NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION BILL.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 694, 8 December 1852, Page 2

NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION BILL.

House of Commons, Friday, June 4. The house went into committee on the bill* and clause 1, repealing certain acts, 3d and 4th and 11th and 12th of Victoria was agreed to. On clause 2, Sir W. Molesworth rose, in pursuance of notice, to move the omission of the 2d clause, and nil subsequent ones before the 32d clause, and, in their stead, to insert : — " It shall be lawful for the General Assembly, by act or acts, to incoi'porate the inhabitants ' of any district within the said colony, and to establish in such district a council for the local government thereof. Such council shall have power to make orders and bylaws providing for any matters which shall be specially subjected to the direction and control of the said oouncil by any law of the said General Assembly." The discussion on the second reading had two useful results ; first, it showed that hon. members wore generally anxious that, if possible, New Zealand should obtain a constitution during this session of Parliament ; secondly, it showed what were the chief differences of opinion with regard to the future form of that constitution. The first great difference of opinion was whether New Zealand should form one political unit, or should be divided into several political units. His right hon. friend the member for the University ot Oxford was of opinion that New Zealand should be divided into six political units, that each of those units or provinces should have powers of exclusive legislation on all subjects except a certain number of enumerated subjects ; that those independent offices should be federated after the fashion of the States of the American Union, by means of a General Assembly, which should only have powers of legislation on the subjects on which the provincial Legislatures were to be forbidden to legislate. Tin's plan was clear, distinct, unobjectionable in theory, and worked well in the' American Union. And if New Zealand, instead of being of the size of Great Britain, had the magnitude of the United States or of the continent of Australia ; if, instead of being divisible into six provinces, with a population of from 1,600 to 8,000 each it were divisible into a score of States with a population of from 100,000 to 1,000,000 each ; and, finally, if, instead of continuing to be a dependency of Great Britain, it were about immediately to become independent, then he admitted that the plan of his right hon. friend was the one which experience had shown to be best adapted for the government of a system of States covering an extent of territory too vast to form one complete political unit, He objected to tbis plan for New Zoaland, because he thought that New Zealand was formed by nature to make one political unit. For, though its settlements were separated by mountains they were closely connected by sea ; all its best parts were close to the sea. Therefore, with steam vessels communication between various parts of New Zealand would be more easy at present than communication between various parts of England was' in the time of the last generation. He objected also because New Zealand was so distant from any other country than it would have no natural enemies, unless we divided into independent rival and ultimately hostile communities. Ho objected, also, because six or more independent codes of laws would be a great inconvenience in the limited area of New Zealand, which did not exceed that of Great Britain j for in this country considerable inconvenience at present resulted from the difference between the laws of England and of Scotland. England would not have been as great as it was at present if the Heptarchy had continued in existence — hedoubtedthe expediency of establishing a Hoxarchy in New Zealand. From the debate on the second reading he was entitled to infer that the majority of the House were of opinion that New Zealand should form one political unit. That seemed to him to have been the opinion of the right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of his right hon. friend the member for Northampton, and of his holi. friend the member for Mai ton, and also the opinion of the hon. gentleman the member for Leominster, and of Lord Grey, both of whom thought that the General Assembly would -ultimately eat up the provincial Legislatures, and reduco them to municipalities. lie Might therefore assume that tho committee were of opinion that Now Zealand should form one political unit or colony ; and, at the same timo ; he must infer from the debate on the second reading that the committee were also of opinion that New Zealand should be divided into districts or provinces, and that each district or province should have some amount of subordinate local self-government If this were addmittod, then came the question which he proposed to raise, namely, by whom ought New Zealand to be divided into districts or provinces, by whom ought the constitution of the subordinate local governments to be determined ? Ought these things to be done by the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain, or by tho General Assembly of New Zealand I Ho proposed that they should be done by the General Assembly — first, because, as the local government were to be strictly subordinate to the General Assembly, they would have a more subordinate character if they were created by the General Assembly, than by the Imperial Parliament ; secondly, and chiefly because the constitution of these subordinate governments was a matter of very little consequence to the empire at large, but of very greafc consequence to New Zealand, and therefore it was probable that the settlors of New Zealand would know better than we did what form of subordinate government would suit them best. It appeared to him that, in a matter of such purely local concern as the division of New Zealand into districts or provinces, and the establishment of subordinate focal governments, the wishes of the

settlers in New Zealand should be consulted, j Now, there was a difference of opinion in the . committee as to what were the wishes of the settlers in New Zealand with regard to this subject. On the second reading he had assigned his ■ reasons for thinking that the majority of the settlers in New Zealand were opposed to provincial councils of the description contained in this bill, and would prefer simple municipalities. He quoted memorials to that effect from Wellington and Nelson ; also the opinion of the LieutenantGovernor of New Munster on behalf of the settlers of Canterbury and Otago. But his hon. friend the member' for North Staffordshire flatly contradicted his statements; had asserted that the term "municipal," as used in those documents, must be taken in a non-natural signification ; and on behalf of the Canterbury Association in London he declared that the majority of the settlers in New Zealand were in favour of provincial councils somewhat after the fashion of this bill. Now he had every respect for the gentlemen of the Canterbury Association, but it was the charecteristic of all associations, especially of earnest and sincere men, to believe that the interests of their association were the interests of the human race, and that the wishes of their association were the wishes of mankind. These were the consequences of well-known laws of the human mind. Therefore he warned the Committee not to attach all the weight to the authority of the members of the Canterbury Association which would be due to them as individuals ; for Canterbury had been intentionally made a class settlement. Its founders wished it to continue a class settlement, distinct from the other settlements of New Zealand. Therefore they believed that New Zealand should be a Ilcxarchy and that such were the wishes of the settlers of New Zealand. Now he was perfectly open to conyiction on this subject. He hoped his lion, friend was equally so. He was ready to abide by the decision of* the settlers of New Zealand. Would he abide by that decision ? or did he wish, for the sake of carrying out the views of the views of thp Canterbury Association, to force upon the settlers of New ' Zealand these provincial councils, whether they- were wished for by the colonists or not ? And if his hon. friend wished to force these provincial councils on New Zealand for the sake of Canterbury, he must beg the committee to remember that Canterbury had only about 3,000 settlers. It had only about one ninth of the European population of New Zealand, and there were three other settlements in New Zealand larger than Canterbury, though Canterbury had more influence in this country than all tho other settlements in New Zealand put together. But if his hon. friend denied that he wished to force these provincial councils upon New Zealand, contrary to the wishes of the settlers, if he asserted that he wished to establish these provincial councils because the settlers of New Zealand desired to have them, then he must, under the penalty of contradicting himself, vote for his (Sir W. Molesworth's) amendment, because, if it were carried, the representatives of New Zealand would have the power of establishing the provincial councils contained in this bill. The}' might enact enact every one of the clauses which he proposed to orait from this bill. They might divide New Zealand into six provinces, establish in each province a superintendent and provincial council, vest in the governor the appointment of the superintendents, pay to each of them a salary of .£5OO a-year, direct that each of them should have a veto, should obey instructions from the governor, and should reserve bills for the assent of the governor. They might also vest in the governor a final veto, to be exercised within two years ; and, if the settlers of New Zealand wished these things to be done, the General Assembly would do them, and establish the bill of the right baronet in all its integrity. But he did not believe that the settlers wished these things to be ctene, but would prefer municipal institutions of the simplest kind, which they might obtain under his amendments. It followed therefore that by his amendments the settlors in New Zealand would obtain that kind of subordinate local government which they might like best, whWa by this bill provincial councils would be forced upon them whether they liked them or not. He might observe that the powers which he proposed to give to the General Assembly of New Zealand were analogous to those which the Legislature of the Australian colonies possested by the act of 1850. He would not further trespass on the patience of the committee but would divide on the question. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Adderly observed, that there were as many examples of different local governments uniting ujtider one head as there were precedents of one government lwlding together fromihe commencement ; and if the hon. gentlemen wished for cases of the former, he might refer to the cases of England under the Heptarchy, of France divided into different provinces and kingdoms, and, finally of the United States The proposition of the lion, baronet seemed to differ from the bill before the House only 'in degree. It was that functions <of a local chiracter should be discharged by;loca| bodies, whether they were called municipnlitiej or by any other name. It was clearly right to make an appeal to the wishes of the colonists as \ their guide on the subject, but when the hon. member said the colonists took his view he was mistaken, and bad read the documents to which he referred erroneously, for in each case the colonists stated they wished for municipal institutions in every separate locality ; and the colonists used the word "municipal" not in the restricted sense of corporation, but in the sense in which, it had taken by the colonists of Rhode Island. He was mistaken in supposing he (Mr. Adderly) had been quoting the words of the colonists of New Zealand. He had referred to the expressions used at the largest meeting ever held in Wellington. He denied Canterbury was an exclusive settlement. It was founded by a set of men agreed in certain principles — men who were Churchmen and wished to carry out the principle of a church colony, but there was nothing exclusive about them.* Combination was not exclusiyeness, and close to these very men was a Presbyterian colony ; in fact, there was no reason why any per&on might not purchase land, and settle there if lio liked, nor was there any reason to suppose the colony was restricted to Churchmen. He appealed from the lion. Member to the colonists ; and before he pressed the amendment he would beg of him to consider if there really was any great difference between his plan and that proposed by Government. Lord J. Russell said, he was very anxious that a bill to give representative institutions to New Zealand should pass through Parliament during the present session; and, though there were several parts of the bill with respect to which he might entertain a different opinion from the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, as to many other points there was a great concurrence of opinion, both on his part and on the part of the House; and, therefore, he would wish to interfere as little as possible with the progress of the bill through committee. The general opinion was that there should be one general representative Legislature for New Zealand, but that there should be local bodies, having more or less power, and partaking of a municipal character, He should have preferred the bill to have begun with creating a legislative power for the whole of the colonies, and then to have made the local bodies derive their power and flow from the general legislative body. But Government having introduced the bill, and his hon. friend (Sir W. Molesworth) having stated his views, he wished, if Government persisted in their view as to the mode in which the bill should be carried into effect, that the opinions expressed on that side of the house should be the opinions of Government, and that the shape of the bill should be that proposed by his hon. friend. He more readily said this, because of two circumstances which had occurred since the second reading of the bill. The first was the opinion which had been expressed and carried out, that the superintendents,

instead of partaking of the character of lieute-nnnt-governors, nominated by the Crown, should partake of the character of persons elected by the body over which the presided. That made a great change in the character of the bill before the House. The right lion, gentleman (Sir J. Pakington), moreover, had stated that the municipal character was the character that he wished to affix to the local bodies or provincial councils. In his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion it was very desirable that they should have that character, and he saw no reason to appi'ehend that conflict of jurisdiction which was the only good reason that could be adduced against it. There was, even with regard to municipalities in this country, a power vested in the Secretary of State to disallow by law the decisions of those bodies, and in the same way there would be a power with respect to the legislation of these local bodies vested in the Central Legislature. There was j nothing in the provision with respect to the provincial councils which was inconsistent with the general scope and view of the bill. He would call attention, however, to one point upon which there must arise some difficulty hereafter. Pie did not wish to dispute the point as to whether the Executive Council should be created , by nomination or should be an elective body. He himself concurred in what had been intended by i Lord Grey in that respect — he preferred the elective shape. (Hear, hear.) However, that was not a point upon which, he would give a vote which was not in accordance with the views of the Government. But there was a proposal in the bill that there should be a limitation in the number of the members of the Legislative Council, and yet that they should be appointed for life. Now, he did apprehend that there would be considerable danger, in that event, of this body separating themselves from the feeling of the community upon some questions and thwarting the representative body. (Hear, hear.) If the colony had an elective body appointed for life it was absolutely necessary that the Crown, or the Governor-General as the representative of the Crown, should have the power of making that body from time to time act in accordance with the views then entertained by the representative body and by the people of the colony in general, or else a small minority would occasionally be found setting themselves vtp against the general wishes of the Government and the people, (Hear, hear.) This difficulty would be obviated by allowing the Crown to extend the number of the Legislative Council without limitation. As the bill now stood it was provided that the number should not be less than 10 nov more than 15 ; which, in his opinion, was an unnecessary restriction upon the power of the Crown. (Hear, hear.) If a contingency should arise, he thought it desirable that the Crown should have the power he had mentioned ; and, i with this exception, he had every wish that this bill should pass into a law. (Hear, hear.) Mr. J. E. Dcnison had heard the speech of the right lion, gentleman with great satisfaction on many points ; but one argument used by him did not appear to carry any great weight with it. The right hon. baronet said that if we gave this Cential Legislature any very considerable powers, he feared it would be very loth ever to pivt with the poweis so confided to it. Now he (Mr. J. E. Denison,) thought the great objection to the establishment of this Central Legislature was the difficulty of communication bctwoon the i various parts of the colony, which was such that | he had believed it would be impossible to get men of standing to give their time in the performance of legislative duties in this central meeting. If, however, he understood that these difficulties might be overcome, he thought the preponderance of argument was certainly in favour of the Central Legislature, in favour of endo^ ing it with supreme power, and with all possible dignity and honour, so as to induce men of consideration and of standing in the colony to devote themselves to the discharge of the duties of members. (Hear.) lie should therefore infinitely prefer the form suggested by the right hon. bavonct below him (Sir W. Molosworth); but, at the same time, after the speech of the noble lord the member for the city of London, and in the face of what seemed to be the general opinion of the House, namely, that hou. members should not seriously interfere with the passing of this bill, he feared the suggestion of the hon. baronet would not be of much avail. He should like, however, to ask the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Pakington) whether, in the clause which granted the powers of altering the constitution to the Central Legislature, it was his intention to extend those powers so far as to enable the central body very materially to affect the form and functions of these local Legislatures themselves, because, if so, the matter in dispute was contracted into a very narrow compass. Ho did not wish to give any serious opposition to the passing of the bill, but if the hon. baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) divided the House he should feel bound to support the amendment. Mr. Mowatt said the bill was evidently brought forward with the best possible disposition on the part of the right hon. gentleman towards the people of New Zealand ; but it was hopeless to expect that this Parliament or the people of this country could legislate for the permanent wants of the "colony. The right hon. gentleman, it was apparent, had, on entering the Colonial-office, surrendered himself to the old habitues and the old machinery, and had set out with the impression that the more he could provide for the imaginary wants of the colony in the shape of complicated legislation, the greater the service he should render them. What our colonies desired was not, however, an extended and complicated body of laws, but as few .as might be — as little in the way of legislation as possible. In fact, what they desired of all things was to be let alone, with power to govern themselves. (Hear.) Whatever legislature was given them by the mother country it would have but little effect, except that of retarding their progress for a little while, but it would amount to the same thing in the end — they would owe their progress entirely to themselves, The only persons who understood colonial questions were th.c writers in the press of this country. For example, ten days ago there appeared in the Times an article, the sentiments of which, he would stake Ills existence, if put to the vote in any one colony, would have been triumphantly carried by acclamation, so precisely did they chime in with the wants of the people of the colonies on legislation. The language of the colonists was, " Give us as much power as may be safely confided to us, and leave the rest to us." Sir J. Pakington considered the bill a mere outline, and that it left it to the colonies to fill up the details as they thought bctt. He had consulted almost all the persons in the country who were conversant with the subject, and it was because they desired the arrangement proposed, rather can that of the hon. baronet, than he had adopted it. The amendment was then negatived without n division. The clauses from 2 to 17 were then agreed to. On clause 18, empowering the superintendent and provincial council to make laws tor the peace, order, and good government of the colony. Sir W. Molesworth thought the powers of the provincial councils ought to be more strictly defined. With such powers they would eat up the General Assembly and form themselves into independent communities. He would move to restrict their powers by inserting the words, " introduce orders and by-laws for the following purposes," with the view of defining the objects upon which they were to be permitted to legislate. Mr. Gladstone had great faith in the results of local government in New Zealand. The Municipal Corporation Act for England did not exhaust the subjects upon which the municipal bodies might legislate, but it gave them a general power , to make by-laws for the order and good governj ment of their respective boroughs. The Secret- ' ary of State had reserved to himself the power of

checking the district Legislatures, if thoy went too far, by his veto, which might be used within two ye ( ars. Ho regarded it as a merit in the present bill that the intelligent and deliberate will of fho colonial community would find its way into the institutions of New Zealand, and fix them. If the intelligence of the community were favourable to the local principle, he did not doubt that the local principle would gain more and more scope, and that the overriding jurisdiction of the Central Legislature would be checked. If, on the contrary, the central principle were right, the colonists would find that out for themselves, and they would cut down the power of the district Legislatures as much as they pleased. (Hear.) Sir J. Pakington said, that the bill intentionally reserved large powers to the Central Legislature, to regulate the authority of the provincial councils. It was far better to leave the powers granted wide enough to deal with unforeseen difficulties which might arise, than to tie them up too much, (Hear.) Mr. Aglionby preferred the clause to the amendment of the hon. baronet. It was unwise to lay down rules and to attempt to legislate for the colony. Air. Mowatt apprehended that the first effect of the clause would be to cause squabbles, and a struggle between the Central and Local Legislatures. He wished, however, to leave the colonists to frame their own laws. Mr. Adderley thought it advisable to leave the provincial councils in the possession of unrestricted power at the commencement of their career. The amendment was -then withdrawn, and the clause was agreed to. On clause 19 being proposed, Mr. F. Peel suggested the omission of the words " lands of the Crown or " The effect of this alternation would be to give the local Legislatures power to appropriate the funds arising from the sale of land Avithin the limits of their own provinces, and also to give them control over thesale of wastes lands of the Crown. These objects could be better effected by the provincial councils than by the general Legislature. It would also, perhaps be desirable to fix an uniform price for land in New Zealand by Act of Parliament ; but failing that, the best course would be to give the provincial councils the power of altering the terms of purchase At present land was selling in different parts of the colon y at prices varying from M. to 31. The bill prohibited the General Assembly from interfering with the purchase of hind in the provinces of Canterbury find Otago, and he knew no reason why the same privilege should not be extended to the other provinces. Sir ,1. Pakington was hure the honourable gentlennn must be aware that the two exceptions to which lie had adverted were rendered ncce°sary by special circumstances, and were not made from any fueling of undue preference for the provinces in question. As rr^nri^u] uniformity of price, that object was more likely to be attained by several distinct bodies than one central management. (Hear, hear.) Then again the divided management would greatly cilmnce the cost, which was an important consideration. For these reasons he could not adopt the honourable member's suggestion. Mr. Aglionby 1 nought uniformity of price desirable, but believed it would not be attained by the means suggested by the honourable ineinbei for Leominster. Mr. Adderley was disposed to place the sale of land under the control of the local councils, but I not in fho belief that uniformity of price would thereby be established. Mr. E. Denison was thankful for the boon which the Government had conferred on the Colony in placing the Crown Lands at the disposal of the Central Legislature. As to the price of land, it would soon be fixed in correspondence with the requirements of supply and demand, Mr. F. Scott expressed his warm approbation of the bill generally, although it was susceptible of improvement on some points. He regretted that the privilege of legnlaiing the post-offices had not been conceded to (he colonists, and moved as an amendment, t hat the post-offices should be excluded from the list of restrictions on the powers of local legislation. Sir J. Palcington said the regulations of postoffices and the carriage of letters formed no part of municipal duties in any country in the world. He could not consent to the amendment. Mr. Mowatt thought a stronger illustration could not be given, of the mode in which they cumberred the colonies with their legislation than this, that the provinces could not so much as change the position of a post-office without applying to the central legislature. (Hear, hear.) Mv.E. Denison thought ihattheeontrollingpower which they gave to the central legislature on various important matters might \ery well be granted to thorn in such minor questions as this. The amendment was negqtived without a division. The clause was then agreed to, as were clauses 20 and 21. On clause 22, which declared that a quorum of of the provincial councils shbuld consist of onehalf of the members, Mr. F. Peel suggested that one-fourth should be the quorum. Ultimately, the quorum was fixed at one -third of the members, and the clause so amended was agreed to. Clauses 23 to 28 were agreed to. On clause 20, which provided that the Governor should have power to disallow bills at any time within two years, Sir W. Molesworth suggested that two years was too long, and thought three months might be sufficient Sir. J. Pakington said two years seemed a long time, but the object was to give the Governors an opportunity, in particular cases, of obtaining the assent of the Crown. Considering that this was the first time that the power of disallowance had been given to Colonial Governors, be thought it prudent to reseive to them the power of sending home in extreme cases for advice. It was with, this view that two years had been introduced; but, at the same ti . c, he intended to accompany it with instructions to every Governor that, as a rule, he should at once give his assent or dissent. Mr. Y. Smith thought this would be a most invidious and uncalled for power to give Go\ernors ! for bo long a period as two years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said all they wanted was to secure that there should be in extreme cases an appeal to the metropolitan Government. Mr. Aglionby thought that if the clause applied to the coTony only it would be belter to leave the time to be fixed by the general legislature, and a few months only would besufßleient ; but if it H had reference to sending home for advice, then a long date would be necessary. Mr. Walpole said, unless the committee were prepared to adopt the principle that in no case should reference be made to the mother country, they were bound to agree to the clause. Lord Seymour thought it would be much better, if a Governor wished to refer home, that he should in the first instance disallow the bill. (Hear, hear.) This would be better than delaying taking any steps for a period of two years. Mr. Adderley concurred in the suggestion of the noble lord. The uncertainty that would be felt was the main objection to the clause standing as it now did. Mr. E. Denison thought the right honourable gentleman the Colonial Secretary overlooked the fact that the questions upon which the Governor was to exercise his power were merely of local, and not of imperial interest, and that therefore j the provision in the clause was hardly called for. i Sir J. Pakingfon said he felt the weight of the observations which had been made on the point under consideration, and was disposed to make some alteration in the clause, The blank in the clause was then filled up with 1 (he words (v three months" instead of "two years."

The clause as amended was agreed to. Clauses 30, 31, and 32 were next adopted. On clause 33, providing for the appointment of members of the Legislative Council, Sir J. Pakington said that, in deference to what bad fallen from the noble_ lord the member for London, he was quite willing to strike out the words in the clause limiting the number of the members of the Legislative Council. Sir W. Molesworth objected to the upper chamber being nominated by the Crown, and suggested that it should be elected in a manner similar to the Senate in the United States, and that half the members should go out every four years. There was a strong feeling in New Zealand against nominees, and by making the Upper Chamber composed of nominees the Government would not obtain what they wanted— the conservative element in that house. If the popular principle became developed in New Zealand, as in Canada, there would, in reality, be but one Chamber in the country, because the governor would be obliged to swamp the upper house, which would fail to operate as a salutaiy check, like the Senate of the Uuited States, on the proceedings of the lower chamber. Mr. Mo watt also expressed his objection to the upper chamber being composed of nominees of the Crown, who did not represent the people, but were responsible solely to the Governor of the colony. The Senate in the United States was a truly consei-vatlve body, and acted like the House of Lords in this country. Mr. Carter trusted that the honourable baronet the member for Southwark would divide the house on this point. He considered the proposal in the bill an abortive and bungling effort to constitute a quasi House of Lords in New Zealand. The best way to meet the difficulty was to make the upper chamber simply elective. Mr. Forster would rather make the governor responsible than have a body of nominess, who were only used as a screen. This provision in the bill would work mischief in the colony. Sir J. Pakington thought that the lion, member for Tavistock (Mr. Carter), who designated the provision under consideration as an abortive and bungling attempt to make an imitation House of Lords in New Zealand, could not have taken the trouble to inquire what was the present constitution of all fhe colonies of the Crown having free representative institutions. Whether the experiment which had just been suggested by lion, members were good or not, it was, atany rate, one hitherto never tried within the British dominions. The hon. member for Penryn referred to the United States, but he (Sir J. Pakington) was not disposed to go there for precedents for British government. (Hear.) He preferred the institutions of his own country, and the hon. gentleman had brought forward no .argument for nn elective upper chamber in New Zealand which was not equally good for an elective House of Lords in this country, lie thought the institutions in our colonies should be assimilated as far as possible to the institutions of the mother counliy, and a nominated upper chamber was the closest analogy that could be had to the upper chamber in the mother country. There was no instance in the British dominions of an elective upper chamber ; and the Cape of Good Hope afforded no exception, for the constitution sent out the other day was not yet complete, and was not the constitution of the British empire. lie believed, too, that an upper chamber, formed as proposed by the bill ■w onld act as a check on the more popular branch of the constitution more efficiently than if it were composed of a body of men deriving their existence from the same source as the lower chamber. Mr. Peel said, it was natural that we, who knew by experience what were the advantages of living under institutions so nicely and justly pi oportioned as our own, should desire that our descendants in the colonies should participate in that which vie ourselves found to be so great a boon; but then, we ought to give to the colonies not only the form, but the substance of those institutions, (Hear, hear ) What he failed to perceive was the practical advantage to be derived from having a nominative council. The good of two chambers at all was generally supposed to be that the passage of measures through two chambers would obtain for them due deliberation. Another great advantage was, that it prevented the Crown, or the representatives of the Crown, coming into opposition with the people — *he upper chamber being meant to stem the current on either side ; but, in order that its power should be exercised with any efficiency, it must be a body with some inherent force and vitality, — a body which commanded the respect of the people, and which in some sort exhibited on its side the prejudices and feelings of the people. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman said he took the House of Lords as a pattern, and desired, as far as circumstances would allow, to reproduce it in the colonies. He (Mr. Peel) understood the House of Lords to exercise a power of that lend because it was a body of persons having large territorial property, who, or whose ancestors, had been ennobled for services rendered to their country, and whoso services were not forgotten. But what resemblance was there between the House of Lords and this council ? This council was to bo nominated b) the governor without any tcrritoiial or property qualification whatever. The go\ ernor was to select whom he thought proper. lie thought a body so composed could not command the respect of the country ; and let the committee observe, nlso, that by this bill the members of council once chosen were to hold their offices for life. It was clear that such a body would be a close oligarchy, obstructing all business and all measures likely to conduce to°the advantage of the colonies. (Heai .) Then the right hon. gentleman had referred to Canada and the other provinces of British North America. He (Mr. Peel) must remind the House there had been recent changes in the colonial constitution of North America which was not without their bearing upon this question as to the composition of the council. It was always supposed that the governor would fill up the vacancies occurring in the council by persons of acknowledged ability, distinct from any |party considerations, and because they represented the leading interests in the colony. 'But of late years there bad been an agitation in North America for what they called responsible government — very incorrectly, as he thought, because he honed and believed that the ! executive of our colonies was conducted under a sense of responsibility, not merely to the Colonial Office, but also to the people whose administration they conducted, and whose affairs were placed under their direction ; what they meant was party government — government by persons who possessed the confidence of the majority of the House of Representatives ; and in Canada, Nova Scotia, and, he believed, in other provinces of British North America, where responsible governments had been established, what had bet«n the effect of the manner in which the council had been appointed ? The vacancies were now filled up by the governor, on the views of his Executive, and they recommended persons, not with reference to their station or ability in the colony, or of their being of the leading interests, but because they sided with their own party views. (Hear, hear.) The effect of that change had been still lower to depress the council and lessen the respect attached to it. But the right honourable crentleman said that' precedent must rule the day. We had a very extensive colonial empire ; but it was only in the West Indies and the provinces of British North America that we had an example of a Legislature with two chambers. It was true that in the councils of the West Indian colonies — or, at least, some of them, for in St. Lucia, Trinidad, and British Guiana there was no second chamber — the upper chamber was nominative ; but there were particular reasons for that in the West India colonies which were not applicable to New Zealand. In the West India colonies the Council was no*; merely a legislative council ; it was also the privy council of the Governor; and in almost all cases, he believed, the executive council also.

lie knew it was suggested or supposed that the executive of officers appointed by the Crown might be elected by the people. Now lake Jamaica. The council was composed of eleven persons ; three were e,v qffido members, who were also of the privy council, and the other eight held the chief offices of the executive, and were the principal salaried officers of the Government; but, even with all these reasons and circumstances, there had been no disposition to see the council made elective. Not more than two or three years ago, when the Retrenchment Bill was under discussion, the council rejected it, and the countryrallied round the council, though the House o Assembly passed a resolution declaring the council did not possess the confidence of the country or the Assembly, because it was nominative; and presented an address praying it might be made elective, aud that a constitution 200 years old might be altered on that account. But, take New Brunswick. The councillors held their office for life ; but he could not see that that part of British North America so entirely acquiesced in that form of constitution which the right honourable gentleman referred to as so serviceable to good government. Last year the House of Assembly of New Brunswick passed a resolution, and presented an address to the Crown, asking that the Legislative Council might be made elective. He did not know whether the Colonial Office had given its consent to that, but he knew that last year the Governor of New Brunswick prepared a measure for making the legislative council elective, and the council postponed the consideration of it until the present year. Again, take Newfoundland. That colony presented an address last year asking for a responsible Government, and that the Legislative Council might be made elective. Then there was Canada. Every one who knew the state of Canada knew that there had been a constant state of antagonism between the two chambers of the council. What was the course of pi-oceedings as to the Clergy Reserves question? In nine successive sessions the House of Assembly bad passed a bill for the secularization of the clergy reserves, and ten times that bill was stopped in the Legislative Council. (Hear, hear.) That was owing to no other circumstance than that the Legislative Council was nominative. If the Council had been elective no doubt the bill would have passed. It was quite clear, therefore, that the religious denominations of Canada were not proportionally represented in the council selected by the Governor. Those were the reasons which made him doubt whether the precedents to which the right honourable gentleman had referred were of such great weight as he represented them to be, and whether this was not a proper opportunity for making an experiment in the case of' New Zealand of having an elective council. Mr. Wnlpole said that one argument that had been used against this clause convinced him that; the clause ought to be agreed to. The argument was, that the effect of this clause would be to have a Legislative Council independent of the people, and also of the Crown, as represented by the Gcvernov. Now, that was the very object of an upper chamber — to guard against crude and hasty legislation, reflecting too rapidly the premature opinions of Ihe people, before they were well digested and admitted as sound opinions by the country at large, while, on the other hand, it operated against any undue encroachments on the part of the Crown, whic'i, by its preponderance, might press on the liberties and freedom of the people. But, in addition to that, what his right hon. friend had stated in reference to precedent ought to weigh very strongly with the committee in their decision upon this question. It was right they should assimilate the institutions of every part of Her Majesty's dominions as far as circumstances would admit to those inslitutions which we had found so much for our own benefit, and he was astonished, when they were discussing this colonial question, to find a sort of censuie cast upon those institutions which they were so willing to praise when applied to this country, but which they wcie prepared to abandon when applied to our fellow countrymen in the colonies. (Hear.) Jf they wished to encourage the best class of emigrants to go out to Our different co'onial dependencies they could not do it in so excellent a manner as by securing to these colonies all the laws, habits, and usages to which they had been accustomed in tUs cjuntry. (Hear hear.) Mr. Aglionby said he did not object to the principle of the House of Lords. They wera a second body interposed between the Crown, on the one hand, and rash and hasty legislation on the other; but he would ask the right hon. gentleman whether there was no other mode in which they could have such an interposing body. (Hear, hear.) What was the resemblance of the body the right hon. gentleman proposed to the House of Lords ? The House of Lords was hereI ditary, this body was to be for life, and to be nominated by the Crown. One suggestion that had been made by a person well acquainted with the colony was to have a large property qualification. That would in some degree make this body I resemble the House of Lords ; but he considered that a system of nominees would he most objectionable to the colonists. Mr. AUderley thought the nomination for life was the saving clause in favour of this body — it. rendered them independent of tie Crown; hut when the right hon. gentleman said he lookod in vain in English history for a precedent of an elective upper chamber ho must take issue with him, and say that every precedent in English colonial history was in favour of an elective upper house. (Hoar, hear.) If the right hon. gentleman refused to take the United States _as a model for imitation by British colonies, let him trace back the history of those colonies when they were the finest not only that England, but the world, had ever seen, and he would find in their history that whenever there was a division of the Legislature, and that was always ultimately found necessary, both bodies were elective; and when the right hon. gentleman said he inufct look to precedent, he was carried away by forms, and names, and outward appearances, losing sight of the spirit and essence of the | bill. lie must also say, with reference to what the right hon gentleman had said in regard to Canada that those who were in favour of the/election were the conservative body, who were the strongest advocates for Ihe connexion with this country. The observation of the right hon. gentleman, too, that the constitution for the Cape of Good Hope was not yet settled, but was still sub judice, made him tremble, for he was perfectly certain, and he was speaking from information he had received, that if the despatch the right hon. gentleman should send out alteied that feature of the election, the constitution would convulse the colony to its very foundation. lie hoped, however, that if the right hon. gentleman made a sine qua non of this pioposition, the committee would content to it, rather than lose the bill altogether. Lord J. Manners observed, that the constitution of the province of Canada was at all events one exception to the sweeping statements made by the hon. gentleman as to the character of the institutions given by England to her colonial settlements. It appeared to be considered that colonial constitutions were to be issued forth by the English Parliament in an altogether perfect form ; whereas, all that could be practically done, in the first' instance, was to "make experiments, the best, doubtless, that could be devissd, but which was unreasonable to expect could be at once identical with, or equivalent to, the constitution of the mother country, itself the work of time. Mr. Y. Smith wa9 alike .surprised and disappointed at the alteration of tone on the^art of Her Majesty's Ministers with reference to this important subject. As he had understood it, \ha opinions and feelinga of the colonista were to bew especially consulted ; those opinions and thoso feelings were notoriously id favour of the elective* principle, \Qt the elective principle was altogether set at nought by the right hoa, gentlenwm ia this

most vital clause. Why were the colonists of New Zealand to be denied the elective principle, which on last year was given to the colonists of the Cape ? (Hear, hear.) The intense horror of American institutions displayed by the right hon. gentleman was somewhat singular in the propounder of a measure the federal enactments of which were so closelr analogous with American institutions. All that the colonists wanted in a second assembly was a body for the purpose of deliberative revision, and if that body was elected by a different form from the first, and for a different period, every end was answered. He did not consider that the resistance to this proposition need involve the loss of tLe bill, but even though he did he conceived that the colonists would rather lose the bill than consent to any other principle than the elective in the selection of their future legislators. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Mowvtt regarded the elective principle as the very essence of any measure that would satisfy the colonists. It was precisely the very absence of that principle from the legislation which England had hitherto conceded to her colonies that had kept those colonies — though naturally the finest in the world — in the background, and had diverted the stream of emigration elsewhere. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Anstey said that the colonists had no sort of desire for a bastard House of Lords. He saw no necessity for a second house at all, but, if there were to be two, both should be elective. He had resided in the colonies in which the Legislative Council had been appointed by the governor, and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that whereever that was the case not one single gentleman of landed property or consideration in the colony found a place there. There was one instance in which the Legislative Council, which had been nominated by the governor, refused to act, and their places were filled up by the merest adventurers who happened to be in the island. One person who attained some influence by the marriage with the widow of a convict was considered quite an accession. That was the sort of House of Lords which the rigjet honourable gentleman wished to plant in New Zealand. (Hear.) He repeated that he would not get a single gentleman to sit there. Tie might get plenty of clerks and apprentices, and, to use a phrase which Thackeray had rendered classical, " Snobs." He warned the right hon. gentleman to remember that the experiment of a nominee chamber had cost us a rebellion in Canada, and that, had Government not been wise in time, it would have occasioned a similar rebellion in Australasia. Sir W. Molesworth then moved as an amendment that the clrfuse should be omitted. Sir J. S. Pakington said that when the hon. baronet opposite spoke of his creating six little republics he begged to repudiate the term. What he had proposed would nonwe make little republics than every city in this kingdom was a republic. (Hear.) After the spirit in which the bill had been met he could not help expressing a very earnest hope that the great majority of the House would be disposed to act in the manner which had been announced by the noble lord the member for London The noble lord had stated that there was great weight in the reasons which he (Sir J. Pakington) had given for a nominee chamber, and said that, though he might be disposed to agree with Lord Grey in preferring an elective upper chamber, certainly he should not he disposed by any vote of his to endanger this bill upon that point. ( Hear, hear, ) That was what the noble lord had stated in very distinct terms. (Hear, hear.) He could not help saying once more that he had heard nothing in the course of the debate to support some of the statements which had been made of dissatisfaction on the part of the colonists. The petitions which he had laid on the table that evening begged that, as the bill was, so it might pass. (Hear, hear.) He begged also to remind the committee, that it was not only throughout Canada, and not only in "the West Indies that the nominee legislative council existed, but by the constitution of the Australian colonies, as reconstructed Avith only a single chamber, in every one of them there was a portion of nominee members. (An hon. Member — " One third.") Yes ; one-third. The fact was, that whereever there were two chambers, one was a nominee chamber, and where there was a single chamber the same principle was recognized, and one-third of the members were nominees. He must repeat his hopes that the House avouH be actuated by the spirit which he alluded to. There might be differences of opinion as to the details, but he thought the principle had been admitted, and he looked upon this as an essential principle of the measure. ( Heai*, hear. ) Sir. W. Molesworth said the right hon. baronet was hardly treating them fairly. The debate had been entered into that evening, as far as he was concerned, with the understanding that the minority should yield to the majority, because they were all anxious to carry, this bill. There were many clauses in it to which he strongly objected, and if he had opposed them separately the bill could not have passed. But he had not done so, and on every occasion when he found himself apparently in a minority he had yielded. He now asked that the right hon. baronet, if he found himself in a minority, should in like manner yield. He and those who agreed with him on this question were prepared bona fide to carry out this bill without any factious opposition, according to the will of the majority, and he said that if the right hon. baronet should throw up the bill, if the majority decided that the legislative council should be electted, it would be a departure from the understanding which had been come to ("Hear, hear," and cries of " Divide.") Sir J. Pakington said that in several instances in the course of the discussion that evening he had acted upon the principle of the I on. baronet, and had yielded to what appeared to be the wish of the majority. (Hear, hear.) At the commencement of the discussion also he had agreed to several important alterations ; but he begged it to be understood that he could not say, and that he should not be justified in saying, on the part of the Government, that he would give up anything with regard to what he considered to be the important principles of the measure. ("Hear, hear." and "Divide.") Mr. Walter said he hoped that no apprehensions as to the fate of this bill would deter hon. members who, like himself, shared the objections of the hon. baronet the member for Southwaz-k from recording their votes against this clause. Any temporary delay in the passing of this bill which might be occasioned by an adverse vote upon this clause would be compensated by the advantage of gaining another opportunity of framing a measure for the Government of New Zealand upon sound principles of colonial policy. (Hear, hear.) He, for one, entertained the strongest objections to this clause ; and he could not imagine a greater libel upon British institutions than the attempt which had been made to compare this nominee chamber with the British House of Lords. (Hear, hear.) j The committee then divided. The numbers were, — For the clause 132 Against it 89 Majority for the clause ... — 43 The clause was then agreed to, as were also the clauses from 34 up to 49 inclusive. On clause 60, which provides for the vacating of seats in certain cases. Mr. Anstey expressed a wish to know whether Her Majesty's Ministers could assign any reason for not including in this clause a provision for excluding Jews from the House of Assembly in New Zealand. Some of the members of Government had certainly distinguished themselves for their Christian zeal for the exclusion of Jews from the House of Commons of this country, and here was an admirable opportunity for the exercise 1 of the same zeal to exclude Jews from' an assembly not

yet in being, with this difference, — that in the House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland the Jews had a right by law, whereas in New Zealand they had no right whatever, lie trusted, therefore, that some Christian gentleman on the Opposition benches would get up and move the insertion of a provision to exclude Jews from the House of Assembly in New Zealand ; and he (Mr. Anstey) should have great pleasure in voting against it. (Laughter.) The clause was then agreed toi as were also the clauses from 51 up to 67 inclusive. On clause 68, which provides that the General Assembly shall have power to make any alterations in the constitution of the House of Representatives. Sir E. N. Buxton said that the local assemblies had not the power of inflicting any disabilities upon the natives of New Zealand to which Europeans were not equally liable. This restriction, as he understood, did not at present apply to the General Assembly. It seemed to him that no course could be so dangerous as, in a case where the natives were so numerous, intelligent, and warlike as in New Zealand, to give power to any portion of the colonists to establish an internal superiority over the natives. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would take care that some words were introduced which would extend the limitation in question to the General Assembly. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. Pakington appreciated the motives of the hon. baronet in making this suggestion. He could hardly imagine that the Central Legislature would desire to pass any law which would bear hardly upon the natives, considering what those natives wore; still less could he imagine that even if they did pass any such law, the Govcrnoi'-in-Chief would hesitate to disallow it. Besides which, it would have to come home for ratification. At the same time he could conceive it possible that there might be outbreaks among the natives, and that in might be necessary to give the Central Legislative power to deal with such a case. But he promised the lion, baronet that he would consider the matter, and see what could be done with with regard to it. (Hear, hear.) The clause was then agreed to. On clause 71, enabling Her Majesty to cause the laws of the aboriginal .native inhabitants to be 1 maintained. Mr. Anstey suggested that the better course would be to declare those laws now in force for Ihe government of New Zealand, so far as they i were not repugnant to natural law. Sir VV. Molesworth objected to the immense power with which the governor of New Zealand might be invested. He might take any district of New Zealand he pleased and convert it into a native district. Mr. Walpole explained, that the object of the clause was to meet the case of ihose portions of New Zealand where it was desirable to retain the aboriginal laws for the present. That could not be dove without putting restrictions on the General Assembly, which was done by means of this clause combined with a previous clause, empowering the General Assembly to make laws, provided that no such laws were repugnant to the lav of England. After a few words from Mr Aglionby, expressing approval of a reserved power to make a distinction between the rights of the European and native population, The clause was agreed to. On clause 72, giving power to the General Assembly to regulate sales of waste land, Mr. Peel suggested that the clause should be struck out as superfluous. Sir J. Pakington would rather err on the side of surplusage than leave the intentions of the Legislature doubtful. Sir H. Willoughby inquired what provisions would be made for the repayment of certain sums formerly lent by the Government to the New Zealand Company ? Sir J. Pakington replied that he did not mean to touch on that subject of the bill. He desired only to do justice to the New Zealand Company. He earnestly hoped the bill, intended for a different purpose, would not be made a battlefield for bygone differences. Sir H. Willoughby had been misunderstood. His queotion related not to the New Zealand Company, but to the Exchequer. The advances were made on the security of the waste lands. Sir J. Pakington remarked, that those loans had been cancelled. The state of affairs between the New Zealand Company and the Government was all the other way. The Crown was a large purchaser from the New Zealand Company. Mr. Aglionby stated that the present Government, whatever its merits or demerits, was not responsible for the transaction to which the hon. baronet alluded. The matter was settled by an act passed in 1847. He concurred in the remark made by the Secretary for the Colonies depreca- j ting a renewal of old discusssions. He regretted that at the commencement of the debate he had been led to introduce bygone transactions, to which it would have been better bad no reference been made. (Hear ) He objected to the clause, not as surplusage, but as tending to cause doubts. A proviso having been added, reserving power j to Her Majesty in the meantime to issue instructions regulating land sales, the clause, as amended, was ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause 73, exempting tho. lands belonging to the aboriginal native tribes from the power of sale by the General Assembly, was agreed to. J The House then resumed, and the Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday next.