Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE POLITICAL POSITION IN NEW ZEALAND.

(From the Sydney Morning Herald, Nov. 21.) Keoent telegrams from New Zealand have made our readers acquainted with the outlines of the Constitutional dispute that has taken place in that colony. The papers which have lately come to hand furnish us with more detailed information upon the matter. An outline of the controversy may be given as follows. There had been a change of Ministry, under circumstances which tended to •weaken the position of the new Cabinet. Notice of a motion of want of confidence was given after a short interval. "With this notice standing on the paper, Sir George Grey, the Premier, in a conversation with the Governor, recommended the appointment of Mr. Wilson, a barrister and solicitor, to the Upper House. The Governor, in reply, expressed the opinion that it would be unconstitutional to make the appointment whilst a vote of want of confidence in the Minister who recommended it was under discussion. Notwithstanding this opinion, however, a memorandum by Sir George Grey, advising his Excellency to sign the writ of summons, was submitted on the following day, and backed by a formal recommendation from the rest of the Ministry. The recommendation was based on the ground that it wa3 not a political measure, but in the public interest, because there was only one practising member of the legal profes»ion in the Council. To this memorandum his Excellency replied by another, repeating in a more formal manner what he had already said. The reply contained the following passage:—" If Sir George Grey informs the Governor that he requires this appointment for the purpose of enabling Mr. Wilson to take office in the Government, he will make it at once. If, however, it is, as Sir George Grey informed him yesterday, Bimply for" the purpose of adding to the Legislative Council another gentleman belonging to the legal profession, there can be no pressing urgency for the appointment; and the Governor is of opinion that it would be undesirable to make it at a time when a vote of want of confidence is I pending. If the Government are supported by a majority of the House, the Governor will be happy to accept their advice and appoint Mr. Wilson to the Legislative Council; but pending the decision of the Assembly, the Governor must decline to make the appointment." A paper, consistingof the memorandum from the other Ministers, the Premier's memorandum for the Governor, and his Excellency's memorandum in reply, superscribad " by command of hi 3 Excellency," was afterwards laid before Parliament; and this was followed by a motion in tho Assembly affirming that the position assumed by the Governor was contrary to the privileges of the House. Subsequent proceedings made the expressionof opinion by the House more specific. The infringement of privilege was declared to consist in the Governor's noticing a matter under debate as a reason for refusing to accept the advice of his Ministers.

The question is, did the Marquis of Norinanby infringe the privileges of the Assembly or did he not in acting upon an unofficial knowledge ' of what was taking ■ place in the Assembly ? It does not appear that any objection was taken to the communication of the fact to Parliament. If wrong was done, it was done in the rejection of Ministerial advice upon such a ground. The objection taken by the Assembly in effect amounts to this : That the Governor should know nothing of what is passing in Parliament until it is officially communicated to him by resolution, or in some other formal manner, and that if he acquires knowledge of the proceedings in any other way, it is a violation of privilege for him to act upon it. There is, however, a preliminary question to be answered. Is it a breach of Parliamentary privilege for the Governor to reject the advice of his Ministers in any case ? If this question must be answered in the affirmative there is an end of the matter. The Governor's authority must also be given up, and with it the Constitution and Constitutional Government. There is a disposition manifest in some quarters, on which we have already animadverted, to assert that the Governor's right to set aside the advice of hi 3 Ministers is only to be exercised in the protection of Imperial interests. But what are Imperial interests ? We apprehend that it is a matter of Imperial interest in a Britisn colony that law and order should be maintained a 3 against anarchy and revolution. It is a matter of Imperial interest that the Constitutions which have been granted by the Imperial Legislature to the colonies should be protected against invasion by party or class violence. And when the advice of a colonial Ministry threatens to strain the Constitution or to work a revolutionary change in it, the Governor is bound, even on Imperial grounds, to interpose his authority for it 3 defence. In thi3 particular ease the Governor was of opinion that the advice tendered by his Ministers was unconstitutional, and holding that opinion, it was his duty, in defence of the Constitution, to reject it. If it be said that this is not responsible government, the answer i 3 that it is government by law, and that those who are dissatisfied, should aim at getting the law altered. It is for those who hold that the Governor should never reject the advice of his Ministers to deprive him if they can by haw of the power to do so. But if it be admitted that in such matters as the appointment of members of a nominated Upper House the Governor has the power to reject Ministerial advice, and a Constitutional right in any case to exercise it, the next question is by what considerations is he to be guided in accepting or rejecting it ? When once the position that the Governor should accept Ministerial advice in all case 3 is surrendered, it cannot be contended that he must in all cases suffer his judgment to be influenced only by such reasons as his Ministers may set before him. The right to reject implies a right to recognise, wherever he can see them, what may appear to him to be Bound reasons for rejection. In other words, it is for the Governor to deal with the advice in the light of all the surrounding circumstances. If an address embodying a vote of want of confidence in the Ministry had been presented to the Governor just before his Ministers advised him to make this appointment, the fact would clearly have supplied him with reasons against making it. But his knowledge that a vote of want of confidence was under discussion, and might possibly be carried, was also, as soon as he acquired it, a part of that knowledge of surrounding circumstances by which he had a right, and was bound to be guided. The Governor wa3 responsible for his action in this as in other matters to the Imperial authorities; and it would have been no valid answer to them if called to account for injudicious action to have said that he had shut his eyes to the circumstances under which he acted, because his knowledge of them was unofficial. The action would have been his own action, and he was obliged in self-defence to allow full weight to information which he had every reason to believe accurate, whether official or not, when it was of such a nature that his course ought to be governed by it. There was no question of character in this case ; but if the Ministry had nominated a notorious thief for appointment, would the Governor have done well to appoint the man because he had not before him the official record of his conviction ? It is possible that the Committee of Privilege in New Zealand may have hunted up precedents to give a show of support to its charge of infringement. But if so, the probability is that the case has been weakened by proving too much. If the Governor infringed the Assembly's privileges in making a matter under debate a ground of action, it was because it was an infringement of privilege for him to have any unofficial knowledge whatever of its proceedings. The case, in fact, rests upon the same foundation as the old claims of Parliament in England to cover its proceedings with a veil of absolute secrecy. The Governor infringed the Assembly's privileges in the same way that the reporters infringe them by sitting in the gallery, and the newspapers infringe them by publishing the debates, and the electors infringe them by letting their judgment and political action be affected by reading the reports. It is worthy of notice that the Governor of

New Zealand, in acting upon his unofficial knowledge of what was;under debate, did not do so in such a way as to interfere with or constructively take part in that debate. On the contrary, the object of his action was to prevent the possible issues of the debate being in any way anticipated or counteracted before the Assembly had pronounced its opinion. The position of the Ministry had been challenged. The introduction of the motion of want of confidence called upon the House to say whether the Ministry was or was not to be trusted to give advice and nominate to appointments. The Ministry, _in recommending Mr. Wilson's appointment, practically asserted its right, whilst under trial, to strengthen its own position, although the statement that the recommendation was not a political measure was a virtual admission that it would be wrong to do so. Under these circumstances it may be said that the Governor, in suspending his assent to the advice of the Ministry until the result of its trial should be known, was preserving for the Assembly "a fair field and no favor," and upholding its rights rather than infringing them.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18771208.2.19.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5215, 8 December 1877, Page 2 (Supplement)

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,654

THE POLITICAL POSITION IN NEW ZEALAND. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5215, 8 December 1877, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE POLITICAL POSITION IN NEW ZEALAND. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5215, 8 December 1877, Page 2 (Supplement)

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert