PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4149, 8 July 1874, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.

* IMPORTATION OF STOCK PROHIBITION. CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT. [continued.] Sir G. F. Bowen to Sir James Fehgusson, Bart. Melbourne, 18th March. Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's despatch of the 20th February ultimo, and I am now requested by my responsible advisers to forward to you the accompanying Ministerial memorandum (13th March, 1874,) respecting it. It will be seen that while the Victorian Ministers hold it to be their duty, in selfdefence, to place on record their opinions regarding certain points raised in your despatches, they disclaim emphatically (and, I am sure, sincerely,) all intention of showing any want of the respect due to your ISxcellency alike officially and personally. The general rule that the Intercolonial correspondence should be carried on (except when Imperial interests may be concerned), not by the Governors personally, but by their responsible Ministers, was established by the late Sir W. Denison, when Governor-General of the Australian Colonies, at the time of the inauguration of Parliamentary Government When I became Governor of. Queensland, in 1859, Sir W. Denison fully explained his views to me on this subject. He pointed out, in the first place, that it was desirable, for obvious reasons, that the forms of Parliamentary Government in use, in this and in other matters, in England, should also be observed, as far as possible, in the Colonies. 'He further observed that, even in the Crown Colonies, it had been found expedient that the intercolonial correspondence should be earned on through the respective Colonial Secretaries. He added that if Governors of Colonies possessing Parliamentary Government were to conduct personally the Intercolonial correspondence, they would be occasionally required to become the mouthpiece of charges advanced by the Ministry of the day in one Colony against the Ministry of the day in another and would thus be inevitably mixed up with personal recriminations ; would lose their proper position of "dignified neutrality" (to adopt Lord Elgin's phrase) ; and would be practically disabled from using, for the public advantage, the influence of their offices as arbiters and moderators of extreme views.

The principle recommended by Sir W.Denison has certainly been the almost universal rale ever since in New South Wales, and also in the three Colonies with the government of which I have been successively connected, namely, Queensland, New Zealand, and Victoria. There may have been, as you state, a few exceptions, but I am assured that it will be found that these exceptions took place in cases in which Imperial interests were directly or indirectly concerned ; or, at all events, in matters not likely to cause Intercolonial illfeeling or recrimination, such as charges of illegal or otherwise improper conduct against the Government of a Colony are sure to provoke. I have no intention of arguing this question on abstract grounds. I regard it chiefly as a practical question. Nearly twenty years ago a certain rule was established by competent authority, and in conformity with constitutional usage in England. This rule has been almost invariably adhered to since that period ; and any attempt at innovation upon it of the nature of your despatch of the 23rd November ultimo, will certainly provoke strenuous resistance in Australia, and will lead to much unpleasantness and inconvenience ; possibly, to grave future complications. Under these circumstances, I am very glad to learn that your Excellency agrees with me that the official correspondence between Victoria and New Zealand shall continue hereafter to pass through the usual channels, as during the administrations of our predecessors in those Colonies respectively. js™? Mic!™<Wfl%?is» I need scarcely say, in conclusion, that it will always afford me sincere pleasure to cooperate with your Excellency, so far as may be practicable, in all measures tending to jn-o-mote the welfare alike of New Zealand and of Victoria, with both of which Colonies I have had the honor of being intimately associated. ENCLOSURE. Memorandum for Sir G. E. Bowen, by the Hon. the Chief Secretary, Victoria. In returning the letter addressed to your Excellency by the Governor of New Zealand, dated 20th February, on the subject of the memorandum in reply to Ilia Excellency's protest against the proclamation issued with a view to restricting the importation of stock into Victoria from that Colony, the Chief Secretary desires to express his thanks for the opportunity afforded to him of perusing that document, and at the same time submits the following remarks upon it : His Excellency Sir James Eergusson is pleased to say, " Such variations of terms as those of ' communication,' ' letter,' and ' despatch,' as Mr. Erancis has applied to my despatch in question, may possibly be inadvertent, but, taken in connection with other portions of his memorandum, they rather bear the appearance of affront." Upon what grounds His Excellency can place such a construction upon the circumstance of the Chief Secretary having made use of thoso different terms, in the course of a somewhat lengthy and argumentative memorandum, in allusion to the document which was the subject of remark, Mr. Erancis is really at a loss to understand. But that the words were used by him with the object of conveying a personal affront to Sir James Eergusson ho emphatically asserts is altogether an erroneous assumption on the part of His Excellency, and quite opposed to the real facts of the case. Having absolved himself from such an imputation, Mr. Erancis thinks he may, without impropriety, observe that the very fact of Sir James Eergusson having, in this present instance, allowed himself to be influenced by his private feeling in discussing a question of public concern, and resenting as personally objectionable sentiments expressed by your Excellency's Responsible Ministers in the discharge of their duty with reference to his official act, furnishes a strong commentary upon the impolicy of introducing into Intercolonial correspondence a practice, which, whatever maybe the course followed elsewhero, is, at least as far as the Colony of Victoria and the neighboring Colonies (including New Zealand) are concerned, an innovation and a departure from the principle established (avowedly on the English model) when Sir William Denison filled the office of Governor-

General of tlie Australian Colonies ; namely, tliat all communications on local as distinguished from Imperial affairs, should be made directly by the Bespohsible Ministers of the Colonies interested, and not by the Governors of those Colonies acting on their behalf. It further demonstrates, if demonstration were necessary, the soundness of the principle that a Governor should not, as a general rule, himself take part part personally in the conduct of public business. Moreover, it is obvious that Intercolonial correspondence cannot be carried on with any public advantage, if Governors write in one sense and their Ministers in a different sense upon the same subject. It will be recollected that the Colonial Secretary of New Zealand thanked the Government of Victoria for the course of conduct of which the Governor of New Zealand at the same time complained as illegal. In offering these remarks, however, the Chief Secretary wishes to guard himself against misapprehension. He desires to assure your Excellency in the most unreserved manner that Sir James Fergusson, from his exalted position, is both entitled to, and does command, profound respect from Mr. Francis and his colleagues. If, in the matter under consideration, your advisers showed that they felt aggrieved, both because their motives were misunderstood and that recourse was had by the Government of New Zealand to what was at least an unusual form in making their representations to this Colony, Mr. Francis is also confident that an impartial consideration of the circumstances that preceded the issue of the proclamation, as well as the fact of its repeal, as subsequently advised, show that your advisers were anxious throughout to serve the interests of New Zealand, and will tend to remove from Sir James Fergusson's mind any impression that his arguments were treated with discourtesy. It may not be out of place, as bearing on this point, to mention that the course taken by the Government in revoking the proclamation has provoked strong remonstrance and much hostile criticism in Victoria, on the ground that there no ■ longer exists any safeguard against the introduction of contagious diseases from Europe by means of stock imported through New Zealand ; and the Chief Secretary has been, within the last few days, urged by a most influential deputation to take immediate steps to remove all risk of danger to the Colony from this cause.

Sir Jajies Fekgusson, Bart., to Sir G. F. Bowen. Auckland, April 13th. Sir, —I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's despatch of the 18th March, transmitting, at the request of your advisers, a copy of a memorandum of the Chief Secretary on my reply to your despatch of the 20th February. I beg to accept, unreservedly, the assurance which Mr. Francis has requested your Excellency to convey to me, that, in the terms of his memorandum of the 2nd January, no want of respect to my office or discourtesy towards myself was intended. I should regret very much were I to import any personal feeling into a correspondence which would be worse than useless if it had any other than a public consequence. . Your Excellency's present despatch and the memorandum of Mr. Francis seem to rae to call for some observations on my part. In offering them I will avoid referring to the merits of the original matter in controversy, as I have done since your intimation and that of your advisers, that they considered it one upon which my official action was undesirable and inexpedient. But I regret if, in the remonstrances which I made in accordance with the wishes of my Ministers on the subject of the proclamation of the 24th October, I represented the Government of New Zealand as insensible to the friendly spirit of your Government. Mr. Francis energetically disclaims the possible construction of the terms of his reference to my despatch of the 25th November as applying affront to myself, but I will ask you to observe that I only pointed out that they might bear that construction when taken in conjunction with certain other expressions which I quoted, and which were used with reference to myself personally. I have thought it necessary to notice these expressions, so pointed, and contained in a document intended by your advisers to be seen by me and forwarded by you at their request.

It is rather with the effect than with the severity of those expressions that I have to do, and, while in his present memorandum Mr. Francis leaves them in full force, he charges me with " allowing myself to be influenced by my private feelings in discussing a question of public concern," for no apparent reason, than because I have observed upon his ascription to me, in au official paper commenting upon an act of mine done at the request of my responsible advisers, of having "personally impugned the action of the Ministry of another Colony," of " either a strange want of knowledge of facts, or a disregard of the practice and settled principles under which responsible Government is conducted ; while on the- 24th and 25th pages of his memorandum, he more than insinuates a doubt of my having, as I stated I had, been " moved by my advisers to write.'" These charges are surely personal, yet I must say that I cannot feel myself to be justly chargeable with having imported either my private feelings or my personal capacity into the correspondence. On the contrary, my only inducement to prolong or even to continue the correspondence in these circumstances, was. to repel any such charge against my conduct in my official capacity.

I am glad to observe that Mr. Francis, in his present memorandum, while disclaiming any discourtesy towards myself, refers to the course taken by me, of which he had complained, as being that of "the Government of New Zealand," and I hope I may interpret this as a withdrawal from his former position of regarding my action as distinct from and inconsistent with that of my Ministers. I will not seek to find fresh occasions for objection, by insisting that my despatch of the 25 th November does not imply a departure from the "general rule" advanced by your Excellency and Mr. Francis, but I may ask you to consider that if to your Excellency and your advisers the course then adopted appeared to be an "innovation" "unprecedented" and improper, it can hardly be regarded as usual or convenient that the responsible Ministry of one Colony should comment strongly and criticise severely the official action of the Governor of another, and move the Governor whose Ministers they are, to transmit the document in an official despatch. Without venturing to prescribe what should be your Excellency's course of action in this or in other circumstances, I beg leave to express my opinion that a complaint of inconsistency on the part of the Government of New Zealand might have been made through the channel which is insisted upon as the only proper one in the cix--cumstances, without conveying a rebuke to myself, and separating me from my advisers in the matter. ,

Your Excellency takes occasion to express your satisfaction that I agree with you that official correspondence " between Victoria and New Zealand shall continue hereafter to pass through the usual channels," while you describe my despatch of the 25th November as an "attempt at innovation upon a rule established by competent authority." You also demonstrate the convenience of this rule. I cannot admit by implication that I have cither traversed the rules or innovated upon the practice which I have found to exist hi the Australasian Colonies. But as your Excellency would seem to concur with your Ministers in considering that I have done so, I may point out that it ia at least open to argument that when the Governor of a Colony, in Executive Council, issues a proclamation affecting another, which the Governor of the latter is advised to have been ultra vires on the part of the" issuing authority, besides being injurious to the trade of his Colony, he may not properly address himself to the Governor himself, who it would appear to be responsible for not landing his authority, oven upon the advice of his Ministers, to acts which are not warranted by law. That principle was stated by the Secretary of State to. the Governor of New South Wales in Despatches written in 1863 and ISOD, and afterwards, if I

recollect rightly, made Circular, but certainly laid before the Parliament of New South Wales.

It may be that, when my attention was drawn to the case by my advisers, my more proper course would have been to have addressed the Secretary of State ; but the course I adopted seemed to me more convenient. It was, however, in no degree intended on my own part to " impugn personally the action of your Ministry," as it was described by Mr. Francis, or to innovate upon established rule, as described by your Excellency. (To be continued.)