[From the Morning Chronicle, July 80].

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume VIII, 12 January 1850, Page 182

[From the Morning Chronicle, July 80].

"The meeting of which a report appeared in our columns yesterday, under the name of «• Colonial Reform Dinner," was a very curious piece of political mosaic. Sir William Molesworth, a distinguished member of what is commonly called the Radical party in the House of Commons, occupied the chair; and he was supported on one side by a Whig, on the other by a Tory, peer— the former of whom had himself held the seals of the Colonial Department, while the latter had once been, the organ of that department in the Upper House. The Protectionists were represented by Mr. William Miles and Mr. Henry Baillie; the Manchester school by Mr. Milner Gibson and Mr. Cobden ; and among the names of gentlemen who, though, unavoidably absent, desired to express their " entire concurrence in the object of the meeting," appear those of Lord Lincoln, Mr. Stafford, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Hume. It cannot, therefore, be without interest and importance to inquire what the " object of a meeting" which seems to have enlisted sympathies so numerous and so diversified actually was. The answer* to that inquiry is to be found in the toast proposed by Lord Lyttleton, taken in connexion with the speech with which he prefaced it. We select that toast and speech from among a number of others, all bearing more or less directly on the same point, because they express, in a clear and condensed form, the essence of those principles which it was the object of the meeting to affirm. The question was variously illustrated in the course of the evening, and different reasons were adduced by different speakers for coming to a common conclusion ; still, it was impossible not to feel that, even if the business of the day had begun and ended with Lord Lyttleton's share in it, the " object of the meeting " would. have been substantially gamed — inasmuch as a new creed of colonial politics was stated and inaugurated amid the unanimous applause of men who may fairly claim to represent, and even in a great measure to lead almost every section of the public opinion of this country. The toast to which we allude was " Local Self-Government for Colonies ;" and in the speech by which it was accompanied, Lord Lyttleton explained clearly and unmistakeably what " local self-government " means. It may appear at first sight strange that we should call " local self government " the first article of a new creed in colonial politics. " Surely," our readers will say, "we have heard of ' local self-government' before; the phrase is very familiar to our ears ; in fact, it has become, if we are not greatly deceived, a stereotyped element of •every speech made upon the Whig side of the house for the last ten years — a phrase repeated not less glibly and energetically when the speaker happened to be ' in,' than when he happened to be • out ' — when he was exercising official power than when he was denouncing its exercise by others. There is nothing in it: we know 'local self-government' by heart." Now all this is perfectly true ; yet we repeat that Lord Lyttleton did enunciate a new theory on Wednesday— because he explained, to the satisfaction and with the approval of the meeting which he addressed, what the meaning of " local self-government " is, and because, as we shall proceed to show, in his explanation the term has acquired a perfectly new significance. What Lord Grey and - Mr. Hawes, and almost every politician of their school, mean by saying that the colonies ought to govern themselves, resolves itself, upon analysis, into nothing more than this — that the Colonial Secretary ought to govern them, but that he ought to govern them " liberally ;" that he ought to give them democratic institutions — with considerable^ powers, not indeed of government, but obstruction — and that he should not interfere in the working of those constitutions often, or vexatiously, or injudiciously, or when the occasion does not require it, &c, &c. In short, they mean that the supreme power over the colonies ought to remain, as completely and as permanently as possible, in the hands of such liberal politicians as Lord Grey and Mr. Hawes — nothing -more. Now this doctrine may be a good one, or a bad one, but it is not the doctrine of "local self-government." It only usurps the name. If every act of Parliament, even for the formation of a railway or a turnpike road, were sent to St. Petersburgh, to be allowed or disallowed by the Emperor of Russia at his discretion, we might be well governed or ill governed ; but •any one who said that we were self-governed would be laughed at for a fool. Nor should we "become self-governed a whit the more because, -during one whole session, or any other indefinite period, the emperor did not choose to exercise his .power — so long as it was asserted on the one side, a"nd admitted on the other, that he might exercise it whenever the fancy struck him, and that his successor, if he chanced to entertain different views about the matter, might exercise it undisputably every day of his life. Now this mere relaxation of servitude constitutes Lord Grey's interpretation of local self-government ; he avowed as much when he told Lord Lyttleton that he could not be a party to " diminishing the power of the Crown." But if he will not diminish the power of the Crown, how can he ever increase the power of the colonists — in other words, how can he ever give them local self-government? The power to which we have been referring must, in the last resort, reside with one person or with another. If it be kept in the hands of the Crown, it cannot be in the hands of the colonists too ; and unless it be in their hands, they are not selfgoverned. Thus we come to the vital and fundamental difference between the old and the new "colonial reformers." Lord Grey says, that though the colonists ought to have local selfgovernment, the power of the Crown — that is of the Colonial Secretary— ought not to be diminished : Lord Lyttleton says, not only that colonists ought to have local self-government, but that local self-government and the diminution of the power of the Crown are convertible terms. We leave our readers to decide which theory is the most self-consistent and the most reasonable. But it must not be supposed that the colonial reformers who applaud Lord Lyttleton's theory at local self-government are asking from the people of this country any costly or painful. sacrifice for the benefit of colonists, although they do . advise that the " pow^r of the Crown be dimi-

nished" in colonial affairs. We are not children, to be charmed by «n empty sound; if the exercise of power be not beneficial to the possessor, it is surely the height of folly to retain it for its name's sake. Now, we can most sincerely aver that, repeatedly as we have heard this subject canvassed, we cannot recollect having ever met with any one person who even asserted — far less who attempted to prove— that Great Britain derives any benefit from interference in the internal affairs of colonies. Does that interference render them more loyal and attached to us ? Does it reduce the burden which they impose upon our finances ? Does it improve the markets for our goods, or does it extend pur field of colonisation ? Does it strengthen their connexion with this country, or weaken their desire for independence, or iuduce a more cordial assimilation of their laws, habits, and institutions to our own ? Nobody has yet ventured to answer any one of these questions in the affirmative — and we cannot even imagine the reasoning by which such an answer could be supported. In fact, the argument is all on one side ; as Lord Lyttleton said, there- never was a political proposition which more nearly approached to being mathematically demonstrable, than that local selfgovernment for colonies— real, complete, constitutional, and irrevocable self-government —is desirable and necessary, both for their sakes and for ours. And now we may anticipate for this great and fruitful doctrine a certain and speedy victory. The meeting of Wednesday showed that its essential truth and force are too strong for the prejudices of class and party — and, prejudice once overthrown, the battle is won ; for the case of our opponents has never rested upon reasoning, and the only interest that can be injuriously affected by the change — that of the bureaucracy of Down-ing-street — cannot long stand alone against a unanimous public opinion.