E. G. WAKEFIELD'S REMARKS ON THE NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 78, 13 November 1852, Page 4

E. G. WAKEFIELD'S REMARKS ON THE NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION.

The following extracts are taken from E, G. "Wakefield's letter to I\lr. Godley on the New Zealand Constitution, to which we referred last week :: — • licdhill, Reigate, 7th, June. 18-52. My Dkui Godley, Let me premise, however, some allusion to circumstances which preceded the determination of Lord Derby's Government to propose a constitution for New Zealand. For a long while before the meeting of Parliament, the only people in England who care seriously about the colony were very busily engaged in framing the plan of a constitutional measure, with the intention of bringing it before Parliament in case the measure, which we knew that the Ooloiiial Office was preparing, should not give us satisfaction. The principal workmen at first were Mr. Fox, Mr. Weld, Mr. Henry Sewell, Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Addei ley, and myself : and the first important stroke of work — the framing of a sketch or outline draft of a Bill — was done at Hams. This was submitted to Mr. Gladstone and the Duke of Newcastle. As we had taken care to make our performance agree with their general opinions on the subject of colonial constitutions, they naturally approved of the scheme after we had adopted some suggestions of change proposed by them; and Mr. Gladstone undertook to be ready, in case of need, to bring the measure before the House of Commons by moving there the Resolutions drawn up by himself, of which I enclose a copy. These preparations could not be kept secret ; nor had we any motive for wishing that they should be. On the contrary, we wished the Colonial Office and Lord Grey to know that we should be ready with a measure to be proposed by Mr. Gladstone. They knew it, and were disturbed : and hence, I, for one, believe, the mention of New Zealand in the Queen's speech. In the course of our preparations, the leading features of our scheme got talked about ; aiid to this I attribute some of the best provisions in the Bill which Lord Grey prepared, and of which he sent a copy to the colony. Still our influence on Downing Street, whatever it may have been substantially, was most indirect ; forLord Grey steadily refused even to see Mr. Fox, and

he never made an, attempt to ascertain the views of anybody amongst those who know the colony and aie deeply interested in its well-being. Down to the time of his retirement from power, none of us had the least knowledge of the measure which he had prepared. Nor would he give us any intimation of the time when his Bill would probably be laid before Parliament.

We were in this state of ignorance, suspense, and careful preparation for the worst, when the change of Government took place. Notwithstanding our satisfaction at being relieved from the anxieties which all must feel whose dearest objects are in any way subject to the ability and resolution, combined with the immense conceit, the whimsicality, the extreme jealousy, the vile temper, and the tyrannical disposition of Lord Grey, we were far from feeling sure that the change would 'be good for us. The Russell — Grey Government was so very weak in its latter days, that we had indulged a rather confident hope of being able to force upon them a really good measure for New Zealand, or perhaps of their being turned out by their resistance to the proposal of such a measure, with the effect of providing for the adoption of the measure by the next Government. When they elected to go out on the Militia Bill — thereby avoiding Adderley"s Anti-Grey motion about the Cape — we began to tremble at the weakness of their successors. It seemed probable that a Government which began by admitting its own provisional character, would not attempt to deal with the New Zealand question this year, but would propose a further suspension of the Constitution of 1846. We, therefore, set to work to avert that veritable calamity. By " We" I mean Fox, Adderley, Lyttelton, Sewell, and myself, tvho were the only active labourers. By means of a deal of trouble, which it would be useless to describe particularly, we arrived at the conviction that a proposal by the new Government to suspend once more the New Zealand Constitution of 1546, would be at least formidably opposed in the House of Commons : and then we obtained an interview with Sir John Pakington. He was civil and explicit, telling us in a good-natured way that his too slight acqtiaintance with colonial matters indisposed him to sudden constituent legislation ; that he thought the colonists had better go on for one year more without a constitution, than obtain one framed in a hurry ; and that the strong impression of the Government was in f ( n our of renewing for a year the existing Suspension Act. We were equally explicit, but I am afraid not very civil; for we ■vehemently protested against the proposed course, and said that we were determined to oppose by all the means in our pov\er any further suspension of Lord Grey's constitution. I have observed throughout our consultations and negotiations, that any intention of bringing into use the constitution of ISiG was the sure cause of vv ry faces all round. Sir John said the idea could not be entertained. We insisted that any kind of fr.ee constitution would be better than none, and that wo were certain the Colonists would prefer Lord Grey's queer constitution to Governor Grey's despotic rule. We also declared very seiiously, thnrt we had cam assed leading members of the House of Commons on the subject, and were in great hopes that it would not be in the power of the Government to carry a Suspension Act. The new minister listened with real attention, and seemed to feel for the Colonists when we described the miseries of their subjection to wholly irresponsible power. The interview ended by an assurance from him that he would fully consider what we had said, and then see us again.

At the next interview, Sir John Pakington began by informing us that he had made up his mind to attempt immediate legislation, rather than leave the Colonists for another year in the state we had described : and then he asked us a number of questions, which gave us full opportunity of dwelling on those points of the measure indicated by Mr. Gladstone's intended Resolutions, to which we were most attached. We left him with an impression that he was sincerely desirous of serving and gratifying the Colonists.

The next stage I shall mention, is the appearance of the Bill in the House of Commons, after a debate from which you will have inferred that there was a general concurrence of opinion in favour of such a measure as the minister described in asking leave to bring in the Bill. And so there was. But after a time, as the Government grew weaker and weaker from causes, any account of which would be out of place here, a formidable opposition arose, which it has cost us immense trouble to counteract;. It o>igiuated with Mr. Robert Lowe, late of New South Wales, and Sir William Molesworth, -who conducted it in close alliance, the one by writing in The Times, the other by his speeches in the House of Commons, and both by canvassing against the Bill among leading politicians and other members of Parliament. They avowed a desire to get the Bill rejected; and this is the object at which they drove. You will wonder why — for what purpose. Probably their motives were complex. We know that Mr. Lowe was the prime mo%er. I should be among the last to sin against that literary rule which almost forbids public allusion to a writer who chuses to print under cover of the anonymous : but then this rule is guarded by another which enjoins anonymous writers to keep their o\vn secret, and which Mr. Lowe set at nought by openly speaking beforehand and verbatim his articles in The Times. He was as good as told us that he was the writer of those articles. He made it equally plain to us that Sir William Molesworth was entirely influenced by him. You will see, both in the The' Times' articles and Sir William Molesworth 's speeches, the very spirit of centralization for which Sydney has been so remarkable. It was the old Australasian case of Sydney versus New Zealand brought to appeal in England. As we had been wholly unprepared for this opposition to the Bill, and more especially by Molesworth who had heretofore been a chief among the advocates of the true Municipal principle of decentralization, no precautions against it had been taken ; and so the pressure for time made it truly formidable. Its formidable appearance encouraged some opposition which, I- think, had the double aim of hitting the

Derby party a heavy blow, with a backhander for Mr. Gladstone, who had so earnestly and ably upheld the municipal principle. I could not explain this point without entering fully into the state of party politics at home ; and without a full explanation it would be wrong to mention particulars with names. And it is enough for you in New Zealand to know that regard for the colonists was not at the bottom of any of the opposition. Nor is it worth while to describe particularly the means by which the Lowe-Molesworth opposition was reduced to a state of harmlessness, though I feel bound to say that 1 believe Molesworth yielded to the strong and repeated representations which were made to him that the colonists would be deeply hurt in their interest and feelings if his opposition should go so far as to compel the Government to abandon the Bill. It also appears only just to remark that Lord Russell's decided support of the Bill was contrary to the interests of his party, as these were viewed by some to whom I have alluded before. However, the Debate and Divisions in Committee last Friday appear to have settled the question. I shall keep this letter open for a Postscript in case of need after the Bill shall have been again in Committee on Thursday next. It is expected that there will then be a grand row about the New Zealand Company's arrangements with Lord Grey in 1846-47; which, except as I dread every cause of delay at a time when hour« are precious, should be agreeable to me as justifying my refusal to have any concern with those arrangements, except that of protesting against them The question of what is the best permanent constitution for New Zealand is removed to the place where alone it can be happily and finally settled. In the meantime, the colonists in their several and general governments will have power enough for working a world of practical good. I care not whether Sir George Grey remains or comes away, or who is his successor. Any Governor, not a lunatic, or, being sane, not utterly deaf and blind to the state of opinion at home on the|e matters, will be ready to help in giving good effe'et to the constituent powers virtually bestowed on the "colony itselY. And I am led to believe that the present Colonial Minister will not fail to instruct the Governor, whoever he may be, to exercise his powers with the view of giving satisfaction to the colonists ; and this not by merely signing a didactic despatch full of such instructions, according to the old fashion of Colonial-office flummery, but by making the subordinate feel that his chief is in earnest. If lam not labouring under a delusion, what more can the colonists desire for the present ? The only thing lam at all afraid of (and of that not much), is that, as happened in Canada when Responsible Government was first established, the winners, being hardened by long misrule into a petrified hostility to the Executive and its partizans, may not be able to use their success v.ith moderation.

I feel a kind of obligation to state, that in all our intercourse with Sir John Pakington, he has appeared to us sensible, desirous of pleasing, firm when he thought himself in the right, quick at picking out the truth whilst discussing subjects entirely new to him, very considerate of the feelings as well as the inteiest of distant colonists, rather " plucky,' if the woid may pass, and entirely straightforward. In particular, his whole treatment of Mr. Fox has been most gratifying.

I must not conclude without assuring you that Fox's presence as delegate from the colony lias been our chief tower of strength. Our work could not have been done without him. lie has done much single-handed, by dint of intelligence, assiduity, modesty, prudence, and courage. And his personal expenses in working for the colony have been considerable. I trust that we (and now the word " We" intimates my intention to become a New Zealand colonist in the body as soon as possible after this Bill shall have received the Royal Assent) may be able to evince our gratitude to him in some way more substantial than by mere vvoids of thank- ' fulness. ..... Sth June. On reading over the above, I perceive that it fails to explain sufficiently the policy we adopted with regard to Sir John Pakington's Bill. We had no sooner seen it than we resolved to accept it as infinitely preferable to another Suspension Act, as well as to the establishment by existing law of Lord Grey's constitution in March next. We had then but one object — to help in getting it passed. Of course we could have suggested important amendments ; but nothing could be plainer to us than that, in the actual state of parties and politics, every at- | tempt to amend the Bill would have a tendency to impede its progress and endanger its passing into a law. Our chief business, therefore, has been to counterwork all endeavours by other people to alter the Bill. In doing this we have sometimes opposed suggestions of change which we should have been the first to make if attendant circumstances had been different. Our cry, like that of the Parliamentary Reformers in IS3I, was '• the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." If we had taken any other course, wielding as we did the power of representing the wishes of the colony — wishes which Lord Grey has unconsciously made it a fashion to respect — the Government must have been driven to abandon the Bill. I speak with an absolute certainty of being correct in this view. Our policy as to the whole Bill is illustrated by the question as to the New Zealand Company's charge on the waste lands. We object to the Company's claim as being founded on a bargain between them and Lord Grey in making -which the colony had no voice : a bargain whereby the Imperial Government saddled the colony with the burthen of making compensation to the Company for the wrongs of which the Imperial Government was the author and perpetrator. We also objected to certain particulars of the intended substitute for the charge of 1847, as being impolitic and far from just, even on the supposition that the eolo- I ny is justly liable to pay for the misdoings of the Colonial Office and the Governors towards the Company. But if we had pressed our objections, that most valuable part of the Bill which hands over the management of waste land to the colony, would

surely have been withdrawn. For the sake of the vast good, we submitted to the comparatively small evil. And this has been the principle of our policy with regard to the whole measure. This statement is intended to explain why, instead of joining, we have assidiouly thwarted all proposers of amendments — even of those which we most approved in the abstract — whenever a proposal of that sort seemed to endanger the Bill or any of its bettermost provisions. This policy you at a distance will not readily appreciate, because, having got the powers which the new Constitution gives, the danger of not getting them will hardly fill your thoughts as it has ours. In order to judge us fairly, you must endeavour to imagine what you would have felt if we had reported to you that all was lost by means of our efforts to obtain more. It is a question of price. Compare this measure with another Suspension Act, and then say if we have paid too dear for this measure by the concessions which obtained it. ...