The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 6, 1912. DEMOCRATIC RULE?

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1432, 6 May 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. MONDAY, MAY 6, 1912. DEMOCRATIC RULE?

A good many people in this country are still expressing surprise that a small group of politicians should nave been allowed to seize the reins of government without having obtained any evidence of confidence from the elected representatives of the people. In granting a prorogation of Parliament which enabled the Ministry to hold office unquestioned until, virtually, next July, his Excellency probably was influenced by a Canadian precedent, which arose in this way. The Ministry of Mr. (afterwards Sir) John A. Macdonald was defeated on a question of the place for the (then) new capital. Todd states in so many words that the division was not a vote of want-of-con-iidence. But Macdonald apparently thought it well to give a sharp lesson to the unruly section of his party, so he resigned. The Governor then invited Me. Beown, the leader, with Me. Dorion, of the unsuccessful "division,', to form a new Government, and his invitation was accepted. Prior, however, to Ministers being sworn-in, the Governor sent to the new Premier a minute to the effect that

tho Governor gave no pledge or promise, express or implied, with reference to dissolving Parliament. Ho has no objection to prorogue the Parliament without the members of the new Administration takin°their seats in the present session. . . Until the new ministers meet Parliament his Excellency has no assurance that they possess the confidence of the House. Tho business transacted in the interval ought, m his opinion, to be confiued to matters necessary for tho ordinary administration of the province.

His Excellency went on to mention Supply, and certain Bills then before Parliament, especially an urgent one for the repair of certain damaged canals, which he thought should be passed forthwith. Ministers decided to at once meet Parliament, were at once handsomely beaten on a vote of want-of-confidence, and at once resigned. Mr. M.'.cdonald turned to office. Comparing these facts with those existing here, the only reason for the granting of a prorogation until June would seem to be that his Excellency did not consider there were any urgent matters before the House. Most people will think the Canadian precedent which has been followed here an undesirable one. It will be seen that, in one respect at least, the Brown-Dorion Ministry was in a less weak position than the Mackenzie Ministry. The former could point to having been placed in power by the action of a niajority. The .latter cannot, since it asks New Zealand to believe that it is quite distinct from the Ward Government which did have a majority of one vote on the no-confidence motion of Inst session.- Yet it was recognised that even the existence of the majority vote against the Macdonald Government could not entitle the Canadian Governor to assume that his new Ministry had the confidence of the House. They had not been returned to Parliament as known representatives of the majority of the people, nor, failing this, hail they, as a Ministry, proved oil tin; iloor of the House that they, in fact, possessed its conl'idt'iice. And therefore, until the happening of one of these two events, his Excellency could not accept "advice' 1 from them. How much worse then is the position of the Mackenzie Government here which did not attain to nffico through n majority vote of l,ho .IlauM wliXik baa ttfivoj, , beau bciarcu 9

the people and never even faced Parliament i As this question is likely in be fiercely debated hero nnxt month Miere are simie points connected wiMi it worth attention now. "Majority rule" is one of the basic prindnies ot the British Constitutioi!. The majority in tlie House is supposed to, nncl usuiilly does, represent the opinions, for the time being, of (he. majority of the electors. Therefore, until it is defeated, (hat dominant party assumes the government of Ihe country. To bring this about the Crown (or (iovernor) wilds for (he leader of the party, niul requests him to undertake the governi'iii'iil. By accepting this request the leader at once accepts personal responsibility for all the nets of the Crown since his predecessor's resignation, bfiwuise, by the Constitution, Him Crown has no personal retipoiiiiibility. Thi) leader then eliooiieji hiii Cabinet, A Cabinet, by tho bye, in a thing unknown to the Cnmtl.itiilimi, which only recognises Mid leader (or Premier). As a result l.lm other members of it hnvo no personal responsibility for the actn of the, Crown. It is because of (bis miln responsibility cast on the nlunildorii of the Premier that the Connlitn(,ioii also, and rightly ordains, Hint Iju shall be absolutely unfettered in the choice of his colleagues. Su long mi the Premier and his jinrlv continue to b-J in a majority in Mm llmiuc, he is entitled, and it i.s It in duty, U> "advise" the Crown on the niiitlcnt necessary for carrying out the policy of Ins party. And the Crown, unless it has reason to believe that Mm opinion of the people has changed, or some action proposed is unjust or improper, accepts tho "advice." When the Premier loses the conlicluncn of tho House he, with one exception, can no longer tender "advice," because he no longer represents a majority. He may ask foi», and, if he can show reason, may obtain a dissolution. And if he fails (or after a defeat at a general election), he must at once resign. Tho last "advice" he can tender is as to his successor. And constitutional law, established on this point for much over a century, lays it down, as might be expected from the principle we first quoted, that the successor to be recommended shall be the leader of the strongest party in the House. It because of the violation of these various laws or principles that New Zealand is in the position to-day of having a Ministry which constitutionally should dot be in a position to advise his Excellency the Governor. It can, and in Mie rare moments when it is not careering over the country at the taxpayers' expense, it does do routine work such as spending the money voted last year. It can, and does, draw its '. own salaries. But it cannot probably give to the Governor, nor he | accopt,_ any advice on other matters. There is no evidence before the Gov- ' ernor on which he, in the exercise ' of his own independent judgment can infer that Ministers possess the confidence of a majority of the House. On the contrary, they arc only known to possess the confidence of 23 members—the vote by which Mr. Mackenzie was elected—in a House of 80. The British Empire has never before known a Ministry such as this, and it is to be hoped that it never will again. And if it is asked _ who has placed our. country i'n this humiliating position, the answer is, Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Thomas Mackenzie. The former, by recommending the Governor to send for Mr. Mackenzie, and the latter by accepting nomination. When, to save the stigma of actual defeat on he floor of the House, Sir Joseph Ward resigned,' it was his constitutional duty to have "advised" hia Excellency to send for the leader of the strongest party in the House. That party was and is the Reform party. It is no answer to say that Mr. Massey had not an absolute majority in the House. No party had that at the moment. But his party is admittedly the strongest of tbe three _ parties, and, constitutionally speaking,_ he had a right to bo sent for, leaving him to accept office or not as he thought fit. It is probable that the Reform party is better off to-day because of the coxirso pursued than it would have been had tho proper constitutional course boon followed. But that is altogether another matter.