A.-l, 1893, No. G.

A.—7.

Opposition majority would still remain; therefore the proposal of Premier seems to me a reasonable one. The existence of an Upper House largely disproportionate to what appears to be the present political feeling in the colony may be imperilled unless a more even balance of parties is secured. Despatch will be sent by mail.

Enclosure No. 2. The Earl of Glasgow to Lord Knutspoed. (Telegram.) [Eeceived 11th August, 1892.] 11th August, 1892. Feom information which I have received, I consider that the Legislative Council consists of the Speaker, twelve Ministerialists, and twenty-two members of the Opposition, four of these Councillors being absent from the colony. The difference between these figures and the estimate of Premier, as I reported in my despatch of the 22nd June, is accounted for by disapproval of certain measures which were not brought before the country at election, and which deprive the Government of considerable support in the Council. Eeference from Ministers to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this subject leaves by post to-day, with my remarks.

No. 4. (New Zealand, No. 47.) My Lord, — Downing Street, 26th September, 1892. I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch No. 38, of the Bth of August, respecting the question which had arisen between yourself and your Ministers with regard to certain proposed nominations to the Legislative Council of New Zealand. 2. This question has been referred for my consideration by agreement between you and your Ministers. I have carefully considered it, and, in doing so, I desire to say that I fully appreciate the difficult position to which you succeeded immediately on your arrival in the colony to assume for the first time the duties of a colonial Governor. I had, however, no hesitation in advising you by telegraph on the 24th instant to accept the recommendation of your Lordship's Ministers; and I now proceed to indicate the reasons which led me to that conclusion. 3. The Legislative Council, as I understand, consisted at the date of your despatch of thirty-five members, and your Government proposed that to this number an addition should be made of twelve, making altogether a Chamber of forty-seven members, a number which is not larger than that which has existed in previous years, and the case is therefore distinguishable from those in other colonies where it was proposed to make so many additions that the Chamber would have exceeded all previous limits. 4. In the House of thirty-five members, I gather that your Government could only rely on the consistent support of five. I do not assume that the remaining thirty members could all be considered to be opposed to the policy of your Ministers ; but it seems to me that your Government is entitled to hold that it is not adequately represented, either for speaking or voting purposes, in the Upper Chamber, and that, if the twelve members were added as they desire, they would only have seventeen consistent supporters in a House of forty-seven. In considering this aspect of the question, I am clearly of opinion that the only fair and satisfactory mode of estimating the representation of the present Government in the Legislative Council, and of judging whether their claim to be allowed fuller representation is one to which no constitutional objection can be taken, is to examine the results of the voting in that House on the measures with which the Government of the day is identified. 5. I cannot, therefore, conclude that the proposed appointments constitute one of those cases to which the term " swamping" has been applied, in which the proposed addition of members at the instance of the Government for the time being has been so great in proportion to the balance of parties in the Upper Chamber as to overthrow that balance altogether. 6. Your Lordship was willing to appoint nine new members, and your Government desired that twelve should be appointed. It can hardly be considered that the difference between these limits is so great or important as to require a

5