New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, AUGUST 14.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4494, 14 August 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, AUGUST 14.

Yesterday’s sitting in the House of Representatives was occupied almost entirely by a debate on Sir George Grey’s motion, for leave to introduce a. Bill declaring invalid all orders in council issued since the 20th July last, affecting the confiscated lands. The Government treated the motion as a vote of want of confidence, and although Sir George and his principal supporters disclaimed all intention of attacking the Ministry in an indirect way, the question was forced to a division, with the result stated in our report. In short, Sir George declined to vote, and with his followers left the House. But the Government supporters made a division, so that the motion will appear on the Journals of the House as rejected by an overwhelming majority. Having reference to the terms of the motion, and more especially to the speech of Sir George Grey introducing it, we do not see how the Government could have dealt with it in any other manner. It was a direct and unmisiakcable censure upon their Executive acts j and if carried, it would have conveyed the strongest possible censure upon them. It was not carried, as we have said, and so far therefore Ministers stand exonerated. For all purposes of party government, they stand free and blameless. But this is onlyono aspect of the question, and Ministers wisely,

ill ouuopinion, voluntarilyundertook to set themselves right on the substantial part of the accusation. Sir Donald McLean stood up immediately after the numbers had been announced, and stated that the Government would move for a committee to inquire into the transaction referred to in the debate; that they would place all the papers before the committee, and would not take any further action in the matter until the committee had reported to the House. This was all Sir George Grey said he required, but the Government made the oiler voluntarily which they would not submit to on compulsion. Indeed, throughout the debate it was pretty evident that Ministers intended to pursue this course. It was indicated by Mr. Shephard and other members, who spoke on the Government side, as the course which ought to be pursued, and as the one which prudence dictated and the honor of the House required. For their own sakes, a searching investigation is necessary. Ministers do not shirk inquiry, and from first to last they made it perfectly plain that they had nothing to conceal or to dread. But the allegations made by Mr. Reeves, and reiterated by Sir George Grey, are of such a grave character that they cannot, and should not, be overlooked. For the sake of the public service, and in the interests of the country at large, the transaction cannot be allowed to remain in its present position. But if the Government had consented to the introduction of the Bill, Sir George Grey would not have succeeded in obtaining the information required to satisfy the country. The question would have been debated on the second reading; charges more or less vague, but all of them equally damaging would have been made, while the precise facts of the case would have been concealed, or at best only partially disclosed. A select committee of inquiry is the proper tribunal to which questions of this character should be referred. The floor of a popular Assembly is not the place to decide matters of fact or deal with evidence affecting the Administration of the day. The judgment is apt to get warped, and passions to be inflamed in the heat of debate, so that there is always a likelihood of the real merits being lost sight of in the ardour of political strife. Sir George Grey appealed to the popular tribunal; Ministers appeal to a judicial inquiry before a fairly constituted committee. In this they are wise. Their conduct will be approved by the country at large, and we can only express our conviction, at the present stage, that the Government will come out of the ordeal scatheless. Several collateral questions arose during the debate, to which a slight reference may properly be made. For example, it was argued that Ministers pursued an unusual course in opposing a motion for leave to introduce a Bill. As a matter of Parliamentary practice this is by no means rare. The rule is well understood, and acted upon on nearly every occasion of importance. We have seen motions tor leave to introduce Bills very hotly contested in the House of Representatives in previous sessions, and if we mistake not, in 18G5 the House refused leave to the Native Minister, Mr. Fitz Gerald, to introduce a Bill dismembering the province of Auckland for the enlargement of Hawke’s Bay. This is the only instance that occurs to us at this moment, but we have no doubt there are other cases which might be cited. It was no departure, therefore, from the rules of Parliamentary practice, to oppose the motion for leave to introduce the Bill in question. Sir George Grey made the motion upon his own sole responsibility, without consulting his party, which we think was a mistake, whatever might have been his motives. The Opposition were compromised by it, and they did tlie only possible thing under the circumstances, namely, leave the House and refrain from voting. Sir George will have learned this lesson in political life, that it is impossible for a member of a legislative body to act at one and the same time as a party leader and a free lance. There is quite as much responsibility attaching to the leader of the Opposition, under party goverm™" 1 :, as there is to the leader “of the Ministry, with this exception, that he has greater freedom of action, and can opt ' tactica or assault anti retreat which are impossible to the Minister. But he never can divest himself of responsibility. Now, this was precisely what Sir George Grey attempted to do yesterday, and in consequence, placed both himself and party in a false position. Hereafter we hope there will be greater evidence of discipline and command. The leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is by right of position the keeper of the Ministerial conscience. He is, or should be, the spur to prick them to duly, and the monitor to remind thorn of their shortcomings. It will not do, therefore, to abandon this position even for a moment. A motion for a committee of inquiry would have done all Sir Georoe wanted ; it would not, in all probability, have been resisted by the Government ; both sides would have been satisfied, and the time of the Legislature saved. Another point of great importance turned upon the issue of regulations under orders in council. Mr. Stafford, in common with Sir George Grey and other speakers, deprecated the too common practice of relegating the practical work of legislation to the Governor in Council. To our mind this is a great and growing evil. The Legislature has abandoned its functions, more or less, for many years past, and if abuses have crept in, the Assembly has only itself to blame. The debate of yesterday will have one good effect, however. It will direct public attention prominently to the subject, and show how easy it might be for a corrupt Government to enact laws, that is, issue regulations, covering dishonorable transactions. Wo do not say that this description at all applies to the transaction out of which the debate arose, but the facilities for wrong doing are so great as to bo perfectly startling. Yet those facilities were granted by the Legislature, through sheer neglect of its paramount duty, namely, the enacting of all laws affecting the well-being and happiness of the people. There is hardly a law affecting person or property on the Statute Book of Now Zealand, which does not empower the Governor in Council to make regulations under it, having the force and effect of law. The magnitude of the power and authority thus thrust upon tho Government by tho Legislature, is so great as to become matter for serious consideration, whether steps should not be taken to curtail both. Wo say this generally, and not in reference to any particular law or transaction ; but we think the General Assembly will not bo doing its duty to the country if it does not take steps to remove this dangerous power out of tho hands of the Ministry of the day. The fact that so few complaints have been made of tho exercise of those arbitrary powers hitherto,is tho best proof that can bo given of tho prudence and up-

rightness of successive Governments ; but were an unscrupulous Ministry in office, there is hardly a limit to the mischief they might do under cover of orders in council. The present appears to be a proper time to raise this question. The House has before it a Bill for the abolition of Provincial Government. Should that measure become law a stop will be put to provincial law manufactories. The General Assembly would then be the sole legislative body in the colony, always provided that it discharged its proper functions and did not delegate its powers to the Executive Government. A commission should be appointed to collate the various Acts and Ordinances, and Orders in Council, with the view of reducing them to an intelligible code. The work would be a heavy one, but it must bo undertaken if our statute law is not to continue to bo a source of endless confusion and scandal. Meanwhile, every new statute should, as far as possible, be complete in itself, relieving Ministers from what must be an exceedingly onerous and delicate duty—that of completing the imperfect legislative work of the General Assembly.