New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4274, 1 December 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1874.

It is with reluctance that we again allude to Sir George Grey and his political manifestoes ; but for the sake of truth, and to put the public of New Zealand in full possession of important facts in its political history which Sir George ignores, we are compelled to do so. We shall only deal with a portion of his letter to the New Zealand Herald, in reference to Sir James FeHGUSSOn’s refusal to forward his petition to Her Majesty, which we reprinted in Monday’s issue. There are points in that letter to which we most heartily subscribe ; —points, moreover, which must be thoroughly understood by the people of this colony before they can ever hope to enjoy the full benefits of Parliamentary Government, and by not thoroughly understanding which they have permitted a political system to grow up in their midst, which has to a very great extent already removed the Executive power from the control of their representatives in the General Assembly. That, however, is quite another question—although by far the more important of the two on which Sir George Grey is concentrating his whole power- from the competence of the New Zealand Parliament to give statutary effect to the abolition resolutions of last session. ) Our remarks will be directed, on this occasion, to the question : Can the General Assembly pass an Act abolishing the provinces in whole or in part 1 Sir George Grey says : To these several points [in Mr. Hare’s letter] I answer—Firstly: That the General Assembly cannot lawfully, as the law now stands, during the next session, give effect to the resolutions it passed during its recent session. Upon this point I have not only quite made up ray own mind after the fullest consideration, but I have had sound legal advice regarding it. Indeed, in one respect, this fact is perfectly obvious. We reply, the law is explicit, and that of all men Sir George Grey should be aware of the fact. An Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament (31 and 32 Vict., cap. 92,) on the 31st July, 18G8, of which the following is the title;—“An “ Act to declare the powers of the General “ Assembly of New Zealand to abolish “ any province in that colony, or to with- “ draw from any such province any part “ of the territory thereof.” This Act, the history of which we shall presently narrate, removes doubts that had arisen as to the powers of the Assembly, under the Act, 25 and 2G Vict., cap. 48, sec., 3, “ or otherwise,” and confers upon it additional powers. The enacting clause, (which we published in a previous issue), is as follows : The General Assembly of New Zealand shall be deemed to have, and since tho'pnssing of the aforementioned Act to have had, the power of abolishing any province at any time heretofore or hereafter to he established in Now Zealand, or of withdrawing therefrom the whole or any part of the territory comprised therein, and of passing laws for the peace, order, and good government of tho territory so withdrawn from or ceasing to form part of tho territory of any such province, whether such territory shall or shall not he Included within tho limits of any other province of New Zealand, and also the power of making from time to time, sucii provision as to such General Assembly shall deem expedient, relating to the effect and operation of any such withdrawals of territory, or with respect to the province from which such territory shall have been withdrawn, and tho .Superintendent and members of tho Provincial Council thereof for the time being in office, and the laws in force in such province at the time of such withdrawals of territory therefrom. Tile foregoing is the‘section of tho Imperial Act by virtue of which wo contend the General Assembly has power to abolish Provincial Government, in whole or in

part, whenever it may choose to do so. Sir George Gkby cannot have had this Act by him, or he would not have written as he has done. However, we shall now narrate the history of the Act 31 and 32 Vic., capt. 92, when it will be seen that Sir Geoegb Grey has been altogether forgetful of the part he took in procuring its enactment. In the Appendix to the Journals for 1868, there is a despatch from Sir Geohoe Grey to the Duke of Buckingham, Secretary of State for the 'Colonics, dated 16th November, 1867, of which the following is a copy:— My Lord Duke, —I have the honor, at the request of my Responsible Advisers, to transmit to your Grace a memorandum in relation to an Act of the New Zealand Legislature (No. 25, the County of Westland Act), which Act I transmitted in my despatch, No. 121, of the Bth instant. My Responsible Advisers request that your Grace would he pleased to have the opinion of the Imperial Law Advisers of the Crown taken upon the questions raised in the enclosed memorandum, in relation to that enactment. 1 have, Ac., G. Grey. Referring to despatch No. 121, we find that it briefly transmits the twenty-eight Acts passed by the General Assembly in 1867, “with a synopsis of the same,” but without any expression of opinion on Sir George Grey’s part as Governor, on the impolicy, or otherwise, of destroying the provincial form of Government; —a work which was begun during the session of 1867, not by resolution as in 1874, to which Sir George Grey objects most strenuously, but by Act to which he, as Governor, did not object, when his objection might have been fatal. Nor could he have been ignorant of the intention of his Responsible Advisers and the General Assembly in the County of Westland Act. The struggle for Constitutional Reform was then at its height. If he had chosen to throw his sword of state into the scale he might have saved his beloved provinces ; but he held back. He never once lifted voice or finger on their behalf until their enemies had surrounded them with engines of war, and demanded unconditional surrender. Strange conduct on Sir George Grey’s part, no doubt requiring great ingenuity by his followers to reconcile with his reputation for political consistency and sagacity. Let us, however, take a glance at the synopsis of the County of Westland Act, and at Mr. Stafford’s memorandum relative thereto, which was covered by the despatch above quoted. We shall quote from the synopsis, inasmuch as it embodies most of the material points in the memorandum, which is far too voluminous for our columns. Thus : No. 25. The County of Westland Act separates from the province of Canterbury the portion described in the schedule to be called the County of Westland. Vests in the Governor, with power of delegation, all the powers at the passing of the Act vested in the Superintendent, Ac. [Recites the machinery for local government created by the Act.] A doubt having been expressed as to whether it was competent to the New Zealand Legislature to pass such an Act, and it being obvious that there should be no doubt as to its power to do so, it is requested that if this doubt is shared by the Law Advisers of the Crown in England, it may be set at rest by Imperial legislation. Any Act passed with that object should also confer on the New Zealand Legislature full powers to provide in all cases for the government of any province, the special circumstances of which may require from time to time changes in the form of government.’ In this synopsis the policy, more fully embodied in last session’s resolutions for the abolition of Provincial Government in the North Island, was clearly indicated ; yet Governor Grey made no sign. In Mr. Stafford’s memorandum, (writing for Ministers,) it is put forward without any disguise ; while Sir George Grey, by his silence, assented to what was written. Mr. Stafford writes : Moreover, having regard to the present condition of several of the provinces, and the Increasing belief that they will not be able much longer to maintain the present Provincial system, it is considered expedient that ample power should bo given to the General Assembly (if it does not already possess it), to establish such form of Government in any of tho existing provinces, and to make such disposition of tile revenue as circumstances may from time to time require, without regard to tho provincial divisions or forms of government hitherto existing. Language could not be plainer. Mr. Stafford notoriously contemplated the abolition of Provincial Government in the North Island. These were the provinces pointed to. They have had a brief but inglorious respite during subsequent political change, as a consequence of provincial log-rolling and the expenditure of large suras of borrowed money, but the time foreseen by Mr. Stafford in November, 1867, and presumably foreseen also by Governor Sir George Grey, has arrived notwithstanding tho aids referred to, while Sir George, awaking as from a dream* vainly protests against giving effect to a policy of which he at at least did not disapprove, and of a law the enactment of which he was instrumental in obtaining. Let us follow the history of the Imperial Act already quoted a little farther. The Duke of Buckingham, in a despatch under dato February 25, 1868, addressed to the officer administering the Government of Now Zealand [Sir George Grey had been recalled in the interval], referring to the County of Westland Act and memorandum by Ministers, writes :

I am advised that the General Assembly of New Zealand has not the power to separate one part of a province from the rest, and to make such part into a county* under a separate and distinct form of government, or to vest in the Governor tho powers vested in him by the present Act. As it appears, however, that an alteration in the present Provincial system of Now Zealand is urgently needed, her Majesty’s Government propose to introduce a Bill into Parliament for the purpose of giving further powers to the General Assembly of tho colony to enable it to meet, by legislation, the requirements now existing and which may be expected to arise. I enclose a draft of tho Bill which it is proposed to introduce into the Imperial Parliament for this purpose, and I shall bo glad to bo informed whether, in the opinion of your Government, it will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the case. The enacting clause in this draft Bill, was essentially different from the Bill as it ultimately passed the Imperial Parliament, as may be seen by any one who will compare the annexed, with the section of the Act quoted at the commencement of this article. Thus, the draft Bill : The General Assembly shall be deemed to have, and since the passing of the aforementioned Act to have had, the power of abolishing any province at any time heretofore established, or which may hereafter bo established in New Zealand, or of withdrawing therefrom the whole or any part of the territory com prised therein, and of passing laws for tho peace, order, and good government of tho territory withdrawn from or ceasing to form part of the territory of any such province, whether such territory shall or shall not be included within the limits of any other province in New Zealand. Sir George Bowen was absent from the Seat of Government when the Duke of Newcastle’s despatch was received; and Ministers, after considering tho draft Bill, transmitted the draft, as amended by Mr. Prendergast, Attorney-General, to tho Secretary of State, “ with the “ object of avoiding any delay which “ might prevent tho enactment of the “ proposed law during tho present session “ of the Imperial Parliament—an irregular procedure which, under tho special circumstances, was approved of by the Governor. And the draft Bill, thus amended, was introduced and became law. Wo have been at pains to trace the history of the Imperial statute of 1808, affecting tho New Zealand Constitution, because from this narrative the policy of tho Act is clear and unmistakeable. Moreover, it is equally clear and unmistakeablo that Sir George Grey, who now questions its scope, if not even its validity, was himself a party to this selfsame legislation. We have occupied too much space, perhaps, but tho importance of the subject is our apology. We have simply set Sir George Grey’s private

and public acts in contrast. The - first have latterly engaged a considerable share of public attention ; as for the latter, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the House of Representatives, to which we refer such of our readers as may desire fuller information than our columns afford them. .