Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Life of Sir George Grey: Governor, High commissioner, and Premier. An Historical Biography.

Grey's Authorship

Grey's Authorship.

Sir George Grey was doubtless prepared to take further steps in the way of constitutional legislation, but he held his hand when he learnt that a constitution for New Zealand was being prepared in the Colonial Office. Though of English origin, it was of colonial parentage. The putative father of it was Sir John Pakington, who had succeeded with the Ministry of Lord Derby to a brief tenure of the Colonial Secretaryship. The real author of it was Sir George Grey. On this point the evidence is conclusive. Here is the English evidence. In February, 1852, Earl Grey acknowledged that the page 80Provincial Councils Ordinance "has been of great service in preparing" the Bill about to be submitted to Parliament. Meanwhile, a change of Ministry took place. On July 1, Sir John Pakington transmitted the new constitution, and he acknowledged in writing to the Governor, that the measure "owes its shape in a great degree to your valuable suggestions." The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Sir Frederick Peel, went still further. He asserted that the "bill just passed was framed, excepting in one particular, by Governor Grey himself, and it was to him that the colonists were indebted for the constitution which Parliament had granted them.''

Sir George Grey might therefore seem to be within his rights when he claimed the constitution of New Zealand as his handiwork. Yet there is a very different account of the matter. When Sir John Pakington succeeded Earl Grey as Secretary for the Colonies in 1852, he found in the pigeon-holes of the Colonial Office a bill prepared by his predecessor, granting a constitution to New Zealand. He did not accept it en bloc. According to Mr. Rees, here as everywhere expressing the belief of Sir George Grey, he summoned Mr. (afterwards Sir William) Fox, who had gone to London to launch a formidable indictment at the head of the Governor, and this most determined of Grey's opponents aided the Minister in mangling a perfect constitution. There is better evidence on the subject. Sir Charles Adderley, afterwards Lord Norton, expressly states that the measure "was based on a draft I drew up under the guidance of Gibbon Wakefield."* If Gibbon Wakefield's narrative be correct, Adderley's statement errs by unduly simplifying the actual process. The draft referred to had been "drawn up at Hams, Adderley's seat, by a committee consisting of Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Adderley, Messrs. Fox and Weld, afterwards New Zealand Premiers, and Wakefield."Wakefield, who contributed this interesting detail in a letter to Lord Lyttelton, also virtually claimed the

* Review of "The Colonial Policy of Lord J. Russell's Administration," p. 137.

Edward Gibbon Wakefield, by Dr. Garnett, pp. 330-1.

page 81authorship of the constitution by petitioning the House of Commons in its favour.*

It is difficult to understand why Grey should have set such store by his claims to originality in connection with the constitution. These circle round the Provincial Councils. Earl Grey had anticipated this feature. Wakefield identified himself with it so passionately that he might seem to be claiming it for his own. It was through Wakefield's persistent advocacy that this part of the Act was carried, notwithstanding the opposition of Sir W. Molesworth and Robert Lowe; while Molesworth, Cobden, and Bright, we may interpolate, voted against the clause that provided for a nominee second chamber. But the provincial system was forced upon constitution-makers by the different origins of the various settlements and in part by their geographical situation. There would seem to be little merit in accepting the dictates of history and nature.

So peculiarly did Grey regard the creation of the provincial system of government as his own that, as he informed the present writer, he deliberately modelled it upon the State-system of the United States. In order to mask the source of the loan, as he confessed, he named the units 'provinces' instead of 'States.' For the same reason he named their elective heads 'superintendents' instead of 'governors.' He was radically disloyal to the British Government when he made these admissions, but it does not follow that he was equally disloyal when he devised the system and proposed the designations. His good-name is happily shielded behind a far greater name. In the debate in the House of Commons on the constitution, which he was chiefly instrumental in carrying through the House, Mr. Gladstone avowed his preference for Grey's plan of electing the second chamber in New Zealand by the Provincial legislatures. But no Cleon has ever impeached the loyalty of such an Aristides as Gladstone. Nay, it was by Earl Grey himself that the Governor's attention was drawn to the models he might

* Wakefield's letter was published in the Lyttelton Times, October 30th, 1852.

page 82find in the constitution of the United States. Lord Grey had asked him whether he had considered American methods of government.