SIR JOHN PAKINGTON'S SPEECH ON THE CONSTITUTION FOR NEW ZEALAND. [From the "Sydney Herald,"Aug. 7.]

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 676, 6 October 1852, Page 3

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON'S SPEECH ON THE CONSTITUTION FOR NEW ZEALAND. [From the " Sydney Herald," Aug. 7.]

The reader -will find in another portion of our columns, the speech delivered in the House of Commons by the Secretary for the Colonies, Sir John Pakington, in moving for leave to introduce a Bill for granting a constitution to the colony of New Zealand. We think it will be generally admitted that this speech shows that the abilities of the Right Hon. Baronet have been considerably underrated. Because little more had been known of him, until his accesison to Downing-street, than that he was Chairman of the Worcestershire Quarter Sessions, and had been a silent member of Parliament for fourteen years, it was inferred that he must needs be a man whose parts were below mediocrity. It is now seen that the inference was premature. He is evidently possessed of respectable talents. There is throughout his speech a perspicuity which makes it at once completely intelligible, and which could have resulted only from habits of clear and accurate thinking. Of course we speak of it as it appears in print, but that it must have been well delivered is shown by the applausive manner in which it was received by tue House. j But it is still more important to us colonists to find that our new Minister appears to take a warm interest in colonial affairs, and to be disposed to deal with colonial interests in a liberal and conciliatory spirit. It is also gratifying to perceive that the conjecture of an honorable and learned member of our own Legislature, that Sir John Pakington would conform to the precedents bequeathed to him by Earl Grey, is contrary to the fact. He found the New Zealand Bill ready prepared to his hand, but so far was he from taking it up on the faith of his predecessor's superior experience in matters of the kind, that he freely rejected whatever he found in it that he thought objectionable, and substituted whatever he thought would better answer the purposes of good government. It is not our province to discuss the merits of this measure ; and there is still less necessity for our doing so because our readers will find elsewhere an excellent article on the subject from the Times. With many of the observations contained in that article we quite agree ; but we must not forget that however questionable the Bill may be in some of its features, it gave entire satisfaction to the parties whom it most concerned. Mr. Adderley, who has private interests at stake in New Zealand, " could not help expressing his gratitude, and was also authorised to express the gratitude of the colonists, by a number of gentlemen in London by whom they were represented, for the measure, and to thank the right honorable gentleman for having, so soon after taking office, addressed himself to the task." Mr Adderley repeated this expression at the close of his speech ; " It was most creditable," he said, " to the present Colonial Secretai'y, that he |had determined not to let a mere change of Ministry, with which the colonists had nothing to do, prevent their receiving a measure of justice; and he begged to thank him, in the name of those who were now in London as the agents of the colony, for having so ably and so vigourously add2*essed himself to the measure." Other members also spoke favourably of it. Mr. Gladstone expressed his strong opinion that it was a boon well worth the colonists' grateful acceptance ; and, as a whole, did honour to the mover and to his colleagues. Sir W. Molesworth, j the tried friend of the Australasian Colonies, thought it one of the most liberal constitutions that had ever been offered to a colony. Mr. P. Scott expressed his satisfaction with it. Mr P. Howard offered his thanks to the right honorable ' gentleman for the ability and zeal which he had showo oa this occasion. And Colonel Thompson, bringing up the rear, begged to offer to Sir J. Pakington a still warmer congratula-fcion than any that had yet been addressed to him. These complimentary gratulations bear out our remark, that the Minister's speech was well received by the House, both for the ability it displayed, and for the spirit it breathed. There are two points in the speech which are of especial importance to the Australian colonies, as indicating a line of policy directly opposite to that so obstinately persisted in by Lord Grey. One relates to the powers of the local Executive with regard to the final ratification of Bills passed by the Colonial Legislature. We know too well how these powers are hampered in our own Government, partly by Lord Grey's Constitution Act, and partly by his subsequent instructions to the Governor- General — restrictions which virtually place the most important of those powers in the i hando of the Minister. " Lord Grey," says Sir John Pakington, " appeared to be of opinion that the Bills which had passed the provincial Legislatures ought to receive the final assent of the Crown" — by which we understand that they were to be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon. But Sir John adds, \ Her Majesty's Government thought it would be | more advisable to invest the Governor of New Zealand loiJi, full powers and give the final assent of the Crown to any measures he might approve of. At the same time, it might be better to give the Governoi*, in certain cases, a power to refer any particular Act of the Legislature home to the mother country for the consent of the Crown, if he thought fit. The next point relates to the vexed question of Crown Lands. And here the Derby Ministry concede to the Legislature of New Zealand the whole of the powers claimed by the Legislature of New South Wales. "There was al&o," says Sir John Pakington, " a power to be reserved to the Central Legislature for the management of Crown Lands. This was a deviation" — and a very wide one — " from the practice pursued in Australia and other places; but they proposed to give it in the case of New Zealand, from the belief that the Central Legislature would be best able to deal with the subject. Now, this is precisely the ground upon which we claim the same thing. Without going into the theoretic question of whether our waste lands belong of right to the empire at large, and to the colony only as a portion of it, or to the colony alone, the rest of the empire excluded, we are content to take the question as it has been settled by Parliament, and upon that settlement to take our stand. Parliament then has determined, in effect, that the only beneficial interest in these lands belonging to the mother country is one which is perfectly identical with the interest and necessities of the colony — namely, immigration. And Parliament has determined, moreover, that the revenues derived from these lands, only .1 portion shall be devoted to that interest, the remainder being exclusively appli-

cable to internal interests. The question then resolves itself into this — who are best able to administer our territorial affairs for the benefit of all concerned, the Lords of the Treasury, whose knowledge of these affairs is necessarily very im perfect, or the Colonial Legislature, who possess all the knowledge that local experience can supply? "We maintain that to this question there can be but one answer — and we give it in the words of Sir John Pakington: — "the Colonial Legislature would be best able to deal with the subject." And we trust that before long we shall have the pleasure of recording that the High Hon. Baronet has admitted that those words are applicable to Australia fully as much as to New Zealand.