ENGLAND AND NEW ZEALAND.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 39, 29 October 1869, Page 3

ENGLAND AND NEW ZEALAND.

" One result of the debate in the House of Commons," oil theaffairs of New Zealand, writes the ' Scotsman,' one of the shrewdest of our home contemporaries, "will be to convince the colonists that the policy of Earl Granville as to their affairs is -that which will be adopted and carried out, no matter who may be in power ; in other words, it is the policy which the mother' country lias deliberately adopted." A policy of non-interference. The colonists may perish ; that is our business, not theirs. W T e intend to look at home.. So be it. Our Government means rightly enough,,, as we think, to make an effort to disabuse the Imperial authorities of certain mistakes into which they have either wilfully or ignorantly fallen—they mean to state the case of the Colony fairly and truthfully to the British people once more. If the appeal is successful, well and jjood; if unsuccessful, the'lmperial Government will not be troubled with us anv more. This appeal ought assuredly to be the last.' The ' Scotsman,' however, hits upon our weak point—a point which has proved a source of discussion among ourselves, and must'prove embarrassing to people at a distance. "We refer to the divided sentiment of the Colony—the want of a clear and unmistakeable public opinion on the subject of Native management. " There is almost as much difficulty and danger," eays ; our

contemporory, "dealing with. New •Zealand questions as there is in dling with the CoJenso controversy, or in interposing in a quarrel between man and wife. No matter what statement may be made by you, it is sure to bo contradicted, and that contradiction again attacked by somebody else, who also attacks you; and thus it seeins a hopeless task 1o get anv agreement on the question. In the 4 Colony itself, tiiere are innumerable parties, each- holding views differing in some respects from the other. Only in one toing do they agree, and that is in expecting the mother country to do something tor them. There are advocates °*. the^' self-reliant' policy, whose idea of self-reliance is "practically that men and money should be found by Great Britain to fight their battles. Then comes another party, which only asks for men, and then another, which asks for money; and between these two there are many others, -with views varying in some minute particular. Indeed, so far as the public men of New Zealand are concerned, it is quot homines tot sent entice."

There is more to toe same eff.;ct, which it is unnecessary to quote. And then comes the "following: "Threats have been held out that if the Government persisted in the policy which Earl Granville laid down in his despatch dated the 21st March last-, New Zealand would declare herself independent, and apply for assistance to Prussia. That-is mere puerility." --"Why "mere puerility r" There were settlers who turned a longing ghiui e towards Amei*iiu time of trial, but till now we n-ver chanced to hear Prussia mentioned as a refuge. But if the tie is to be cut, we see no need either of America or Prussia. -New Zeal an d can manage alone. And way, let us ask a *ain, is such an idea " mere puerility?" At present, Ave .{jet no help from Britain, and run considerable risk from the connection, and it seems rather manly than puerile to have our position properly defined.