the people have by a jealousy, in its origin perhaps honourable, confirmed the mischievous tendency.

Nor indeed has the press in other-Settlements refrained from taking part in producing the impression which from thence has reached us, and prevails more or less with both the people and the •' officials." That it does so prevail is evident from a speech of the Lieutenant-Go-vernor in the last Legislative Council, when he asserted that, though differing in opinion from his superior officer he was bound to vote with him. I have learnt, too, that it has even been held by the Government that those of its officers holding commissions of the Peace, are bound to vote in accordance with its wishes—if, for instance, it desires to bring into operation an Ordinance, the proclaiming of which depends on the requisition of a majority of Magistrates. Again, I may refer to the Blue Book, where I find both the Governor-in-Chief and Lord Grey " regretting," and " regarding as imprudent, the course" taken by Chief Justice Martin. This gentleman had circulated privately, (among five intimate friends be it remarked!) a printed pamphlet containing opinions opposed to his Lordship's, as expressed in a Despatch which called forth a very energetic protest from the Bishop of Few Zealand. For this the Bishop even incurred Lord Grey's displeasure. The Wellington Spectator has imputed blame to a functionary holding a high appointment under Government for privately even stating opinions against its measures. The Independent, it is asserted, censured the conduct of officials in coming down on one occasion to oppose resolutions which were to be brought forward at a public meeting, called by the Settlers'^Constitutional Association. In short, the very opinion expressed by Mr. Hamilton, he could only have adopted as being current in " the North ;" —as one, therefore, to which it is implied as part of hii contract of office, that he must give in his adhesion; not that he could, in the abstract, maintain it to be sound or defensible.

Taking all this into our consideration, can we not come to some conclusion among ourselves upon this subject? Should we not assert and back up by popular opinion, as against any views entertained by Government, the full right of its servants to oppose or support its measures according to their own conviction ? Should we not claim of them the proper fulfilment of the obligations and duties devolving upon them as loyal citizens, as fellow settlers equally interested with all in the good Government and prosperity of their adopted country ? I am, Sir, Your's, &c, T. Cholmondelet. July 26th, 1852.