How New Zealand got its Constitution.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 933, 17 January 1890, Page 8

How New Zealand got its Constitution.

BY SIR WILLIAM FON. Section I. — Preliminary. It is a ourious fact that colonial selfgovernment 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 his crown, and another both his crown and th 3 head which wore it. The first British colonies which ever existed were founded at this time; and while to a great extent they were the outcome of religious and political persecution, the colonists carried with them to America a far larger amount of both oivil 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 tffoae colonies simple representative democracies, with the fullest legislative and executive powers, without even an appeal to the Crown, and without any royal Governor or agenc in their adopted countries. The other colonies founded in America daring the same period, distinguished as *• proprietory ’ ones, had on paper less liberal constitutions, but in practice enjoyed almost the same absolute power to manage their own affairs. As an able writer has well observed : * xhe system of the Chartered cqlonies above mentioned was the high water mark to which the desires and claims of the other colonies closely ap. proached. 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 AttorneyGeneral and Lord Chunoellor under James 1., tflat 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 iu conformity with the soundest principles of political philosophy. But with the Stuarts the thing died out. For the next 150 years Great Britain founded no more colonies. The Cape of Good Hope, Mauritius, and 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 Grown colonies without free institutions. Canada came within the same category. The greater portion was colonised by France, and was ceded to England by the Efenqh

lafter a long u ar. The remainder (tho maritime provinces) were substantially Crowu 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 Lord 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 New Zealand in 1852. The colony was divided into six provinces, each with an elective Legislature and ,Lieutenant-Governor, and a GovernorGeneral appointed by the Queen, while later on 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 not colonies at all in any proper sense of the word, bat simply and absolutely penal settlements. There was no provision for free immigration, land administration, or any other essential of systematic colonisation. The population sent out were exclusively convicts of the worst class and their gaolers, a regiment of soldiers, and (for decency’s sake) an Episcopal chaplain, whoso salary, it is said, was paid in rum. For years these settlements were a horrible pandemonium, and had no pretence to claim any other government than the drum-head court-martial, the cat-o’-nine-tails, and tbe gallows. (See ‘ Wealth and Progress of NewSouth Wales,' by the Government Statistician, 1888 ; and * Carious I'acts,’ 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 Belf-government v .at , the same period. 1 The revival of systematic colonisation by Great" Britain commenced just about the \pa3sing of the English Reform Bill, in IS3O. It was due mainly to one man, Edward Gibbon Wakefield. His leading idea was to organise the new oolony in the parent country, providing for the due apportion, ment of land, labour, and capital, so that an equilibrium might be attained and neither be iu excess of the other. This involved a selection of the best emigrants of the various classes of employers and employed. The land was to be so administered as to ensure a supply for small farmers, and prevent monopoly of large estatss. The funds for carrying on the 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 ‘Englandand America,’ in which hia principles are very fully set out, particularly as regards self-government 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 naked the Government for a charter on the model of the early American ones. The Government refused, and the association was dissolved ; but in 1534 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, but without the power of selfgovernment, though the Wakefield principles re land administration were adopted, and lie at the bottom of the success achieved by that colony. The oolony then founded was governed in the usual Colonial Office form by a Governor appointed in England, with a council of four officials appointed from home, and four uonoinated by the Governor in the colony. South Australia was so governed till it received a free constitution a year or two after New Zealand. The system worked as badly as could

possibly be expected. The first Governor was a captain in the navy. He got affairs into suoh a mess that iu 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 ig a story told of the manner in v hich the first of these, Hindmarsb, was appointed. Captain C. J. Napier (who afterwards commanded the Baltic fleet in the Russian wai) had the best 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 ship, mate, Captain Hindm,arsh, to whom he told the object of his journey and that he was going to refuse the Governorship. Hindrqarsh replied, ‘1 wish yon would speak a good word for me ; I’d accept it in a minute.’ Napier, unlike Pharoah’s butler, remembered his friend in adversity, and got 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 Bowen 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 not 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 disciple of his, was sent to Canada as above mentioned, he took as sub commissioners with him Wakefield, Charlee Buffer, and R. D. Hanson; the latter afterwards a New Zealand colonist, and dying as Chief Justice of South Australia ; both disciples of Wakq, field. It is an * open secret ’ that Lord Durham’s extremely able report YV’Digtl cofifcained recommendations which cured Canadian disaffection hnd sent her on the high road t 9 her subsequent wonderful prosperity, waq written, if not wholly, at least in great part, by Wakefield. Of the ffew Qomo&uy, whisU w&3 uu-

doubtedly the parent of systematic colonisation in New Zealand, aud which founded all the settlements except Auckland, Mr Wakefiold may be said for twenty years to have been at once the brains and the mouthpiece'; and iu the two great struggles which were tho first and the last steps towards representative institutions for New Zealand, that in the Imperial Parliament in 1545 and that with the Colonial Office from 1846 to 1852, no man contributed more to our success than he did. The above remarks on the origin and condition of the other British colonies in reference to self government may enable tnose who read them to better understand the relative position towards the question occupied by New Zealand when her time came to demand self-government. How she obtained it, I shall proceed to relate in one or two further papers. (To be continued.)