TUESDAY.—June 26. OUR COLONIAL POLICY.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VI, Issue 445, 7 November 1849, Page 3

TUESDAY.— June 26. OUR COLONIAL POLICY.

Sir W. Molesworth on rising to move an address to her Majesty to appoint a commission to inquire into the administration of our colonial possessions presented a petition from Wellington, signed by 741 male adults, out of a population of 810 male adults, praying for the immediate introduction of representative institutions in New Zealand. — Sir William based his motion on the ground that there were grave defects and errors in our system of colonial government, which required revision, for the purpose of a searching inquiry into the colonial policy of the empire. He first stated what in his opinion had produced the belief that such errors existed, their character and effects, and urged that his motion should be agreed to as the legitimate sequence to various motions which had received the approbation of the majority of that

House — namely, thqse of Mr. Baillie, of Mr. Adderley, and, as he contended, of Lord Lincoln. These, and other less successful proposition, showed the state of public opinion respecting our colonial administration, and laid a valid parliamentary ground for his motion. He then explained the nature of the inquiry he proposed,, and the objects to which it should be directed, classing them under three heads — namely, colonial government, colonial expenditure, and emigration or colonization. The system, he observed,, worked ill, uot because it was ill administered, bat because it was so essentially faulty that it could not be well administered. He censured no individual ; he censured the system, which must be thoroughly revised and reformed. Sir William sketched out the scheme of a commission which, he suggested, should be composed of a member from each of the four great divisions of that House, with the addition of a fifth member, selected from amongst the most eminent political and economical writers of the day. Mr. Hume seconded the raolion, and inveigheil against the general system and spirit of the colonial administration, which was managed too much with a view to patronage, without regard to the capacity of governors or to the interests of the country. Mr Hawes opposed the scheme as an impracticable one, and protested against delegating the inquiry into great Imperial questions which ought to be discussed in that House, to five gentlemen who, though of discordant political sentiments, were expected, when brought together, like a " happy family," to forego all their antipathies. He maintained that Lord Grey had laid down larger principles of commercial policy than any other Colonial Secretary had done, and that Sir W. Moleswortb whose speech was full of exaggerations, had laid no ground for his motion. He then proceeded to justify those parts of Lord Grey's policy whjcb had been assailed by Sir W. Moleswortb, .. and with respect even to the West Indies, said to be ruined by the policy of the Colonial- office, Mr. Hawes showed that the success of the free-trade policy was already manifesting itself. There were, no doubt, subjects of great importance affecting the interests of the colonies, which deserved consideration ; tut were all these ingredients, — the effects of the abolition of slavery, the forms and the cost of colonial government, waste lands, — to be thrown into one common cauldron? Such acomp rehensive enquiry, which must involve the considera tion whether or not our colonial empire was worth retaining, would excite hopes and expectations which could not be realized, and paralyze a great executive department of the State. Mr. Gladstone excepted to the terms of the motion, which seemed to contemplate a minute inquiry into the governments of the different colonies, and all complaints and grievances, there, and against the Co'onialDepartment.But Sir W. Molesworth did not propose to inquire into abuses of detail, or the conduct of individuals. Great, as he admitted, were the merits of Lord Grey, he had been led into serious errors, which called for measures of prevention ; and, looking to the general scope and object of the motion, he thought the time had arrived when an attempt should be made to improve our colonial system, founding his opinion, not upon one single consideration, but upon thp joint result of many considerations. He obviated some of the objections offered by Mr. Hawes to the appointment of a commission to inquire into these subjects, which a Colonial Secretary, overburdened and distracted by so many duties, had not sufficient time to consider as he ought ; aud he believed that a commission appointed by the Executive Government, and acting in harmony with that government, would afford it usual extraneous aid, and, so far from this being an extraordinary, it was a usual course, and one followed in other cases by- the present government. Mr. Gladstone adverted to various questions connected with important branches of our colonial policy which called for inquiry, and might be fitly, investigated by a well-chosen commission, and he thereore supported the motion. Mr. Labouchere opposed the motion,, which was grounded upon a sweeping, indiscriminate censure of the whole colonial policy of the empire, alike impolitic and unjust. The three classes of subjects to which the inquiry of the commission was to lie directed comprised almost the whole circle of duties belonging to the Government and Legislature with reference to the colonies. However convenient it might be to get rid of responsibility .by shifting it upon a commission, he objected, as unconstitutional, to delegate to a body of this description functions which should be exercised upon their responsibility by ministers of the Crown. He showed the distinction between a standing commission, contemplated by Sir W. Moleswortb, and commissions appointed for special and defined purposes, whose inquiries were of practical utility, whereas nothing could result from the former but disappointment.

The motion was supported by Mr. Scott and Mr. Adderley. Lord J. Russell was at a loss to know what were the definite objects of the proposed commission, whose inquiries, in the terms of the motion, were so vast as to be beyond the power of auy commission. It was an objection fatal to the whole scheme that, having such a multiplicity of subjects ■to inquire into, the -commissioners could not possibly arrive at any rational conclusion as to any, and if they attempted to carry on the ordinary business of administration for the colonies, they would interfere with the functions of the Executive Government, and might open fresh sources of complaint in the colonies. He showed that an attempt to define the limits of Imperial and local questions might lead to disputes, and that the adjustment of the forms of colonial government by abstract rules might cause ■dissatisfaction. All questions of administration were to be decided by certain fixed principles, but in applying them the circumstances of the country must be considered. In such a commission all the responsibility of the Government would be merged ; instead of this, it would be better to leave this, like other 'questions, to be dealt with in the first instance by the responsible Ministers of the Crown, and afterwards by the control and supervision of Parliament, which was in accordance with the free constitution of the country. After a short reply from Sir W. Molesworth, the House divided, when the motion negatived by 163 against 89.