Responsibility of Governors in New Zealand.

Thames Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2946, 25 July 1878, Page 2

Responsibility of Governors in New Zealand.

Sir George Grey has been playing up again. As a rule, it is little use giving much notice to tlm gentleman's vagaries. He was once au ornament to the service to which he belonged, and it is pitiful to see such a tuau deliberately adopting the part of a political buckjumpcr. The operations of such an animal are not in themselves interesting, but they sometimes give an opportunity for the display on ' the part of his rider of various equestrian virtues. We fully appreciate the firmness and the tact that Lord INormanby in his, very uncomfortable position has shown, and we heartily wish that we had a similar exhi-

bition of these qualities nearer^ IS*™©. * The occasion for Sir George Grey'ftiimß>C performance was a strange one. At the end of the last session of Parliament he suddenly advised the Governor to refuse the Royal assent to a bill which had passed both Houses, and to which Sir George Grey had offered no Parliamentary.opposition. The Governor declined to accept this extraordinary advice, and in the ordinary course of business reported the circumstance to the Secretary of State. Despatches arrived by the last mail approving the Governor's conduct, and were in due course made public. Thereupon Sir \ George Grey v wrote a long memorandum, in which he assumed the attitude of the injured colonist. He denounced and renounced the foreign nobleman and all his works. He declared that he cannot consent to have his conduct in reference to the relations between himself and the Assembly, or between himself and the Governor, submitted for the decision or the opinion of the Secretary of State, and that he cannot accept or recognise that decision or opinion. There is a grvat deal more of the usual high-faluting which our readers can readily supply for themselves Since Sir George Grey's consent has not been asked, and, we presume, is * not likely to be asked, to the Governor's despatches, the matter, from a practical point of view, is not very alarming. Not need we trouble ourselves about the retort to which Sir George Grey exposed himself when the Governor reminded him of his readiness two years ago to appeal, ;. both by letter and by telegram, to the Secretary of State to interfere in opposition to a bill which Sir George Grey happened to dislike. Sir George Grey, like our own Liberals, does not trouble himself about consistency, and in the face of our intended embassy to the foreign nobleman whom we are hoarse with denouncing, it does not become us to criticise our neighbors too severely.

But the whole case has a much more general interest, and' it is of value ia reference to the new 'and remarkable theory of gubernatorial donothingness. We have been t<>ld that a governor must" always take the advice of his Ministers, except when that advice is contrary to the' law, or compromises Imperial interests. In this New Zealand case Lord Normanby received from his Ministers advice upon two different subjects. He was advised to veto the bill we have mentioned. He was advised to dissolve Parliament without waiting for supplies. Lord Nrrmanby declined to take in either case this advice. He did assent to the bill, and he did not dissolve Parliament. According to the ne"w doctrine of responsible government, he was clearly wrong in both cases; His exercise of the prerogative, both that of legislation and that of dissolution, in the mode in which he was advised to exercise it, would have been perfectly legal. No British interest was even indirectly concerned in the' matter. The^whole business was entirely local. Yet the Secretary of State, after full consideration of all the facts, has expressed his approval of the Governor's conduct, and has declared, that that officer v did right in rejecting his Ministers' advice. It is not easy to reconcile this decision with the views that have lately found favor in Victoria. We now know that even in Victoria mere theory must give way to practical considerations, and that the Governor could, when he pleased, not merely decline to accept advice from his Ministers but insist—and that in a very peremptory fashion-^-upon his Ministers acting upon advice from him. It is still within the limits of possibility that even .this singular manifestation of firmness may receive the approbation of Downing-street. If the Governor has been applauded for following the advice of his Ministers, he may be yet more applauded because he resisted it. Perhaps it is not too sanguine to expect that he may even have to bear some unpleasant remarks because he did not resist them enough. At all events, we conceive ihat this new theory is thoroughly discredited. Therej«<||fmits, although it may not be easy to^ define them, at which the Governor's com•

plaisancoinust stop. He is not to allow the prerogative which ho administers to be debased into a means of gratifying party rancour or private revenge. And, if he choose to do so, no amount of Minis* terial advice can relieve him from either his moral or his political responsibilities. —Australasian.