IMPERIAL DISALLOWANCE OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 88, 15 April 1899, Page 4

IMPERIAL DISALLOWANCE OF COLONIAL LEGISLATION.

The . troubles. of New Foxmcllana, that most unfortunate of British colanies, have resulted in the delivery by the Colonial Secretary of an interesting and instructive pronouncement defining the scope of the Royal veto to colonial legislative acts. Mr Chamberlain's despatch has been called for by a petition bearing the signature of nearly a third of the registered electors of the island, asking that the Queen be advised to exercise her prerogative in refusing, or at least delaying, sanction to the Eeid Bill. Briefly, the Bill provides for the selling to New Foundland's one millionaire of the railways and bulk of the valuable assets of the colony without

extinguishing most of the debt, out of which these assets were built up. The act was hurriedly rushed through the legislature—it is said on -hasty and inaccurate information—and the Governor, Sir H. H. Murray, does not disguise his opinion of the transaction, but strongly endorses the prayer for delay until, at least, an opportunity shall have been given to the electorate to record its deliberate judgment.

Mr Chamberlain, in communicating tha decision that Her Majesty's Government cannot see their way to interfere with the executive and legislative action of a self-governing colony, clearly explains the constitutional principles on which it is based. 'If,' says Mr Chamberlain, 'the interests of any other, part of the Empire were involved, or the Act in any way repugnant to Imperial legislation, or if the measure were so radically vicious as to reflect discredit on the Empire of which NeAV Foundland forms a part, it might be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to take such a departure from recognised constitutional principles and usage as the memorialists desire.' Mr Chamberlain, referring to the subject matter of the petition, speaks of 'the extraordinary and unparalleled character of the contract and the serious consequences that may result from it';but does not consider it a case where the Secretary of State would be justified in advising Her Majesty to exercise her prerogative of disallowance. Th# reason given is that 'to advise its exercise in cases where only local interests are concerned would involve the Imperial Government in liability for matters of. the control of which it has divested iself, and for which the colony has accepted full responsibility.' In conclusion the Colonial Secretary remarks that 'in accepting the privilege of self-govern-ment the colony has accepted the full responsibilities inseparable from ttiat privilege, and that if the machinery it has provided for the work of legislation and administration has proved defective, or the persons to whom It has entrusted its destinies have failed, to discharge their trust, they cannot look to Her Majesty's Government to supplement or remedy these defects, or to judge between them and their duly chosen representatives.' The 'National Review,' from which we draw the substance 'of the despatch, speaks of it as 'masterly,' and as laying down 'with remarkable lucidity and cogency the constitutional privileges Avhich have governed the decision.' It certainly is interesting1 as showing the absolute power British colonies have of making or marring themselves by legislation untrammelled by the contingency of Imperial interference. An example of th<» same thing on other lines, was had recently in the case of the West Indian colonies, where the assistance of The Mother Country was obtained ttttder an agreement whereby the islands suffer a commensurate restriction of the self-governing powers that they had previously exercised.