The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1878.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5292, 12 March 1878, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1878.

The correspondence between the Governor of: New South Wales and Lord Carnarvon, with reference to the question of conditional dissolution or qualified acceptance of Ministerial advice in connection with the crisis which took place some months ago in Sydney, has recently been published. The full circumstances in connection with the crisis were detailed in his Excellency’s memorandum to the Secretary of State, from which it appears that in the early part of last year the Robertson Government found that owing to repeated defeats upon matters of administrative detail, they were unable to, carry on the government of the country, and applied to the Governor for a dissolution. Sir Hercules Robinson accepted the advice of his Ministers, reserving to himself the right of. reconsideration if supply were refused. Sir John Robertson appears to have been satisfied with this qualified acceptance of the advice of the Ministry ;' but on moving that the House go into committee of supply, with the view of obtaining two. months’ supply to provide for the public service during a general election, the Government were defeated by a majority of 6. Ministers then tendered their resignations, and the leader of the Opposition; ; Sir Henry Parkes, was entrusted with the formation of a new Administration. “Here are conditions,’’saysSir Hercules Robinson, “ for which no parallel can be found in England. Nearly a fourth of the year had elapsed without any permanent provision for the services of the year. Ministerial advice to dissolve, hadbeen accepted by the Crown, but tern-, porary supply for such purpose was refused by the Assembly.” Sir Henry Parkes’ Ministry did not possess a working majority in the House, and after an experience of four months also applied to the Governor for a dissolution. His Excellency intimated that he would grant it under precisely the same conditions as it: had been offered to the previous Ministry. And now follows one of the.most extraordinary features in connection with the crisis. The Government which had got into office by refusing supplies to their predecessors, asked for an unconditional dissolution, and refused, to accept anything short of an absolute surrender of the prerogative.” It . may, here be remarked that in 1872. the Martin-Robeetson Administration had obtained a dissolution, and. a general election took place without supplies being granted, and money was paid for the public service by arrangement with : one of the banks, without the authority of Parliament. But the new Assembly placed on record, by a majority 36 to 11, an emphatic condemnation of the Ministry for arranging with the bank to pay money without the sanction of the Legislature. With such a resolution on record there can be no question that Sir Hercules Robinson was fully justified in refusing a dissolution wifliout supplies being voted. Such a course would not only have been at variance with English practice, but had been inferentially condemned by the Legislature of New South Wales. With such knowledge in his possession, Sir Hercules Robinson asks would it have been right for him to have enabled a Minister to go down to the House and say : “I have a dissolution in my pocket, supply or no supply, and let those who refuse take the responsibility of their actions ?” ’ Sir Hercules appropriately says ; “ Apart from the risk, would it be dignified for the Crown to assist in playing, as it were, such a mere game of political brag It has been argued that the Crown, by making its assent to a dissolution contingent upon the obtaining of supply, in effect remits the question of a dissolution to the House itself. “ This is doubtless to some extent true,” says Sir Hercules Robinson, “ but it is the necessary consequence of the Crown being left dependent upon monthly doles for the maintenance of the public service, instead of being granted twelve months’ supply in advance before the close of each financial year, in conformity with the constitutional practice of the mother country. If this practice were adhered to, the Crown would be free to deal with advice to dissolve upon the merits of each case, unhampered with -any question' of supply.” The Governor thought it would be advantageous on public grounds if the sufficiency of the reason for the course he adopted “ were weighed and pronounced on by competent : constitutional authority at Home.” Now, this is a question which much concerns colonists, for the opinions given by the Home authorities are general in their application. Lord Carnarvon writes : “ I will not allow this correspondence to close without expressing my approval of the course you took in endeavoring to check, the usage of delaying to obtain supply and of carrying on the Government either without supply or upon temporary Supply Bills; and I sincerely hope that your action in the matter may tend to open the eyes of the people of; New South Wales to the danger of practices which are inconsistent with the true spirit -of representative Government.” The’Secretary of State sought the opinion of the' highest constitutional authorities in the mother country—Mr. Brand, the Speaker of the House, of Commons,- and Sir Erskine May. These eminent gentlemen endorsed the action of the Governor of New South Wales. Sir Erskine -May says;,: — “lt seems to me that as the power of dissolution rests absolutely with the Governor, as representative of the Crown,- ho is entitled to insist upon such, conditions as he may deem ’ necessary for the public interests before he proceeds to exercise that power. He was therefore warranted in giving a qualified or conditional assent according to his own discretion.” Some objection is | taken to the'form of the conditional’ assent,- but in SirEasKiN May’s . opinion; the Governor was entitled to: the. highest credit for his endeavors to discourage such a serious evil as’dissolving -Parliamefit without , supplies being, granted, and that his conduct was in every respect, constitutional and : ‘according to the usages of

the mother country. Mr. Brand thoroughly approves of the action of Sir Hercules Robinson. The Speaker of the House of Commons says;—“The course taken by Sir Hercules Robinson upon the’recent occasion of,’a political crisis seems to have been thoroughly constitutional, ft Ho declined; to.' accept unconditionally the advice of; his Ministers until he had endeavored through other political arrangements to carry on the Government,, and when his several attempts had proved abortive, he then acquiesced in the advice originally' tendered by his Ministers. ” Sir Hercules,Robinson: had done some service for other colonies besides New South Wales, by having the question referred for the opinion of competent authorities at Horae. It is now known that last session Sir George Grey, without the knowledge of his party, urged the Governor to grant a dissolution, and that it was his intention to appeal to’the country, whether supplies were granted or not. In fact, he said so at Auckland, and stated that although considerable suffering would result yet the course would ho justified on the ground of the general good. We are aware that Sir George Grey holds in contempt the opinion of all Secretaries of State, and we suppose that the views of such eminent authorities as the Speaker of the British House of Commons and Sir Erskine May will have little weight with the Premier when they clash with his own.views. But it is needless to state that fifty stumping tours will not endow Sir George Grey with the powers of an autocrat, and that when occasion arises he will have to conform to constitutional usage and considerations for the public welfare. This much is perfectly clear from the correspondence under notice, that ! the Governor can exercise a wide discretion, and that the interests of the public are paramount to, the exigencies of party.