The Hawera Star. MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1925. GOVERNORS AND “ADVICE.”

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 28 December 1925, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

MONDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1925. GOVERNORS AND “ADVICE.”

Delivered every evening by 5 o’clrxik in Hawera, MaDaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, filtham, Siangatoki, Kaponga, Alton, HurleyviUe, I’atea. Waverley. Mokoia, Wbakaraara, Obaugai. Mereirw-ro. Fra.-»»r E<wd. and Aramt/i

Although we still hold that, if the purpose behind! the new appointments to the New South Wales Legislative Council be the abolition of that chamber, Mr Lang has exceeded his rights in insisting on the additions, .the correspondence which was tabled in. the, Assembly just before Christmas shows clearly that the Government was entitled to standi out against the Governor’s opposition. Sir Dudley de Chair, although there does not seem, to have been any defielite undertaking, was apparently given cause to believe that the abolition of the Upper House was not the immediate object; and, once he was satisfied oa that point, he could do no more than reason gently with the Government. For that matter, in the event of the Ministry being absolutely determined, it is most doubtful if the Governor could have stood between it andi the abolition of the Council, although in that event he would have been entitled, and expected, to dwell most emphatically upon the two British precedents which we mentioned last week, and to recommend an appeal to the people on the special point" at. issue. But if Mr Lang represented that the new appointments were required only to ensure that thei decisions of the elected chamber should 1 become law without constant and drastic amendment, the matter became one upon which the Governor was bound, after a reasonable lapse of time, to accept, the ailviee of his Ministers. In similar circumstances in the British Parliament, the King would be in exactly the same position. In the ordinary course of things, the constitutional Sovereign is understood! to have three rights: the right to. be consulted, the right, to encourage, the right to warn. In the final analysis,, a Prime Minister can do what seems good to him and his colleagues; but he is subject to the obligation of submitting every important decision, before it is carried into effect, to the Sovereign. The correct attitude of the King, according to one of the most authoritative constitutional writers, is that of “the sagacious, dispassionate mentor.” He should address the Prime Minister, in some such style as this: “The responsibility for tliis matter is upon you. Whatever you think best must be done. Whatever you think best must have my full and effectual support. But you will observe that, for this reason and for that reason, what you propose to do. is bad; what you do not. propose to. do is better. I do not oppose, it is mv duty not to oppose; but observe that I warn.” And the position of a Governor is much, the same, save that he may hold up legislation by reserving any Act for Royal assent when it has more than a domestic bearing. Sir Dudley de Chair would be entitled to say so —as, apparently be did say—if he thought Mr Lang’s request an improper one, and he would be entitled

to advise any modification lie thought lit; but, if the Prime Minister still insisted, it would be the Governor’s' duty to comply. A ruling which was given by the Colonial Office, consequent upon a similar dispute in our, own liis L tory over thirty years ago, may quite possibly have been quoted by Mr Lang in supporfi of his case. In 1892 some of the policy measures of the Ballanee Government were rejected by the Upper House. Mr Ballanee, a’s Prime Minister, advised the then Governor, the Earl of Onslow, to make twelve appointments to the Legislative Council. His Excellency objected to so large a, number of new members, but offered to appoint eight. Mr Ballanee would not agree, and, when the Earl of Glasgow succeeded the Earl of Onslow as Governor, the Prime Minister renewed his advice that twelve new appointments were necessary. Lord Glasgow offered nine, but the Ministry would not give way, and, the issue was referred to the Secretary of State for the Colonies' (The Marquis of Ripon). Having regard! to the state of parties in the Upper House as then constituted, Lord Ripon dismissed the suggestion that the proposed new appointments would involve a swamping of the -Council, and expressed the opinion that the difference between the appointment of nine and twelve new members was not “so great or so im-i portant as to require a Governor to assume the very serious responsibility of declining to act on the advice of his Ministers, and possibly of having in consequence to find other Advisers.” In stating the principle governing this decision, the Colonial Secretary wrote: I think it right to add that a question of this kind, though in itself of purely local importance, presents also a constitutional aspect which should be considered on broad grounds of general application. When questions of a constitutional character are involved, it is especially, I conceive, the right, of a Governor fully to discuss with his Ministers the desirability of any particular course that may be pressed upon him for his adoption. He should frankly state the objections, if any, which may occur to him; but if, after full discussion, Ministers continue to press upon him the advice which they have already tendered, the .Governor should, as a general rule, and when Imperial interests are not affected, accept that advice, bearing in: mind that the responsibility rests with the Ministers, who are answerable to the -Legislature and, in the last resort, to the country. In the present New South Wales instance, Imperial interests are not affected, and the Government making the request —“tendering the advice,” that is—must be agreed to have the confidence of the electorate, having been placed in power by popular vote only six months ago. This being so, the Governor had no option but to accept the advice offered. If subsequent events prove the whole business to have been a> move towards the abolition of the Upper House—for which the Government has NOT a mandate from the people —retribution may be expected at next flection. That is the safeguard of democracy.