HONORS CONFERRED UPON RESIDENTS IN NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5710, 18 July 1879, Page 4

HONORS CONFERRED UPON RESIDENTS IN NEW ZEALAND.

The following letter from the Premier to the Secretary of State was laid upon the table of the House yesterday,—additional interest has been imparted to the despatch by the notice given by Mr, Rees that to-day he would move that the conduct of Sir W. Eox in accepting knighthood without the Ministry being consulted was unconstitutional ' — “Wellington, New Zealand, “2nd July, 1879.

•‘Sir, —Recently honors for polictical services have been, on your advice, conferred upon two leading members of the Opposition in New Zealand. Sir E. Stafford and Sir W. fox were the recipients of these honors. One of these two gentlemen, Sir W. Fox, was, at the time such honor was conferred, resident in New Zealand. The Government of this country has no knowledge upon whose recommendation you advised that these honors should be conferred ; nor has the Government of this country any certain in what manner the correspondence regarding them was conducted with Sir W. Fox _ “ 2. In this letter I am not considering honors bestowed in ordinary course upon the holders of certain offices, but honors given for political services. I also fully admit the claims and great merits of the two gentlemen on whom they have been conferred. “3. To illustrate the remarks I have to make, I take the case of Sir IF. Fox._ The honor conferred on him, knighthood is one known to the Constitution. It emanated from the proper source—the Crown, the fountain of honor. But the recognised rule is that such honors are only conferred by the Crown upon proper responsible advice. The Crown would not in England confer peerages upon two leading members of the Opposition without con- i suftinf its actual responsible advisers before it adopted such a course. «l„ the present case no such responsible advice was really tendered. The Crown has within this country under its Constitution' recognised responsible advisers. Their advice was never sought, they were not even made the medium of communication between the Crown and Sir W. Fox, and were left in ignor-

ance of the matter. At the time Sir W. Fox was in violent opposition and making public communications, which were embarrassing the Government with the native race. The action of the Crown, therefore, had the aspect of a party movement of an embarrassing nature “5 Clearly in the case of services rendered in anv part of the Empire, to the Empire at laroe’ the Crown can, on the advice of a Secretary of State, reward such services by honors or Otherwise. But in the ease ot any oolouy where a representative Constitution exists' in reference to services rendered in sueli colony, in regard to its internal management, its internal political affairs, the Crown canuoi, I respectfully believe, constitutionally bestow such honors without the advice of Ministers, who are responsible to the people of that colonv; the Secretary of State is not in any way whatever. i , “6. Nor can, I believe, any Mmis.cr of the Crown in England constitutionally correspond with members of the Opposition or any other person in this colony regarding rewards for political services rendered to the colony, and in relation to itsinternal government otherwise than through responsible Ministers. “7. If such claims in the instances alluded to be maintained by the Secretary of State, true responsible Government in the colony becomes impossible, and a spirit of dissatisfaction will, I fear, be evoked.—l have, &c., “(Signed) G. Gbkt. “To the Eight Honorable Sir M. HicksBeach, Bark, Downing-street, London.”