HONORS CONFERRED UPON COLONISTS.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1688, 18 July 1879, Page 4

HONORS CONFERRED UPON COLONISTS.

WELLINGTON. July 16. Tho Wowing ia a copy of n letter from the Premier to the Secretary of State for tho Colonies relative to honors conferred on residents of New Zealand, laid on the table yesterday Wellington, 2nd July, 1879. Sir, —"Recently honors for political services have been, on your advice, conferred upon two leading members of the Opposition in New Zealand. Sir IS. W. Stafford and Sir Wm. Fox wore the recipients of these honors. 1. Of these gentlemen, Sir Wm. Fox was, at tho time such honor was conferred, resident in New Zealand. 1 he Government of this country has no knowledge upon whose recommendation you advised that these honors should bo conferred, nor has the Government of the country any certain information in what manner tho correspondence regarding them was conducted with Sir Wm. Fox. 2. In this letter I am considering, not only honors lestowel in ordinary course upon the holders of certain offices, but honors given for political services. I also fully admit tho claim and great merit of the two gentlemen on whom they have been conferred. 3. To illustrate tho remarks I have to make, I take the case of Sir Wm. Fox. The honor conferred on him, knighthood, is one known to the Constitution. It emanated from tho proper source, tho Crown, tho fountain of honor. But the recognised rule is that such honors are only conferred by the Crown upon proper responsible advice. The Crown would not, in England, confer peerages upon two lending members of the Opposition without consulting tho actnal responsible advisers before it adopted such a coarse. 4. In tbo present case no such responsible advice was really rendered. The Crown has within this country, under tho Constitution, recognised responsible advisers. Their advice was Beyer Bought. They were not even made 1

the medium of communication between the Crown and Sir Wm. Fox, and were left in ignorance of the matter. At the time Sir Wm. Fox was in violent opposition, and making public communications which were embarrassing the Government with the Native race. The action of the Crown, therefore, bad the aspect of a party movement of an embarrassing nature. 5. Clearly in the case of services rendered in any part of the empire to the empire at large, the Crown can, on the advico of the Secretary of State, reward such services by honors or otherwise. But in the case of any colony where a representative constitution exists, in reference to services rendered in such colony in regard to its internal management or its internal political offairs, the Crown cannot, I respectfully believe, constitutionally bestow such honor without the advice of Ministers who are reiponsiblo to the people of that colony. The Secretary of State is not so in any way whatever. 6. Nor can, I believe, any Minister of the Crown of England constitutionally correspond with members of the Opposition, or with any other person in the colony, regarding rewards for political services rendered to the colony and in relation to its internal Government, otherwise than through its responsible Ministers. 7. If such claim in the instance alluded to be maintained by the Secretary of State, true responsible Government in the colony becomes impossible, and a spirit of dissatisfaction will, I fear, be evoked. (Signed) G. Geet. To the Bight Honorable Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bart., Downing street, London.