THE DISSOLUTION CORRESPONDENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 3016, 18 October 1872, Page 4

THE DISSOLUTION CORRESPONDENCE.

Mr Stafford, in asking the Governor to grant him a dissolution, referred to the defeat of the Fox-Vogel Government by a majority of three, and of himself by a majority of two within four weeks, as “ unmisfcakeable evidence that no party in the present House is strong enough to command a reliable working majority.” Though this reason he considered was sufficient for affording the electors, as the constitutional final resort, the opportunity of determining to whom the country would prefer to entrust the conduct of its public affairs, there were additional ones, Avhich he states as follows in his memo. “ It requires to be considered that the present Parliament was elected during the tenure of office of the late Government, which met Parliament in the first session which succeeded the elections, with a very considerable majority—a majority which, however, steadily declined during the first and present sessions, until it ceased to exist. That a great change in the feeling of the country has taken place since the last gene ral election, is beyond question, an instance of which (amongst others) it may be mentioned that when, on joining the late Government, Mr Hall resigned his scat, he was succeeded by an opponent of that Government. Again, in the case of the most recent election, which was warmly contested, when another member of the late Government resigned his scat in the House of Representatives, an opponent of that Government was elected in his room. 'lhe bare majority, therefore, by which the House last night refused its confidence to Ministers, may fairly be assumed not correctly 7 to represent the opinion or wishes of the country : in which case it has long been held as a constitutional rule that the question whether, in refusing its confidence to Ministers, the House has correctly expressed the opinion of the country, may properly b tested by a dissolution. In relation to this well-established rule, Mr Stafford would observe, that from the best information which he has received, he has every reason for believing that the result of a dissolution would be the return of a decisive majority in favor of the present Government.” The Governor at once replied that in the first instance ho wished to be informed if there was sure ground for believing that the existing Par iament was ready to grant the supplies necessary to carry on the public service until a new Parliament could meet, to which Mr Stafford replied—‘‘in accordance with constitutional us 3, it is the recognised duty of Parliament, in case of a pending resolution, to grant the requisite supplies for the public service, limited to the shortest period which will enable a new Parliament to meet. Ministers have no reason to doubt, and in fact do not doubt, that the New Zea-

land Parliament will perform its proper constitutional duty,” The Governor then stated that he declined to grant a dissolution for the following reasons : - (1.) It has always been held by English statesmen and political writers of authority that frequent dissolutions are injurious to Parliamentary Government; for, in addition to other disadvantages, they have an obvious tendency tn cause members to be regarded as mere delegates of the constituencies, and not as representatives of the country at large. Now, the existing Parliament of New Zealand was elected for live years i > 1871. It is as yet only in its second session, and is barely eighteen mouths old. To put the Colony to great expense and inconvenience of a general election twice within so short a period could be justified only by the gravest necessity, (2.) It appears probable that the country is as much divided as the Legislature which represents it. At all events, there has been no strong or universal expression of public opinion in favor of either of the parties which have lately held office. Indeed, it seems evident that the country generally is disposed to regard the difference between most of its leading men as personal rather than political, and as concerned with matters of detail rather than of principle. (3 ) There is absolutely no question of magnitude to refer to the constituencies. Both sides in the present Parliament support the policy of Public Works and Immigration which was adopted by the last Parliament. Both sides approve a policy of peace and conciliation towards the Ma >ris. No measure of urgent importance, respecting which any material difference of opinion exists, appears to be pending. (4.) If the nearly equally balanced state of parties in the Legislature (as shown by recent occurrences) be taken into account, it appears that Mr Stafford may probably be somewhat too sanguine in deeming it beyond doubt that either of these parties, as at present constituted, would find no difficulty in getting supplies, or in securing the passing of an Appropriation Act with a view to an immediate dissolution. (5.) It seems to be morally certain that the majority of the Parliament and of the people of New Zealand agree in desiring that there may be formed, on a wider basis, a new Administration, strong enough to canyon the Government without further interruption of the public business. It is confidently expected t bat practical effect can be given to that desire. On the whole, the Governor believes that a fresh appeal to the country would be pr mature until all proper endeavors in this di ection indicated in the last paragraph shall have failed. Consequently, he has derided that his duty compels him to decline to accede to Mr Stafford’s recommendation of an immediate dissolution. G, F. Bowen. Government House, Oct. 7, 1872. P.S. —With reference more particularly to the paragraph marked 4, the Governor wishes to add that he does not intend any part of this memorandum to be understand to imply that he would make any objection, if Ministers still differ from the views expressed in that paragraph, and desire to test the opinion of Parliament upon the point at issue. In that case the Governor expects—(a) That this correspondence shall be laid before both Houses, with the object of preventing any possible misapprehension; and (b) That the passing of the necessary Appropriation Act shall be regarded as evidence that the Legislature agrees with Ministers in deeming expedient an early appeal to the constituencies, G. F. Bowen. Mr Stafford then wrote that “Ministers had no reason to doubt that Parliament will perform its constitutional duty, to enable the public service to be carried on until the reassembling of the Legislature., Before, however, submitting to Parliament proposals founded on a contemplated dissolution, Mr Stafford submits that he should be enabled to announce that, on the supplies being granted, Parliament will be dissolved. By adopting any other course, the duty of deciding wh-ther Parliament should be dissolved or not, would in fact be relegated to the House of Representatives, instead of resting, as it constitutionally does, with his Excellency. Mr Stafford respectfully reminds his Exoelllency that a dissolution is never advised, except when a Government is unable to command a reliable majority.” His Excellency’s final answer was—- “ Looking to all the circumstances surrounding the present Ministerial crisis (to some of which attention has already been drawn) the Governor is compelled to decide that it would not be right for him to give beforehand such a pledge as that for which Mr Stafford now asks. If the existing Parliament were older; if there were any large question to submit to the constituencies; if there were good grounds for expecting a material change in public ooinion respecting the policy of the Colonial Government; if all proper attempts to form a strong and united Administration had been exhausted ; in short, if these and other circumstances of the case were different, then the action of the Governor would also be different.” The resignation of the Stafford Ministry was then sent in.