A.—l

24

of State. The question of resigning had not been hinted at; neither is it in accordance with the traditions of representative government that, when such a difference of opinion arises between the Governor and his Advisers, the Advisers should resign unasked. There is no analogous precedent where an appeal to the electors has arisen owing to a similar difference between the Governor and his Advisers. Upon this point Ministers beg respectfully to draw His Excellency's attention to the following words from the memorandum by Lord Normanby of the Bth November, 1877 : " The question as to the extent which Government are responsible to Parliament for the acts of the Governor is one which cannot possibly be decided in the colony. The Governor has therefore decided to forward the whole case for the consideration and decision of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, by whose decision he is bound to abide." The constitutional position is for Ministers to act as the defenders of the Governor. To appeal to the electors to say whether the Governor, whom they are bound to defend, is in the right or wrong, would place him and them in a most unusual and unenviable position. It is quite true that the leader of the Opposition, after the correspondence had been closed and sent home to the Secretary of State, argued that if Ministers thought the case sufficiently important they should resign; but His Excellency's Advisers dissent entirely from the contention that when a Ministry differ with the. Governor they should bring pressure upon him through the ballot-box, or, in other words, that a conflict should ensue between the people of New Zealand and the Governor, without every opportunity being first given to the Governor to withdraw from an untenable position. Ministers venture to submit that the deductions made by His Excellency from the division-lists of the Legislative Council during last session are misleading. It does not follow that, if the twelve appointments had been made, the Government would have been victorious in the divisions indicated. It must be borne in mind that on minor questions, and where no policy is involved, members of the Council vote irrespective of the Ministry appointing them. His Excellency does not show which were policy questions upon which the Council was divided, and which were questions altogether apart from policy. His Excellency was also unaware of the fact that there were measures not brought forward at all which his Ministers, knowing the state of the Council, considered it would be hopeless to attempt to pass. Again, important amendments were made by the Legislative Council in several of the policy Bills submitted by the Government —amendments which in some instances so materially altered the measures as to render them useless. In other measures, again, the amendments were such that his Ministers dropped the Bills altogether. Ministers dissent from the statement made that by the twelve appointments they have obtained a majority in the Council. They do, however, express surprise that His Excellency, without giving any reasons therefor, has thought it right to state that he considered it his duty to do what he could to prevent a Ministry, representing the popular will, from gaining a majority in the Upper Chamber. The situation is exactly as indicated by His Excellency's late Advisers. The results of the session conclusively proved the correctness of their contention that nine appointments would not have been sufficient to give the Government fair or adequate support. Had His Excellency's Despatch No. 16 been submitted to his late Advisers this could have been proved promptly by the records of the Council's proceedings. An important factor which has escaped His Excellency's attention, and which is of moment, is this : that between the time the rejected advice was tendered and the opening of Parliament, ,and even during the session, public opinion was freely expressed in support of the step advised. Strong expressions of opinion were also given against the action of the majority of the Council in opposing measures thrown out during the previous session. This may have had an influence with some of the members of the Council, but it is impossible to gauge how far this would tend to the passing of the measures which His Excellency's Advisers considered were required for the'good of the country. In some of the divisions on minor matters it may have had an effect, but on larger questions of public policy the division-lists bear out what His Excellency's late Advisers contended for—namely, that the Council was in an inefficient state, and that the Government had not any fair and adequate representation there. His Excellency's Advisers are pleased to know that His Excellency does not consider his personal position in this matter has in any way been detrimentally affected. In conclusion, they beg to submit that, notwithstanding the view held by His Excellency that his late Advisers should have resigned, the result has amply justified the course taken. The country has been spared a general election. The relative positions of the Governor and his Advisers on this most important question have been defined, and that without affecting the Governor's personal position ; whilst at the same time the bond of union between the Mother-country and her self-governing colonies has bedii strengthened by the decision given by the Secretary of State. The Premier respectfully requests that a copy of this memorandum may be laid on the table of the House of Bepresentatives and Legislative Council respectively, and that a copy be also sent to the Bight Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies. B. J. Seddon.

Memorandum for His Excellency the Governor. (No. 9.) Premier's Office, Wellington, 3rd July, 1893. The Premier acknowledges the receipt of His Excellency's memorandum of the 21st June, intimating that he had just received from the Colonial Office copies of the return, " New Zealand and the Colonies" (Upper House), printed on May 2nd by order of the House of Commons. The memorandum observes that the return includes all tho correspondence on the subject of the legislative appointments of last session, except the subsidiary correspondence (as His Excellency terms it), which was afterwards sent Home and included in the papers laid before the House of