THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1881. A MINOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2407, 22 December 1881, Page 2

THE GLOBE. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1881. A MINOR CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.

It is curious to note the various grooves in which the several dependencies of Great Britain are running in minor matters connected with the conduct of their affairs. With regard to the main principles on which their constitutions are based, it may be stated broadly that they do not differ. These principles may be defined as being built on the same lines which have been so successful in England, although altered to a certain extent to suit the requirements of young countries. But the several colonies, when left to themselves, have naturally felt differently no different subjects, and hence a large divergence in less important subjects. One of these is the point as to whether a Minister, when taking or changing his office, shall require to be re-elected by his constituency. In New Zealand we have come to consider that such appeal to the confidence of the persona who elected the new Minister is not necessary. And the reasons for this opinion are plain enough. The member has, in the first place, been declared as possessing the confidence of his constituency, and there seems no reason why, on taking office, he should forfeit it. It is possible, indeed, to imagine a case in which a member might be bribed to desert his principles by the offer of a portfolio, but such an instance would be so exceedingly rare as to be hardly worth considering, while grave inconvenience might result if a Minister were turned out by a freak of an out-of-the-way community. It is seemingly unreasonable that such a community should hold in its hand a matter possibly of great importance to the country at large, and the general uselessness of the practice is evidenced by the extreme rarity of the cases in which new Ministers are turned out in countries whore the practice obtains. In the New Zealand Disqualification Act, 1858, and the more stringent measure of 1870, the Executive were expressly barred from being disqualified through the fact of receiving payment from the Crown. These two Acts, as well as four statutes on the same subject passed since, have all been superseded by the Act of 1878, but the principle that Ministers on taking office need not go back to their constituents is maintained, showing that the Legislature have been well satisfied with the working of the arrangement. In England, as is well known, a Minister has to return to his constituency, and the same rule exists in Victoria. In England, indeed, before the year ISG7, the same process had to be gone through, not only every time a member became a Minister, but every time two Ministers changed portfolios. The first attempt to alter this state of affairs was made in 1852, but it was only on the fifth attempt, namely, in 1867, that success crowned the efforts of the innovators. In Tasmania the rule existing in England before 1852 is still the law of the land. The Tasmanian Constitution Act provides that—“ If any member, either of the Legislative Council or of the House of Assembly, shall accept any office of profit or any pension from the Government during pleasure or otherwise, his seat shall thereupon become vacant/* This has all along been held to apply to Ministers when changing office, and apparently no attempt has, as yet, been made to alter a state of things that has been found so inconvenient elsewhere. The Tasmanians are an easy-gsing set of people, and perhaps a little political excitement, however caused, is welcome; but to the Ministers themselves a change in portfolio is no light matter. In a case which has just occurred the Tasmanian Attorney-Genera! and the Treasurer thought that a transfer of office, each to the other, might be desirable. The man of figures considered that a turn at the law books would be pleasant, and vice versa. There was no change in salary, nor was the Ministry in any way altered by the movement. And yet Mr. Giblin and Mr. Dodds have each to consult their constituencies. The absurdity of such a proceeding is rendered all the more apparent by the fact that neither Minister is at all likely to take his seat under such election, for

the House will expire by effluxion of time before Parliament is again summoned. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why Mr. Giblin and Mr. Dodds, knowing, as they must do, tho law on fhe subject, should have taken the trouble to change portfolios for such a short period. However, that is their affair; but their action has called attention to the anomalous state of tho law, and no doubt an alteration will, in duo course of time, be made in it. If tho Tasmanian legislators are anxious to study the effect of Ministers changing portfolios untrammelled by any restrictions, they have only to cast their eyes across to New Zealand, where portfolios are invariably bandied about between the different members of a Ministry with the most perfect freedom. An announcement such as one that the Native Minister Ims become PostmasterGeneral and Treasurer, that the Treasurer has become Minister for Education, while the latter has assumed the control of the Native Department, causes not tho slightest excitement. When a gentleman is admitted into tho Cabinet, it is taken for granted that he is ready for any emergency, and is capable of grappling with any department. And tho more departments he wrestles with tho prouder his constituency appear to be of him. There is no chance of their confidence being diminished in him. Tho constituency feels like a parent whose boy is gaining pn'z<>s at a public school, and there is no necessity for the boy to return at intervals and ask his father if he is behaving himself. Seriously, however, there are certainly grave inconveniences attending the law on the subject under review as existing in Tasmania. New Zealand is at the other end of polo ns regards this question, but it has no reason to be dissatisfied with the line it has taken up.