THE Wellington Independent. " NOTHING EXTENUATE; NOR SET DOWN AUGHT IN MALICK" TUESDAY MORNING, 3RD APRIL.

Wellington Independent, Volume XXI, Issue 2343, 3 April 1866, Page 4

THE Wellington Independent. " NOTHING EXTENUATE; NOR SET DOWN AUGHT IN MALICK" TUESDAY MORNING, 3RD APRIL.

" THE CREDIT OP NEW ZEALAND AND THE HONOR OP GREAT BRITAIN." "Yt is ane evil bird yt fyletli yt3 owne neste," is au ancient English proverb which we are irrcsistably reminded of after perusing a pamphlet recently published in England, entitled " Remarks on the credit of New Zealand and the honor of Great Britain." The particularly dirty bird that has put forth tnis production is said to bo an Aucklander now in England, named Busby, whom some of our readers will remember as a disappointed land claimant. We have not the least idea how he came to write this pamphlet, except that as disappointment often makes n man bilious, Mr. Busby, while suffering under an aggravated attack of that malady, has apparently vented his spleen on everything and everybody connected with New Zealand, except Auckland and the Aucklanders. The dedication on its title page is at once the gem and the refuta tion of the whole production. Quoting from "an old Reviewer," he says that his pamphlet is an address "to those who extend their thoughts beyond the present, and who do not consider it inconsistent with prudence and philosophy to calculate the future— to those who are of opinion that value , exists in reversion, as well as in possession — to those who believo that the infancy and youth of States may be feeble aud costly, whilst their progress and maturity may be largely profitable — to those who think that a balancesheet does not afford the only solution to public questions, and that duty and honor are more enduring, as well as more sacred : bonds, than mere profit and loss." Apparently, Mr. Busby makes up by impudence what he lacks in ability, or he would surely never have printed such a dedication to a book, which is written in a spirit of the narrowest selfishness ; and in which, disregarding tho interests of the Colony as a whole, he becomes the violent advocate of Auckland alono. Though the author contrives to fill thirtyeight pages with ill-compiled quotations and ill- written original matter — the latter being in something the same proportion to the former as Falstaff's pennyworth of bread was to his gallon of sack— yet his assertions and arguments may be stated in very brief compass. He assumes " that the ties which bind England to the Colonies are no longer to be those of dependence " — and that in the case of New Zealand, " the political link of sovereignty ' is alone to remain. This, we learn by tho j context, means that New Zealand is to have responsible Government as a reality; that she is to fight her own battles unaided ; that a Colonial Ministry is to manage her affairs, and that the Governor is no longer to possess the power of frustrating their policy. Mr. Busby ' is very much alarmed at this, and disliking

; constitutional government, does what he can to render it impossible by trying to frighten the creditors of the Colony. He says " that these proceedings will inaugurate quite a new regime, which may seriously affect the position of the creditors of New Zealand," and then adds that as the English taxpayer will no longer have to provide funds for New Zealand wars, it would be well for English capitalists to remember before lending any more money, that New Zealand lacks "unity of resources " and " unity of policy." On the first point he contends thai the resources of the Colony afford sufficient security for borrowing money at a moderate rate, if the territorial as well as the ordinary revenue were pledged to the lender. He certainly has some misgivings about this proposal, because ' further on he admi ts that the terri torial revenue has been already to some extent pledged for Provincial purposes, but this is got over by saying " that any security given to the Home Government," or — he should have added — to the English capitalist — "could easily be made subject to the actually existing Provincial debts." It will be remembered that the Weld Ministry was turned out of office for proposing to trench slightly on the threeeighths Customs allocated to the Provinces, but Mr. Busby goes further than this, and would actually have the territorial revenue ! — theirmainstay — handed over by the General Government as a security to the public creditor. He blames the South for opposing this, and contends that if they will not comply, "it is the plain fact that the Eesponsible Ministry of New Zealand are not in a position to undertake war on their own j account, and that British capitalists ought I not to encourage them therein by advancing funds for that purpose." Up to this point, then, Mr. Busby attempts to show that if the Imperial Government leaves the Colony toitaelf, thecapitalists of Greatßritain should, unless everything be pledged as security, refuse all loans whatever. Let us now learn what he says about " want of unity of policy." This, according to our author, means that Auckland having been very badly treated by the removal of the seat of Government wants Separation. The land fund of the South, which 9ome pages back he suggested shouldbc pledged to the public creditor, he now discovers "is sacred for purposes of local improvement," but the land fund of the North, he fears, will be sacrificed under a selfreliant policy to pay the cost of the war. After his sticking up for Auckland for some fifteen pages we begin to get a glimpse of what he is driving at. After all he does not really intend that English capitalists should get hold of the territorial revenue, but he wants Responsible Government in New Zealand abolished, and the Home Government to take native affairs into their own hands, the war and its costs included. There is a great deal said about a separate Government for Auckland, which of course forms a part of his notable scheme, but its chief features are what we have stated. To quote his own words :— Tho Northern men now say, restore peace, and place us in tho same position we were iv afc that period. They still hold to tho opinion, formerly tho rule in New Zealand, " that tho Imperial Government ought to exercise a potent voice and parauiount authority in the direction of native affairs," that the veto by tho Imperial authorities on colonial legislation is of some substantial value to the mother country ; that the colonizers of Now Zealand have conferred a lasting benefit upon Great Britain "by placing her in the most commanding position for exercising a.great maritimo influence over all the shores and islands of tho Pacific Ocean ;" that these and other advantages impose corresponding duties, and that, if not of appreciable value, they had bettor be distinctly given up. The Northern settlers are j willing to pay £40 per head for two regiments of i British troops rather than trust solely to the volun- , teer system advocatod by the South, although they J are of opinion that any payment for the use of British troops must give rise to a conflict of authority, and is utterly unworthy of any power I claiming to exercise the functions of sovereignty, ' especially when the troops are to be used for acquiring by confiscation or otherwise, additional territory for the Crown, and the extension of British commerce. We think this pamphlet is calculated to I damage the credit of the Colony. Stupid and malignant it may be, but an appeal to the fears and the breeches pockets of English capitalists will always have a certain effect. The author has misrepresented the state of affairs in tho Colony during the regime of the late Ministry, in precisely the same way and for precisely the reasons that induced the j Auckland newspapers in adopting a similar course. Taking certain facts which suited his purpose and omitting others which did not, he has tried to show the English public that it would not be safe to lend money to New Zealand. While saying everything that could be urged against the Colony, he has omitted everything in its favor. He has forgotten to say, that the real source of all our difficulties was not "responsible," j but " double" Government ; he has carefully ' concealed that the Imperial system having failed, the Colony had tried, and to a certain extent sucoeeded, in dealing with the difficulty itself, while he altogether fails to mention that Auckland alone reapod all the benefits of tho Waikato war. It is unhappily true, that the . Colony is surrounded with serious difficulties, and that, as Mr. Busby

says, "the constitution is unworkable," but these difficulties will not be overcome by their transfer to the Imperial authorities and the abandonment of constitutional Government. Even if the mother country would take their charge — which it will not — nothing but failure could result from its attempt to manage native affairs. That has been tried before, with -what a disastrous and costly failure we all know. It is childish then, to think that it will be tried again. In truth as we have got constitutional Government, we must do "the possible best" . for ourselves. There is but a dreary, prospect of the political future loom- , ing up. We so fur agree with Mr. Busby as . to admit that our system of Government has become almost unworkable, because it is i clear that the power of the Provinces in the | Assembly, will, where individual interest is I concerned, serve to frustrate completely any ! broad and comprehensive scheme of Colonial Policy that may be proposed. In time, this evil may work its own cure, and for that result we can but wait and hope.