The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1455, 15 October 1878, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1878.

It is not often that in a country nominally governed on constitutional principles by a responsible Ministry the spectacle is afforded of the head of the Ministry standing up and appealing forcibly to the Representative Chamber to reject a clause which one of his colleagues had just declared that the credit of the colony required should become law. Such, however, was the exhibition offered to the House on Friday night when the Special Powers and Contracts Bill was in committee. The Attorney-General moved a clause to enable the Government to carry out the agreement made by the Auckland Waste Lands Board with Mr. Broomhall, and he contended that the credit of the colony was at stake, and the bargain could not bo repudiated. Ho was immediately followed by the Premier, who strongly opposed the new clause which ho said would inflict injustice upon the Thames settlers. “ He urged the committee to reject the clause moved by the Attorney-General.” It is no wonder that under such circumstances members expressed themselves altogether astonished at the wonderful elasticity of a Ministry which could contain members differing from one another not merely on points of expediency in which moral questions were not involved, but on a point involving such an all important issue as the maintainanco of the colony’s reputation as a fair dealer. As to the absolute merits of the matter in discussion it is impossible to form a very decided opinion unless the actual text of the agreement made -with Mr. Broomhall, and full particulars of the legal position of the Aroha block when the agreement was made were before us. The contention of the Ministry, exclusive of Mr. Stout, is not, however, based upon the terms of the agreement, so far as Mr. Broomhall is concerned. They do not maintain that Mr. Broomhall has broken through a covenant which would otherwise have been binding, although Mr. Sheehan says, irrelevantly enough, that there is ho evidence that Mr. Broomhall has not broken through it. The Ministerial contention is that the agreement is itself invalid, because the Waste Lands Board of Auckland exceeded its powers in making it. The land concerning which the agreement was made was not, it is argued, under the control of the Board at the time the latter assumed to alienate it, which was done under clause 29 of the Waste Lands Administration Act, 1876, It is evident that a very grave question is thus raised—namely, how far the colony is to be hold responsible for the acts of its Waste Lauds Boards, and on this question the Premier and the AttorneyGeneral held opinions directly antagonistic to each other. Mr. Stout considers that for the colony to refuse to ratify the agreement in question would be tantamount to repudiation; the Premier and Mr. Sheehan hold that it would be injurious to the people of the colony to ratify it. Wo are far from saying that there is not very much to be urged in favor of the latter view. It seems monstrous that a few ix*respousible gentlemen, whoso qualifications are frequently of no very high order, should bo able to commit the colony to any foolish agreement they may make—should be able, if the Native Minister’s statement is correct, to usurp the power of making agreements concerning lands which had not been brought under their control. But, on the other hand, it cannot bo forgotten that the Waste Lands Boards are the delegates of the Government, which undoubtedly possesses the power of removal in case of necessity, and consequently, when an agreement has been made by such a Board and the Government have not during a long period shown any sign of disapproval, or asserted any right to cancel the agreement on the ground that it was beyond the power of the Board, they must be taken as having given a tacit approval to the act of their servants. But further, the clause above referred to specially provided that in this particular case the terms and conditions should be subject to approval by the Governor. Consequently the question arises—was such approval given ? On this point there is no direct evidence to bo gathered from the debate, although it would appear to bo material to the point at issue. It is quite comprehensible that as to the validity of the original agreement reasonable men should hold very different opinions; but it is not comprehensible that reasonable and conscientious men should differ as to the effect upon the colony’s good fame of the Government intervening to repudiate an agreement made by its subordinates, and which had been allowed to subsist unquestioned for a very considerable period. Clearly if that agreement is invalid, Mr. Broomhall ought to have been warned of its invalidity immediately after its making. But what has been done? Why, the colony has actually received into the Treasury, and still holds, moneys paid in pursuance of that agreement, and there is no plea that any offer was ever made to Mu Broomhall to reimburse the sum as having been paid by him and received by the Colonial Treasurer under a misconception! Under these circumstances itishardto see how repudiation o£ the agreement, however technically faulty, can be satisfactorily excused at tljiie date, For though

the colonists may hold the Government justified, and some may oven regard repudiation under such circumstances as meritorious, it would ho absolutely impossible to induce outsiders so to regard it. The agreement was either good or bad. If good, then repudiation is dishonest. If it was bad, then the Government should have said so, and certainly should not have received and retained money on account of such agreement. These considerations seem to afford sufficient ground for thinking, until the contrary is shown, that the view of the case taken by the At-torney-General is decidedly that which will best uphold the colony’s honor. But —to return to the point from which wo started—it is hard to see how after the treatment ho has received at the hands of his chief on this occasion, and again in regard to the Judicial Commissions Bill, ho can reconcile it with his self-respect to remain a member of the Grey Government. It is, wo think, becoming clear from the very direct tone of defiance which the Premier has on both occasions adopted towards Mr. Stout that the latter’s position must bo anything but a comfortable one if he has any sensitiveness in his composition. We are much mistaken if ho will continue for a very long period to lick the hand that strikes him, however much ho may be disposed to admire the action and principles of the striker in other respects.