THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5193, 13 November 1877, Page 3

THE PRIVILEGE QUESTION.

In an admirable article upon this question the Canterbury Press says:— “ The right conclusion was that suggested by Mr. Harper. There is ground for maintaining tiiat the public notification of his Excellency’s reference to the pending motion was a breach of privilege. The fact that the Governor had declined to call Mr. Wilson to the Council till the no-confidence motion was disposed of, might be construed as an indication of his Excellency’s opinion, which might possibly have some political Influence. So far It must be allowed that the publication of the memoranda was at all events inexpedient. But on this point the Governor is quite clear from blame. Por the papers show that the memoranda were laid before the Assembly in compliance with the express advice of

Ministers themselves: ‘His Excellency’the Governor,’ writes Sir G. Grey, ‘is respectfully advised to command that the enclosed memoranda [the three subsequently sent down] may be laid before both Houses of the General Assembly.’ For the only part in the whole transaction, then, which may be thought to infringe on the privileges of Parliament, Ministers are responsible. If any breach of privilege was committed at all, it was committed by Sir G. Grey. “ The resolution adopted by the House overlooks the one essential consideration. It needs no select committee of the House of Representatives, headed by tile Speaker, to tell us that the Sovereign is not constitutionally free to take notice of any matter under debate in Parliament. Everyone knows that. But what everyone, except Mr. Speaker and the committee —or the majority of them —also knows is, that the rule does not apply to communications between the Sovereign and his responsible advisers. The committee’s own report shows that they were unable to discover any precedent or maxim which can by any straining be made in the slightest degree capable of bearing out their conclusion. They quote but two instances since the system of responsible government was established, and neither of them is at all in point. One occurred in 1757, when the King, in a message to the House of Commons, took notice of what was said the day before by a member in his place ; which ‘ was much excepted to in the House, being conceived that it might affect (although not so intended) the privilege of the House with regard to freedom of speech in their debates ’ and proceedings.’ The other instance is a resolution of the House of Commons in 1783, ‘that to report any opinion or pretended opinion of his Majesty upon any Bill or other proceeding depending in either House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of members, is a high crime and a misdemeanor.’ The committee also quote from ‘ Hatsell on Precedents ’ that ‘of the separate branches of the Legislature neither should encroach upon the other or interfere in any matter, depending before them, so as to preclude, or even influence, that freedom of debate, or.of action, which is essential to a free Council.’ But what has all this to do with the matter iu hand ? The Governor has committed none of these offences. He has not sent down a message reflecting on a member’s speech; nor has any opinion or pretended opinion of his been reported with a view to influence votes; nor has he interfered with either branch of the Legislature so as to preclude its freedom of debate or action. The ‘ precedents, records of Parliament, and writers on constitutional history, passim,’ on which the committee rely, have no bearing whatever on the case before them. They show that the Crown cannot constitutionally interfere with the debates or proceeding iu Parliament ; but there is nothing whatever in them to forbid the Sovereign from referring to its debates or proceedings when in consultation with his responsible advisers. “ In what possible way could the Governor’s refusal to make a certain appointment pending the motion of no confidence affect the privileges of the House ? He did not in any respect interfere with its freedom of debate or influence its decision. The House knew nothing of what had passed, and would never have known anything, had not Ministers themselves chosen to make it public. And as between the Governor and Ministers, he has an unquestionable right both to know and to act on what is taking place in Parliament. Everyone of common sense will see that Ministers must be in continual communication with the Crown upon what is being done in Parliament, and that the Ministerial advice, and consequently the action of the Sovereign, must be as continually guided by a foreknowledge of the intention or wish of the Legislature. It is a thing that happens constantly. How often in the House of Commons a member gives notice that on snoh-and-suc:h a day he shall move for the production of certain papers. The day comes, and, before the motion is moved, the papers are laid ou the table by command. Will any one say that the Crown’s permission to produce the papers, given with direct reference to a pending motion, is a breach of privilege ? It would be easy to quote many instances in which action has been taken by the Crown, under the advice of Ministers, in consequence of something pending iu the House of Commons. The notion that the Sovereign is, or must appear, literally ignorant of all Parliamentary proceedings, until officially informed by address or otherwise, is in these days quite given up. A remarkable instance occurred not Ion" ago. In the course of the debate on the Imperial Titles; Bill, Mr. Lowe, attacking Mr. Disraeli, referred to the very different advice upon the subject which he said the Queen had received from former Ministers. Mr. Disraeli, in his reply, informed the House that he had been furnished by her Majesty with a statement which she desired him to make upon the matter referred to. He did so, her Majesty’s statement completely refuting Mr. Lowe, who thereupon withdrew and apologised for his remarks. No one affected to be shocked by this proceeding. A question was raised whether Mr. Disraeli could be allowed thus to introduce the Queen into the discussion, and on this point the Speaker ruled him in order. But no one dreamt that the cognisance thus displayed by the Crown of what passed in debate was a breach of privilege. The House of Commons of course understood that her Majesty had received the information from her Ministers, and recognised the constitutional propriety of her being informed by them of whatever it was desirable that she should know. “The whole affair is not worth the time that has been spent upon it. It was evidently got up by Sir G. Grey for a party purpose. On receiving the first intimation (which appears to have been given privately) of the Governor’s views, he saw how they might be worked into a means of eluding the no-confidence motion. He accordingly first forced his Excellency into a correspondence, and then brought it before the House in such a manner as would enable his friends to raise a question of privilege. His object evidently was to draw the attention of the House to a new issue, under cover of which he might quit office, apparently of his own will, and in circumstances that would add to his prestige, rather than be turned out by a vote of want of confidence. However, as it happens, the privilege question is not needed for this end. The expected defeat has been eluded by other means. Unless, therefore, their personal animosity against the Governor induces Sir G. Grey or Mr. Stout to keep it alive, the House will probably hear no more of the alleged infringement of its privileges. The agitation has served its turn, and, as its promoters have nothing now to gain by it, they will be very willing to let it drop.”