COLONIAL OFFICE REPLY TO SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH {From the Spectator, July 29.)

New Zealander, Volume 4, Issue 272, 6 January 1849, Page 3

COLONIAL OFFICE REPLY TO SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH {From the Spectator, July 29.)

The reply which Mr. Hawes consented Jo make for the Colonial Office to Sir William Molesworth, has created a lensation never produced by the member for Lambeth's happiest spee hcs. Although politicians in and out of Parliament have been welt aware of the difference between Mr. Hawes out of offiVe and in office and were therefore prepared for a great extent of officialism in the quondam purist, the speed) wen si far beyond al 1 expectations in its peculiar traits as to excite unbounded surprise, We will not venture to ctnractense it; we will not condescend to employ the only epithets applicable to bis conduct; but the averments of which he was the mouthpiece must not be allowed to pass muster by the mere force of their audacity Sir William Molesworth applied to the presrnt colonial system the test of the advantages derived from it ; showing that with the same resources and the Bime expenditure the government ought to secure for the country a vast increase of advantage*. In leply, Mr. Hawei resorted to the most elaborate and curious application of the principle of " cross questions and crooked answers :" he met each of the most damaging argument! with some aisertion, if tiue in itself, entirely divorced from its true bearing; or with an assertion that was meant to surprise members out of their belief by an excess of groundlessness to incredible that it was easier to believe the assertion than to imagine the unscrupulousness of the utterer. Sir William Moleswonh had shown that the system, costly aud imperfect, by no means realises all the advantages tiat it ought to yield: to which Mr. Hawen replies, that it is " the most successful th*t the world has ever witnessed." Sir William meant the official sjstem ; Mr. Hawes points to the nett result of the conflict between the national energies and the official system that impedes but cannot destroy those energies. Other nation* have been more disastrous in their colonial government, but how does that prove that our system is the best that we could devise? According to Mr. Hawes's mode of argument, the ligatures which bound the legs of Lightfoot. in the fairy tale, would have been the cause of his fleetness, since he won the race in spite of them With mt official aid, the early colonists of America laid the foundation of the great republic which we tee ; their method involving the emigration of incorporated communities with self-government ; Sir William Molesworth advised a revival of that principle. Mr. Hawes replies, that the Old England settlements underwent " violent vicissitudes and misfortunes '— which hud not been denied : and with that he contrasts the modern system exemplified— by what?— by South Australia and New Zealand ; colonies founded in opposition to the wishes, views, and intrigues, of the Colonial Office, and succeeding, in spite of those intrigues. They merely survived the pressure of the system whose auicess he adduies them to prove Restore, say* Sir William, the old plan which made settlements complete societies, and gave them vigour to de r end themselves. And truly the colonies thus founded not only survived the "violent vicissitudes" to which they wer» exposed, but were able to cope with the whole power of England. No, says Mr. Hawes, taking advantage of smoother times and more peaceful circumstances, our system is better; and to prove it ha brings as witnesses settlements that have survived by vanquishing the system. Hia vie "of these two colonies is remarkable, Of South Australia he did not scruple to lay that the " pet colony" would have bi>en bankrupt but for the interference of the Colonial Office : it was transferred from its " amateur" managers to the Colonial Office, and " from that moment became one of the most flourishing colonies;" ihe notorious fact being, that us •nkruptcy wai inflicted by iU Governor, the only

officer of the Colonial Office in the lettlemeut, and that its success is entirely owing to so much of the plan and such of the early settlers as survived the disastrous and malignant endeavours of the Colonial Office to mar the experiment. Can Mr. Hawes be the only man in England ignorant of all this ? His allusion to New Zealand is not less astounding. He says that "he does not know any instance of a more surcsssful colony." Now, New Zealand was founded in spite of " the system >" two Governors appointed by 4l the system" ruined the colony ; the misconduct was so flagrant, the disaster was so frightful, the appeals of the colonists were 10 unanswerable, that the appointment of a competent governor became a mere act of decency. A Governor trained in South Australia was sent ; he reversed the policy of the two Colonial Offic^ Governors ; and, by (he help of extraordinary energy in the colonists, he has in some measure retrieved the colony ; though it is still a prey to a monstrous sys'em of Chancery suiti created by the fint two Governor*, and to an aboriginal war invited by those two offic als. In endeavouring to prove the " kucce*.s" and progress of the colony, Mr Hawes went so far as to compire its present state with that to which it had been reduced by Captain Fitzroy ' New Zealand was prohibited by "the system, '' and was then Dearly destroyed by it : Mr. Hawea vaunts it as a proof of success. The Colonial Office is accused of being deipotic— • where it can be so : to prove the reverse, Mr. Hawes indicates ihe " responsible government" in Canada, extorted from " the system" at the expense of insur« rection, war, and treasure. The Office is accused of being arbitrary : Mr. Hawes describes a proceeding in which Lord Grey sent a constitution, like that which he revoked in New Zealand, for the consideration of New (South Wales ; and so invited an ignominious rejection of his lefthanded offer by that intelligent community. To prove that the office is not deipotic and arbitrary, as it h-td been described to be in Britiih Guiana, Van Diemen's Land, and other colonies, Mr. Hawes pom's to historical instances, in which its desp tism was defeated in Canada, and its twaddling was snubbed in New South Wales. A small matter painfully illustrates the spirit in which the obsequious Under- Secretary spoke. Sir Wil iam Molesworth had complained of the royalties on mines, which, in breach of good faith, the q ivernment had latterly resolved to reserve in South Auitralia : Mr. Hawes declared that the royalties had been relinquished. " Within the lait three or four days?" asked Sir William Moles noith. " Not so recently," was the reply. How lecently then ? If not three or four, how many days had elapsed? Nut so many, we believe, but what the act of honesty wa» still remains an uudivulged tecret. Those who saw and heard Mr. Hawei en Tuesday | last remembered the time when he used to figuio ' among Colonial Reformers : th* once independent member was now seen " humbly begging" to share the ignominy of a public department with an Earl at its head. Why the independent member for Lambeth should be so ready to accept office, puzzled many : vis now obiervecl that he is more familiar with rank and courtly distinctions. It also perplexed people to account for his being selected, as they were not aware that he had been eminent in the conduct of colonial affairs: he is now acknowledged to display a conspicuous and extraordinary aptitude to serve the Colonial Office. The office certainly never before possessed a servant so absolutely at its disposal. Often curing hi>> speech, the question occurred, whether he knew what he was saying ? People would havp felt it a moral relief to impute to him a very culpable ignorance; but in the absence of that alternative, painful as it is to see a man who hns been respected overwhelmed with not unintelligible blushes, it would have been a far less distressing sight than to witness an offhand fluency that provoked compassion and a boldntai of demeanour that did not inspire respect.