ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, 18th December, 1848.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume V, Issue 353, 20 December 1848, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, 18th December, 1848.

Sib, — Though you did not favour your readers with an account of the proceedings of the late Public Mepting, for which the persons there ought to feel very grateful to you, I must beg to call your attention to the following passage occurring in Mr. Stafford's -speech as reported in the Independent. " Jt! was a monstrous thing to suppose that Parliamentary Grants were made, not for the purpose of developing the resources of this colony, but for the sole object of supporting a hateful despotism, and equally absurd to imagine that a Parliamentary Grant would be less profitably or economically expended by an elected assembly than by an irresponsible Nominee Council." There can be no question as to the object of Parliamentary Grants, we know they are made fdr-the purpose of developing the resources of the colony, it required no conjuior to tell us that. But when we are told that a Parliamentary Grant will be better expended by an 'Elected Assembly' than 'by an irresponsible Nominee Council,' we have an instance of the very common trick of endeavouiing to mislead an atidience by imputing to the scheme of an opponent the very fault with which our own plan is chargeable. Obvious as is this trick, there is none more frequently successful in throwing an unwary audience off its guaid. The British representatives vote a certain sum of money to be expended for a certain object in the colony, they make their representative and the representative of the Crown, namely, the Governor, responsible for its application to proper purposes. He therefore, and his despised Nominees are the parlies really responsible to those who make the grant. But an " Elected 'Assembly would be quite irresponsible — they might divert it from its legitimate object and employ it so as to gain the good-will of any of their vacillating constituents, in order to ensure their return at the .next election, — no uncommon case— and in so doing 'thVy 'would be quite irresponsible to Parliament. Does any man of common sense suppose that under ..these circumstances Parliament would m,ake ( any future grants ? When grants are made to Canada or other colonies, they are made for definite objects, such as canals, railways, &c, and are not under the control of Local' Legislatures — there is no analogy between such grants 1 and that made to New Zealand, and whenever they are intrusted to Local Legislatures they are usually, if not always, made as loans and not grants, which altogether alters the case. When I look at the magnificent roads which now connect this settlement with extensive districts. and think how much time must have elapsed before the colonists unaided could have accomplished such works, I am surprised to find my fellow- colonists approving with " loud cheers" the clap-trap eloquenqe of a Nelson Orator, who' 'can hardly be expected to look with .much complacency or satisfaction on such woiks in this settlement; " And duller mast thpy be than the fat weed That rots itself in ease on L,ethe 3 wharf," if they cannot perceive that jealousy is its source. Nor is it unnatural that the large amount allotted for the improvement of this settlement should excite the jealousy of persons from other settlements who do not reflect that it proceeds from no undue partiality but is done with a view to the general benefit of the whole colony, for the prosperiiy of a place now the capital of New Munster, and destined at no distant period to be the capital of New Zealand, cannot be other than beneficial to the country at large. It is not a little amusing to find the self-elected representative of a neighbouring settlement endeavouring to influence this community by his surmises as to the probable conduct of the very important poli1 ticiaus of that place, and to find him responded to ■ by " loud cheers.". ■ I mean nothing disrespectful to Nelson, far from -it j but'thecool self-suflScient assurance of this orator needs a rebuke. We have already too much Nelson jealousyand prejudice exerting an influence in this settlement, we want no more. Only let the Wairarapa road be stopped, and the Middle Island would be the destination of the proposed new colony: — the -question would be settled at dnce. It is lamentable to see people thus led away ;■ losing the substance to grasp at the shadow; — ready to sacrifice the I ' substantial wellbeing of the colony for an imaginary Utopia. — But some free and indignant spirits altogether scorn the consideration .of grants, they will not allow gold to I .weigh in the balance when despotism is to be cast

off, and Liberty is the prize. So say t&ey ;- but keen men would 'be apt to surmise that it would need no very acute or elaborate analysis of motives to discover' that 'with not a few of the mercantile democrats, auri sacra fames, though obtainable indeed from a different and somewhat nigher source, is not without its influence, — Why do not men think and judge for themselves, instead of yielding themselv.es up to be led by others, more ignorant and less straightfor-ward-than themselves ? ' Why is the word of W irresponsible orator to' have" more weight with them than the word of a -well-tried and responsible Governor? I am,, Sir, Facts against Fiction.