RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COLONIES.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 913, 3 May 1854, Page 4

RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT FOR THE COLONIES.

Chapter II. — What "Responsible Government" is, and what it is not. — Great

pains have been taken by those active and influ- j ential persons whose emoluments or importance would be lessened by the adoption of a good system of government in the colonies, to misrepresent the meaning, of the demand for Responsible Government. The term " Responsible Government" is certainly general and vague. It may mean various kinds and degrees of responsibility; it may denote a responsibility carried to precisely the same extent and guarded by the same ! guarantees as that of the Executive in this country; it may mean a responsibility carlied to an extent and enforced by means repugnant to the spirit ot our constitution. The opponents of the principle take advantage of the vagueness of the term in order to give it the latter of those two characters. Sometimes they content themselves with effecting this purpose by mere vague insinuations. They give a wise shake of the head, and mutter something about the " republican" nature of the doctrine ; or if they delight in what is termed " strong" language, they (urn to and rail in good set terms about rebels, and Mackenzie and Joseph Hume. Sometimes they condescend to give a reason for their faith as to the character and tendency of the principle; and that reason is generally an utter and gross misrepresentation of facts. They assert that a " responsible" means an " elective" executive ; and that the responsibility proposed is that kind which prevails in the various States of the American "Union, where every officer of government is appointed either by the direct vote of the people, or by that of the representative bodies of the State. i It is no wonder that misrepresentations such i as these, made with the utmost confidence and repeated with the utmost assiduity, should mislead a great number of persons, on a subject about which so few in this country take the necessary pains to get information. Those who make these assertions rely on the indolence of those to whom they address them, and count on their adopting them without examination ; for the slightest examination would dispel all misapprehension and even doubt oh the subject. Among those who in this country or in the colonies have made "responsible government" their political; watchword, there has never been the least difference of opinion as to the object in view : all have confined themselves to asking that the Crown, while retaining the present unlimited choice of I its servants, should nevertheless make a practice j of selecting them from among those who possess the confidence of the Legislature. No one has ever pioposed a legislative enactment with a view to enf i rce the principle. It has been seen that the practice of governing by means of those who command the confidence and cooperation of the Lelature must be established, not by Acts of Parliai ment, but by the good sense of the Crown, impelling it not to be made a particular concession at this or any other particular moment, but to adopt a general rule of action as essential to the efficient administration of the government as to the coutentm/ent of the people. Lord Durham's report has come in for its full share of the misrepresentations directed against all the advocates of Responsible Government ; yet it would be impossible for any candid man to misapprehend uhnt the High Commissioner means by Responsible Government: and indeed the most uncandid have never ventured to quote any passages from that report to justify their interpretation of its purport. The inherent vagueness of the term can throw no doubt on Lord Durham's meaning, because he does not use the phrase ot responsible government until he has fully explained his meaning without it. He reports his observations, draws his inferences, and suggests the alteration which he advises in the present system of administering the government. It is only after thus explaining himself, that he remarks that the conclusion at which he arrives, is the same as that which the reformers of Upper Canada had in view in their demand for Responsible G vernment. The report spates that a great part of the disorders and discontents of the British North American Colonies resulted from the state of variance in which the Executive and the Representative bodies constantly were. It asserts and proves by a reference to the past history of all these coionias, that the usual state of government in them seems to be that of collision between the Executive and the Representative body. " In all of them," it says, " the administration of affairs is habitually confided to those who do not cojperale harmoniously with the popular branch of the Legislature; and the Government is ronstat) ly proposing measures which the majori'y of the Assembly reject, and refusing its assent to bills which that body has passed." I The report traces the bad consequences of this state of things — -the constant strugj le which ; takes the place of co>peration, the weakening of! the Executive, and suspension of all the legislative functions, and the consequent misgovernment and irritation of the community. Such consequences, it infers, must always result where you attempt to administer a government which requires the cooperation of a representative body, by agents who do not possess the confidence of that body. It concludes, therefore, that ii the colony which has a representative form of government, you must adopt the same principle of government as that on which affairs ! are conducted in the Mother-country ; that you must " facilitate the management of public affairs by intrusting it f the persons who have the confidence of the Representative body." This it assorts to have been what the reformers of Upper Canada desired, when they asked for a Responsible Execatiye. The report admits that there were some wb©, under the name of responsible, demanded an elective Executive : but adds — " an elective Executive Council would not only be utterly incompatible with Monarchical government, but would really, under the nominal authority of the Crown, deprive the community of one of the great advantages of a* hereditary monarchy. Every purpose of popular control might be combined with the immediate choict of advisers in the Crown, were the Colonial Governor to be instructed to secure the cooperation of the Assembly to his policy by intrusting its tdminis- I tration to such men as could command a majority ; and if he were given to understand that he need count on no aid from home in any difference with the Assembly that should not directly iuvolve the relations between the Mother-country and tbi colony. This change might be effected by a single despatch containing such instructions." Nor has Lord Durham, in order to secure

this responsibilty, which he designates is •• a change which would simply amount to this, that tht Crown would henceforth consult the wiihes of the people in the choice of it» servants," proposed any provisions calculated to give the popular body a more direct voict in the nomination of the officers of the Executive. " The responsibility to the united legislature," he says in his final recommendations, "of all the officers of the Government, except the Governor or his Secretary should be secnred by every mtans known to the i British Constitution. Tbt Governor, as the representative of the Crown, should be instructed thut he must carry on his government by heads of departments, in whom the united legislature shall repose confidence ; and that be most look (or no support from home in any contest with the legislature except on points involving strictly Imperial interests." In this last sentence is contained the whole principle of a free colonial Executive. The Mother-country should uever interfere in the administration of affairs in the colony, either in the legislation on which the Assembly is bent, or in itr preference of one colonial party to th«j other, but should let the Governor and Assembly gee on as they best may, passing such laws, and administering affairs by such parties as they may agree on between themselves. The only exception is, where the course of legislation adopted in the colony conflicts with the interests of the Mother-country. In these cases, which might be defined, it must oppose itself to the wishes of the Assembly z in all others it should let the business -of the colony be carried on by the powers i ia which the constitution has vested the government of the Colony ; allowing the Governor to use his constitutional powers to influence the legislation of the Assembly, and allowing the Assembly to make use of its constitutional powers to influence the course of the Executive. The Governor would, in fact, stand in the position of the Crown at home and it is difficult to make i out why the prerogative which suffices to maintain the balance of power at home, should not be equally competent to uphold it in a colony. This is a division of power of which the maintenance depends upon circumstances and the prudence of the parties. Sometimes the Executive must take the first hint on the part of the 1 representative body, and dismiss its advisers on the first indication of a majority. Sometimes, again, it may with perfect safety make a longr resistance to the majority, wait for repeated declarations of their will, and not submit even then, until it finds on trial that they are backed by the people. The late King did not dismiss Sir Robert Peel in 1835, until after several hostile votes of the House of Commons. In 1784, George the third maintained Mr. Pitt for some months in despite of t hostile majority of the Commons, and then dissolved that Parliament, appealed to the people, and obtained a House; of Commons disposed to support his Ministers. But at the commencement of Lord Lverpool's administration, a still more remarkable exercise of the authority of the Crown was witnessed. A majority of the House of Commons, on the motion of Lord Wharncliffe, then Mr. Stuart Wonley, addressed the Prince Regent to form a strong and efficient administration in place of the ministry then existing. This vote was carried by a bare majori y, composed of th« most heterogeneous materials. It appeared quite clear that no ministry which might be formed would be liktly to possess greater or even equal chances of stability; md a prospect offered of rallying round Lord Liverpool's Government some of those who bad on this question condemned it. The Prince Regent, therefore, did not act on the vote : the ministry remained 'in office and gradually acquired strength; and the result was, that the Ministry of the longest duration and most stable autborl y ever known in this country since Sir Robert Walpole's, was the one which received this rude blow at the outset. It is impossible to define the contingency on which the Crown or its representative should be bound to remove a minister in compliance with tke wishes of the Representative body. No law, no precedent, can exactly fix it ; it must be settled in Colonies, as in the Mother-country, by the mutual strength, determination, and prudence of the two parties. If left to themselves, their necessities must bring about an arrangement of which harmony will be the result. All that is wanted is that the authority of the Mother-country should not be interposed in order to retain in office persons who can get no Assembly to adopt their coutse of poli-y. 1 Such is the whole aim an i object of the Colonial Reformers who seek " Responsible Government." No one will venture to deny its perfect accordance with the spirit and practice of ibe 3<it!sh Constitution. Nor is it possible to shew bow Representative Government can harmoniously be carried on without adopting it. If you want the assent of a representative body to the policy of Government, there is no other way of i insuring harmony between that policy and the feelings of that body, than that of always entrusting the administration of affairs to those who cm obtain the concurrence of the majority. This is one of the necessary consequences of representative institutions : it is just as necessary a consequence of representative institutions as the predominance of the majority is. And if, as we hear loudly and confidently asserted, Responsible Government is incompatible with colonial connexion, the only inference is, that representative institutions must be utterly incompatible with coUnial connexion. Bat before we discuss this latter question, it will be proper to examine what there is in the nature of colonial connexion, that should prevent the administration of affairs in colonies being entrusted to responsible heads of departments, or should render it unwise to select these heads of departments from the party that has the majority in the representative body, This is a question which affocts not merely tbe Canadas, but every colony in which representative institutions are established. All suffer alike from the dissensions, from the corruption, from the absolute stoppage of the machine of government, which are the inevitable results of maintaining an executive utterI]y irresponsible and entirely obnoxious to the people of tbe colony. To these incidents of a colonial connexion we advert in a separate chapter. (To be ContinuedJ