Hawke's Bay Herald TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1879. SIR WILLIAM FOX AND HIS TITLE.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 5440, 22 July 1879, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1879. SIR WILLIAM FOX AND HIS TITLE.

MR Kees has given notice that he intends to move that- the action of Sir William Fox, in accepting the honor of knighthood, except through the Ministry, is unconstitutional. At first sight the motion appears to be something worse than petty — it seems to be actuated by a poor jealousy unworthy of Mr Eees or any repi-escntative of the people. Reflection, however, shows that there is a sound constitutional principle at stake, albeit Mr Rees seeks to put the cap on the wrong head. Sir George Grey has written a letter to Sir Michael Hicks-Beach on the subject, which letter was referred to in the course of the debate on Friday night. It will, no doubt, account for some of the venom hi Sir William Fox's speech, but a careful perusal fails to show that the letter in any way misrepresents facts, or even attacks Sir William, save in an indirect manner which could not well be avoided. Sir George made no secret of having written this letter, but he sought to give it publicity by laying it on the table of the House, and it has been reprinted in full in the Wellington newspapers to hand by the mail. The communication is written in strictly official language, and points out that " the recognised rule is that such honors are only conferred by the Crown upon proper responsible advice. The Crown would not in England confer peerages upon two leading members of the Opposition without consulting its actual responsible advisers before it adopted such a course." This is a strictly constitutional doctrine. The Crown alone can confer these dignities, and in England the Crown is supposed to stand wholly aloof from politics, being guided by the will of the country as expressed through the sovereign's constitutional advisers. When, therefore, the Crown confers honors upon those opposing, and bitterly opposing, the policy which is supposed to be approved by the country, the Crown practically condemns that policy, and deals a blow at the Ministry of the day. In discussing this question it must be remembered that there is one important difference between the position of affairs at Home and in the colonies. In England there is no intervention between the Ministers and the Crown ; but between the Ministers of a colony and the Crown comes the Colonial Secrotary. For all practical purposes, therefore, the Colonial Secretary stands to us in the relation of the Crown, for he is above our Ministers, and upon his advice the Crown would act. The Queen has, in conferring honors on Sir William Fox and Sir Edward Stafford, simply carried out the advice of her constitutional advisers ; and if there be anything improper in the conferring of these titles her advisers — in this instance the head of the Colonial office — must be held responsible for that impropriety. While he was plain Mr Fox, Sir William managed by the power of his scorpion-like sting to hoist himself into a position which it was left to others to attain by ability, and when he received the honor of knighthood lie was one of the recognised chiefs of Her Majesty's Opposition in New Zealand. In conferring the title on him Sir Michael Hicks-Beach altogether departed from, constitutional

principles, and by a, side-wind showed himself in direct antagonism to the Ministry. Sir George Grey puts this most strongly, though temperately, when he saya «— v The Crown lias within this country under its Constitution recognised responsible adviser^ Their advice was never sought," they wore not even made the hiodium of communication between the Crown and Sir William Fox, and wen* left in ignorance of the matter. At the time Sir William JFox was in violent opposition and making publirt communications, ; which -were embarrassing the Govern- i meat with the native race. The o.Ctidn ; of tho Crown-, therefore) had the aspect of a party movement of an embarrassing nature." This clause of th<* letter is the only one which in any way attacks Sir Willid.nl If ox personally. Sir George never refers to Sir Edward Stafford after the opening sorifce"tice, but illustrates his argument by reference to ono only of tho recipients of knighthood. This ma)' bo only accidental, but ib appears to us that Sir George in effect draws a distinction between the two. That tli ere is a great distinction must be admitted. Apart altogether from the vast difference between the personal characters of Sir William Fox and Sir Edward Stafford), and the very different estimation in which they are held by the House and the country, there is this radical difference — that , when the honors were (ionFGrred Sir Edward Stafford had wholly retired from public life, while Sir William l?ox was still in the thick of political strife. When Sir Edward Stafford vacated his seat in the House he lost his strongly partisan character^ and was remembered only as a man who had once been one of the foremost in New Zealand, and who had rendered valuable services to the colony of his adoption. Sir George Grey gracefully says : — " I fillip admit the claims and great merits of the two gentlemen on whom these honors have been conferred." Throughout the whole letter he takes objection only to the manner in which the honors were bestowed. The honor done to Sir Edward Stafford may be takten as tin acknowledgment of " the claims and great merits *' which Sir George places to his credit ; but. in the ease oi: Sir William Fox lus past services are altogether obscured by his present poisition as leader of the Oppdsitiom and in conferring knighthood upon him Sir Michael Hicks-Beach has, whether intentionally or not, cast a slur upon the Ministry, and expressed approval of Sir Win. Fox's action. x

Mv Rees, however, appears to take 1 a peculiar view of the subject) 'And one totally opposed to that o£ his chief. He seeks to censure Sir William for his acceptance of the honor. Now, that is absurd. If knighthood had been oObred to Mr Rees lie would have jumped at the honor, without troubling Himself as to whether it was tendered in a strictly constitutional manner. No one could expect Sir "William to refuse " a handle to his name," and we cannob see that he in any way did wrong in accepting it. What blame there may be is to be laid at the door of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, not at that of Sir William Fox. We sujrpose Mr Rees would, like to put the member for Wanganui in the position of a man receiving stolen or illegally-obtained property, but while human- nature is human nature we need not look for such immaculate purity and selfabnegation from our legislators. Had Diogenes found an honest man by the aid of his lantern, Mr Rees might have had some sort of a pi'eeedent to point to, but as the old sage failed in his search at that comparatively early period of civilisation we can hardly, now that the world has been so much civilised, expect a politician to be so honest as to refuse a title because the man who offered it to him had not observed all the usual preliminaries.