Responsible Government in other Colonies-Canada-Australia-New Zealand -Sir Philip's fourth Constitution-Session of 1870-Reserve SchedulesAttempt to withdraw Salaries from Votes-Debate on Governor's Proposals -Rejection of them-Incompetency of Executive-Illness of Mr. Molteno -Sir Philip's departure-Withdrawal of Troops-Lord Kimberley's views -Colonial Responsibility for Defence-Sir Henry Barkly, Governor-Mr. Molteno moves for Responsible Government-Speech in favour of—Motion carried-Discussion on Bill for Responsible Government-Bill carried— Rejection by Council-Annexation of Diamond Fields proposed-Opposed by Mr. Molteno-Visits Europe-Observations applied to Cape-Return to Cape-Session of 1872-Debate on Responsible Government Bill-Bill passed-Annexation of Griqualand West-Rejected-Effect of Responsible Government on Federation-Agitation in East-Its Collapse-New Ministry -Description of Mr. Molteno-Formation of Cabinet-Special Provisions of Responsible Government Act.

THE question may not be unprofitably asked whether Sir Philip Wodehouse could expect to rely for hope upon anything which had occurred in any of the other great colonies of the Empire in carrying his reactionary measure through the Cape Parliament? Did the Cape differ from them in spirit or self-reliance? A glance at the history of the development of colonial self-government may supply the answer.

Sir George Cornewall Lewis, writing in 1841, was correct in saying that

Since the close of the American war it has not been the policy of England to vest any portion of the legislative power of the subordinate government of a dependency in a body elected by the inhabitants. The only exception to this uniform policy is furnished by the Canadian provinces, whose subordinate Government was partly vested in a House of Assembly by an Act passed in 1791.1

1 Lewis, Government of Dependencies, p. 159.

6

6

The loss of our American colonies was long in teaching wisdom to our Government; so far from conceding greater freedom to those which remained, the colonial policy of England underwent a complete change. To prevent the further dismemberment of the Empire, became the primary object of our statesmen,' says Lord Durham in his celebrated Report of 1839;' and a special anxiety was exhibited to adopt every expedient which appeared calculated to prevent the remaining North American colonies from following the example of successful revolt.' We interfered in every kind of way with the internal affairs of the colonies. British colonisation for a time lost its main characteristics, and British provinces became the scene of a strange experiment, that of governing English subjects in America from an Office in London, and submitting distant dependencies to a subordinate Agency of a metropolitan Bureau working through the intrigue of a narrow clique on the spot.'?

English spirit soon showed itself in protest. The Canadian colonists asked for a constitution similar to that of England, which would give them more self-government. In 1791 an elected House of Assembly and a nominee Legislative

a Council were established in Upper and Lower Canada, the two provinces into which that country was then divided. But matters did not stop here, for there was a continual struggle on the part of the colonists to obtain complete representative institutions, by the subjection of the Executive to their own Legislature, the system in other words of responsible government.

The Government at home were very loth to yield. Their reluctance cost the country an enormous sum, and injured the colonial growth. Lord Durham reported that in each and every province the representatives were in hostility to the policy of the Government, and the administration of public

a

1

affairs was permanently in the hands of a Ministry not in harmony with the popular branch of the Legislature.''

This was exactly the position to which irresponsible government had reduced the condition of the Ministry at the Cape. It was argued then, as on every subsequent occasion it has similarly been argued, that the cessation of interference would mean the total separation of the colonies; but Lord Durham took the true view that the cessation from irritating interference meant the growth of better relations, and the birth of a warmer feeling of attachment, together with the removal of the causes of difference.

In the meantime, during 1837–8, there were rebellions, as well in Upper as in Lower Canada, owing to these defects in the constitution. In 1844 an Act was passed for the union of Upper and Lower Canada, separated in 1791, so as to. merge the quarrels of the two races, and this shows the wisdom of the policy of not granting a separate government to the eastern province of the Cape Colony.

What was wanted was, that the Government should be in harmony with the Legislature. Mr. Gibbon Wakefield describes the effect of giving representative institutions without sponsible government as being much like that of lighting a fire in a room with the chimney closed. How long it will last depends on the strength of the fire.' The determination of Englishmen is the same in whatever part of the world they may be established, only to submit to laws passed with their own consent.

The course of events tended to place more power in the hands of the Ministry responsible to the local Legislature. Yet the process was a gradual one. So late as 1844 Lord Metcalfe, the Governor-General, dismissed the Ministry, supported by a majority of the Assembly, and set up ministers of his own whom he kept in power by the vigorous use of his influence. This was aptly compared with

re

6

Strafford's advice to King Charles, ‘by no means to abolish Parliaments, as a well-governed Parliament was the best instrument for managing a people. Like Strafford he looked upon Parliament as a mere instrument of the prerogative, and he claimed that while he recognised the just power and privileges of the people to influence their rulers, he reserved to himself the selection of the Executive.' It is, of course, the exact reverse of the constitutional maxim that the Legislature controls the selection of the Executive, and in the words of Lord Grey, 'the effect of this was to direct parliamentary opposition against the Governor personally and the British Government, of which he was the organ.'

A considerable advance was made in Lord Elgin's administration, which came to an end in 1854, but the views he expressed of his relations with his Executive showed that responsible government was not yet in full force. He averred that he accepted as his advisers, men who possessed the confidence of the Legislature, but 'on the understanding that they would enjoy his support and favour only so long as they continued to merit them by fidelity to the Crown and devotion to the interests of the province.'

Thus he still adhered to the notion that the Crown could exercise a sort of superintending power quite apart from its power as a constituent of the Legislature. But after this time we hear no more of this superior and paternal power of the Crown and it takes its proper place as one of the constituents of the Legislature, while the Governor is little more than the connecting link between the mother country and the Colony, occupying the neutral position of the English Crown and amenable to Parliament through his Ministry.

Turning to Australia, whose colonies had been born in the second or .debased period' of English colonial policy,

are brought face to face with a curious anomaly. The necessity of governing penal settlements by a direct representative of the Crown had afforded the first in

6

we

6

a

stance of settlements founded by Englishmen without any constitution whatever, and the example was now followed and extended to colonies in which no convicts were admitted. * This,' says Merivale, is a remarkable novelty in British policy.' Such were the early governments of Australia, whether they had been penal settlements or not, and such a form survived in South Africa in the case of Natal, which, until 1893, remained a Crown colony.

New South Wales was the first to receive a constitution, which in 1842 somewhat widened its merely official government. Representation was given in a Council consisting of one-third nominee members and two-thirds elected. Lord Grey thought this an excellent form of constitution, as he considered it most difficult to create a satisfactory House of Lords in the colonies. In addition to the check imposed by the presence of nominee members in the Legislative Council, immature legislation was subjected to a further trial, for the Governor was empowered to return Bills for reconsideration with any amendments of his own.

This Constitution by an Act of 1850 was extended to the other colonies of Australia, with the exception of Western Australia. It did not satisfy the people of New South Wales. The New South Wales Legislative Council remonstrated against the Constitution Act as still retaining in the hands of the Crown the control of waste lands, customs, and the civil list and the Crown veto on local legislation. It is interesting to observe that they objected on the same grounds to the high price of land insisted on by the Crown, as did Mr. Molteno at the Cape, viz. that it diverted immigration from themselves.'

There was a power given under the above Constitution Act to the Council to reform itself, and in 1852 Sir John Packington, the Colonial Secretary, offered to repeal the Land Sales Act if the Australian colonies would establish institu

· Merivale, On Colonisation, vol. i. p. 105.