MR. CARLETON ON THE POWER OF A GOVERNOR.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5197, 17 November 1877, Page 1 (Supplement)

MR. CARLETON ON THE POWER OF A GOVERNOR.

Tho following letter has been addressed to the editor of tho New Zealand Herald by Hr. Hugh Carleton ; 1 1 ' „ Si r _.Tho ■ new Premier, Sir George Grey, haa lost no time in getting into a row with the Governor. I undcraUnd. frora your columns, that Sir George Grey, while a motion of want of confidence, moved by the leader of the Opposition, .was ‘ etiU ;! undecided, advised tho Governor to malce'a new appointment to the Legislative Council ; that the Governor declined to make the :app‘ointment, pending the depision of the House; unless Sir George would say that he required the appointment to ; enable the gentleman in question to take office in tho Government, in which case he would make it at once. That the course pursued by tho Governor has been considered a breach of privilege, and that it has been resolved to refer the question to the Committee r of Privilege. Living at an Ultima Thule, ! know no more as yet. But this is enough. , ; , , , , c ■Without,pretending to more knowledge or English institutions than is usually possessed by an educated English gentleman, I must avow my conviction that the Governor is unquestionably right. There seems! to bo on the other side not only a misconception of the natnn of Parliamentary government, but also umoquaintanco with what has become a settled Parliamentary understanding. " . A crude idea ls prevalent among many who ought to know bettor, .that tho Crown is

bound to obey the orders, euphemistically termed “ advice,” of any Prime Minister that may happen to bo iu for the time, without questioning their propriety. This would be “responsible government stark naked. What if a Minister should advise the Crown to swamp the House of Lords in order to increase the power of the Commons, or to perpetrate any other coup d’etat ? Would the Crown bo debarred from exercising discretion ? An extreme case, of course ; but all these matters are questions of degree, in which the Crown and not the Minister must estimate the amount of impropriety. Is it forgotten that the Crown has the undoubted right (though it be usual for convenience to ask advice) to appoint its own Minister, and to dismiss that Minister. True, if such action be unpalatable to the House, the House posseses means of asserting its position; but not even then conclusively, for the appeal from the House to the people remains. It is forgotten that such an experiment has been tried, and that the people have sided with the Crown against ,a, ; factious House.

, In a colony the case may he put more strongly still. Here, responsible government |is but an honorable understanding. It is a bargain, and there are two aides to a bargain. It is not a nudum pactum. There is on the one side an understanding that “ advice” is to be accepted; countervailed by the correlative understanding on the other side that manifestly improper advice shall not be tendered. In New Zealand, the care of Imperial interests was expressly reserved to the Governor, and the right of granting or refusing a dissolution has never been abandoned. So much for “responsible government stark naked." It has not come yet, though there may be danger that it may come, unless timely resistance be offered to encroachment. And when it does come, good-bye to the liberties of the people, who would thus become subject to the worst of' all tyrannies, save one— to the tyranny of a single Chamber. Bar one, I say; for there is a worse than that of a single Chamber—the tyranny of a mob, officered by mob orators. “ Ower many masters,” quoth the toad to the harrow, when every tine turned her over. The understanding, that no business that can be avoided shall be transacted while a want of confidence motion, substantially supported, is on the notice paper, has at last become settled. And it happens that Mr. Stafford, who really does understand Parliamentary usage, could mention a parallel case to this, in which a summons to the Council, only awaiting the Governor’s signature, had been prepared by him for the Gazette before a notice of a want of confidence motion had been given, and was not proceeded with because of such notice. 'The Parliamentary understanding admitted, how stands the case ? The Governor knows, and cannot help knowing, that his own Minister —never forget that the .Minister is servant of the Crown, and not of the House—that his own Minister, without the sanction, or even knowledge of the House, is about to violate a recognised usage of the House, without affording the House an opportunity to redress itself, until too late. The Governor has a right—l think it a duty—to refuse to make himself a party to the transaction. And there are some who call this a breach of privilege 1 I wonder what they suppose privilege to be ? The privileges of the House of Commons existed when responsible government did not. Even were the conditions of the bargain about acceptance of advice indefensibly violated, the accusation would be of breach of faith, not of breach of privilege. My impression is that the fault-finders will be too wary to assail the Governor’s action in the matter ; but that they will fasten on his reason for that action, viz., that he knew that a motion of want of confidence was pending. Well and good ; but at all events, keep the reason and the action distinct. Do not seek to throw dhst in men’s eyes by confusing the two. The Governor was not bound, except in courtesy, to give a reason at all. He might have said, “Under existing circumstances my assent would be improper ;” assuming that the cause of impropriety was manifest. It may be said, “ the Governor had no right to know what had taken place within the House.” I can only say that if his own Minister had not informed him, that Minister was guilty of a grave breach of duty. Bear in mind that the whole affair is a private affair between the Governor and his Minister. As the Governor did not communicate his objection by message to the House, which he has the power to do if he please, it would be waste of time to consider that alteration iu the state of the case.—l am., Hugh Carleton. Salona, Bay of Islands, Nov. 6.