SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE CONSTITUTION.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 440, 25 January 1890, Page 5

SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE CONSTITUTION.

(By W. L. Rees.)

NO. VII.

Doubts having been on many occasions suggested as to the authorship'of the New Zealand Constitution proposed by Earl Grey, it may be well to summarise the whole of* the evidence upon the subject which is to be found in the despaiohes, blue-books and public speeches of the parties concerned. The only claimant to the responsibility of having framed that Act is Sir George Grey. Not one of the many antagonists who opposed him lii New Zealand and in London, nor all combined, assert thit ihey framed this measure, that they developed its principles, or that they submitted it for the consideration of the Imperial Government. It is difficult to understand how any doubt can be entertained on this question after the perusal of Sir George Grey’s despatch to Earl Grey of August 50th, 1851(New Zealand Constitution Act, together with correspondence, Wellington, 1853.) Sir George Grey has never ceased to claim the original Constitution as his own work, his expression of ideas and of hopes for the self-government of a free people. E-Trl Grey having finally determined upon the form which the Bill should ta e, wrote in answer to the despatch of Sir Geo. Grey just quoted : ••Sir, —1 have to acknowledge your despatch, No. 121. of August 30th last, trailsmining the Provincial Council Ordinance In the form of which it passed the Legislative Gounod, and explaining with great clearness and in much detail your views with respect to the system of government best adapted to the existing conditi ns ot New Zealand. I have to thank you for the valuable information contained in this des patch. “It has been of great service in preparing the enclosed heads of a Bill which it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to introduce into Parliament in the present session for the purpose of establishing the legislative institutions of New Zealand on a permanent footing.” (De-patch from Earl Grey to Governor Sir George Grey, February, 1852 ) ' t Before Earl Greys Government could pass this Bib they were ousted from office. Sir John Pakingtun became Secretary tor the Colonies in the new Ministry. Under Sir Wil iam Fox s advice, as we have seen, the elective Council became a nominee body, and a debt of £268.000 in favour of the New Zealand Company was saddled upon the colonv of New Zealand. How far Sir William Fox may be responsible for either or both of these it is impossible to say, but this is certain, that the colonists of New Zealand had no opportunity of being heard on eit> er of these points, and that great indignation was felt in the colony at the large debt with which it Was burdened for the benefit of the New Zealand Company. Had Sir William Fox been a good colonist, he would have protested against both these innovations as injorious to his country ; and, instead of aiding, would have opposed the passage of the Bill iu this form. On the Ist of July, 1852, the Constitution Act as passed was transmitted by Sir John Pauington to Sir George Grey, with a despatch containing the following paragraph : “ Her Majesty’s Government have had abundant opportunities of recognising in the correspondence which lias taken place on this subject, between yourself and their predecessors, your strong attachment to liberal institutions, and the able manner in which you and your Council have both piepared the way for their introduction, and urged upon the Imperial Government the neces-ity t-f speedily creating them as soon as the temporary difficulties which induced you at tiist> to advise the suspension had passed away. They are, in fact, fully aware that the measure itself, now reduced into a law, owes its shape in a gieat degree to your valuable suggestions.’* (Despatch from Sir John Pakington to Governor Sir George Grey, July 16, 1852.) Thus Sir John Pakington, S-cretary for the Colonies, adds his testimony to that of Earl Grey, the late Secretary, as to the authorship of ihe Constitution Act. In the debate upon the second reading of the Bill in the H use of Commons Mr Gladstone spoke of the m asure as having been recommended by the Governor, Sir George Grey, and proceeded toeulogise the wisdom wh ch had appealed to the American Constitution for an example of a Federal Upper Chain her elected from provincial assemblies. Mr Gladstone spoke of this Act also as “an A :fc which conceded a larger measure of freedom than had hitherto been granted to the colonies. While Sir George Grey was in confidential correspondence with Earl Gi'ey upon the proposed Constitution, His Loidship, who was deeply interested wrote to the Governor asking whether he hod considered the method in fo-ce in the United Spates as to the elect o t of the Second Federal Chamber, and, if tie thought that plan advisable, whether it would not be wise for him to propose it formally to Her Majesty’s Government as a proper provision for New Zealand. So great was the encouragement given by Earl Grey to . the Governor upon this subject, and so evident his desire to afford all assistance to--wards framing the most liberal form of government, that it is difficult to limit the extent of participation in the final result ■w-liich can fairly be credited to His Lordship. Sir F. Peel, Under-Secretary of State, speaking in reply to Mr Adderley, woen that gentleman attacked Sir George Grey, -aid “ he was astonished to hear Sir George Grey represented as having been accustomed to exercise undivided rule and bjcome wedded to autocratic power, and as having consequently endeavoured to prevent the colonists of New Zealand from getting the benefit of free institutions. . . Was the honourable gentleman not aware that the Bill which was passed Parliament to give them Free institutions was framed, except in one particular, by Governor Grey himself, and that it was bo him that the colonists were indebted for the Constitution which Par liament had granted them ?’* (English “Hansard,’ June July, 1854, p. 710.) On Sir George Grey’s arrival in England he received letters from Sir John Pakington and Lord Lyttelton, warning him of intended attacks in Parliament, while notice was given in the House of Commons by Mr Adderley that he should bring before that House several points of complaint against the Governor of New Zealand. A part of Lord Lyttelton’s letter is as follows :

“ I also feel it my duty to inform you that I have felt bound to give notice of my intention to bring under the notice of the House of Lords, on the 13th insb., tt e same points (generally) which Mr Adderley recently brought before the House of Commons' ” (Letter from Lord Lyttelton to Sir George Grey, June, 1854.) In his reply, dated July .6th, 1854, Sir : George Grey" fully stated and answered the j various charges brought against him. So triumphant,was his vindication of himself, and so com pletSe the answer given by. the ! papers and despatches as known to the

Colonial Office and Parliament, that Sir John Pakington withdrew his attack. Mr Adderley’s motion in the House of" Commons failed to find a seconder, and Lord Lyttelton’s in the House of Peers only drew from the Duke of Newcastle, among other refutations of the charges against Sir George, the following statement: “It is somewhat hard to charge Sir Geo. Grey with culpability in leaving the colonies at the time he did What were the circumstances under which he asked for leave of absence? Seven een years of colonial service he could show, out of which he had been in England three months only—thirteen years and a half of continual service,during which he had never re-visited this country He had leit a mother in England and he was desirous of coming home to see her, and for that purpose, and th t alone, he applied for leave of absence. Sir George Grey knew that she was in an infirm state of health and that every month was preeiou*. He nevertheless fulfilled the duties I had imposed upon him. He remained twelve months to carry out the Constitution, in a manner which 1 confidently anticipate will be most advantageous. He remained to his own bitter cost. If he had come away earlier he would have attained his object. Sir George G ey arrived in E igland to hear before he landed that that mother, whom he had come 16,000 miles to see, lay on her death-bed, and before he reached her residence she had depar ed this file ; and is it not cruel he should be accused of coming home at an inopportune moment, when he remained and fulfilled all the duties imposed upon him, knowing he was running the ri-k of the sad event which occurred ?" (English “Hansard.” Speech of the Duke of Newcastle, June 14th, 1854.) During his stay in England upon hileave t.f absence, the Duke of Newcastle requested him to consent to takeover South Africa in lieu of New Zealand. This was the most difficult position in the whole colonial world. It hid taxed the energies and defeated the skill of the best men that England could send to it. This new app.iintment was the best testimony that the English Government could give to Sir George Grey's character and conduct. The University of Oxford conferred upon him its honorary degrees, which he received in company with Prince Napoleon, as five years later he received honours at Cambridge in company with William Ewart Gladstone.

The New Zealand Constitution, left perfect as ic was by Earl Grey, forms an epoch in the history of colonial government. The old system could never be restored ; the new principles of liberty and representative government became fixed and immovable in the relations between Britain and her colonies. It is for the people to say whether the conduct of Sir George Grey in delaying the establishment, of such institutions until the most perfect form could be obtained was the course of wisdom, or whether he would have been wise and patriotic in hurrying on an imperfect scheme which might have pacified the clamours of the moment, but have utterly failed to accomplish the great ends which he had in view. The verdict of posterity must be in favour of that procedure which waited for the corn to ripen before the sickle of the reuper was used. Sir George Grey has never attempted to argue or publicly dispute upon questions of his own conduct, or even to explain his acts, save where he has been compelled officially so to do. He has been content to allow time to give its verdict, and in this matter of the New Zealand Constitution, affecting as it does so largely the destinies of many great nations of the future, as in others which have happened in the course of his eventful life, his actions will be admired, his arguments approved, and his name venerated when his antagonists of an hour and his contemporaneous assailants are forgotten. It is at least remarkable that the very same questions which were at issue between Governor Grey and the New Zealand Company in 1846 should be the. important questions for the puolic and Parliament now to decide. Local self-government, a proper system and limit of taxation, and the providing of land for suitable and profi'able settlement of the peop e a e the main questions which should attract public attention in 1890, as they did in 1846. If this discussion (which has raked up a correspondence long buried, and brought before this generali' n the purposes and deeds of men nearly fifty years ago) teeults in bringing into their proper prominence these three questions of local self-government—a proper system of and limits to taxation, and land for the settlement of the people—then Sir William Fox will indirectly have been of service to the colony of New Zealand.