THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1891. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2236, 4 August 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1891. THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Ihe House of Representatives has passed what is tantamount to a vote of censure on the late Atkinson Government by carrying the second reading of the Legislative Council Appointments Cancellation Bill introduced by Mr Rees. The history of the whole affair is as follows :—-When the measure reducing the number of members of the House of Representatives from 95 to 74 was introduced, a part of the scheme was that the number of members in the Legislative Council should not exceed half the number of members in the Lower House. When, therefore, the membership of the Lower House was reduced to 74 the membership of the Upper House should not have exceeded 37. This was the understanding, but it was not embodied in the Act. Frequently during the last two years of his term of office Sir Harry Atkinson was questioned as to his intention with regard to the Legislative Council, and on all occasions he explicitly denied that he had any intention of making any fresh appointmeets to the Upper Chamber. The elections took place last year and the Atkinson Government were ignominiously defeated, as subsequent events have since proved. Instead of resigning there and then they remained in office for three or four months, knowing full well they had no right there, for when they called Parliament together they had not the courage to face a No-confidence motion, but collapsed without a struggle. From this it is clear that they knew all along they did not possess the confidence of the country nor the right to tender advice to His Excellency the Governor. If they had any doubt on the subject they would have put the matter to the test when Parliament met, but instead of doing so they admttted that they had been defeated, by resigning. It is held as a constitutional principle that a Government which does not possess the confidence of Parliament has no right to tender advice to the Governor, yet Sir Harry Atkinson persuaded His Excellency to make six fresh appointments to the Legislative Council. We have it on the authority of. the Governor himself that Sir Harry

Atkinson represented to him that he still retained the confidence of the country, and therefore possessed the right to advise His Excellency. We must say that His Excellency must have been very green to believe it. He ought to have seen that it was a lie on the face of it, for amongst those whom Sir Harry Atkinson recommended for appointment to the Upper House was Sir Harry himself. If, therefore, Lord Onslow had been as quick-witted on this occasion as he invariably is when it suits him, he would have seen that the very fact that Sir Harry wished to enter the Upper House himself showed that neither he nor his party possessed the right to advise the Governor. But Lord Onslow, being a Tory, did not think it his duty to be over-punc-tilious, and notwithstanding that every newspaper in the colony, Liberal and Conservative, warned him against it, notwithstanding that the leader of the Opposition gave reasons why the appointments should not be made, and notwithstanding that protests came from all quarters, he appointed Sir Harry Atkinson Speaker of the Upper House, and five of his nominees members of it. It was the greatest political outrage committed in this colony, and Mr BallanCe behaved very badly in allowing it to die out so quietly. Lord Onslow ought to have been routed from the country for the part he played in it, The Bill introduced by Mr Rees aims at cancelling these appointments, and that it has gone so far gives us a hope that it will pass the Lower House. No doubt it will not go further. The Legislative Council will never pass it. The Government are opposing the measure, and it appears to us that they are wrong in doing so. We cannot see why they should condone such an outrage as this and yet persist in their efforts against Judge Edwards. That gentleman did nothing wrong so far as he himself was concerned. He was made a cat’spaw of, and we certainly would much prefer to see the Legislative Council appointments cancelled than see Judge Edwards retired frym the Bench. We congratulate Mr Rees on the action he has taken, and wish him success. SCOTTISH HOME RULE. All the way from Scotland we have received a letter asking us to publish the Scottish Home Rule Association’s “ Appeal to Scots Abroad ” for pecuniary assistance to carry on the agitation for obtaining the Legislative Independence of their native country. We have much pleasure in complying with the request, and in another column the appeal will be found published in extenso. Twelve months ago we published an appeal on behalf of Scotch Crofters, but it was not responded to, and we trust the present one will not meet with a similar fate. All that is required is a beginning, for we feel sure that if the movement is once initiated it will be taken up heartily. We have no hesitation in saying that it has our sympathy, and that we shall be happy to render the movement any assistance within our means. TORYISM. We have always held that the New Zealand Tory is more Conservative than the English Tories. We have given many instances of it, and here is another one. The Counties Act now before Parliament, aims at destroying plural voting at County Council elections, and gives to each ratepayer one vote and no more. This has been howled down in unmeasured terms by not only the Tories but the majority of New Zealand Liberals, yet the clause which embodies this principle is only a copy of the clause in the English Counties Act passed by the Tory Government of England three or four years ago. Thus the Tories of England are in reality more Liberal than some of the New Zealand Liberals.