Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5203, 24 November 1877, Page 2

The Canterbury Press, in the recent discussion over “the privilege question,” distinguished itself by the manner in which it discussed the question, and the clearness with which it put the constitutional bearing of the matter. We reprinted two of our contemporary’s articles in reference to the matter, and we find that in its issue of Thursday last it expresses the opinion, with which Ave think every one will agree, that the House of Representatives has acted wisely in putting the privilege question on the shelf. There is no doubt that the Press is right Avhen it asserts that the House made a great mistake in taking the privilege question up, and that it was the bust thing that could be done to drop that subject at the earliest possible opportunity. The case is stated most clearly by our contemporary: —“According to the system of constitutional government, as noAV established in Great Britain and among her dependencies, the theory is that the head of the State can do no wrong. In everything that he does or leaves undone, he is supposed to bo guided by the counsels of his responsible advisers. These advisers are accountable to Parliament for every part of the Sovereign’s action, and can free themselves from such responsibility only by resigning their positions. Any person Avho then consents to fill the vacancy makes himself responsible for the circumstances which led to his predecessors’ retirement. Applying these principles to the present case, the whole affair becomes perfectly simple. If Ministers took a serious view of the Governor's refusal to make the desired appointment, or of the reason on which his refusal was grounded, it was their duty to represent the case to him in that light, to point out the impropriety of the course ho proposed to take, and to induce him to retract. If he persisted, and if they still considered the matter an important one, it was their duty to resign. Any one who then accepted office Avould by so doing become: responsible for the Governor’s action throughout; and if his Excellency could not find men Avho would, in, the face of Parliament,’ assume that responsibility, he would have no alternative but to give in and recall his former advisers. But the Government saw no occasion for pushing matters to this length. They appear to have considered the Governor’s proceeding as of no special moment. Anyhow they retained their places ; and therefore they made themselves accountable for what the Governor had done. According to all constitutional practice, the Governor’s memoranda relative to the appointment of Mr. Wilson must now be regarded as having been written, if not absolutely on their advice, yet Avith their sanction and upon their responsibility.” This is the light in which the House should have looked upon “ the privilege question.” The Government and not the Governor should have boon called to account, for the Government, by holding office after his Excellency’s refusal to raise Mr. Wilson to the Upper House, absolutely accepted that refusal as advice and became responsible for it. There is one aspect of this affair, however, which the Canterbury Press seem to have forgotten. In regard to the peculiar events which have culminated in

Sir George Grey’s turning a Ministerial minority into a practical majority, Mr., John Nathaniel Wilson may say “quorum pars magna fui.” He is a lucky man. Yesterday, as it were, lie was unknown; to-day liis name is a household word throughout the colony. What if to-morrow lie again joins the great mass of the forgotten, ho can at least say “time was when I was important.” A Governor and a Ministry have exchanged memoranda about him, a Parliament has squabbled about him (though seeing the proneness of Parliament to squabble that is not saying much), and finally he will find himself “ mentioned” in despatches between the Marquis of Nokjianby and the Secretary of State for the colonies.