GOVERNMENT OF COLONIES. [From the Times, March 13.]

New Zealander, Volume I, Issue 10, 9 August 1845, Page 4

GOVERNMENT OF COLONIES. [From the Times, March 13.]

So long ago as the 18th of December last, in ihe course of certain observations of ours, made with the hope of drawing 1 pu blic attention to what was going on in New .Zealand, witli regard to an attempt in that colony on the part of the Governor to issue debentures in the nature of a paper currency,, we expressed our opinion that it was not unlikely that such a movement as tliat undertaken by His Excellency would not receive the sanction of the home Government j and we are happy now to learn fiom the statement of Sir It. Peel on Tuesday evening, that our wishes and anticipations have been fulfilled. Sir Roberts \vord% were,—" With respect to the debentures, he was ready to admit that there was no act of Captain Fitzroy's which he was less prepared to approve of, or of which he was moie ready to require some modification. His noble friend, Lord Sumley, had some official information on the subject, and he d.sapproved the issue of inconvertible debentures." It may be said that the Colonial Secretary could not foisee the course which his nominee would afterAvards take ; but he ought to have been careiul in ascertaining beforehand his ability aud qualifications for the office, and if he had been so, be would have known what he was capable of doing. At all events, there has been warning now, and such an excuse will not avail when repeated. In December, we hinted at the working of the Colonial Office under one head ; aud when we coutrast the prompt check which Lord Ji.lleuborough received from a body, with the licence taken, — if not ghen in the present instance, we thmk it only natural that the opinion should continue to gain ground, that our wide spiead dependencies require the supervision of a Colonial Board, rather than that of an indifferently well-informed nobleman, dependant almost entirely upon irresponsible subordinates for his knowledge of the duties of hi 3 office. We said on the occasion referred to, and we repeat now, that Lord Stauley is answerable for the acts of tho c whom he appoints to govern our distant possessions, and who are bound to regulate their acts liy his instructions. It is only the question of a de-grt-e whether the conduct of a Governor is bad enough to call for his removal, or whether a reprimand or eveua disallowance ofum proceedings would be sufficient. It was said oil Tuesday in the House, that the New Zealand question i-, to be hereafter formally and fully brought before it ; and we cannot wonder that such should be the case, when it is jilainly alleged that the deliberate recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee has been not culy not carried out, but actually evaded by the Colonial Secretary. Mr. Mangles, in no equivocal terms, charged Lord btauley, on Tuesday, with gross deception ; and when a member in his place, makes such a statement, it is due to all parties, it is due to the Colonial Secretary himself, that the lacis should be inquired into, sir Robert Peel attempted to-retort upon the New Zealand Company some of the blame lor the appointment of the present Go\ernor, and produced a letter from that body praising the selection. It is true that that body "did at that time approve Captain Fitzroy's appointment, but they did not know that he was going out privately instructed to counteract and defeat them on points on which i'lom the conversations they had had with him, they had e\»ry reason t« believe his views coincided with their own. Is then a letter written by them, under such circumstances, fair evidence of thiir approval, when it is most manifest, that had the truth been disclosed to them, they would have written in a very differeiitstiain ! The letter proves at once that they had no prejudice against Captain Fitzroy, at the outset, and that they were misled as to what they were to expect at his "hands. " It appeais from the debate, that the Governor of New Zealand, who previously held a civil appointment, and had a seat in the House, was not without influence, and not without friends and relatives, iv Parliament ; aud so far as he has acted under Lord Stanley's instructions, we know lie makes sure of Ministerial protection. One of his relatives, Mr W. James, thought fit to call Sir C. Buller's a « newspaper speech, founded upon newspaper reports,' but bir Robe t Peel m vindicating his friend from official ignorance, was obliged 10 admit the correctness of the newspaper report, and to declare that Lord Stanley had official information of the issue of the inconvertible debentures. This ground of exception therefore, being taken away from i>ir W. Jame-, we recommend him to prepare himself for a substantial defence of his absent friend, on the facts aud merits of the case. We are most willing to concede to Captain Filzroy alt the amiable qualities in private me which his friends ascribe to him, and of which their zeal in his causv, is some evidence, so far as it goes: the question however, is not with ihe {•entlemau of private life, but with the Governor of the prcjvuue, — with one on whom much of the happi ness of our fellow subjects far removed Jrotn the fceat of government, depends. When a certain Duke who united in hh own august person tne unusual combination of Gcneial and liishop, was reminded of his litter character, on a particular occasion, on which he was. indulging in a f*w superfluous oaths, (lie l)imi.r less reveund that gallant) observed, that he swore iv his military and not in his clerical capacity. It was replied, But when the General goes to a certain place, what wi 1 become of the Bishop ? So, in tlie case of a Governor of a colony, if he should on fair and full enquuy, be found to have mismanaged his h'gli offiu', we say, let him be recalled, even thouoh the colony should be obliged to part -with an amiable gentleman at the same time.

The Government iii New Brunswick and Canada lias been compelled to give way to larye majorities in both the Houses of Assembly.