PUBLIC ERRORS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 647, 15 July 1876, Page 3

PUBLIC ERRORS.

To the Editor of the Glohe. Sir, — Such astonishing ignorance is now and then displayed by persons in authority, that we cannot too much value the possession of the power to point out abuses, errors, and omissions. This power is secured to us only by a free press, and those who, as in the late elections, use the Fourth Estate for private purpose, to burk the truth, and espouse private interest, will in the end suffer all the consequences of sowing the wind, and reap the whirlwind of political extinction ( e.g ., Mr R.) But in pointing out errors, it is not in the least necessary for a man to descend to the style of Mr Reader Wood, or the Knight of Auckland. I preface my letter with this caution, because the circumstances to which I am now going to call public attention are such weighty faults, that I should like it to be clearly understood that I am destitute of all faction or factious feeling. Error 1. In England the House of Brunswick is founded on jthe Act of Settlement; to speak more plainly Queen Victoria only reigns by virtue of the Act of Settlement by breach of which she would legally forfeit her crown. Yet, through the negligence no doubt of Mr Disraeli, and the Privy Council, Queen Victoria has just broken article 3 of Act of Settlement—that is—“ No sovereign while Parliament sits shall go out of England, Scotland, or Ireland without consent of Parliament.” Now, no Englishman of the mens Sana in corpore sano stamp can do other than respect her Majesty, and on that acoount I think great blame lays at the door of Mr Disraeli and the Privy Council for suffering the Queen to break this article by going to Germany during the sitting of the House, and without its consent. It is a very good and useful law, and should be kept carefully. Error 2. It was a clear breach of the Act of Settlement in its article 6 to allow Superintendents to sit in the House in New Zealand, the words are quite express, “No person having any place of profit under the Crown shall be allowed to sit in Parliament, &c, &c.” Twenty years ago Hursthouse at vol. 1, page 268, says—“ If a Bill were before the House of Representatives repressing the Powers of Provincial Councils, would not every Superintendent ‘vote against it.’” Twenty years have passed, and the great opponents of abolition were the Superintendents of Auckland, Otago, Canterbury, and Wellington. Hursthouse prophesied truly. To my mind any Disqualification Bill that contravenes the Act of Settlement is ultra vires, and indeed it must be so in right, whatever it may be in law. My main object in calling public notice to this breach of our noble constitution is that I notice in the parliamentary reports in the Globe that the Minister of Justice is going to tinker the Disqualification Aet. Let the intelligent public call upon the House to do away with all this nonsense, and give us the freedom of Englishmen. Your House of Commons will always be corrupt 3 you don’t. Look at Fibzherbert (the Sturdy Beggar was his Parliamentary title) paM off with a billet; another Superintendent gone. Abuse No. 1. The Judges, qvamdiH se bene gesserint, may hold their commissions. So says our Act of Parliament ; yet, by an underhand Irishman’s ( trick, this law is virtually broken. A Judge, as we all know, quite beyond corruption, is put in this dilemma—“ Either give up your Judgeship, or leave your home, property, children, lands, and go into a strange place. Take your choice. ” And this dilemma is put by a person whose every act is a burlesque of justice, and who also, as the Glohe so bravely showed, could turn upon a greyheaded Registrar in a similar fashion, and pass over fourteen years’ service in one of our public servants to please a friend. Abuse No. 2. Clause 4 of the Act of Settlement says ‘ * Every Privy Councillor shall attend (under penalty), do his duty, and sign his advice.” To read the debates in the House, 1 should have thought there was no such law. The Premier complains of “intolerable calumny,” &c. He says “ his colleagues are co-responsible in all transactions,” but he alone is blamed. It will be easy for the House to call for the Council minutes, and see the signatures to the various Acts, for all Cabinet Ministers are ex officio Councillors, and all records are open to the House. Then the “cap can be put on the right man ” But when the public see letters “ from Colonial Treasurer” “to Colonial Treasurer,” &c., published in that wonderful Bank correspondence, the public should blame Mr Bowen, Dr Pollen, Major Atkinson with the abuses, errors, and omissions therein exposed. Abuse 1. To prefer the good of the Bank to that of the country, by lending the money to the customers of that private company, instead of through all the Banks to the country at large. Abuse 2. To contravene the very letter of the Bankruptcy Act, by insisting on fraudulent preference of creditors, in the event of the Brink being unsafe. He stipulates he is to withdraw the deposit (i. c. , to be paid in full) if the Bank of New Zealand is unsafe. The Premier, Mr Bowen, and his Cabinet may think they can pass the House, and the commercial men of New Zealand with this, but I feel sure our Judges, even though the Minister of Justice Should threaten his old trick, will not suffer a bankrupt to pay one creditor in full, and all the others with a dividend of the balance remaining out of the assets. “ Be jure respondent Indices,” that is the one pillar of our laws. “ Be facto juratores" its sister pillar. Error 1. To set aside the business and banking experience of the inspectors of all the Banks ; to run directly counter to their advice, savours of what ? The Premier spoke of hallucinations. Was not this one ? Error 2. To make an agreement with a private banking company, which agreement contains a flat breach of the law, and so is, of course, void. This is a consequence ot the fraudulent preference stipulation beforenamed, and also of so deliberately breaking the advice of our best men of business. A very weighty error is a false agreement of this kind. Omission 1. There seems to be a serious omission in the minds of the Cabinet respecting the'powerof the Crown, Orders in Council, &c., and it was this no doubt that caused the Premier to eat his own words. First, to state “ The Crown had done it, and nothing the House could say could affect it.” It is one part of our glorious British constitution, that “ we can sue the Crown criminally, as well as for damages.” But, besides that, the

Premier omita to notice that he committed the very breach of the law that was ao care* fully guarded by clause 1 of the Declaration of Bights, “ a pretended power of executing laws without Parliament. Of course the House, by forcing him to debate on a proposal to enquire, virtually compelled Sir Julius to eat his own words ; thereby asserting their power in spite of him. The unlearned among your readers may rely on all these facts, because they are put forward with a view to inform and assist, and not to hurt or destroy anybody or thing, and, of course, because they are substantiated by documents in existence. It has grieved all sensible supporters of the Premier to see that he should burk all enquiry, by making it a party question. Who was it that said “ It is only evil deeds that court darkness" ? If there was no harm, then it was all the more easy to let a committee sift it. As the matter stands the Government have wasted time, avoided enquiry, put the onus on to Abolition, and generally have used the high hand. The mental calibre of the self-elected leaders of Opposition is, however, well gauged —at a shade above zero ; and we can well separate Messrs Rolleston and Fisher from their fellows, voting with English pluck. “No harm in a full enquiry into everything.” Yours, &c., J. W. TREADWELL.