WITHDRAWAL OF THE NEW ZEALAND BILL

Wellington Independent, Volume XV, Issue 1471, 13 November 1860, Page 5

WITHDRAWAL OF THE NEW ZEALAND BILL

v rs iasnionaoie to sny mat Urovemmeut in these days is the representative' ,. of. progress; that the executive is more.ewlightened than the House of Commons, and the House of Commons than thet. nation ;■ and that each of the first two wait, straining at the leash, till tbe time shall arrive wben they may, without restraint, indulge their onward asperations. Let no onelaust too much to general maxims, or believe that there is in any class or iv any clique a monopoly of reason und good sense, any more than of prejudice or folly. After a little pause men will turn round on the most obvious and well-established principles; and this fault is by no means peculiar to the inconstant multitude, but is . shared with them occasionally by the very mci. wlio have lent themselves to establish these very principles. We have just seen Messrs Cobden and Bright, the apostles of Free Trade, commit themselves to the Superanuated aiid exploded heresy of a Commercial Treaty ;• we have seen the men of peace deep in the preparation for the Chinese 1 wpr; and we have seen the colleagues ofthe , late Sir William Molesworth all hut involved in . the reversal of our colonial puliey, and returning to doctrines and acts worthy of the- darkest days i of the Colonial Oflice folly and meddling. We | , allude, of course, to the New Zealand Bill, | ■ which oame to a vv'ell-cleseiv-sd end on the 2 1st August. Unlike the savage natives of other colonies, J 1 the New .Zealander has always had a species of 1 ownership' in the laud, for the cultivation of ' which he has shown no little amptitude. This ' right has been confirmed to bim by the Treaty

of Waitangi, and is now unquestionable. Th( power of extinguishing this title and making the laud pnblic property has always been left to the Crown. .In 1852 the colony received though, itmust be admitted, in a very lumbering and superfluous way, the gift of free institutions in fact, of such a quantity of Free Institutions that almost everybody is either a councellor, a governor, or a minister. From the jurisdiction of the new Parliament the management of the native lauds was excluded. It was vested ir t'.ie Governor j whether wisely or not it is nc longer worth while to discuss. In a few year, a responsible ministry was granted — the last complement of local self-government. Itis now desired by some local authorities — among whom are the governor, the bishop, and the late chief justice — to establish a native council tc assist the governor in his dealings with the natives, and to give to that council more extended powers than the governor originally possessed. I order to do this application is made by the Governor to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he is requested to carry through Parliament the bill required for the purpose. To this the Duke of Newcastle consented, and the result was the New Zealand Bill. We cannot wonder that the House of Commons protested almost as one man against this ill-judged measure. It is, indeed, difficult to do justice to the number and magnitude of its defects. They require no acuteness to detect them, no eloquence to bring them to ligbt. They are gross, patent, and notorious. To point out the errors of the New Zealand Bill would be as easy an exercise to any man of oidinary sense and comprehension as to correct the spelling in the examination papers set by the Civil Service Commissioners. In the first place, the bill is a fraud upon the powers of local self-go vernment conceded by Parliament to the colo ni-ts of New Zealand. Of this attempt to legislate on affairs of which Parliament knows absolutely nothing the colonists have never heard up lo the present moment. They have never been consulted, they have never had the opportunity of doing for themselves that which Parliament is asked to do for them. The task of legis'atiug on the subject of the natives, when legislation is required, is quite within the j'-iiis-dicliou and cognisance of the loc:il assembly,, which has never shown the- slightest wish to abuse, nor bas it refused to exercise, this power. Under such eireu instances to ask Parliament to legislate is to ask it to repudiate and annul its own grant to the Assembly of New Zealand, and to substitute for that giatit its own ari.itr.iry will ;..,<! pl.asure. \Suoh conduct mus; bo galiinfj in any case, but peculiarly so to a British c jiony thoroughly grounded not only in t!w practice, but also in the theory of liberty We lia.e no doubt that bad this wanton invasion ( f established rights been committed a spirit ofthe utmost distrust and alarm w*-uld have pervaded not only New Zealand, but also the Australian colonies. The action was as undignified as it was unwise. Why should the Paiiiament of Great Britain steal a inarch upon the weaker legislature of New Zealand? Why should it seek to obtain l\y concealment that which everybody kno-vs it can have by more open methods"? The course is as plain as it is honourable. It was th« duty of the Secret-try of State for the Golo.no.s, if he conceived that an yficiisioii had arisen w lich required legislative interference, to addnss to the colony a despatoh p«iulm<»* out in clear, un, l temperate knguajfu the amou-it-of tbe evil .-,iul the best way of preventing it. If a ''ter this appeal the olony remain id contiumtei .us it might be the duty of the Secretary to lay'thf. whole circumstances of the case' before" 't ie English Parliament, to salUfy it (ir--t of tie necessity of the case, and then of the refusal uf thelooal legislature to encounter that necessity. This would have made a case for legislation, but without this it was subversive of every principle of self-government to call upon the Imperial Parliament to act. But, waiving this objection, and supposing that for any reason imperial legislation wis required, we may well ask upon what data tlie lesolution of Parliament was lo be formed. Was Parliament to confine its attenti m to the statements of the governor and thr. chief jusiic? or was it to require information U s t) tin' opinion, of tae colony at Ur«e as expressed by its legislature - Am \ j tß m -Hi st ers? Passim* of, a nttie further, we may ask whether New Zealand is an exceptiou to tbe rest of the world, in which it is found that two coordinate govern ments having jurisdiction over the same subject cannot long go on iv harmony. Is it wise to make the natives a subject of contention be tween these two powers ? Uaii it be hoped that the interests of the natives will be attended to when the possession of influence over thetn'is qturrelled for between the Government and the Assembly, or is it not rather oertain that, whatever other interests are cared for, theirs are sure t. be disregarded? Tbe new system proposed to be set up by act of Parliament cannot be worked without money; for that mo.icy recourse must be had to the' New Zealand Assembly, and recourse will certainly be had in vain so long as a New Zealand Assembly is refused the right to direct the appropriation of its own grants. It is said that tht; responsible Ministers of the Crown have, and ought lo have, no power of influencing the opinion of the Governor in matters removed from their cognisance. But what is sure to be the practical result ? The Ministers will append to their advice on these subjects, just as on any others, the threat of re_. signing in ease that advice be not followed. The bare idea of separating, under sucb a government as huw exists in New Zealand, the functions of the Governor from the functions of his responsible ministers is absurd and impracticable. Tt is, however, contended that as emigration goes on and the islands fill up there is danger lest the native race should be ill-treated by the European. Doubtless, the danger does exist, but its existence should have been considered before we extended to New Zealand the boon of self-government. Tbat boon, once conferred, cannot be revoked. There was a time when it might be proper to consider tbese things, but that was before the concession of self-govern-ment. Nobody can deny that we give up a good deal when we surrender to our colonies the management of their own affairs. They do many things which we would rather they would not do, but we gain in ex change for thii license the privilege of being free from the necessity of determining questions of intricate colonial palicy, such as this very difficulty about tbe natives of New Zealand. We must be content to take the evil with the good. We have founded a number of English Commonwealths, which, if uot created exactly tb bur taste, manage their' own affairs with grea. spirit', and with a success much greater than would probably atteud our own efforts. These principles are now so clearly understood that ji is needless tv enter into argument to prove theii validity. We must confess that We are'uuabh to understand how any Ministry in these dayshould have dreamt for a moment of infringiug them, and we sincerely hope tbat the House tf Commons may never again be called upon t( eulightenjour Ministers as to the true principle:

J of G-overnment, and to save us from measures j to enunciate the iutention of which is to provoke t their certain and well-merited rejection.— Times.