HONORS CONFERRED UPON RESIDENTS IN NEW ZEALAND.

Patea Mail, Volume V, Issue 447, 26 July 1879, Page 3

HONORS CONFERRED UPON RESIDENTS IN NEW ZEALAND.

(From the New Zealand Times.) The following letter from the Premier to the Secretary of Stale has been laid upon the table of the House, Additional interest has been imparted to the fact by the notice given by Mr Rees, . that he would move that the conduct of Sir W. Fox in accepting knighthood without the Ministry being consulted was unconstitutional:— u Wellington, New Zealand, “2nd July, 1879. “ Sir, —Recently honors for political 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 shonld be conferred ; nor has the Government of this country any certain information 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. u 3. To. illustrate the remarks I have to make, I take the case of Sir W. Fox. The honor conferred upon 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 ~«tiot in England- confer peerages upon : two leading members of the. Opposition without consulting .its actual responsible advisers before it adopted such a course. “ 4. In the present case no such res- • ponsible 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 Grown and Sir W. Fox, and were , left in ignorance 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 any part of the Empire, to the Empire at large, the Grown canj on , the advice of a Secretary of State; re- • . ward such services by honors or otherwise. But in the case of any colony where a representative Constitution exists in reference to services rendered rn such colony, in regard to its .intmial management, its internal political affairs, , the Crown ' cannot, I respectfully believe.

coustil mionally bestow such honors with--out. ihe novice of Ministers, who arc r sponsible- to the people of that colony ; the Secretary of State is not in any way whatever. “ (5. Nor can, I believe, any Minister of-the Crown in England constitutionally correspond with members of the Opposition or any other person in the colony regarding rewards for political services rendered to the colony, and in relation to its internal 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. Grey. “ To the Right Honorable M. Hicks Beach, Bart., Down ing-street, London.’