Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 23 March 1926, Page 2

Xkw Zkai.anh has bci?n quoted as a precedent in .Mr bang’s prolonged light with the New South Wales Legislative Council and latterly with the State Ciovernor. The parallel sought- to be drawn by the Xew South Wales Trades and Labor Council is not at all apt. Furthermore, the short .statement in which the facts are sought to lie .net out contains about as much mis-state-ments at it is possible to pack in such small compass. It is .stated; ’“lt "ould be well for the Government to follow the precedent of Mr Scddou’s Government, which, when a Xew Zealand Governor refused to execute the will of tb<' people, effectively brought him to heel hv cutting off his salary.” The incident took place in 18!)2. when Mr Ballance was Premier, though Mr Seildon was one of his Ministers. The preceding Conservative Government bad appointed new members of the legislative Council just before vacating office, and the Liberals were pnevented from passing important policy measures becati.se of the Legislative Council's opposition, among them being Sir John M’Ki -nzie's 'Land for Settlements Bill. Thus I lie 1891. session was largely barren, and during the recess Air 11aI-lam.-e advised Lord Glasgow, who had just replaced Lord Onslow as Governor, to call twelve new members to the Legislative Council. In the 1891 session Sir Patrick Buckley bad bad blit one European and one Alaori Councillor to .support the measures, of which, as Alinister in the Council, lie bad charge. With tli.:* twelve new appointments the Government would still have been in a minority in the Council, but Air Bnifiuice expressed no more than a. desire that his measures should be at least fairly discussed by the Council. Lord (da.sgow consent-.-d to no more than nine fresh appointments, but Air Ballance declined tin* compromise, and a deadlock arose. The Governor held t Initio appoint the mi in her asked for by the Government would be an uni-onst itutional interference with the liberties ol the Council. The Government held that- the Governor was not permitted by the Constitution to do anything that would prevent the feeling of the country from being expressed in legislation. In this dispute it- was felt that the whole question of the .self-govern-ment of Xew Zealand was involved, and after correspondence between Air Dnlhinnc and Lord Glasgow it was a-grocsl U> submit- it Lv tho Secretary of State lor the Colonies. The result was that the Governor received, a cable message from the Seerotary of State instructing him that lie must, no:opt unreservedly the advice of his Alinisters. Ibis message the Governor transmitted to Parliament, with the announcement that he wouhl waive his objections to tba twelve fresh nominations to the Council, and within a month these were made. The statement that Lord Glasgow was brought to heel by the cutting off of bis salary is thus a slanderous perversion of facts.