The Lyttelton Times

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 258, 21 April 1855, Page 3

The Lyttelton Times

Saturday, April 21, 1855. The length at which His Honor the Superintendent addressed the Provincial Council at the opening of the present Session is very satisfactory, inasmuch as it implies a sense of his own direct t.v.d undivided responsibility to the representatives of the people. We have before expressed great doubts as to the expediency of introducing the anomaly of " Responsible Government" in its generally understood sense into the Provinces of New Zealand. When the Crown, or the representative of the Crown, is the highest estate of the Legislature, a ministry is found necessary, on whom the responsibility of the measures proposed by Government, and of the acts of the executive, should devolve. In such a case the shorter the address delivered by the Crown or its representative, the better, as then the ministry who have the confidence of the coun-

try are left free and untrammelled to carry out their own line of policy. But when the highest estate of the legislature is a representative of the people, and not of the Crown,—an officer responsible to the people ; then, whatever Executive may be formed for the sake of facilitating the correspondence between the head of the Government and his Council, such an Executive can in no wise relieve him of his responsibility. We are in danger of carrying forms too far. To set up an Executive and to call it Responsible will not really make it so ; although it may act as a screen through which it will be difficult to get at the real responsibility. One proof of the impossibility of making a Provincial Executive Responsible] in any way beyond the mere name of the thing, lies in the provisions made by the Constitution Act for the disposal of the Public Revenue. In England, one of the most responsible duties entrusted to the Executive is the disposal of the public revenue according to appropriation by Parliament. Accordingly we find that all monies are paid under warrant of the Lords of the Treasury. According to the New Zealand Constitution Act, no public money can be issued except under warrant of the Superintendent; he alone therefore can be made responsible for its issue, whether the Provincial Secretary countersign the warrant or riot. The Council may, indeed, throw the Executive out every month, most probably to its own inconvenience and the great delight of the said Executive—but what other power has it over these " Responsible Ministers ?" They cannot be punished by fine and imprisonment for the mal-appropriation of the public revenue. The Superintendent, then, who really is responsible, cannot be expected to follow their advice on the disposal of public monies if it happens to differ from ! his own. The different Provinces of New Zealand have each tried their own method of carrying on public business. We shall probably strike out the most convenient system by saking advantage of the experience of all. We have been led to make these remarks from the evident care with which His Honor has gone into the subjects to be brought before the Council in his address on the 11 tli of this month. The occasions of opening or proroguing the Council are the only .Jones which" give the Superinten- j dent thefopportunity of explaining his own j views personally to the representatives of ' the people : if he sheltered himself by copy- ' ing the example of a vice-regal speech he would be in reality endeavouring to evade us responsibility. If His Honor had been less explicit we might have thought that the *■ Responsible Government" system was to be worked as far as it would go, and that he was leaving an open road for his Executive Councillors. As it is, we cannot doubt but that the Council have heard the Superintendent's own opinion upon the business to be brought before the Council during the ensuing session. We must defer the consideration of the topics dealt with in the address until Wednesday.

Our correspondent " A Willing Burgess' has illustrated in his letter'the old saying that the noisiest clamourers for popular Government are often those most opposed to its practical working. He be g»ns his letter by acknowledging that a popular outcry has been raised against the Corporation bill, and accuses us of having been led away by it; with strange inconsistency towards the close of the same effusion he attacks the opposers of the bill as tne enemies of the people. And this attack we are sorry to see is in the spirit which really has driven educated men out of politics ii

America. If a .** Willing Burgess" means by popular Government, a Government which allows free discussion of every subject and the rejection of unpopular measures by the voice of the people ; we agree with him in thinking that this is what is necessary to Englishmen : but if he means that the public opinion should be set aside, and the exponents of it denounced, as Wat Tyler denounced any man that could spell, because they ventured to differ from half-a---dozen " patriots," then we think that the sooner he learns what the principles of English government are the better. We cannot repeat what we before said on the subject of this bill. We may say, however, that we do hold that a good principle may be pushed till it becomes ridiculous. A " Willing Burgess" quotes America in support of his argument. Why, the very thing which has made the United States so unbearable as a place of residence to any man who dislikes endless personality and endless turmoil, and who regrets the exclusion of educated men from the Provincial senates —is the pushing of the valuable principle of Local Self-Government till it becomes a farce. With regard to the legal point—as to whether the Provincial Council is enabled to grant Corporate powers or not,- we cannot pretend to abstruse legal knowledge. We read the Constitution Act according to its plain untwisted sense, and we see no reason to alter our opinion. Our readers may judge for themselves of the value of our correspondent's quotation from Sir John Packington's letter by reading the whole clause from which he deduces his argument. "The provisions of Section 70 have been introduced iuto the Statute in order that its en-actment-may not clash with any measures which yon are taking, or .may be advised to take, respecting the establishment of Municipalities. At the same time 1 wish to convey my own opinion that, considering the character ami functions of the Provincial Councils, which must be eminently of a municipal character, it seems doubtful whether there will be any necessity for ihe creation of other local authorities subordinate to these, uutil New Zealand has attained a greater amount of population than is likely to be the case for some time." If Sir John Pakington's- commentary on any portion of the Constitution Act is to be held of any account, why quote one part of it and suppress the rest ?