HOUSE OF COMMONS—May 13. [From the Atlas, May 18.] AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 548, 2 November 1850, Page 3

HOUSE OF COMMONS— May 13. [From the Atlas, May 18.] AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.

On the motion for the third reading of the Australian Colonies Bill, Mr.Gladstone moved an amendment to the effect, that legislation should not proceed further until the people and authorities of the colonies in question had pronounced their opinion on the constitution it was proposed to confer upon them. In a prolonged speech the hon. member animadverted upon the nrrssure proposed by the Government, censuring in particular the outline of the federal state which the Australian colonies were to be permitted to form, and arguing: that the whole project was not drawn up in accordance with (he desires or political wants of the colonists, but to foster some party interests at home. Mr. Roebuck, believing that the constitution given to the colonies ought to he well considered, final, and complete, concurred in recommending some, further delay m passing the bill now before the house. Mr. Havres deprecated postponement, arguing that quite sufficient evidence was already received to show that the colonists had deliberated the question of their future constitution, were generally satisfied with the measure proposed for them, and would be much disappointed to find the subject held over for another session, upon the pte ext of compiling , a new mass of testimony. The constitution now offered to Australia was the most liberal ever proposed for a colony. It was opposed solely upon the question of the double chamber, which the colonists would possess ample power to create for themselves, if, upon further. ! experience, they happened to wish for it. : Mr. Aglionby was persuaded that the prin- j ciples of tbe bill were safe, and that postponement would be dangerous. — Mr. F. Scott thought that the measure afforded room for many ' improvements, and that it would be better to wait until they could be effected. — ■ ; Mr. Simeon considered that the measure was a pitiable .compromise. Mr. Hume felt so much anxiety to remove the baneful influence of the Colonial office, that he would not consent to postpone for another session the gift of a constitution to Australia. Mr. Adderley remarked that every member who had ventured to approve of the bill as a whole, had /invariably objected to almost all its parts. Mr. Diyett spoke from his cwn knowledge to the fact that the bill was much liked in South Australia, and was convinced that all the colonies were ..impatient for a constitution, and preferred not to wait for another year, but would take the measure now proffered as the be&t practical scheme they could get. Mr. Stanford opposed the amendment because he wished the Borne Government to retain a control over the sale of the unoccupied lands of Australia. Mr. M'Gregor accepted the bill with all its faults as better than delay. The house divided — For the third reading, 226; for the amendment, 128; majority, 98.

Mr. Roebuck moved the insertion of a clause extending the principle of the federal assembly to Canada ; but upon tin objection by Lord J. Russell to the clause as irrelevant, the hon. member consented 10 wiihdww his motion. Mr. Aglionby moved » cltuse including New Zealand among the colonies that were to be immediately provided with representative institutions. Lord J. Russell admitted that the state of New Zealand was so much improved that the suspension of its free institutions might novr be withdrawn. It was, however, advisable to remodel the constitution that had been formerly preferred, and it was now too late to undertake that duty this session. Next year he hoped to see a bill passed to carry out the proposal of the hon. member. Mr. Aglionby left the matter in the hands of the Government, and withdrew his motion. Mr. Denison moved an amendment to provide that the legislatures of each colony should have the management of the waste laud within the limits of the colony. The motion was carried to a division, and negatived by a majority of 222 to 82. The bill was then passed.

[From the Nelton Examiner, Oct. 26.] To the Editor of the Nelton Examiner. < Sir — I enclose you a letter 1 have received from Mr. Godley, which perhaps you will have the goodness to publish, should you deem the matter of sufficient general interest. It is an answer to a letter I wrote that gentleman, pointing out to him the unfoundedness and unfairness (as I conceived at all events) of the sth resolution, passed by the Settlers' Constitutional Association of Wellington, which stigmatized the Nominee members of Council as " puppets and obedient servants ot the Government." I ought perhaps to send you a copy of this letter, and am prepared to do so should you wish it. My reason for withholding it at present is, that I am unwilling to trespass too far upon your columns ; and in adopting the course of making a few comments on Mr. Godley's letter to me, I shall state nearly all that I have to say on the subject, and give in fact nearly the substance of my letter to him. Should any of your readers, notwithstanding, wish to &cc the letter referred to, I shall be happy to show ir. Mr. Godley asserts that a Nominee is, from the necessity of his position, a "puppet and obedient servant." Theory, he maintains, proves this, as well as experience ; and in especial proof that the late members of the Legislative Council were puppets, he quotes their resignations ; he shows, in short, that they were puppets because they refused to be puppets. 1 must say it seems to me a great loss of time discussing the theory of a Nominee's position, when we have facts to appeal to. Ever since the days of Lord Bacon, theories have been constructed upon an induction from facts, and all are rejected which are at variance with the particular experiences of which they profess to give the general law. But as Mr. Godley appears to lay some stress upon his theory, and has constructed a very ptetty antithesis to illustrate it, I think I should do wrong to pass it over in silence. There are Nominees, then, of various sorts, and of various relations to the communities out of which they are taken. There is (A) the Nominee who is nominated with the approval of the majotity of his fellow citizens, and who carries with them their good wishes | and moral support ; (B) the Nominee who is objected to, not because be is a Nominee, but because his political opinions are opposed to those of the majority ; and (C) the Nominee who is objected to because the community repudiates Nomineeism in general. And this class may be subdivided into two sections of (1) Nominees, who are selected by the Government to act as a counterpoise, in * mixed assembly to the representatives of the people ; and (2) Nominees who are chosen by the Governor to sit in a Council purely Nominee. As an instance of the class (A), I may adduce Mr. Domett, who sat in Sir G. Grey's first Council with the approval of the Nelson settlers. No man was foolish enough to call him a puppet. Ido not know ajiy instance of the class (B). The late members of the Provincial Council must be , included in the 2nd section cf the class (C) ; and I beg to call attention to the great difference in the position of these two sections. In a mixed assembly — the Sydney Council, for instance — the Government nominates a certain number of gentlemen, with a tacit understanding that they will generally support its policy. In a Council purely Nominee, no such understanding exists, and no breach of etiquette is therefore committed in opposing the Government. Mr. Godley undoubtedly asserts, in round terms, that no Nominee can be iudependent. But to narrow the field ot discussion, and afford no opportunity for saying that I state bis argument unfairly, I will take it to be this, that Nominees " accepting office in despite of and in opposition to the great body of their fellow citizens, cannot da, independent;" and

this is proved by the antithesis I have already referred to, which I shall now quote : — " The idea of their standing up for the rights of a community, which rejects and repudiates them, against a Government whose partisans they have declared themselves, is an anomaly and an absurdity." There are two things here begged — first, that the Nominee stands up for the rights of the community secondly, that he is a partizan of the Government ; and the absurdity lies in the self-stultifying position of the Nominee who is represented as demolishing with the one hand what be is supporting with the other. The inference from this of course is, that a Nominee cannot advocate popular rights, and, ergo, he is a puppet. Every man, ergo, who does not shout for what a certain party chooses to call their rights, forfeits all claim to independence, and is a contemptible slave and creature of the Government — a truly reasonable and charitable conclusion. But why is it that a Nomi-nee •cannot advocate the rights of the community ? Because he is a partizan of the Government. And why is he a partizan of the Government ? Because he is a Nominee. Can Mr. Godley give any better reason than this, or is be, a Colonial Reformer, driven to the mortifying and humiliating necessity of appealing to the Colonial Office — to ■" Lord Grey, a statesman of great official experience ?" I could give a few instances of mistakes made by the people in Downing-street. So could Mr, Gedley, if it suited his purpose. It seems to me, sir, quite possible to suppose a Nominee in this position, that he neither advocates the views of the majority on the one hand, nor of the Government on the other ; and the question thus arises, is be not actually more independent than if he were a tool of either 1 I shall not dwell any longer on Mr. Godley's theory, but shall proceed to accept the invitation which he has given to test its soundness by an appeal to experience. "As in theory it is to be expected," says he, " so in practice it is invariably found, that an assembly of Nominees is an assembly of puppets and obedient servants. 1 ' The reply to this is simply, that it is not the case. In these colonies, at all events, experience proves the reverse. In the Sydney Council, the Nominee members, upon the questions of greatest importance, have generally voted against the Government. In the original New Zealand Council, the three Nominees, called by courtesy the three senior Justices of the Peace, have been found during whole sessions voting against the Government. Had Secretaries of State and Governors found Nominees upon all occasions so supple and compliant, where would have been the necessity of having four official members in the Council, and only three non- official, and thus secnring a majority? I might multiply instances without number, tending to prove that Nominees are not puppets, either by theory or experience. There are thousands of relations of Nomineeism, both in public and private life, where even servitude is implied, but where nevertheless that total abnegation of independence and conscience conveyed by the term " puppet" (one of the most offensive that could have been used), cannot be said to exist. If every Nominee is a puppet, as Mr. Godley teaches, then is a colonial Judge (which God forbid) a mere obedient servant of the Government; and althongh the Agents of the Company are its servants, Mr. Fox would nevertheless dislike being told that be must jerk his legs and nod his head precisely as the strings are pulled in Broad-street Buildings, or Mr. Godley that he has no alternative but forthwith to perform a minuet upon the slack rope, to the music of the barrel organ of the Canterbury Association. In short, sir, the assertion contained in the sth resolution of the Constitutional Association to which Mr. Godley has so unfortunately committed himself, is incapable of proof either from theory or experience. But the experience of the particular case is the thing that Mr. Godley should have appealed to. He has brought a grave and offensive charge against a body of gentlemen. He was bound to shew that he could substantiate it by reference to their conduct. He should have brough t proof of the dictation of the Government, and of the ready acquiescence of the members of the Council. Unless he can do this, what are his theories ? "Vox et prteterea nihil." They are shown to be discordant with experience, and down they go like a child's pagoda built of a pack of cards. There are two other arguments (I suppose I must call them so by courtesy) adduced by Mr. Godley in support of his position. The fiist is, that Lord Grey " interpreted" our acceptance of seats "as an abdication of independence, and was prepared, of course to act in conformity with that interpretation." I cannot consider this a very fair or ingenuous argument. The real question is, what were our powers, and (although these were ample enough) did we nevertheless consider ourselves puppets, and were we prepared to act as such? It is a question, in short, of real position and

conduct, not of Lord Grey's opinion. It is further implied, in the way the argument is put, that we knew of Lord Grey's interpretation of our position when we accepted -office* Had this been the case, we should perhaps have been guilty of a breach of good faith in acting independently. But the fact is, that Lord Grey's views were not known in the colony until a few months since : whereupon several of the Nominees (who had not previously resigned) immediately threw up their seats. The proceedings, therefore, consequent upon the publication of my Lord Grey's despatch -only prove that the Nominees were not piu>pets, and would not consent to be such. Tne second and last argument is put in the form of a .question to me. If I was not a puppet why did I resign ? Is it necessary, sir, to •occupy your columns by answering such a •question as this ? My reasons for resigning are already before the public ; and I really think it requires a great exercise of ingenious sophistry to found an accusation of servility on this proceeding. lam perfectly prepared to admit that, being a Nominee, I did not ■carry with me the moral support of the majority _• but I must decidedly dissent from the •conclusion that every man in this position is a puppet. And this is the whole of Mr. Godley's argument. There are one or two inferences and considerations of a general character arising out of Mr. Godley's letter and this discussion, which, like the moral to the tale, are well worthy our attention. For instance, Mr. Godley states that we have contributed to "the infliction of a most serious and irreparable injury upon the colonists of New Zealand," by conduct which no language on the part of the colonists can too strongly express their reprobation of. Is it possible that these, I may truly call them awful, expressions apply to the Nominees ? Is it possible, I ask, that they must bear upon their already scarified shoulders the burden and responsibility of so fearful an offence? But, no: it cannot be : let the Nominees breathe more freely: such languagecannot apply to them. The worst that can be brought against them is, that they contributed to the postponement of Representative Institutions for four years, and even that much it would be difficult to prove in a court of justice. On the principle of " suiting the word to the action," such an injury can scarcely be deemed "irreparable;" for surely the liberties of a colony of Englishmen are not so ricketty or superficial as to be extinguished by four years of Nomineeism. Is it beyond the verge of possibility that the irreparable injury complained of may have been sustained by soma other body which watches over the colonists of New Zealand with fostering care, or dealt to some coup d'etat or political manoeuvre, of which Mr. Godley knows more than we do. I do not say that such is the case, but Mr. Godley's language compels me to fish about for some such explanation. If it refer to something of this nature, it may be appropriate; otherwise it is too much after the style of the ancient Pistol. And while our view is directed to this particular part of the moral of the tale, it may not be amiss to follow up the subject a little further, and to consider the effect that a full measure of so-called Self-Government would have upon colonising companies, such as the New Zealand Company and the Canterbury Association, upon their Agents, and upon ourselves, as related to those Companies, or one of them. In a settlement already established, such as Wellington or Nelson, with no great field of extension, if conveyances tcere once issued, ihe influence of the Company or its Agent would be comparatively trifling. But in any settlement of the Company's in which the purchasers have not yet got their title, in all settlements in course of progress; and throughout the colony generally, if emigration were advancing, the influence of the Company and its Agents, wielding the monstrous, unconstitutional, and irresponsible power which the British Parliament, in a fit of insanity, placed in its hands, would be overwhelming. It is probably not saying too much to affirm that, under such a state of things real or complete self-government would be out of the question. The control exercised by the Agent over the fortunes and position of a large number of colonists would render independence inconvenient, confer upon him an influence fatal to liberty of action, and render him the principal depository of political power. Ido not wish to be taken to assert that such considerations are the sole grounds upon which the Company and its Agents advocate Representative Institutions. It is nevertheless a view of the subjpct well worthy our attention, and may possibly throw some light upon the extraordinary proceedings of the Company in withholding from us our couveyances, after having promised them up to the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute. Nor must we forget that it has from the beginning been the favourite and successful strategy of the New Zealand Company to

abuse the Government, and, by directing popular indignation against it, to direct attention from its own short-comings and misdeeds. The Company's Agents have used the Government as the French do the province of Algeria, as a sort of safety-valve, through which inquiry and agitation may blow off without injuring their boiler ; and strange to say, the people of this settlement have always been found ready to attack with haste and violence the errors, or supposed errors, of a Government, the offspring of the British Parliament, the great object of whose existence is the good of the colony, while they have been able, with rare exceptions indeed {and those confined only to a class), to find nothing but the most milk-and-water language, and most forgiving conduct, towards the blunders, negligence, and injustice we have sustained, and still experience, at the hands of the New Zealand Company, which exists (I hope I may say existed) for the purpose of declaring a dividend upon its capital. The cause of this is most probably to be looked fo* in the direct and universally felt power wielded by the Company's Agents. At this distance from all Court of Appeal, we might be said indeed to owe our property and position to their will and pleasure. And if such be the experience of the past, and the Company is to continue in its former relations to this colony, self-government will be a farce, or will mean government by the irresponsible agent of a Joint-Stock Company. I must protest against the mesmeric second sight or clairvoyance which Mr. Godley imagines he possesses, when he undertakes to scan my moral instinct, and sees it revolting against the degradation of being a Nominee. I can assure him on the other hand, that I consider it a position of honour. I have a deeply-rooted and very great respect for the duly delegated authority of the British people. To be selected by a British Governor to fill an office of trust and responsibility, seems to me one of the last things to which the term of degradation can be applied. But my respect ceases for any man, when he ceases to have a respect for law, which I have always been taught to consider an authority paramount to that of king, kaiser, or governor. And lastly, I should on no account wish Mr. Godley to suppose that I complain o! his censure. Of honest censure no man has a right to complain ; and it is even (I hold) the duty of every citizen of a free State to administer it where he feels it to be due. But there is a vast difference between honest censure and unfounded and calumnious accusations which seem dictated by a malicious wish to damage the character of a political opponent. It is of such that 1 complain ; but without regard to the source from which they proceed. They may originate under circumstances which make their poison harmless ; they may be so habitual, so overstrained, so palpably dishonest, as to become contemptible and ineffectual. It would argue a morbid susceptibility of skin to notice charges of this nature; it would be about as foolish to reply to them as to enter upon a contest of villainous smells with a skunk, or to argue with a monomaniac. It cannot fail, I think, to be a matter of general regret, that a man of Mr. Godley's standing coming among us with so fair a fame, should have given his countenance to such proceedings. He might have attacked Nomineeism to his heari's content : it surely is not a cause so strong as to be incapable of overthrow by fair assault, and to require the insidious attacks of the sapper and miner. He might have argued that the tendency of Noraineeism was to create puppets ; but he had no right to say that the members of the Provincial Council were puppets, unless he were fully satisfied himself, and could fully satisfy others, of the truth of the assertion. He prudently and very properly abstained from identifying himself with some very absnrd and unfounded charges brought against the Local Government. He would have done good service to the colony could he have persuaded the meeting to put their anti-Nom-inee resolutions in a more truthful and less offensive shape. They would have been more creditable to their authors, and more useful to the cause they are so desirous to serve. I remain, sir, &c, D. Monro. West Waimea, October 16, 1850.