The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume I, Issue 16, 26 April 1851, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times.

SATURDAY, April 26, 1851. Mr. Deans and Mr. Tancred have been summoned to attend the General Legislative Council of New Zealand, which is to meet at Wellington in the course of the ensuing month. If integrity, good sense, and the general respect of their fellow-colonists be the only qualifications for the office of legislators, His Excellency could not have made his selection with greater judgment. Admitting this, which we most cordially do, we may be permitted to doubt whether, in other respects, the gentlemen selected by Sir George Grey are the best qualified of all our settlers for the task it is proposed to them to perform. If the selection of nominees from the various settlements means anything at all, it signifies that the acts of the Legislative Council are to be modified by the opinion of the people in the different parts of the colony. The nominee must be looked upon as the representative of the settlement, or else he is a mere puppet to assist at the record of the Governor's edicts. In this light we do not think that either/^ Mr. Deans or Mr. Tancred are the best^ fitted to represent the Canterbury settlers. ' Mr. Deans, although by his' kindliness and good sense he has endeared himself to all who come across him, cannot be said in any respect to represent his fellowsettlers. He was not attracted to this settlement by any sympathy with the peculiar r idea upon which Canterbury was founided, nor is it known whether his opi-

V ... jt'Vs agree with the principles involved in its existence. ' Mr. Tancred, on the other hand, was one of the earliest, staunchest, and most continued friend to the scheme of the Association. But Mr. Tancred sailed from England many months before the rest of the settlers, and before the Society of LandPurchasers was formed in London ; he was therefore unable to take a part in the labours of that body, and is consequently less acquainted with the feelings and opinions of his fellow-colonists, than many others who were engaged in those proceedings. And, which is of great importance, he is less fully acquainted with the relations which existed, and the negociations which were carried on between the colonists, the Association, and the Colonial office. We doubt whether either of these gentlemen would have been selected in a popular election, as being most peculiarly suited of all the colonists, to represent, at a parliament of New Zealand, the distinguishing views of the Canterbury settlement. We do not know whether Mr. Deans will attend the council or not. Mr. Tancred has assigned his own reasons for declining to do so. We have stated our own views with sufficient clearness on that point, and we are quite convinced, that, by attending, they will not represent the opinions of the majority of the colonists on the subject. But when we have gone thus far we stop. We cannot consent to that mode of political warfare, which has, alas, become too prevalent in all our colonies ; and which we believe to be one of the worst evils which the narrow and illiberal system of government has produced. We mean that of attributing unworthy motives to those who differ with ourselves in political matters. Whether they go or whether they do not go, we shall not believe that Mr. Deans and Mr. Tancred are influenced by other motives than a desire to promote the welfare of their fellowcolonists, and the public prosperity of the settlement.

Our leading article of the 12th instant, appears to have given some offence to several of our readers. Two of them have written to us on the subject.. "We publish their letters in compliance with our promise to give all our fellow colonists full access to our pages. They object to a sentence in which we seemed to imply that no man could maintain his political integrity who differed in opinion' with ourselves. This is certainly far from our meaning. We never meant to >vimply that those two or three gentlemen who remained upon the last Legislative Council were not quite conscientious in tl^ir reasons for doing so. We had no in- . /*■ IFtion to deny the political honesty of the government party, but were arguing upon the fact as it stands, that the Governor could not obtain a council at all last year, from amongst the Wellington and Nelson settlers, and therefore there might fairly be said to be no party at all on that side of the question. If our expression were misunderstood, we readily retract it, and are glad to have had our attention called to the subject by two

gentlemen who we believe, in the main agree with ourselves.

Mr. Cholmondely is offended at the style of our writing, rather than at the nature of our opinions. Nothing can be farther from our intention than to dictate their duty to any one. Our business is simply to express opinions, and we believe that our article of the twelfth instant does really represent the opinions of the majority of the Canterbury colonists. We think that most of the influential settlers would, taking the whole question into consideration, decline the honour of a seat in the General Council. And although of course we should not shrink from stating distinctly our own idea of this political question, we believe that in the present instance we fairly represent the views of the majority of our fellow colonists.

The writer of the other letter is one of the gentlemen who have been summoned to the council by his Excellency. He is one all whose opinions are entitled to respect. We quite admit that his attendance at the General Council would not necessarily imply his approval of the Nominee system; but in the present state of New Zealand politics, we think it would be accepted as such an approval throughout the colony. Mr. Tancred infers that the mode of opposition to the Government adopted by the Nelson and Wellington settlers is not a legitimate one. We admit that it is an extreme method, but we maintain that it is legitimate. Mr. Tancred seems to imply that a refusal to attend the council would argue a refusal to recognise the present Government as a legally constituted Government. Surely no more than the refusal of a statesman to accept office under the Crown would argue a denial of the title of the Sovereign. But after all the real truth is, that we here at Canterbury did not make this quarrel about Government; when we arrived in New Zealand we found it in full force, and we took, at once, the side of the ancient institutions of our father land, in opposition to those modern innovations in colonial Government which were first introduced by the military despotisms which were absolutely necessary in convict settlements. We found these Islands governed by an able representative of her Majesty, much of whose policy had been attended with success, and under whose government this colony had seen much prosperity; we knew that he had formerly raised himself to the height of popularity, by promising the people under him the restitution of their native rights; but that in recent times he had ranged the whole population against him, by delaying the execution of those promises. The struggle had passed through various phases, and had assumed various aspects; but, after petitions had been unheeded, re monstrances disregarded, promises broken, it had resolved itself into this, that the leading settlers, seeing no prospect of obtaining the fruit of their expectations under the existing form of government, had resolved to abandon all part whatsoever in its working. They never impugned its .authority, or denied its right, or resisted its laws; they simply refused to make themselves responsible for the passing of laws

which were in fact the edicts of the Governor, unchecked and uninfluenced by the opinions of the people. This was ;the battle which was being fought when we arrived in the colony. Now the Canterbury colonists had heard somewhat of all this in England. They had expressed much anxiety on the subject of the Government to which they were to be subject. It was the frequent subject of conversation at their meetings in London, of communications with the leading members of the Association, of negotiations with the "Government. The Canterbury settlers were deeply pledged to strive for self-government.

So when we came to the colony, we thought, and we submit to our readers wisely thought, it was not our duty, or the interest of the Canterbury settlers, to make any new plan of battle for themselves, but simply to join the ranks of those who were struggling for the same rights which they themselves desired to obtain.

We advised our readers therefore to act in accordance with the plan of action adopted by the older and more experienced settlers at Nelson and at Wellington, and simply to strengthen their hands. We thought that all the settlements should act in concert; and therefore that our most influential settlers, should abstain from going to the General Council : not from a simple spirit of opposition to the Governor, that were a most unworthy motive, not from at doubt as to the legal constitution of the Government, that were a foolish misconception of the nature of the duty of obedience to government; but because their presence of the council could produce as Mr. Tancred says, no "public good ;" because they could only saddle themselves with the weight of responsibility for what they did not approve of, and yet could not prevent; because their presence could not make laws popular, in the passing of which the people had no voice, or render it consistent with the principles of English constitutional law, to impose taxes, without the people giving their consent.

If a public meeting were called, and the colonists were polled, we believe that a majority of ten to one would vote for the proposition that the people of New Zealand ought not to be bound by any laws except those enacted by the representative of her Majesty, and by the commons in parliament assembled, and therefore that no man should sanction by his presence a system of government foreign to the ancient constitution of his country, offensive to the feelings, and unsuited tothe genius of his race.