WHO CAN CONSTITUTE TWO COLONIES OF THESE TWO COUNTRIES ?

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIII, Issue 3037, 20 April 1867, Page 6

WHO CAN CONSTITUTE TWO COLONIES OF THESE TWO COUNTRIES ?

To th« Editor of th« Dailt Southern Cross. JBib, — Will yon allow me to essay a clearance of a prevalent confusion of ideas relative to the source of power for effectuating demanded Separation. You Mill remember that, on the appearance of a second letter by C. J* Taylor, written to show "unattainableness," 4c, I replied by setting forth that he and his compeers looked and applied to the wrong source, and asserted that it rested solely and alone with our General Assembly, and the British Colonial Secretary. Since, he has broadly alluded to the same tiopie, and employed the following words, "and, being outside the Constitution, requiring the interference of the House of Commons." Moreover, others have doubted my correctness ; and there have been evident dubious references, in your correspondence columns, to the position so confidently assumed. Now, I think that by simple explanation difficulty will be eliminated, and pertinent, patent facts will emerge from fog, whereby the whole course will be cleared, and so some good effected. 1 C. J. T. is both right and wron? ; and by confining his attention to the former, perhaps without one suspicious thought of the possibility of the latter, it is just of course that he adheres to and repeats the allegation of vast, if not insuperable, difficulty. He is right in regard to the proper means of pursuing a wrong policy, wrong in setting forth those means as tie means for a right policy. I explain : the London Committee, in its existence and design, was premature; nay, inasmuch as the Cabinet Secretary for the British, colonies was satisfied — was content to add to his own power and patronage ai the proper time and in order — that committee would really seem to have been wholly superfluous. Oh, but their work was to influence the House of Commons to carry it over the heads of the Cabinet, and our General Assembly. Monstrous ! Surely it was not ! Now, sir, I believe that that committee was compoied of as good a specimen of respectable men as New Zealand could supply : yet if such a supposed undertaking were not strictly revolutionary, ire must instantly revise the universally accepted meaning of that term. Hitherto, somehow, I have understood a revolutionist to be a politician who seek* to compass a great object irregularly and unconstitutionally ; that the quality of his measure, good or bad, was quite out of the question, and that violence was not a necessary adjunct. lam only using the word revolutionary intellectually, not at all conventionally k or *3 accusation, and quite believing that our Mends of said committee would not, on consideration, hesitate assent. Of course, if we seek the measure of Governmental Separation by the thoroughly suicidal act of overthrowing our own General Assembly, we must go to the House of Commons, believing the Cabinet Secretary too wary to oppose a colony's honourable representatives on a question affecting themselves only. And thus C. J. T. is right in regard to the proper means of pursuing a wrong policy (for the nonce we put out of view the «nd) and in his consequent assertion of impracticability. But, now, let us juit look at the constitutional, tegular method. Only suppose th*t, on mooting the question in the General Assembly a few sessions .. back, the proposal was lost by a majority of, iay, nineiteenj the session next folio wing, lost by a majority of fourteen ; next session, lost, majority nine. Next session — now the Governor gives in his adhesion in strong words, writes about it to Downing-atreet, and receives an interesting reply, and a solicitation for further, fuller particulars ; but it is lost again, majority seven. The Governor now is properly quiescent. But I must protest such progress was satisfactory ; and to ask the Commons to enforce the measure, in spite of our own majority, wu to evince an impatient distrust of constitutional order. I have prefaced the above numerals with "suppose" (I am only showing method), for if progress was not veritably quite so quick, it might have been — by a consistent *»nd persistent advocacy — more rapid. Well, then, In 1868 our Premier gives in his full adhesion (he lias already spoken of the "inevitable"), and it is carried in the Assembly by a sweeping majority of fifteen. The New Zealand Executive, constitutionally Jfchrough the medium of the Governor, represent the case to the head of the Colonial Department, who •would perhaps just mention the matter to his colleagues, who, feeling that it was his specialjbusiness, •would nod assent — for general confidence is vital to m Cabinet— and they all would be only too proud So have another Governorship to bestow on some celebrated, meritorious political friend ; and very Hoon, no doubt, some General Cameron would have st palace in Christchurch. Appeal to the House of Commons ! Not they. They would be most happy to be brought to book about it by some crochety questioning member ; but even this would be very unlikely. But, — but, suppose the Colonial Secretary had done a bad act, say an act almost as bad as overthrowing our General Assembly, which some assume our London Committee wanted ! Then the plucky questioners in the Commons would have got up such » motion as would have very seriously threatened the immediate total fall of the Ministry. So, then, of course, we do not deny the ultimate amenableness of Ministers to the Commons. It is only contended that the endorsement we should require would be ■olely and alone the work of the British Executive. Oh, ah, no doubt it is all very fine ! Well, perhaps so ; and also sufficiently discriminative for aid in dispersing a present prevalent mental difficulty. — I am, &c, W. E. Sadler. April 17, 1867.