Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

GOVERNORSHIPS

THE BRITISH ATTITUDE. [United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) LONDON, February 26. In the House of Lords. Lord Denman asked if the Government propose to appoint an ncci edit id BriiLh Representative to Australia, as had been done in Canada and in South Africa. Lord Novar said lie failed to see bow the High Commissioner coin'd carry out the duties that were until recently performed by the Governor-Gen-era!. Lord Passfiekl replied : —This is a matter o[ some ikdicacy. It is difficult to speak plainly without a liability, at ;\ distance, of being misunderstood. 'l'he present Government has not partieiated in the establishing of file guiding principle which led to the change in the manner of the appointment of Australia’s Governor- Gene ra 1. Any question of proprietry as to the action of the Commonwealth Government in appointing the Governor-Gene:al is a matter for themselves, and not for the British Government. The present and the previous Government’s policy was to go slowly and let constitutional practice work out itself. The Government must proceed with the concurrence and cordiality of the Commonwealth Government,

' lie said he did not know whether a High Commissioner to Australia would fill the bill. This was a matter for consideraion.

He continued .—“The British Constitution is not logical. There are things that ought to he put right, hit by hit. Sometimes it was better not to be overlogical. Certainly this was not the practice in 1923.” New Zealand, he said, bad not sought any change. So long as she was contented with the older system, there was no reason why the Government should insist on an alteration out of a desire for logical unilormitv.

Lord Rassfiekr added that be recognised the importance of not forcing the pace. It must be guided, if not governed, by the conclusion of the Imperial Conference of 1930. Legislation would not be introduced without the express assent of the Dominion Parliaments. The debate then ended.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19310228.2.36

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 28 February 1931, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
322

GOVERNORSHIPS Hokitika Guardian, 28 February 1931, Page 5

GOVERNORSHIPS Hokitika Guardian, 28 February 1931, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert