OPINIONS OF THE BRITISH PRESS ON NEW ZEALAND AFFAIRS.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 176, 19 July 1845, Page 77

OPINIONS OF THE BRITISH PRESS ON NEW ZEALAND AFFAIRS.

[From the Times, March 15.]

In our Thursday's impression we made some observations upon what had fallen from Sir Robert Peel in the course of the debate on Tuesday, respecting the alleged issue of inconvertible debentures in New Zealand; and on Thursday evening Sir Robert Peel, in his place in the house, while upon his legs on another .subject, took the opportunity of setting himself right on this, and of stating that a mistake had been made with respect to what fell from him on that occasion. In doing this Sir Robert did not refer to any newspaper in particular ; and he bore testimony to the accuracy of the reports in general. Sir Robert says —

" It is supposed that I said that her Majesty's Government had received information of the issue ■by Captain Fitzßoy of inconvertible debentures, and that my noble friend at the head of the Colonial Office had signified his disapproval of the issue of inconvertible debentures. In point of fact, the Colonial Department has had no official notice whatever of the issue of these inconvertible debentures. But at a former period convertible debentures were issued by Captain Fitzßoy ; of the issue of them official information had been received at the Colonial Office, and ' my noble friend did take the earliest opportunity of intimating to Captain Fitzßoy that he did not approve of the issue of these convertible debentures."

It now, then, clearly appears that the Colonial Department is in that state of " official ignorance" which was imputed to it by Mr. C. Buller, and that we did it more than justice in believing that Sir Robert Peel had vindicated it from the charge. , Time will show whether there is any truth in the story about inconvertible debentures, or whether it is all pure invention. Time will answer Lord Howick's pertinent question — " Why did not Captain Fitzßoy take care that despatches should come home in the same vessel that brought the newspaper reports of these debentures ?" If such a thing never existed, of course the Governor of the colony would have no despatch to send on the subject. But if it did exist, we can see in Sir Robert Peel's explanation something like a suspicion of a reason why official communication has been long in coming. Sir Robert says that Lord Stanley promptly, and by the earliest opportunity, sent ont his disapproval of the convertible debenture scheme ; and Captain Fitzßoy may have all the dread which a burnt child can entertain of a like fate for his inconvertible paper. It is worthy of remark, that Sir Robert Peel, as mouth-piece in that house for which his friend has grown too " noble," said nothing as to his belief or disbelief of the " newspaper report." All we have at present, and in the absence of further information, to remark is, that the statement on which we founded our comments in December last was definite and particular enough — it was precise in details — it gave even the speeches in the Governor's Council on the 18th of May — it related how the Provincial Secretary saddled the honour of the Home Government with the payment of these debentures

— and how the remarks put into the mouth of a Mr, Brown conveyed a doubt whether the Home Government might not decline that honour. IF all this is a Hoax, it is well imagined and well carried out. .

But, in seriousness, we cannot— we wish we could — doubt its truth. Even in that, case, however, the issue would really.be the same, it would be but a change of venue; for we know that (be the case as it may in New Zealand) there are colonies where Lord Stanley has not only sanctioned, but has actively promoted the debenture system and the incurring,, of. debt. We have before us on act of the colony of Newfoundland, for which his lordship has procured the royal ratification, authorizing the provincial treasurer to raise £2,000, and issue debentures for the amount. This act was passed no longer ago than on the 22d of May, 1343 ; and in this there neither is nor can there be any "mistake" — any opening for Sir Robert to' explain or to correct.

Sir Robert Peel's explanation, however, on behalf of "his noble friend," although it might afford ground for deferring further debate in Parliament on the subject of the alleged debentures until the arrival of fuller information from the colony over which Captain Fitzßoy presides, left altogether untouched, and did not profess to touch, the other points raised by Mr. C. Buller, Mr. Mangles, and Mr. Aglionby. We perceive that those questions were again brought forward in the house last night; and Mr. Hope has most literally fulfilled our prediction, in which we said that the matter must be, and would be, further inquired into. Mr. C. Buller had, indeed, promised that it should not rest ; and in bringing it forward now, Mr. Hope is too late to make a virtue of necessity. Mr. Aglionby stated last night that he was ready to make his charge then, and to substantiate it ; and Mr. Hume having inquired what the particular topic of defence, on Mr. Hope's part, on behalf of his principal, would be, Mr. Hope said that the nature of the charge alleged against Lord Stanley was, that the instructions which his lordship had given .to the directors of the New Zealand Company were different from those which he had given to the Governor of the colony. But Mr. Aglionby went much further than this, and accused Lord Stanley of concealment and "duplicity, such as would prevent his ever treating with him again upon any subject, unless some security were given that good faith would be kept."

That Lord Stanley is sure of his majority to vote him clear, Lord John Russell confessed that Sir R. Inglis was safe in predicting. Equally sure of his majority in favour of letteropening was his lordship's colleague. The coincidences that have marked this par nobile are curious. Either may say to the other, " Were you a Whig ? So was I !" " Are you a Tory ? So am I !" " Should you not have been now out of office but for the timely change ? So should I !" " Are you accused and believed to be guilty of meanness, &c. ? So am 1 !" And, finally, " Are you not safe of being whitewashed by our present friend Sir Robert's ministerial majority ? So am I !"

We are glad to perceive that Mr. Hume on this occasion gave expression to the same opinion that we have several times put forward in speaking of these particular subjects, viz., that the colonies are too extensive a department to be within the power of any single person to conduct. Sir Robert Peel has lately raised our friend Joseph's opinion to a premium. It was once said that three angels could not clear-off the arrears of the business in Chancery; we have lived to see the judges of that court multiplied. The same course ought to be adopted with regard to the affairs of our world-wide dependencies; there ought to be a Colonial Board.