GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1047, 2 November 1877, Page 3

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Telegraph.] [pes pebßß agency.] HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES. THE NO-CONFIDENCE DEBATE. Thursday, November 1. The House met at 2.30 p.m. The no-confidence debate was resumed. Mi - Pyke said the Opposition were satisfied with might against right, but the country would not be so, and the Opposition would find this unless they gave much better reasons than they had yet done for their action. It was to their constituents that they would have to accouut. Major Atkinson was simply fighting for place and power, and from end to end of the country there was but one sentiment, that the Ministry had not fair play. Their defeat would excite a universal howl of execration and indignation at one set of men charged with no offence being turned out simply because others wanted their places. There was but one remedy for the present confusion, and that was an appeal to the country. He was quite prepared to meet the Land Fund question, by determining that a fixed proportion being appropriatad to local public works, the balance should go into the common purse, so as to avoid living on Treasury Bills. He quoted Sir George Grey's and Colonel Whitmore's speeches to show that there was absolute unanimity of opinion then, and that both were pledged to preserve the unity of the colony, and not to revive Provincialism. He objected altogether to two or three families monopolising all political power. The ice was now broken however, and the old state of things would never return. The present Ministers were men of business from whom yes or no could promptly be obtained, but the late Ministry always pursued the Fabian policy of delay from month to month, and sometimes from year to year. He severely censured those members who were now prepared to vote for Major Atkinson, after having recently voted against liim, and pronounced them politically dead. Neither side would ever tolerate them in oflice. Mr Hislop commented strongly on the silence of the Opposition, and on none of them having attempted to reply to Mr Larnach's figures. At present separation was merely an abstract one, but if such conduct as Mr Gisborne's was persisted in, and all those who were in theory separationists were therefore to be excluded from all share in the Government of the colony, separation would soo u become a practical one. While the colony was well governed separation was not likely to become more than a theory, but misgovemment would reduce it to practice. Mr Gisborne at the meeting which elected Sir George Grey leader, distictly promised to support him if he did not make separation a cardinal point of his policy. Mr Gisborne interrupted. What he had promised was to support Sir G. Grey if he made the preservation of the unity of the colony a cardinal point. Mr Hislop continued that Mr Gisborne's recollection was not borne out by any others nresent. He referred to the rumors that a dissolution would be refused to Sir G. Grey, but given to Major Atkinson, as showing the difficulties Ministers had to contend with. He contended that Sir G. Grey was clearly entitled to a dissolution, and quoted precedents. Whatever the result of the debate, a dissolution was necessary. THE GOVEENOE AND THE MINISTEY. Mr Stout rose, not to speak to the motion but of an urgent case of breach of privilege contained in the concluding sentence of the Governor's memo, about calling Mr Wilson to the Council. This struck at the root of responsible [Government, if the Governor was to become absolute Dictator so soon as any vote of want of confidence in a Ministry was given notice of. If such notice being pending was to put an end to Ministers' executive action, the Governor was clearly now the Dictator of the colony without being guided by the advice of any Minister responsible to Parliament. Mr Eolleston interrupted, asking whether there was any question of privilege. If Ministers were not prepared to support the Crown, they should give the Crown an opportunity of being presented in the House. The Speaker ruled that tho matter was a very urgent one, which the House was quite entitled to discuss and have settled. Mr Stout continued. Two breaches of Parliamentary privilege wert) involved. The first was the grand old principle handsd down from the Commonwealth times, that the King or Crown should nob know what took place in the legislature till it was communicated to him by resolution, address, or in other constitutional manner. He cited from " May," to show that the Crown had no right to take notice of what was going on or done till it was presented in duo course of Parliament. In 1783 the House of Commons pagßsd a very itroog leevlutioa oa the subject.

The Governor had overlooked his constitutional advisers and chosen to enter into the arena of politics, and to take cognizance of what they were doing. Parliament did not speak to the Crown in its debates, but in a proper manner. He referred to the Speaker's answer when Charles the First desired to know what was going on in Parliament. It might be argued that the conferring of honors differed from any other ordinary executive act. He quoted from Todd to show that this was not the case. Then in the case of the creation of Peers the Crown was bound to be guided by responsible advisers. If the Governor declined to accept the advice of Ministers because a vote of want of confidence was pending, it followed that thei'e was no responsible Minister so soon as anyone chose to put such motion on the order paper. It would have been constitutional for the Governor to have simply declined to take the advice when Ministers could have resigned, or to have asked time to consider the appointment, but the course he had chosen to take was alike unconstitutional and unprecedented. There was in England a precedent of peers actually being appointed after a vote of want of confidence had actually been carried, and Earl Russell recommended a creation after he had actually tendered his resignation, and the appointment was made. He called on the House to assert its dignity, rights, and privileges apart from party considerations. He moved —" That the position assumed by his Excellency the Governor iu the latter part of a memorendum relative to the appointment of J. N. Wilson to the Legislative Council is not in accordance with the privileges of Parliament." Mr Eolleston thought notice should have been given of intention to raise an important question of this kind, and he thought it was not right for the House to entertain this question, for one of the first fundamental principles of Parliamentary Government was that the Crown could do no wrong. Parliament only knew the Crown through its Ministers. He expressed no opinion at present, whether the Governor's action was right or wrong in this matter. The Crown was not presented in the House. Unless Ministers were prepared to defend their action, Ministers had to be in accord with both Crown and House, and should resign if not in accord with either on any important matter. In 1861 this question was considered and settled in regard to Ministerial responsibility in Native matters. He quoted from Weld's speech at the time. If Ministers differed from the Governor they should resign. The House, no doubt, had a right to discuss a question affecting its privileges even with the Crown, but should not do so till the Crown were properly presented in the House. Ministers should not have allowed such a question to be raised by a private member. Mr Baki'l' thought the conduct of the Opposition in the House should not affect his Excellency's relations to Ministers, and the question was so important that no delay should be tolerated in vindicating their privileges, and if such things were permitted a greater separation —that of the colony from the Empire —would become inevitable. If the Governor could refuse the advice of Ministers for a want'of confidence motion, there might be twenty others, and they should have a list of them. Mr Tkavehs said the reason given by the Governor for refusing Ministers' advice on the face of it appeared a breach of the privileges of the House, and as Ministers were as much interested in these privileges, and the papers had been presented by command of the Governor, he thought the House quite entitled to discuss it, but the question was a very novel one. There were no recent precedents, but the rule was undoubted that the Crown shoxdd not know what was done within the walls of Parliament till officially and constitutionally informed thereof. The qiiestion should be treated purely as one of privilege, and not as party one. However much he might be opposed to the Ministry, he would support them to the last in defending the privileges of the House. The matter should be calmly discussed after full consideration and research. He hoped the Governor would not be deemed guilty of partisanship in any way, but as having acted simply as he thought right, even though he had committed a grave error which the House, in defence of its privileges, was bound to take notice of. He moved the immediate adjournment of the House till half-past seven, so as to enable members to look up their constitution law, consult together, and, apart from all party considerations, agree to some action in asserting the privileges of the House. After some discussion as to the adjournment, Mr GiSBOitNE moved that the House adjourn until to-morrow to enable this important question to be fully considered. He thought an address expressing the regret of the House at His Excellency's having invaded the ancient constitutional right of Parliament that the Crown should not take notice of matters in agitation and debate in the Houee, would be better than the terms of Mr Stout's motion. The want of conlidencc debate was then adjourned until to-morrow. The House then adjourned until to-morrow.