HOUSE OF LORDS.

New Zealander, Volume XVIII, Issue 1717, 23 August 1862, Page 4

HOUSE OF LORDS.

NE AY ZEALAND BILL

London, Thursday, June 26, 1802.

Tiio New Zealand Bill has been read a second time in the House of Lords. The circumstances out of which this measure has arisen arc, probably, not of so much moment in themselves as the principle which the bill affirms. The reduction of the power of the provincial superintendents is a less important matter than the enlargement of the power of the governor ; and the people of the colony, when they come to reflect upon the provisions of this bill, will hardly fail to perceive that what is novel in it is just, and much less novel in the working of our free constitution than the irregular privileges it supersedes. The substance of the bill is to vest in the governor the power of assenting to bills. There cannot be responsibility without authority, without placing Responsibility where it ought not to rest; and this enactment simply restores the balance of authority which the hitherto anomalous constitution of New Zealand has seriously disturbed. As to the system of elective superintendents, a more mischievous institution cannot be conceived. Lord Grey truly said that there is no other example of it in the British empire; and the sooner it is modified, or swept away, the better.

The Duke of Newcastle [June 24] moved the second reading of this bill, lie said that by the New Zealand Constitution Act, tbe colony was divided into six provinces, and power was given to the General Assembly of New Zealand to subdivide those provinces, and to constitute new provinces, if they should so think fit, with the same powers as those possessed by tbe existing provinces. The New Zealand legislature had thought fit to exercise this power, but the law officials of the colony thought that they had exceeded their authority. Certain of the errors which were discovered in the New Zealand Act weie removed by the Act ha had the honour to introduce last session, but there were some others, being matters of a trivial nature, and involving questions of little or no public or political interest, which it was the object of this bill to remove. But whilst this and the preceding Act went some way in transferring the power of giving assent to bills from tbe chief superintendents to the governor, he regretted that the Government did not feel themselves justified in making further alterations, by way of curing what they believed to be defects in the existing constitution. Earl Grey said that whilst this bill had been described as one of comparatively small importance, and as dealing with petty and paltry matters, he regretted that tbe Government had not ventured to ask the House to cure some larger defects which they believed to exist in the New Zealand constitution. The noble duke had said that it was impossible to euro these defects without withdrawing the privileges which had been granted to New Zealand. But when that constitution was granted it was said at the same time that the colony should provide for its own internal defence. Now, whilst there was a force of (1000 British soldiers in New Zealand he protested against the principle that the imperial treasury should be responsible for the defence of the colony, and yot that we should have no power of interfering with colonial legislation. He (Lari Grey) behoved that the bloody and costly war which had not long since been brought to a conclusion was a direct result of errors in our colonial policy, errors for which he admitted the Secretary of State was not responsible. But what had occurred sufficiently proved that it was absolutely necessary we should retain our responsibility if wo wished adequately to protect ourselves and the colony. (Hear, hear.) His noble friend had explained that the superintendents were elective executive officers. Against that system he (Earl Grey) had in vain remonstrated, because it deprived the governor of all efiectual control over the provinces. When there were proved faults in the existing system which had led to unhappy results, the Government would not be fulfilling its duty if they confined themselves to petty alterations without attempting to cure great defects. The colony should be told that if they wanted protection, they must concur in the arrangements of the imperial Government. At the same time, the homo Government had no right to withdraw the protection of this country from New -Zealand. If that protection were withdrawn either Irom New Zealand or the Cape, a dreadful war of extermination would necessarily be carried on, because Big seittert) themselves ivo«}c} pot Imvq s trppgi;beno«^

to inspire the natives with that fear which was essential to the maintenance of the peace of the colony. Bat if it was wrong to withdraw protection* it was equally wroug to give up the power of interference with the policy of the colonial government; - (Hear.) The Earl of Deaart entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble earl as to the propriety both;.of continuing our protection over the colony, and (of retaining the means of asserting our authority over it. With reference to a clause in the bill which be (Lord Desart) had introduced in 1852, it was intended to obviate the inconveniences of introducing a new system amongst an almost barbarous people. It was never intended to be a permanent provision j but it spoke well for its expediency that it should have been made the foundation of all subsequent legislation for colonies similarly situated. (Hear.) Lord Taunton said the tendency of the existing law hau been to paralyse the central authority. It was not surprising that the system should have worked ill—what was remarkable was that it should have led to so Utile mischief. He attributed the fact to the excellent quality of the colonists; for New Zealand bad been settled by some of the best of our English and Scotch population—a circumstance which had enabled the colony to endure far more in the way of miseovernrner.t than almost any other community would hare done. It appeared to him that this country ought not to think of altering the constitution, unless there was some indication on the part of the colonists themselves that Such a course would be acceptable to them. Lord Lyveden observed that when the mother country asked the colonists to do anything they generally refused ; but when they asked the mother country to send them troops, their request was always complied with. Still that was no reason why their lordships should hesitate to pass a bill, the object of which was merely to correct certain technical errors. He should be glad to know if the noble duke would lay on the table any fresh papers that would throw light on the affairs of New Zealand,

The Duke of Newcastle could not promise to lay all papers relating to New Zealand on the table this session, but he would produce all that might be published without danger. The noble earl (Earl Grey) had spoken of the bill as imperfect and insufficient; but it did not profess to be one for the better regulation of the colony, or for the amendment of its constitution. He did not think it would be expedient to introduce a measure of that larger kind except under (he pressure of great necessity, or at the instance of the colonists. Ho could not allow that a case had been made out for any sweeping change. Ho had generally found the colonists amenable to reason; and that when they shewed the temper referred to by the noble baron (Lord Lyveden) it was generally owing to the authoritative and dictatorial tone assumed towards them by the home Government. As an illustration of this tie might refer to a recent money bill on which the inhabitants of one of the colonies set great store. He (the noble duke) wiote a despatch, pointing out in temperate and conciliatory language that the bill involved a breach of faith ; and immediately on the receipt of that communication the colonial legislature repealed the measure. (Hear.) After a few words from Earl Grey and the noble duke in reply, The bill was read a second time.

GENERAL BUTLER'S PROCLAMATION—rumoured MEDIATION BETWEEN THE BELLIGERENTS.

The Earl of Carnarvon (June 13) wished to put a question lo the noble Ear! ihe Secretary for Foreign Affairs in reference to a proclamation stated to have been issued by the commander 'of the Federal torces, General Butler, at New Orleans. That there might be no misconception of the terras of this proclamation he would read what had been published a sthe copy of it: “ Headquarters, Department of the Gulf, May 15. '* As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women calling themselves “ ladies of New Orleans,” in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter, when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement, insult Or shew contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation. Butler, Major-General.”

-—Now, bo would make no comment on sucb a proclamation as this. It was either a mere menace, or it was intended to be a reality. If it was merely a menace, then it was a gross, unmanly, and brutal insult to every woman in New Orleans, since it was a notorious fact that all their sympathies were on the side of the Confederate cause. If the proclamation were intended to Lave a practical effect, he bevged their lordships to observe that by the terms in which it was couched it gave larger and more unlimited power to the Federal troops titan had ever been given to any soldiery. They had heard of towns that had been taken by storm being subjected to the violence of the troops, but the proclamation was absolutely without precedent or parallel, in a commercial city tbat bad capitulated, and of which the hostile army held quiet occupation. He would do the people of the Northern States the justice to say he did not believe thev were in any sense identified with the conduct of General Butler, and that they would repudiate this extraordinary document. But if this was the way in which the war was to be carried on in future, it must he a war of extermination. The ques. lion he wished to ask was, whether Her Majesty’s Government had received any information as to whether this proclamation was authentic or not. He wished also to state that there had been for some days past repot ts of a proposal made by the Government of France to the Government of this country for concerting jointly the terms of a mediation between the belligerents in this civil war. The whole value of such a mediation must depend on the terms in which it was couched and the spirit in which it was received. But, assuming that the mediation would be such as they could join in, consistent with their own self-respect and the material interests of this country, he hoped the Government would give it their earnest consideration. He should be glad to hear from the noble earl how tar it was true that negoctations were at this moment in progress between the two Governments with relerence lo mediation.

Earl Russell—ln answer to the first question put to me by the noble earl, I beg to inform him that the only information which we have received on the subject is a despatch from Lord Lyons, in which he encloses the newspaper containing this proclamation, and, after alluding to its purport, says that the intelligence from New Orleans appears to confirm its authenticity. I believe that the proclamation is authentic, but we have no information as to any opinion—any approval or disapproval—expressed by the American government. Lord Lyons does not appear to hare raised any question with the American government on the subject, though there is no public act of the American government disapproving the proclamation, and I do not find that the United States’ minister in tins country has received any despatch alluding to it. For my own part, 1 sincerely trust, for the sake of the American government itself (hear, hear) that they will disavow the proclamation, and will refuse their sanction to it. II is important as regards the character of the American government, but I think likewise it is of importance to the whole of the world that the usages of war should not be aggravated by proclamations of this character. War is of itself quite horrible enough, and to add to its horrors by such pioclamations is a grave offence not only against the particular population who are subjected to bostiliiies bit against mankind in general, whose interests it is that those usages should be made less rigorous and less cruel (bear, hear). As to the proclamation itself, I have been told that it is susceptible of this explanation—the purport of the orders is, that if any woman shall show contempt for any officer or soldier of the Federal army she shall be regarded as liable to be treated as a woman o( the town plying her vocation. Now, there are in New Orleans local regalations by which women of the town who are guilty of any disorder in the streets are liable to be sent to prison, and I am to>d that the meaning of the order is that any woman offending against the American officers and soldiers may bo so sent to prison. I cannot answer for this, but I quite feel with the noble earl that even if the proclamation is not meant to be put in force, it is likely to give the soldiery a licence for great brutality. For ray own part, therefore, 1 must say that I see no defence for the proclamation, and 1 can only hope sincerely that the United States’ government will disavow it altogether, and will declare lhai it meets with their decided disapproval. The noble earl baa asked me as to the (ruth of a rumour which has obtained currency, that the two governments of Prance and England intend to offer their mediation in America. The spreading of this rumour may prove exceedingly mischievous, and therefore 1 am glad to have an opportunity of stating the true state of the case. Her Majesty's government have made no proposals of the kind to the government of France, and the government of France have made no such overtures to them. Moreover, the French ambassador heie has slated that he has no instruction on the subject, and 1 need not say therefore, that there have been no communications between the two governments of the tenour which has been spoken of. Without giving any opinion as to the propriety, at some time or other, ol offering our good offices or mediation, I must say that I think the present time would be most inopportune for such me. diation. No good could come of it, and in the present state of the war and in the present embittered state of feeling on both sides, such an offer would rather tend to prevent any good result from being attained il a similar step should be hereafter taken. (Hear, hear.) Certainly, there is no intention on the part of her Majesty’s Government; to (Rediwo p| the present; jT^oj^ept.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. GENERAL BUTLER’S PROCLAMATION.

Sir J. Walsh (June 13) rose to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether her Majesty’s Government bad received official information authenticating a proclamation attributed to General Butler, the military governor of New Orleans, menacing the women of that city with the moat degrading treatment as a punishment for any mark of disrespect offered to any officer or soldier of the United States army; and, if so. whether her Majesty’s Government had deemed it light to remonstrate with the American Government against the issue of such au order. He said that when he placed the notice on this subject upon the paper, he hoped that the answer he should receive would be that the proclamation in qusstion was only one of those common fabrications which bad been so ingeniously circulated during the American war; for is appeared to him incredible that General Butler should bare placed his name to a document which must entail so much obliquy. The hon. baronet concluded by moving for copies of any correspondence relating to the pioclamation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gregory, who said be thought the House was perfectly justified in commeriting upon a proclamation repugnant to decency, civil station,and humanity—an outrage at once wicked, inexcusable, and useless, and asked Lord Palmerston whether the Government proposed to i.o what the Emperor of the French would do, protest against this outLord Palmerston rose amidst loud cheers, and said, Mr. S|i' aker, appealed to as I have been by my hon. friend, I am quite prepared to say that I think no man could have read the proclamation to which our attention has been drawn without a feeling of the deepest indignation—cheers from both sides of the House)—a proclamation to which 1 do not scruple to attach the name infamous. Sir, an Englisnman must blush to think that such an act has been committed by one belonging to the Anglo-Saxon race. If it bail come from some barbarous race that was not within the pale of civilization, one might have regretted it, but might not have been surprised ; but that such an order should hvve been promulgated by a soldier, by one who|liad raised himself to the rank of General, is a subject undoubtedly of not less astonishment than pam. (Cheers.) Sir, I cannot bring myself to believe but that the Government of the United Siatea, whenever they had notice of this order, must of their own accord, have stamped it with their censute and condemnation. We received yesterday a despatch from Lord Lyons communicating from the newspapers the paragraph read by the hon. baronet—namely, the order of General Beauregard aniraadvemng on and giving the text of the proclamation to which reference has been made. There will be no objection to produce that paper. With regard to the course which her Majesty’s Government may upon consideration take on the subject, the House, 1 trust, will allow me to say that will be a matter for reflection. lam quite persuaded that there is no man in England who does not share those feelings which have so well expressed by the bon. baronet and my bon. friend. (Loud cheers.) The motion was then agreed to.