THE DRAINAGE QUESTION. THE VICTORIAN EMBASSY.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5706, 14 July 1879, Page 3

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

THE VICTORIAN EMBASSY.

“ If equals be added to unequals The wholes are unequal.” TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES.

Sib,—ln your issue of the 11th iust. there appeared a letter from Mr. John Plimmer to the Mayor and Corporation of this city. Paragraph six of the letter reads thus : “ Gentlemen, you will excuse me for sending you such amateur plans. 1 did intend to get them drawn out by a professional, and applied to an engineer, who fully approved of the scheme, of which I left a pencil sketch. I called a day or two later, when I was much surprised to hear that he could not assist me at all. There had been some .meeting of engineers—mentioning the City Engineer as one—and that he was threatened with all the pains and penalties the profession could inflict if he drew any plans for me to send to you, as it may be the means of putting a stop to the consultation of engineers on the merits of the rival schemes,” &o. ' ; I will be m brief as possible in giving yon my version of the confabulation that passed between Mr. Plimmer and myself, and I have ho doubt Mr. Plimmer only solicits a reminder to convince him of its truth.

Mr. Plimmer called at. my office with the said pencil sketch, which, to my mind’s eye, appears still so forcibly to remind me of a sketch I-once saw of Madame Rachel’s famous tub, which aroused in my, mind a keen sense of the ridiculous. Mr. Plimmer asked me if I was disposed to do some work for honor ; but as I was very busy at the time doing some work for lucre, I desired him to leave the sketch, and I would look over it. , A few days later Mr. Plimmer came again. I had looked over his sketch, and. I told him it would not be prudent for me to do anything that \yas likely to interrupt or impede the present and coming arrangements, as several engineers had made themselves acquainted with the merits of the schemes already before the Council (the City Engineer for one), and all had approved of one or the other of: them, and that a board of engineers would eventually be convened to consider them. Mr. Plimmer, in a huff, then said, “ I will have it done by someone else,” and left" the office. To the best of my recollection, this was the conversation I had with Mr. PJimmer on the subject. I much regret he,should have so misunderstood me. I assure you, sir, and also the Mayor and City Councillors, that the Only pains and penalties I feared, and still fear, are the pains and penalties the said sketch may impose upon me at any moment my mind’s eye may wander. I shall be much obliged by your giving this a place in your next issue.—l am, &c., TX Picton Davies.

OFFICIAL REPLY ,OP THE SECRETARY OP STATE.

The following despatch from Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to his Excellency the Governor constitutes the reply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the proposals submitted by Mr. Berry for the reform of the Victorian constitution : ■ ►

Downing-street, May 3, 1879. My Lord, —In his despatch of £7th December, 1878, Sir George Bowen informed me that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria had authorised Mr. Graham Berry, the Chief Secretary and Prime Minister, and Mr. Pearson, a member of the Assembly, to proceed to London as commissioners or delegates, to solicit my advice and assistance, and to lay before me the views on the political affairs of Victoria entertained by the majority of the Assembly; and by the same mail he forwarded to me a statement that had been adopted by the Council, and other documents bearing upon the case. Shortly after the arrival of Mr. Berry and Mr. Pearson in England, I received

them at this office, and Mr. Berry then left with me the letter of which I enclose a copy. The objects of their mission have been since fully discussed between us at several interviews and I will now proceed to convey to you the opinion which her Majesty’s Government have formed upon the important question at i-sue, after full consideration of the statements that have been placed before them on behalf of the Government and Assembly of Victoria on the one aide, and of the Council on the other.

2. Iu a memorandum, dated the 6th August, 1878, Sir George Bowen’s Ministers had antipated that they might be “ compelled to despatch to England, on behalf of and with the express sanction of the Legislative Assembly, commissioners chosen from leading members of that House, to lay before her Majesty’s Imperial Government the matured results of its deliberation ” on constitutional reform, with a view to get that result embodied in an Act of the Imperial Legislature.” Ou the receipt of that memorandum I lost no time in placing before the Victorian Government the considerations which disposed me to the opinion that no sufficient cause had been shown for the intervention of the Imperial Parliament in the manner suggested. ' , , 3. The request urged by Mr. Berry in his letter of 26th February, that Parliament should “ by a simple alteration of the 60th section of the Constitution Act of Victoria, enable the Legislative Assembly to enact, in two distinct annual sessions, with a general election intervening, any measure for the reform of the constitution,” is, iu my opinion, even more open to objection than the proposal I understood him to convey in his memorandum of 6th August. But it is not necessary to discuss the merits of this or any other proposal, for though fully recognising the confidence in the mother country evinced by the reference of so important a question for the counsel and aid of the Imperial Government, I still feel that the circumstances do not yet justify any Imperial legislation for the amendment of that Constitution Act by which self-government, in the form which Victoria desired, was conceded to her, and by which the power of amending the constitution was expressly, and as an essential incident of self-government, vested in the colonial Legislature, with the consent of the Crown. The intervention of the Imperial Parliament would not, in ray opinion, be justifiable, except in an extreme emergency, and in compliance with the urgent desire of the people of the colony, when all available efforts on their part had been exhausted. But it would, even if thus justified, be attended with much difficulty and risk, and be iu itself a matter for grave regret. It would be held to involve an admission that the great colony of Victoria was compelled to ask the Imperial Parliament to resume a power which, desiring to promote her welfare, and believing in her capacity for self-govern-ment, the Imperial Parliament had voluntarily surrendered, and that this request was made because the leaders of political parties, from a general want of the moderation and sagacity essential to the success of constitutional government, had failed to agree upon any compromise for enabling the business of the colonial Parliament to be carried on.

4. It is, nevertheless, important that the question should be settled as soon as possible where it can properly be dealt with, that is, in the colonial Parliament ; and I shall be glad if, by the observations which I am about to make, I can remove some part of the misunderstanding which has been amongst the chief obstacles to such a settlement.

5. Following the generally accepted precedent, the Constitution Act of Victoria established two Legislative Chambers, the Council -and Assembly, and laid down to a certain extent their mutual relations; of which, it appears to me, a better definition rather than an alteration is now required. For as no party in Victoria desires to abolish the Council, I feel confident that there can be .no wish, in the words of your Ministers, to “reduce it to a sham,” or by depriving it of the powers which properly belong to a second Chamber, to confer on the Assembly a complete praotical supremacy, uncontrolled even by that sense of sole responsibility which might exert a beneficial influence on the action of a single Chamber. Nor can I suppose the'extreme view of the position of the. Oouncil, which it has recently to a great extent itself disclaimed, can he supported by any who have sufficiently examined the subject.. ''■■■■

6. The recent differences between the two Houses of Victoria, like the most serious of those which have preceded it, turned upon the ultimate control of finance. I observe that the address of the Legislative Assembly of the 14th February, 1878, dwells almost exclusively on the necessity of securing to that House sufficient financial control to enable adequate supplies to be provided for the public service and it is prominently urged in Mr. Berry’s letter of-26tb.February, in proof of the necessity for finding some solution of the present constitutional difficulty, that “ scarcely a year passes but it becomes a question whether the supplies necessary tor the Queen’s service will be granted.” But this difficulty would not arise if the two Houses of Victoria were guided in the matter, as in others, by the practice of the Imperial Parliament, the Council following the practice of the House of Lords, and the Assembly that of the House of Commons. The Assembly, like the House of Commons, would claim, and in practice exercise, the right of granting aids and supplies to the Crown, of limiting the matter, manner, measure, and time of such grants, and of so framing Bills of supply that these rights should be maintained inviolate ; and as it would refrain from annexing to a Bill of aid or supply any clause or clauses of a nature foreign to or different from the matter of such a Bill, so the Council would rsfrain from any steps so injurious to the public service as the rejection of an Appropriation Bill.

7. It would be well if the two Houses in Victoria, accepting the view which I have thus indicated of their mutual relations in this important part of their work, would maintain it in future by such a general understanding as would be most in harmony with the spirit of constitutional government. But, after all that has passed, it may be considered necessary to define those relations more closely than has been attempted here, and this might be effected either by adopting a joint standing order, as was proposed in 1867, or by legislation. Of these, the former would seem to be the preferable course, for there might be no slight difficulty in framing a statute to declare the conditions under which one House of Parliament, in a colony having two Houses, should exercise or refrain from exercising the powers which, though conferred upon it, must not always be asserted. But I must add that the clearest definition of the relative position of the two Houses, however arrived at, would not suffice to ' prevent collisions, unless interpreted with that discretion and mutual forbearance which -have been so often exemplified in the history of the Imperia,! Parliament.

8. If, however, it should be felt that the respective positions of the two Houses in matters of taxation and appropriation can only be defined by an amendment of the Constitution Act, there may be other points, such as the proposal to enact that a dissolution of Parlia' meut shall apply to the Legislative Council as well as the Assembly, that might usefully be considered at the same time; but I refrain, from discussing them now, feeling that their merits can best be appreciated in the colony itself.

9. It has been urged that some legislation is necessary to insure mechanically the termination, after reasonable discussion and delay, of a prolonged difference between the two Houses- upon questions not connected with finance. I do not yet like to admit that the Council of Victoria will not, like similar bodies in other great colonies, without any such stringent measure, recognise its constitutional position, and so transact its business that the wishes of the people, as clearly and repeatedly expressed, should ultimately prevail; nor hate I yet seen any suggestion for such legislation which I can deem free from objection. ' 10. I hope that the views which ! have expressed may not be without influence in securing such a mutual agreement between the two Houses as to remove any necessity for Imperial legislation, and that as both parties profess to desire only what is reasonable, and as there has been now an interval for reflection, a satisfactory and enduring solution of the difficulty may be arrived at in the colony. The course of. action which her Majesty’s Government might adopt should this hope unfortunately be disappointed, must in a great degree depend upon the circumstances which may then exist; but I can hardly anticipate that the Imperial Parliament will consent to disturb in any way, at the instance of one House of the colonial Legislature, the settlement embodied in the Constitution Act, unless the Council should refuse to concur with the Assembly in some reasonable proposal for regulating the future relations of the two Houses in financial matters, in accordance with the high constitutional .precedent to which I have referred, and should persist in such refusal after the proposals of the Assembly for that purpose, an appeal having been made to the constituencies on

the subject, have been ratified by the country, and again sent up by the Assembly for-the consideration of the Council.—l have, &c., (Signed) M. K. Hicks-Beach.