THE COLONIAL QUESTION. [From the Times, April 26.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 541, 9 October 1850, Page 4

THE COLONIAL QUESTION. [From the Times, April 26.]

The more thau fifty dependencies of this empire enjoy every variety of constitution. From the " military station" and the " Crown colony" on the one hand, to the all but independent communities of British America, and the " Charter" of the East India Company, there is every shade of dependence, and every mode of connexion. As the history, population, and present circumstance! of these settlements present at least an equal diversity, it is no fault of ours that their political institutions have not all been cast in the very same mould. There are philosophers, indeed, who imagine that if England did her duty, every member of the political progeny would have a House of Lords, a House of Commons and everything else on the orthodox model. The colony is to start a full-grown goddess in full panoply, from the brain of the parent,; and should it subsequently undergo any constitutional change, that is set down to the imperfection of its origin, and the founder's want of creative wisdom. It is very natural, of course that we should wish to see our most distant offspring like ourselves ; and compelled as we are to see our example followed so little, and to so little purpose in the Old World, it would be a great consolation to us if we could point to the antipodes to prove the universal aptitude of our cherished constitu- | tional principles. The facts, however, are rather against us, and the House of Commons od very good grounds, as we believe, have consented to surrender for the present the fascinating idea of a half-dozen Australian governments, each the " model" of our own. Yet many excellent persons still cling to the pious expectation, aud it is very natural, we do not say probable, that they should find their feelings echoed in the House of Lords..

But the sticklers for the British model, ill whatever direction they push their scruples, have probably forgotten one most important and essential difference between a colony and its mother-country. Give a colony any species of legislative assembly, and you have at once three powers concerned in its govern* ment — the Imperial authority, the Colonial Executive, and the Assembly. If you give the colony two assemblies, you have no less than four authorities concerned. A colony is not in the position of the mother-country, because it is not independent : it receives law* from an external power, which is thus part of its legislature. The Colonial Governor is also part of the legislature, not, however, as Sovereign, for Sovereign he is not and no one assigns to him this lofty position. He represents the Sovereign in some respects, but in others he represents the Ministerial influence, and in others he occupies the position of our House of Lords. When the Governor puts bis veto on a colonial bill, or reserves it for the sanction of the Crown, he is discharging an office which the Constitution has formerly vested in the Crown, buj which is practically discharged in these days, by the House of Lords. It is to that House that we naturally look for the correction of our Parliamentary excesses. When the Commons appear to be going a-head, everybody asks " What will the Lords do ?" Conservatives thank Heaven that they have a house of Lords to give the nation a little breathing time when the pace becomes trying. The House of Lords is called the drag or the regulator of the machine, the ballast of the ship, and whatever else imparts steadiness and gravity to motion. Now, that is the position of a Colonial Governor, with his circle of officials. He is no mere representative of the Sovereign : no mere organ of the Imperial Government. Dependent though he be, he is still distinct. He is treated as such. He is abused on his own account. He receives a good deal of public sympathy in his quarrels with the Colonial Office. He is expected to act with a large degree of independence, and thought very ill-used when he is snubbed by the gentlemen in Powningstreet; all of which proves that whatever the exact terms of his commission a colonial Governor is not a mere ministerial officer. He has, in fact a position and power of his own, occupying, as we have said to a great extent the ground of the British House of Lords. At all events it will be admitted that if a colony shall possess two legislative assemblies there will then be four consents necessary to the enactment of a law — the Imperial and Colonial Executives and the two houses. This would render any attempt at three orders in a colony a fresh beginning of difficulties. Indeed the result is so obvious that we cannot but look on the project as a plausible scheme for hastening the day of independence. Suppose a colonial House of Commons in a really " liberal" footing, and representing that very impoitant interest as Mr. Vernon Smith calls it a squatting interest; — suppose, too, a House of Lords which really comprehended the most wealthy and influential personages in the colony and let them agree on a till; would they tolerate a denial by the Governor ; or in case of his consent, wonld they allow him to be overruled by the Government at home 1 They would make the Governor much less than he is or much more than he is — that is, either a notary or a king. We are not for a moment denying that as the colouy improved in population, wealth, and social order it will demand, require, and deserve a perfect representative of that social aristocracy which is sure to rise. But when a colony shall have two Houses at all resembling our own, and when any measure that passes through both shall thus be endorsed with the sanction of all classes high and low, it will be high time to leave the government of the colony entirely in its own hands and content ourselves with its dignified and disinterested attachment. By that time it will be too powerful for Governors orDowning-street; and although it may be the interest of all parties to keep up old names, the colony will be really as independent of us as the United States of America are at this moment. For the present there are not the materials in any of our Australian colonies for so perfect and mature a development. The origin, the dispersion, the pursuits of the population present serious obstacles to a comprehensive franchise ; and as yet the colonial world is not graced with a noble or a wealthy aristocracy. There is only a confusion of classes and if we can by any contrivance get one respectable legislature out of all classes that is as much as we can reasonably expect.