HOW NEWZEALAND GOT ITS CONSTITUTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9539, 4 December 1889, Page 6

HOW NEWZEALAND GOT ITS CONSTITUTION.

[BY SIB WILLIAM FOX.] Section L—PRELIMINARY. It is a carious fact that colonial self-govern-ment had its origin in the period when the Stuart dynasty sat on the throne of Great Britain, and by its despotic and retrograde action brought about the Revolution which cost one of the family hie crown, and another both his crown and the head which wore it The first British colonies which ever existed were founded at this timo; and while to a great extent they were the outcome of religious and political persecution, tbo colonists carried with them to America a far larger amount of both civil and religious liberties than they, had enjoyed or even dreamed of in the home country. And the most remarkable thing was that the liberties they carried with them were the free gift of the despotic Stuarts, who claimed " the Divine right, of, kings to govern wrong." The charters which'were bestowed on the "adventurers," as they were called, who founded Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, constituted those colonies simple representative • democracies, with the fullest legislativo and executive powers, without eveu an appeal to the Crown, and without any royal Governor or agent in their adopted countries. The other colonies founded in America during tho same period, distinguished as " proprietory" ones, had on paper leas liberal constitutions, but in practice enjoyed almost the same absolute power to manage their own affairs. As an able writer has well observed: " Tho system of the chartered colonies abovementioned was the high-water mark to which the desires and claims of the other colonies closely approached. In all the colonies representative government forced its .way, and assumed the form of double-chambered legislatures." It was probably owing to the far-seeing genius of Sir Francis Bacon, who was Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor under James 1., that these new ideas found a place in the colonial charters. . At all events it is clear that British colonisation from the first was systematic and in conformity with the soundest principles of political philosophy. But with tho Stuarts the thing died out. For the next 150 years Groat Britain founded no more colonies. The Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, aud some other small settlements (Dutch and French) were annexed as "spoils of war;" but they were never founded by England, and were governed from London as Crown colonies without free institutions. Canada came within the same category. The greater portion was colonised by Franco, and was ceded to England by the French after a long war. The remainder (the maritime provinces) were substantially Crown colonies, also without constitutions. As Canada grew this system of government became so odious that, in 1837, it ended in open rebellion, which had to be suppressed by British troops. This having been effected, JLord Durham, an eminent English statesman, was sent over as Governor-General and Lord High Commissioner, to report on the condition of the country and the causes of dissatisfaction. The result was the bestowal by the Imperial Parliament of a constitution of self-government, almost identical with that bestowed on Now Zealand in 1552. The colony was divided into six provinces, each with au elective Legislature and Lieutenant-Governor, and a Governor-General appointed by the Queen, while an elected Federal Parliament completed the political machine. The fullest power of administering the waste lands was included.

New South Wales (established in 1788) and Tasmania were nob colonies at all in any proper sense of the word, bub simply and absolutely penal settlements. There was no provision for free immigration, land administration, or any other essential of systematic colonisation. The popula tion sent out were exclusively convicts of the worst class and their gaolers, a regiment of soldiers, and (for decency's sake) an Episcopal chaplain, whose salary, ib was said, was paid in rum. For years tbeee settlements were a horrible pandemonium, and had no pretence to claim any other government than the drum-head courtmartial, the cat-o 3 -nine-tails, and the gallows. (See " Wealth and Progress of New South Wales," by tho Government Statistician, ISBB ; and " Curious Facts," Bonwick, pages 124, etc., on "The Rum Currency and Morals," in the Auckland Free Library, Compartment V.) New South Wales and Tasmania, however, grew out of this, ceased to be prisons, became colonies, and obtained self-government two or three years after New Zealand. Victoria was an offshoot of these two, and obtained selfgovernment at the same period. The revival of systematic colonisation by Great Britain commenced just about the passing of the English Reform Bill, in 1830. it was due mainly to one man, Edward Gibbon Wakefield. His leading idea was to organise the new colony in the parent country, providing for the due apportionment of land, labour, and capital, so that an equilibrium might be attained and neither be in excess of the other. This involved a selection of the best emigrants of the various classes of employers and employed. The land was to bo so administered as to ensure a supply for small farmers, and ■ prevent monopoly of large estates. The tiinds for carrying on tho undertaking would be provided by the sale of the lands at a "sufficient price." The colony from the first was to enjoy the privileges of self-government very much on the model of the early American colonies. Mr. Wakefield first published his ideas in a small volume called "A Letter from Sydney," and shortly afterwards in two larger \ volumes called !;'. " England and America," in which his principles are very fully set out, particularly as regards selfgovernment as an essential .%■_ condition. (There is a copy of this work in the Free Library, Compartment V.) He soon rallied around him a large following of leading statesmen and prominent merchants and others of the city of London. In 1831 he formed an association of a large number of them, with the view of founding a colony in South Australia, and asked the Government for a charter on the model of the early American ones. The Government refused, and the association was disolvod; but in 1834 another was convened of some of the same men who had promoted the first, and to whom the Government granted a charter of colonisation for South Australia, bub without the power of self-government, though the Wakefield principles re land administration were adopted, and He ab the bottom of the success achieved by - that colony. The colony then founded was governed in the usual Colonial Office form by a Governor appointed in England, with a oouncil of four officials appointed from home, and four nominated by the Governor in tho colony. South Australia was so governed till ib received a free constitution a year or two after New Zealand. The system worked as badly as could possibly bo expected. The first Governor was a captain in the navy. He got affairs into such a mess that in fourteen months he was recalled. His successor was a colonel in the army, who in two years had "to be recalled also, and a lieutenant in the army, Grey (now Sir George), replaced him. There is a story told of the manner in which the first of these, Hindmarsh, was appointed. Captain C. J. Napier (who afterwards commanded the Baltic fleet in the Russian war) had the first offer, but declined it, and went up to London to sea the Government and ask for better employment. On the mail coach by which he travelled was an old shipmate, Captain Hindmarsh, to : whom he told - the object of his journey and that he was going to refuse the Governorship. Hindmarsh replied! " I wish you would-speak a good word for me ; I'd accept it in a minute." Napier, unlike Pharoah's butler, remembered hid friend in adversity, and gob him the appointment. - This was an admirable instance of the system of natural selection by which Colonial Office Governors were evolved. From the time of Captain Philip in New South Wales to that of Sir ■ George Bo wen in New Zealand there was hardly a Governor appointed by the Colonial , Office to any British, colony who was not either a soldier or a sailor, certainly nob the classes most likely to have any previous experience or knowledge," or any sympathy with free institutions,- to qualify them for the post. ■ To conclude about Mr. Wakefield. When Lord Durham, who was an ardent dieeciple ■ of his, was sent to Canada as abovementioned, he ? took as sub-commissioners with him Wakefield, Charles Buller, and R. .' D. Hanson ; the latter. afterwards a New Zealand 1 colonist, and'dying as v Chief Justice of South Australia;'.; both disciples , of Wakefield, ,- r It is an " open secret " that.

Lord Durham's extremely able report which contained recommendations I which .t cured : Canadian disaffection and sent her on the high ; ,road to > her: sttbeequeab • wonderful prosperity, was written, if not wholly, at least in great part, by ■ Wakefield. Of the New Zealand Company, wbichi was undoubtedly the parent of systematic colonieatkra in Hew Zealand, and which founded all the settlements except Auckland; Mr. Wakefield may be said for twenty years, to have ; been at once the brains and ; the mouthpiece; and in the two great struggles which were the iirab and the last st»ps towards representative institutions for New Zealand, that in the Imperial Parliament in 1884 and that with the Colonial Office from 1846 to 1852, no man contributed more to oar success than he did. The above remarks on the origin and condition of the other British colonies in reference to self -governmentmayeuablothoso who read them; to better understand the relative positions towards the question occupied by New Zealand V when her time came to demand self-government. How she obtained it, I shall proceed to relate in one or two farther papers.