CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 113, 11 May 1844, Page 38

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the Nelson Examiner.

Sir — From the leading article in your last number, I regret exceedingly to find that you persist in recommending the signing of a petition to the House of Commons, complaining of his Excellency Governor Fitz Roy, and appealing against the course he had deemed it expedient to adopt relative to the lamented event at the Wairau.

Abstaining, as I have invariably done, from expressing an opinion upon the merits of the case, I confine my observations entirely to point out the injurious effects which the constant recitation of the unfortunate affair must have upon the prosperity of this devoted settlement, to caution the unwary from suffering themselves to be carried away by the misconceived enthusiasm of those persons from whom the petition emanates, and to call upon every reflecting man to pause before he affixes his name to it.

A most grave and immediate injury arises from the necessity in which the adoption of such a petition places those persons who cannot coincide in the prudence of such a measure, to escpress their dissent, whereby those internal divisions and animosities are rekindled and perpetuated, which every true friend of the settlement must wish to subside.

The next objection is a constitutional one. I apprehend that Parliament cannot entertain the petition. This being a Crown colony, complaints against the administration must, in the first instan ?3, be directed, through the Governor, to the Secretary for the Colonies, and any judicial appeal to the Privy Council. When redress is delayed or denied there, Parliament may address the Crown on behalf of its petitioners. But the rejection of the petition on such grounds would be less to deplore than a discussion upon the contents. 1 have not the presumption to advocate the measures of our Governor; but you may depend upon it, Mr. Editor, that the Secretary or Under Secretary for the Colonies will be amply supplied with arguments and respectable testimony in support of the Governor and reflecting unfavourably upon the petitioners, for whom no majority can be obtained in opposition to Ministers. It must also be presumed that his Excellency's decisions are not at variance with the advice of his Council, which includes the highest law authorities of the colony. And, lastly, allow me to observe that neither the tone of the petition, nor of your own remarks, nor of your frequent correspondents, attacking the colonial

authorities and dignitaries, are calculated to conciliate the sympathies of the British public in our favour, or to secure for us that confidence which it must' be our constant endeavour to deserve, and which is so essential to our WELFARB AND EVEN OUR VERY EXISTENCE. I am, sir,

Your obedient servant, John N. Beit. '