THE Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1892. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2375, 28 June 1892, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1892. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Xi;w Zealand is credited with being the most loyal of all Lritish dependencies. but we have not to thank our Governors for that. Lord Xormanby refused to accept the advice of Sir George Grey to appoint a member of the Legislative Council, because there was a “ no conscience ” motion before the House. Lord Onslow accepted the resignation, and advice pf Sir Harry Atkinson at the same time, gi/d appointed seven new members to the Council. Loth Lord Xormanby and Lon/ Onslow were wrong and it is worthy of notice that they erred on the Tory, side. Lord Onslow’s action above all was most indefensible. He knew that Sir Harry Atkinson during the previous session promised parliament that he would not make any fresh appoint, meuts to the council ; he knew that the whole Press of the colony in a most extraordinarily unanimous manner, opposed the appointments; he knew that public meetings passed resolutions against them ; he knew the Government had been defeated at the election ami bad no constitutional right to.

advise him, and he also received a protest from the leader of the Opposition stating in a very, cogent way the reasons why the appointments should not be made. In the face of all this Lord Onslow accepted advice from Sir Harry Atkinson after that gentleman had resigned—for he must have resigned to receive one of the appointments for himself—-and on the strength of that advice he swamped the Council with the view of burking progressive legislation. This was disgracefully unconstitutional, and the colony was disgusted at the time, but the Hon, Mr llallance, threw the halo of his influence over the Governor, in a speech in Auckland in which he defended his action ; the affair was forgotten, and Lord Onslow retired from the stage of colonial politics, amidst a storm of applause. His last act, however, was as mean as his former act had been unconstitutional. The Premier asked him to appoint twelve new Legislative Councillors but he refused to do so, stating that he thought it better to let his successor deal with the matter. At the time we said it was mean and unmanly for Lord Onslow to handover such a disagreeable heirloom to his successor, and we repeat the same tiling now. We sympathise with Lord Glasgow in having to deal with such a disagreeable matter in the very beginning of his carreer as a governor, and Lord Onslow behaved very badly to him in leaving i him such a legacy. The Government only want twelve new councillors, and certainly that is not too many, but Lord Glasgow will not appoint them, and the result will in all probability be a dissolution. In that case the country will be put to an expense of about £IO,OOO, and for this our governors are to blame. When !Sir George Grey and others advocated an elective governor we strenuously opposed it ;• but in the face of these developments we shall not do so any longer. We shall henceforward think it our duty to throw in our lot with the Elective-Governor Party. When a large number of members waited on Lord Onslow and submitted objections to the appointments to be made to the Legislative Council, he told them haughtily he was not responsible to the people of this colony. The best thing the people of this colony can do therefore, is to make their governor responsible to them, instead of being obliged to submit to the whims and fancies of any hide-bound Tory, the autocrats of Downing Street may see fit to send out here to act as a check on their aspirations'for national advancement and progress.