Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5329, 26 April 1878, Page 2

We published lately a very interesting correspondence with reference to the question of conditional dissolution, which has arisen out of the Ministerial crisis in New South Wales during the year 1877. In March a resolution was carried by a majority of three, in the New South Wales Houses, affirming that the retention by the • Robertson Government of office after the defeats which it had suffered was unconstitutional. No Appropriation Bill had been passed, and the Governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, did not feel justified in granting the dissolution which Sir John Robertson advised, without reserving to himself the right of reconsideration, if supply were refused. The House refused temporary supply, and the Ministry resigned. Sir Henry Parkes formed a Government, but after four months’ tenure of office was defeated on a vital issue in August. He endeavored to get the Appropriation Bill passed with a view to dissolution, but was defeated again. He then advised dissolution, but received the same reply from the Governor as had been given to Mr. Robertson. Dissatisfied with the reservation made by his Excellency, he resigned. Sir John Robertson again formed a Government, but on the reassembling of the House on the 18th September, he failed to carry a temporary Supply Bill, and advised dissolution “ whether supply is granted or not.” The Governor still did not feel justified in adopting such an extreme course, and running the risk of great public inconvenience and possible disaster, until he had satisfied himself as to the impossibility of forming a Government out of the existing House. He accordingly sent successively for one of the most respected members usually voting with each of the leaders of the House. But both these gentlemen, after a trial, had to give up the task of forming a Government. The House was evidently impracticable, and the Governor finally wrote to Sir John Robertson on the 27th September, accepting his advice to dissolve whether supply bo granted or not. But the House had learned at least the necessity of granting supplies, and the Appropriation Bill was passed on the 10th of October—that is, more than nine months after the commencement of the financial year. Sir Hercules Robinson determined to lay tlie whole question before the Imperial Government, with a view of obtaining the best constitutional advice. Lord Carnarvon submitted the case for the opinion of Sir Erskinb May and the Speaker of the House of Commons, two of the best authorities on Parliamentary law that could be found. Their views are now before us, and are as interesting to us and to all the colonies enjoying •constitutional government as they can be to New South Wales.

What has been most prominently brought out by this correspondence is the unsoundnesa of the system adopted in many of the colonies, and notably in New Zealand, with regard to supply. Lord Carnarvon says very truly that the visage of delaying to obtain supply, and of carrying on the Government either without supply or upon temporary Supply Bills, is inconsistent with the true spirit of representative government. Both Sir Erskine May and the Speaker of the House of Commons express a hope that the difficulties which have arisen will tend to the separation of questions relating to the supplies from the conflicts of political parties, and that the practice of the mother country will be adopted. It is indeed absurd that we should ape the Constitution of England, and neglect its principles, and at the same time endeavor to work so complicated and delicate a machinery as that of constitutional government after tying up one of the principal wheels. The following sentences from Sir Hercules Robinson’s letter call for special attention on the part of all those who have to take part in the political work of the country ;

Without going into details, however, it will be snffioient to state generally that the practical effect of this departure from the constitutional practice of the mother country in reference to supply has been to weaken ih© chock of the taxpayers upon the public expenditure, to demoralise parties In the Assembly, and to detract from the efficient administration of public affairs. Under such a system Ministers drag on a feeble and uncertain existence, dependent from month to month upon a small majority, which may at any moment bo alienated by disaffection or disappointment. 1 The inevitable tendency of the system is to make Ministers pliable, and to add to the influence of individual votes. It is possible that there may be members In the Assembly who find enjoyment and advantage in .the uncertainty and confusion which result; but no impartial looker-on can note the operation of such a system in all Us bearings without becoming convinced that it will, if continued, prove fatal to the success of Parliamentary Government in this country.

It is In its bearing upon this objectionable practice of defering supply that the question under consideration—of qualified assent to Ministerial advice to dissolve—assumes Its gravest importance. If a political crisis arises when the Crown is without supply, and tho Minister is entitled to ask that the prerogative should be handed over absolutely to him, so as to enable him to threaten the Assembly: and, should such threats prove ineffectual, to carve his way out of his difficulty at tho expense of the public servants, then there would seem to be little prospect of a change in the present objectionable practice. But when the leaders on both sides find, as they have now done, that if Ministers neglect to make timely provision for the service of the Crown, and a crisis arises, their claim to a dissolution will in all probability bo contingent upon their ability to obtain supply, a strenuous and united effort will perhaps be made to atrango for supply in advance, in accordance with the constitutional practice of the mother country. Towards the end of last session a cormpbndonce between tho Governor of New Zealand and Sir George Grey, on the question of dissolution, was published. As Sir George Grey’s conduct on that occasion was so generally condemned, even by the supporters of his own Government, and, we have reason to believe, by his own colleagues, the refusal of the Governor to grant to Sir George Grey an unconditional promise of dissolution did not attract the attention it would have met with if the country or the House had been; interested in this particular manceuvre of the Premier. But it is interesting in the light of tho New South Wales correspondence to observe how completely the position taken up by Lord Normanby has been supported by the highest authorities, and our readers will be glad to re-peruse the memorandum in which his Excellency gives his reasons for refusing Sir George Grey’s request Memorandum from his Excellence the-Gover-nor. to tub Uon. Sib Geobob Grey, K.C.B, Tho Governor has received the memorandum from Sir George Grey, in wkich he tenders to him the advice of Ministers that ho should dissolve tho present Parliament, setting forth, at the same time, tho grounds upon which that advice is tendered. The Governor has carefully considered the advice, and tho reasons given by the Government, and ho is of opinion that the Government are hardly in a position at present to press for a dissolution, , Sir George Grey informs tho Governor that on tho Bth of October, Major Atkinson’s Government wore defeated on a vote of want of confidence, by 42 against 38: that on the 13th of October, the present Government entered into office, and that on the 24th of October," Major Atkinson moved, “That this House has no confidence in the Government; ’ that on a division tho number* were 39 to 39, and that the motion was negatived by the casting vote of the " P The°conclnslon that tho Governor would draw from this statement is, that while Major Atkinson s Govermhont wore undoubtedly defeated, the Government aa at present constituted haro neyor worn tuo

first commanded a majority of the House ; because a vote of want of confidence which Is only defeated by the casting vote of the Speaker can hardly he taken as an expression of confidence on the part of the House, as the vote of th&lSpeaker is, according to Parliamentary rule, always such a manner as not to preclude the House from reconsidering the question. The Governor would point outthal|the fact alluded to by Sir George Grey in his memorandum, that certain members have voted both against Major Atkin-, son’s Government and also against the present Government, would (simply show; that while those gentlemen were dissatisfied with the late Government, they were equally dissatisfied with the one which succeeded it; but it la quite possible that had other combinations been formed, those gentlemen might have had confidence in the Government, and the subsequent events might have beeri very different, as at by no means follows that because a member expresses his want of confidence in one Government, he is necessarily bound to give his confidence to the next. The only desire of the Governor is to secure a Government no matter how constituted, which can command’ the confidence of a majority of the representatives of the people of New Zealand. The prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament at any time is undoubted, and it is a prerogative which requires to be exercised with great judgment, and it is an act in which the Crown is called upon to use, to some extent at any rate, its own discretion ; and if such is the case with the Sovereign, who is not responsible to any one, more especially must it bo so in the case of tbe Governor, who is directly responsible to the Crown for his exercise of the prerogative. , ... ~ The Governor is of opinion that a dissolution would, be undesirable at the present time, for the following reasons, namely: —. . . . , 1 Because ho is of opinion that the difficulties which have occurred may yet be solved without a dissolution. , • , 2 The present Parliament is only in its second session, and the Governor has been informed both by Major Atkinson and Sir George Grey, that it is their intention, next year, to introduce a Bill for the redistribution of the representation of the country. Should such a Bill pass, it would almost necessarily entaila freali dissolution next year : and it is manifest that it would be most undesirable that the country should be put to the trouble and expense of two dissolutions in so short a period, if it can possibly be aV 3. i( The present season of the year is the one at which it would be most inconvenient to the country that a dissolution should take place, as rural districts at any rate are fully occupied by harvest and shearing °^4 r< Tlie Government have not informed the -Governor that tliere is any great measure or principle in discussion in the House which could bo submitted for the consideration of the constituencies ; and certainly, as far as the Governor is aware, no such measuie or principle is at present known to the public. - 5 The Government inform the Governor that in their opinion a dissolution would secure to them a large working majority, but they have produced no evidence in support of that opinion. 6 As far as the Governor is aware, no supply has been granted. The Governor is perfectly alive to the fact thnt this is not a question which in England needs consideration, because in England Parliament has uniformly voted the supplies. necessary for an appeal to the country. The Governor, however, knows as a fact that this course , has not been uniformly adopted in the colonies, and he is therefore of opinion that it is a question which must enter into his consideration in deciding upon a dissoluton. in England there is also the further safeguard in the moral certainty that no Minister would venture to advise the Sovereign to dissolve Parliament after Parliament had refused to vote the supplies necessary to carrying on the service of the country during the time required for the election and the reassembling is deprived of this future security, because Sir George Grey distinctly informed him, in conversation on the 26th of October, that if he granted him a dissolution he would dissolve whether supply were granted or not. . . The Governor, however, cannot take upon himself the responsibility of either sanctioning the expenditure of public money which has not been voted by Parliament, or of throwing the whole country into confusion, and causing a large amount of public and individual inconvenience and distress by withholding for two or three months the payments which are justly due by the country, until at any rate he has exhausted every other expedient. The Governor must point out to the Government that this was the course adopted by the Governor of. New South Wales In the case which is quoted by them, as he did not grant the unqualified dissolution until every other means had failed. For these reasons the Governor is not prepared to grant a dissolution at present. If, however. Sir George Grey can satisfy .him that Parliament has granted even three months’ supply, he will be happy to reconsider his determination, .... . .. In conclusion, the Governor would thank the Government for the ttouble.which they have taken in furnishing him with authorities upon the subject; but after careful consideration It docs not appear to him that there is anything in them which would induce him to think that it is his duty to modify the decision he has expressed. Normanby.

Government House, Wellington 15th November, 1877,

At the time we expressed our opinion of the soundness of the constitutional position taken up by his Excellency. The opinion expressed in England by the best constitutional authorities on the New South Wales case, fully bears out the conclusions arrived at by all thinking men in the colonies, and these will certainly'not be shaken by the indecent attacks on the Governor made on public platforms by a man whose very petty jealousy of a successor makes him forget his duty as a Minister of the Crown.