How New Zealand got its Constitution.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 937, 14 February 1890, Page 8

How New Zealand got its Constitution.

f BY SIR WILLIAM FOX. Section V. I left Wellington in the middle of February, 18ql, in one of the ship 3 of the period, which used to be advertised as ‘ magnificent clippers of 400 tons.’ She landed fier ljve stock and her passengers in England in the first week of June. Before leaving Wellington I had been appointed at a very large public meeting Honorary Political Agent of the Settlers’ Constitutional Association, The session of Parliament was then far advanced. I forwarded at once letters and papers from the Association to the Colonial Minister Lord Grey, which were simply acknowledged. I then called on the ‘Colonial Reform League,’ which had its room above Stanford’s geographical shop at Charing Cross, where, besides meeting Edward Gibbon Wakefield for the first time, I shook hands with a number of other influential members of that body. The < Canterbury Association ’ had its headquarters in Adelphi Terrace, not far off; and their spacious Board.-room was the daily resort nob only of those directly interested in the Canterbury settlement, hut also of many members of both Houses of Parliamoot; some of the most frequent attendants being the Duke of Newcastle, Lord Lyttelton, Sir John Simeon, Sir William Molessvorth, M.Pi, Mr Adderly, M 11..l 1 .. Gibbon Wakefield, Henry Sewell; Mr Selfe, an English barrister (afterwards Magistrate of one of the London Police Court*), and many others who took a prominent part in our -struggle for self-government. I was told, however, that theie was no chance of doing anything during tjie current session, two-thirds of which had elapsed. The ground was also pre-occupied by an impending debate on Cape affairs, which took place a week or two afterwards.

But I was also told that the public wanted information, and I was requestor! to give it. So, in the next few weeks I wrote and published a small compendious volume of 150 pages, called the * Six Colonies of New Zealand,’ treating historically tho most prominent features of the subject, and particularly the question of self-government. (There are copies of this book in the Auckland Free Library and the Assembly Library at Wellington.) I had almost daily interviews with the above associations, paid visits at many private houses, and some more general meetings. But, as already intimated, it was too late to do anything in Parliament that session. From August to February, when Parliament usually meets again, everybody that is anybody goes out of Loodcn, and I followed the fashion, visiting ray | friends in various parts of England, and returning to London on January 1, 1852. I then addressed Lord Grey, asking him to give me an interview. Lie replied that 5 the demands on his time rendered it impossible, but anything which I might send to him in writing should be duly considered.' In reply I sent him two exhaustive documents, which will be found as an appendix iu the latter part of the series of papers before referred to as printed by the M< use of Representatives. His Lordship, however, was packing up in anticipation of the retirement of the Ministry, of which he was a member. But In fore he left office he wrote, on the 2Srd February, 1552, to Governor Grey a despatch covering 1 The heads of a Bill which had been prepared under his (Lord Grey’s) directions,’ and which were afterwards to a great extent adopted by Sir John Pakington in framing the measure which finally became our constitution. In his despatch referred to Lord Grey alluded to the documents which he had received from the Settlers’ Association as follows :— ‘ I have to acknowledge the series of despatches noted in margin, convqying to me the statements of many of the colonists as to the future government ofNe v Zealand. I have hitherto delayed replying to those despatches because I felt that the expression by numerous and intelligent bodies of men required more than an acknowledgment on my part. I can only now repeat that the representations in question have been fully attended to before any conclusion was arrived at; and that the zeal and intelligence with which these measures have been canvassed in anticipation, afford the surest' guarantee that the Constitution, if deficient iu any particular 7 , will be gradually adapted to the wants of the community by the community itself. ’ The same expressions would have been equally applicable if used in reference to Lord Grey’s Constitution of 1846, which was repudiated by Sir George Grey. It, too, though 4 deficient in some particulars,’ might and would have been gradually modified and adapted by the colonists, as the Nelson settlers said at the time, if Sir George Grey had not stood in the way. In the course of another month the Ministry resigned, and a Conservative one came into office, of which Lord Derby (the former Lord Stanley) was Premier, and Sir John Pakington the Secretary fot the Colonies. I had gone down for a few days to the North of England, but was brought up again by a message from Sir John Pakington, who wished to see me. I had one or two interviews with him, in whiob ho told me he was going to bring iu a Bill to give New Zealand a Constitution based upon tho heads of a Bill which Lord Grey had left on his table. We discussed several points on which he proposed, to make alterations in Lord Grey's document, and he expressed great anxiety to get bis Bill through, though not very sanguine that he would succeed. A very interesting task now devolved upon me. I had to interview a large number of members of both Houses of Parliament, in order to interest them on the subject, and to get them to understand what we wanted. In this I received great assistance from Mr Wakefield, who gave me hint 3 as to the characteristics of the various men I had to see ; and I very seldom found him wrong. My requests for interviews were invariably granted (with one exception). I was very courteously received, and had extremely interesting discussions with such men as Lord Palmerston, M' Gladstone—who, afterwards, on the second reading of the Bill, made an admirable speech—Richard Cobden, and many others of the most prominent men of the day. The exception was Mr Disraeli, whom I could not get at. I requested an interview by note, but got no reply ; called at his house in Park Lane, but could not find him at home ; and when the Bill came up fpr second reading, he got up somewhat and walked opt of the Hoqse with an air which seemed to say it was nothing to him. Some years afterwards, when the Liberal party was supposed to be lukewarm on colonial affairs Lord Beaconsfield exhibited much warmer iuterest in them, and made good political capital out ofthem, A little spli't now took place iu oar own ranks. Sir William Moles worth, who was perfectly sound on the main question, was led astray on the provincial portion of the Bill by the advice of a friend who had been in Australia, and who afterwards had a very distinguished career iu Parliament. Damaging articles also appeared oa the subject in the Times. We were afraid, of any disunion, and this partial disunion caused a good deal of auxietjq aud it caused an estrangement between myself and an old college friend which I have never ceased to regret-. Sir William Miolesworth, however, though he severely criticised the Bill, did not divide the House, and the Bill passed without a division. It got through the Lords in due course, and on the 16th July, 1852, Sir John Pakington had the satisfaction 4 to transmit to Sir George Grey the Act to grant a representative constitution to the cnl-.ny, which had receded the Royal assent.’ A question has been raised which icquires a moiiiect’s notice. Wh > was-the author oi the Constitution Act? It is a question of little practical interest-, ' not tnucii more than who unde the paper and the ink with whic.il it was printed. Some of Sir George Grey s friends gave him the credit of it. Mr Peel, then the Under Secretary for the Goloni.es, said on one occasion distinctly that it W-’s Sir George Grey’s Constitution ; hut 1 ha- e not met with any printed document- wI- co J proves it. Lord Grey speaks pf ii whvu us

forwarded t' e heads of an Act to Sir George Grey in February, 1852, as bis own work; Sir John Pakington also claimed it. Both of these compliment Sir George Grey on the assistance he had given towards it, and so forth. For my own part Ido not think that any one mind or hand is to be credited with it. Its fundamental principles are no doubt first embodied iu Lord Grey’s Act of 1840, which Sir George Grey rejected, mainly on account of those principles. Other portious were ceririnly Sir John Pakraqton’s own ; and, judging by his and Lord Grey’s statement already quoted, much of what is valuable in it was the outcome of the recommendations of the colonists. It is, however, of comparatively little consequence who ultimately drafted or compiled the Bill. The question which I have been endeavouring to elucidate is, 4 Who got us the Constitution, aud who prevented our getting it sooner ?' On the latter point there can be no doubt. It was Sir George Grey who got Lord Grey’s Constitution suspended for five years. It was ho who told Lord Stanley that to divide the colony into two provinces, each to be governed by himself and a Lieutenant-Governor and a small Council of officials and nominees, * Was the only way to give the colony tranquillity, prosperity, and happiness.’ It was he who. in place of such a constitution as we finally got, attempted to foist upon the colony those two Brovineial Councils, composed largely of nominees, which Lord Grey so summarily 7, not to say contemptoußly, rejected. It was he who for two years longer fought to the last gasp with the Settlers’ Constitutional Associations, who were seeking for nothing but the ordinary privileges of self.governinent such as all the colonies have now. Those who really got New Zealand her constitution were the colonists themselves and their friends in London. The names of a few of the leaders in the colony should he placed on record :—ln Auckland there were W. Brown, J. L. Campbell, Hugh Carleton ; but as no brauoh of the Settlers' Association appears to have had an active existence in Auckland, I cannot recall the names of others who took part iu protesting against Sir George’s rule, though there were, I am told, many who did so by the press. In Wellington : Featherston, Fitzherbert, Clifford, Weld. Dr Evans, the brothers Dorset, Brandon. Lyon, Daniell, Marriott, Wade, Samuel, Rhodes, Johnston, Vincent, McKenzie, Wallace, In Nelson : Stafford, Elliott, Travers, Robinson, J. M. Hill, Jollie, ot,terson, Saxton and others. In Canterbury: J. R. Goaley (the leader of that settlement and one of the ablest men we ever had in New Zealand —see a volume of his letters and speeches in the Auckland Free Library and Assembly Library in Wellington), J. E. Fitz Gerald, Brifctan, CrosbieWard,C. Bowen, John Hall, Sefton Moorhouse, J. Studholme, Jerningkam Wakefield, and others. Iu Otago : Captain Cargill and his sons, J. MeGlashan, Macandrew, and a host of other liberty-loving Scotchmen. These, backed up by certainly 5 6ths of the rank and file of the colouy, and our friends in Lendon, were the men who got New Zealand her constitution. A friend has said to me, * Perhaps after all Sir George Grey was right.’ I can only reply, 4 Perhaps after all Cresarism was right.’ 4 Perhaps after all ' Jefferson Davis was right, wheu he held that bondage was good for the black man, But what would have been said if, when the war was over, Jefferson l avis had come forward and claimed that it was he who had captured Richmond, and with his own pen had written the proclamation which emancipated the negro : Yet this would have been a parallel case to what some of Sir George Grey’s friends would have us believe of him. But the final consummation was not yet. Sir George, it will be seen iu my next article, still continued practically to withhold self-government from the colony for a little season longer. (To be continued.)