THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JULY 1, 1893. THE LEGISLATIVE APPOINTMENTS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2523, 1 July 1893, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. SATURDAY, JULY 1, 1893. THE LEGISLATIVE APPOINTMENTS.

The present Opposition have developed a most extraordinary penchant for historical research. They seem to be able to find nothing wrong with the present administration, and the past is all they have to go upon, and they have been diving deeply and laboriously into it. It is a remarkable fact, however, that they find nothing wrong in the past of their own party; while they discovered all sorts of mischief done by the Liberal party. The Opposition are everlastingly trying to make people believe that there are not two parties in New Zealand, and yet in all their actions they shosv that they themselves recognise the existence of two parties. Could anything be more stupid than this ! But of course the object is to try to throw dust in the eyes of the people. They have succeeded in doing that for a long time, but it is doubtful whether they will continue to do it much longer. The last historical event which is agitating their minds is the appointments to the Legislative Council. They wasted weeks of the last session over these appointments, and yet they appear now to be ready to waste a great deal more time over the same subject. Could anything be more insane? The appointments have been made with the sanction and approval of the Imperial Government,, and no human power can unmake them. What is the use now of wasting time over whether the government had or had not a right to refer the dispute with the Governor over these appointments to the Imperial Government ? The chief point is this, so far as the public of New Zealand are concerned. The Government wanted twelve members appointed to the Legislative Council; the Governor would only appoint nine. U nder these circumstances the Government had only one of two courses open to them, viz., (1) to resign, (2) to refer the matter to the Imperial Government, If they had resigned the result would have been a General Election, and the c lony would have been put to a great expense. They did not resign, but referred the matter to the Home Government, and we believe that nine-tenths of the people have been satisfied with the result. At any rate the course which the Government adopted saved the colony from the annoyance and disturbing influence of a general election, and it appears to us that the public will consequetly endorse the action which the Government took.

The question which is exercising the ipjnd of the Opposition now is : Had the Government a right to refer the matter of the Legislative appointments to the Secretary of State ! it is rather late in the day tq discuss it, but there are several points wdrth considering: (1.) Lord Onslow said the Governor was not re~"«ible to any one in Hew Zealand, spo. ' - vogponsible to the Imperial Ho was oni_y . il> ot case, when a Government, in ■■‘■-"onism Governor does anything in aiu.. D to public opinion, nothing can be done with him except to refer to his masters. (2.) It is from the British Government the New Zealand Government derived its authority, therefore there cannot be any wrong in going to the source of all authority. (3.) If the New Zealand Parliament does anything which clashes with Imperial interests, the measure is vetoed by the Imperial Government. These are a few of many x’easons why there could not be much wrong iu referring the matter to the Imperial Government. What has led to the discussion now is some fresh correspondence which has passed been the Governor of New Zealand and the Secretary of State. The Governor of New Zealand on receiving an intimation that ha must make the appointments to the Legislative Council, wrote in reply a letter which in fact disputed the action of the Secretary of State. He argued that the constitutional course for the Government of New Zealand to have taken was to have resigned, and on this the Opposition are now building up a very baseless fabric. Now who is Lord Glasgow, that he should attempt to teach constitutional usage to Mr Gladstone and his ministers ! Until a few years ago ho was a naval officer, and possibly understood the management of a ship very well. He has therefore had no political experience or knowledge whatsoever, and his opinion on constitutional questions is not worth

ft straw. The reply of the Marquis of Ripon to his rather stupid letter was a direct snub. The Marquis of Ripon reminded him that he (Lord Glasgow) consented to refer the dispute to the Secretary of State, and as a party to the transaction he ought to feel satisfied. The Marquis declined to discuss the matter further, but gave Lord Glasgow a good deal of wholesome advice, which ought to penetrate deeply into his feelings. But it is of no use to discuss the subject, and the Opposition would not have resuscitated it, no doubt, only that they have nothing to say against the present Ministry, and they think it incumbent on them to say something. The whole thing is settled; the Government saved the colony the expense of a general election, and we feel certain that every sensible man in the country appreciates their action.