HOUSE OF LORDS. NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL. [From the Morning Herald, June 26.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 768, 11 December 1852, Page 3

HOUSE OF LORDS. NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL. [From the Morning Herald, June 26.]

The house went into committee on this bill. The Duke of Newcastle, in conformity with the strong objections which he expressed with regard to some of the provisions of the bill when it was read a second time, had now to move two or three amendments, the first of which ap"plied to the clauses from 33 to 39, which constituted the Upper Chamber of the legislature of New Zealand. Having so recently stated his objection to that chamber being composed of the nominees of the governor of the colony, he would not repeat those objections on the present occasion. He might observe, however, that feeling confident that a better class of members would be obtained by adopting an elective system, properly restrained as regarded qualification and mode of election, than by acting upon the nominee system ; and believing, also, that by imposing a nominee system upon the colony not only the settlers themselves would be disappointed in their expectation of the advantages to result from the new constitution, but the governor would be placed in the painful position in which so many governors had found themselves, of being obliged either to submit to the difficulties in which they might be placed, or of resorting to the extreme measure of swamping the nominee council by the creation of new members ; entertaining these objections very strongly, he begged to move, in the first instance, the omission of the 33rd clause. Should their lordships give their assent to that proposition, he should then move the omission of all the succeeding clauses to the 39th inclusive, for the purpose of substituting the clauses which were in the bill of the late Colonial Secretary (Earl Grey), constitut-. ing the Upper Chamber of members to be elected by the local legislatures of the six colonies, established under the other provisions of this bill. The Earl of Desart regretted to say, on the part of the government, that he must oppose the amendment of his noble friend, though he admitted that difficulties might arise from the proposed constitution of the. Upper Chamber. Without intending to compare the nominee chamber to the House of Lords, he might re-

mind his noble friend that the same inconveniences to which he referred had sometimes arisen in this country from the House of Lords and the House of Commons differing in opinion with regard to particular measures ; nevertheless no one could deny that the system worked well (hear, hear). Now, he thought that something might be created in the colony of New Zealand analogous to the House of Lords ; and considering the great benefit which this country derived from such an institution — that in it they had a legislative body which was not liable to be affected by popular influences, necessarily transitory in their character — the alteration which her Majesty's ministers had thought necessary to introduce in the plan of the late government was, in his opinion, a most valuable one, and he could not, therefore, accede to the amendment of his noble friend. The Earl of Harrowby supported the amendment on the ground that a nominee chamber would have no moral influence in the colony, and would prove a mere instrument in the hands of Lhe government. There ought to be two chambers — the one representing property and the other numbers, and both should be elective. The Earl of Derby said, that however great might be his admiration of many of the qualities of the great American Republic, he was not desirous of framing the constitutions for the colonies of Great Britain upon the republican model. He quite agreed with his noble friend that property should be represented as well as numbers, and he believed that the Governor of New Zealand would be entirely departing from his duty to the state if he did not take care that the members summoned by him to the Upper Chamber were men of property, respectability, and standing, and possessing a large stake in the colony (hear, hear). The colony of New Zealand was one of the most promising of our colonial dependencies, and he had no doubt that in time there would arise a class of men, of large property and influence, who might fairly be said to represent the aristocratic element in the colony. Then he thought it would be important that the Crown should have the power of appointing, not a body of men who would be the mere representatives of the government of the day, but, being chosen in the first instance personally, would retain their rights of legislation, wholly independent of the government, during their lives, not subject to dismissal, and consequently exercising a beneficial influence over the popular part of the legislature, and j ovev the government as well. That influence would go on extending and increasing just in proportion as the aristocratic element developed itself, and which element, he believed, judging from the character of the population of the colony, would be developed sufficiently to allow of the application of the principles of the constitution of this country. The amendment was negatived, as was also another amendment of the Duke of Newcastle, providing that in the case of the bills sent to this country after passing the Colonial Legislature, the Secretary of State should put his veto upon it at once, instead of suspending it for two years. The Duke of Newcastle then moved the omission of the clauses which related to the land sales and the New Zealand Company, observing, that whether the charges which had been made against the company were just or not, there was at any rate a prima facie ca&e which absolutely required the fullest investigation ; and under these circumstances he thought it was not desirable to place a company, against whom such charges were advanced, in a more advantageous position than that they now occupied. But this was done by the present bill. The Earl of Desart must again express his regret that he felt himself obliged to refuse the assent of the government to the amendment of his noble friend. He would not enter upon the question whether the New Zealand Company had or had not been deservedly accused ; but he could not admit that the clauses in the bill relating to that company placed them in any better position than that they now occupied. By the arrangement which had been made the New Zealand Company would receive a fourth of the price of the land sold, and were quite willing to take the certainty which they would have under the present bill, instead of the uncertainty which had previously existed. The last accounts from the colony represented the claimants as perfectly sstisfied, and that in less than twelvemonths the government would have possession of the lands. With respect to the frauds he would not prejudge the case. The remaining clauses were then agreed to. The bill passed through committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.