SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE CONSTITUTION.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 439, 22 January 1890, Page 3

SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE CONSTITUTION.

(By W. L. Rees.)

NO. VI.

Tins despatch. which accompanied the Act suspending the Constitution gave to Sir George Grey the fullest powers and threw upon him the gravest responsibilities. His discretion was left unfettered. “I am fully aware,” writes Earl Grey, “ and much regret that the course which I have taken both in introducing this measuro and in the instructions which I have given upon it imposes upon you a great amount of responsibility! It may be necessary for you to refuse to exercise to such ah extent as the settlers may desire the powers which you will be known to possess of extending to them the advantages of representative government.” . . The New Zealand Company, spite of its fraudulent misrepresentations, and of the Bufferings which it had brought upon so many people, was still supported by large and influential sections of publm men interested in colonisation. Under its guidance the Otago settlement and the Church Association of Canterbury were formed and developed. In the Scotch settlement the minds of the people v/ere continually inflamed against the Governor on account of his alleged suspension of constitutional and representative government. In the Church of England settlement he had not only this difficulty to encounter, but others of even graver and more serious importance. The Church colony in Canterbury was founded with the express design of establishing and perpetuating in New Zealand the very worst features of territorial aristocracy and Church monopoly which have so long afflicted the mother country. The Committee and founders of the Canterbury settlement were among the most powerful people in the United Kingdom. The Archbishop of Canterbury was its head, and among its members were the Archbishop of Dublin, many of the bishops, members of both Houses of Parliament, and other gentlemen of great energy and considerable political power. A district comprising three millions of acres of land was placed beneath the control of the Canterbury Association, by the rules of which £1 per acre on the disposal of that land was to be given as an endowment to the Church of Englund. A subsequent Act made the matter much worse. Thus the people of New Zealand were called upon to pay by way of endowment to one church a sum of several millions. This threatened abuse, backed as it was by all the power of the Church of England and the Government of England, Sir George Grey almost alone again resisted, and resisted successfully. In a speech made by the Governor to the Legislative Council at Wellington on the 18th of June, 1851, he stated the facts of the case and the reasons for his action, and asked the Council to express its opinion upon this proposed transaction, and upon the course of government which permitted

it. During the five years for which period the English Government had suspended the operation of the Constitution Act, Sir George Grey proceeded to initiate reforms, ail of which had for their object and their tendency the increase of the popular voice in the government of the country, and the steady extension of popular rule. During that period he was in constant though confidential communication with Earl Grey upon the terms of the new Constitution which he proposed to grant to this colony. Although desiring to give complete power into the hands of the people, Sir George Grey was at this time peculiarly fettered by the existence of contemporaneous facts. In the early days of English colonisation, when as yet there was no separate Secretary of State for the Colonies, various questions regarding colonial matters of importance both to Crown and people had from time to time arisen. To advise upon all such matters a body had been created within the Privy Council called “The Committee of Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations.” To this Committee were relegated all important matters relating to the colonies. When, however, the colonial questions had become so. grave as to necessitate the existence of a Minister responsible for their management, the functions of the Committee fell into disuse. The failure of the New Zealand Constitution in 1846, and the clamour arising in all the great dependencies of the empire for constitutional and representative government, directed the attention of British statesmen to

the existence and possible utility of the almost forgotten “ Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations.” Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, bub especially Australia, were upon the eve of great constitutional changes. _ While in the great North American Dominion confederation of separate colonies then in existence seemed imminent, in the vast territory of Australia the breaking up of the great colony of New South Wales was almost an accomplished fact. The six years from 1846 to ’52 formed the period of transition in which the power of government was practically transferred from Downing-street to the capital cities of the great colonies. In 1848 Earl Grey revived the “Committee for Trade and Foreign Plantations,” and submitted to that Committee the consideration of the best mode of making constitutional changes in Australia. In reconstructing the Committee —to the members of the Board of Trade—who formed in fact the old committee —were added Lord Campbell, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Sir James Stephen, formerlyPormanent Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and Sir Edward Ryan. On thefirstof May, 1849, their report On the Australian Constitution was presented ; they then proceeded further to consider the proposed Constitution for South Africa, and reported upon that on the 20th January, 1850. These reports form exhaustive and luminous dissertations upon the questions submitted, worthy of the great names appended to them and sufficient to supply the historical ' foundations on which should be built up

the political constitutions of free nations. It is worthy of remark that the New Zealand Constitution was. not submitted to this Committee, nor was the question of Canada considered by it. The form of government for New Zealand as left perfect and complete by Earl Grey on his retirement from offiee in 1852 was the work of Sir 'George Grey, and from his correspondence and his suggestions some of the best features of the Canadian Constitution owe their existence. While,therefore, theCommitteeofbhePrivy Council was deliberating upon the form of representative constitutions to be granted to the Australian colonies, Sir George; Grey felt himself bound by every sentiment of honour to Her Majesty’s Government not to propose publicly any measure of government for New Zealand which mighb seem to extend the limits of popular power in these islands beyond that which the English 'Parliament was'' granting to 'the. Aus&r«Jian colonies, lest dissatisfaction might there have been created at the superior .advantages enjoyed by the colonists of New .Zealand. In a despatch from the Governor to Earl Grey, dated August 30th, 1851, he .clearly points out the position which he ■considered himself to held and this reasons 'Which actuated him. (Quotation from Constitution Act and Correspondence, pp. 34 £nd 35-)

“I judged, therefore, that it was my duty as an officer of a great empire, entrusted with high powers, not to attempt rashly to set up my judgment against the opinions of the majority of the great Council of that Empire, and by legislating in a manner different from that which they thought proper to pursue in immediately neighbouring colonies, create perhaps great embarrassment and much discontent. But I thought it rather my duty in any ordinances which I might pass for the creation of local legislatures, to act, in as far as the circumstances of the country would permit, in perfect accord and harmony with the system which Parliament might pursue; and then, in reference to any other changes I might deem necessary, to make recommendations on the subject to your Lordship in order that they might be submitted for consideration of Parliament. “ In all proceedings, therefore, which I have taken in reference to tho changes I have introduced into the constitution of this country, I have held the two foregoing principles in view; although I have still so framed my measures as to make gradual advances towards what, in my own opinion, would be the most perfect form of constitution which could be bestowed upon New Zealand.” (Despatch from Sir George Grey to the Right Honourable Earl Grey, August 30th, 1851.) Sir John Pakington, who succeeded Earl Grey, found the heads of the Bill already prepared. The new Secretary for the Colonies immediately invited Mr in England, to wait upon him at the Colonial Office and to confer and advise with him upon the proposed Constitution. Mr Fox gladly consented. And it must be presumed that it was upon Mr Fox’s advice that the perfect character of the Bill as left by Lord Grey was destroyed and its whole nature altered for the worse.

In preparing his recommendations for the government of New Zealand, which should form, as he fondly hoped, a constitutional model for the government of a free country, Sir George Grey had studied, with deep and eager interest, all forms of government which the world had seen. The latest development of a popular system—that of the United States—naturally claimed his closest attention. The weakness of that great confederation' he foresaw fifteen years before the links in the chain broke under the pressure of the question of slavery. Sir George recognised in the Constitution of the United States of America the fact that each State was free, sovereign and independent, and that the only powers properly claimed by the Union were such as were given to it by the legislatures and popular voice of the component States. He saw. therefore, that if ever the Union should claim jurisdiction in a question in which jurisdiction had not been given to it by the voices of its members, either that disruption must follow, or the rule of force prevail and the weaker party submit to the compulsion of an armed power. He aimed, therefore, at achieving a different result by assuming a different position. He desired to grant a Constitution the provinces and provincial governments of which should not give (as in the case of America) power and authority to the Central Government, bu tshould receive from the Central Government that jurisdiction and that legislative authority over certain matters which the central power thought proper to bestow. But seeing that the central power might from various causes desire to usurp authority over the inferior legislatures, he provided a safeguard in tho appointment of a second chamber, the electoral colleges for which should be the Provincial Councils themselves. By this method the provinces and Provincial Councils would have been safe from aggression by the federal Government, because they would have been directly represented in the second chamber, which would therefore have guarded their privileges with great jealousy, and yet a minority of the province could not have prevented advisable reforms. He ‘had advocated the existence of legislatures of a single chamber in the Provincial Councils, and the Bi-cameral system he proposed for the federal Government, giving to the second chamber the distinct and direct representation of the provincial assemblies. For tho loss of this the colony has to thank Sir John Pakington and his adviser Mr Fox. Their action has entailed upon New Zealand innumerable troubles, including the abolition of the provinces, the profligate borrowing and expenditure of nearly £35,000,000, and the growth of a huge contral Civil Service, located in Wellington, which dominates the country, as well as the extreme difficulty in carrying any measure for the extension of public liberty, for the levying of just taxation, and for the settlement of the people upon the land. New Zealand was saddled with a debt of £268,000, in favour of the New Zealand Company, a claim which the Crown Commissioner on the Company’s Board, Mr Cowell, states was, in the first place, established ‘by gross frauds, concealments, and misrepresentations, practised chiefly on Earl Grey and Sir Charles Wood, Chancellor of the Exchequer.’ ” (Mr Cowell’s letter, June Bth, 1854.) It was only Sir George Grey’s loyalty to the Imperial Government and Parliament that prevented him from bringing his Constitution into force earlier. As far as he thought he could properly go, he went. Then, making recommendations for still further steps to Her Majesty’s Ministers, he desired them to gain the credit and renown which would have followed' the adoption of his wise counsels and the results of his matured judgment. During the debates in Parliament which resulted in the passage of the Constitution Act it was admitted on every hand that the Constitution as proposed by Sir George Grey was the most liberal system of government in the Empire. ", ' ‘ ‘ _ : r >. ~ Other great advantages were proposed by Sir George Grey, such as the creation of hundreds and boroughs, which were, unfortunately, never properly adopted by reason of the ignorance or misapprehension as to their advantages which existed in the minds both of English and colonial legislatures, and through the selfishness of those who desired to use political power for their own advantages. , , i .u Kx! -v