CORRESPONDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF CONDITIONAL DISSOLUTION, OR QUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE OF MINISTERIAL ADVICE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE MINISTERIAL CRISES OF 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5315, 8 April 1878, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF CONDITIONAL DISSOLUTION, OR QUALIFIED ACCEPTANCE OF MINISTERIAL ADVICE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE MINISTERIAL CRISES OF 1877.

No. 1. Sib Hekcoles Robinson, G.O.M. 3., to hie Earl or Caunarvon. New South Wales. (Confidential.) Government House, Sydney, August 20, 1877. My Lord, —A very nice constitutional question has arisen here, upon which I should feel greatly obliged if your Lordship would favor me with your opinion tor my future guidance. 2. The normal state of things here is for the Government to be without supply. If whilst in this positien'a political crisis arises, and Ministers advise a dissolution, the question is whether the Governor is bound to give either an absolute acceptance or an absolute rejection of tnis advice; or whether he is justified iujgiving a qualified acceptance, subject to temporary supply being first obtained, if the public interests slisuld appear to him to render such a middle course desirable. 3. It appears to me that, under certain circumstances, this middle course is proper and politic • but as the precedent whicli I hare established In the matter is new, and one on which differences of opinion exist, I feel that it would be advantageous on public grounds, with a view of maintaining or abandoning such a course for the future, if the sufficiency of my reasons were weighed and pronounced on by competent constitutional authority at Home. 4. I have accordingly embodied in a separate paper a full statement of the facts of the case, which I beg to submit for your Lordship’s consideration. I have, &c., Hercules Robinson.

Enclosure in No. I. (Confidential) * Qualified Acceptance of Ministerial Advice, The establishment of a new precedent in,constitutional practice is a matter of much importance in its bearing upon the future of a young, country. No apology therefore can be necessary for discussing, as it is proposed to do in this paper, whether the course which has been followed by the representative of her Majesty iu this colony on the occasions of the last two crises, of - giving a qualified acceptance to the advice of Ministers to dissolve, is an exercise of the prerogative of the Crown in unison with sound-constitu-tional principles, and with the permanent interests of the country. ■ • - lii considering this question it is necessary to bear in mind the difference which exists between the working of Parliamentary Government in England and in this colony. Practices and procedures in connection with supply at variance with the constitutional practice of the mother country, have here been repeated until they have become by usage the normal canditions and established precedents of Parliamentary action. For example, the annual Estimates and Appropriation Act are scarcely passed here until after the commencement of the year to which they refer. During the early part of almost every year—in some cases as long as for eight or nine months- the services are carried on from hand to mouth by temporary monthly Supply Bills based on the Estimates of the previous y*ar. A'crisis lias frequently arisen whilst the financial affairs have been in this condition ; and the request of the, Crown for supply to assist a dissolution has been met by obstruction or by refusal. On being so obstructed. Ministers on one occasion did not hesitate to dissolve without supply, and to pay the services without the authority of Parliament by an arrangement with the Gpvernment bank. These are precedents for which the Parliamentary history of the mother country furnishes no parallel since the institution of the system of government by party. *• As illustrating more precisely the colonial precedents referred to, the circumstances connected with . the last four changes of Government may be brieflyreviewed. Towards the close of January. 1872, the Martin-Robertson Government, having been defeated upon the border duties question, advised, his Excellency the Earl of Belmore to dissolve, and the advice was accepted. As usual, the Estimates and Appropriation Act for the year had not been passed, and provision for the public service had only been made for January by a temporary Supply Bill for that month. The Government accordingly moved, on the 3lst of January, the suspension of the Standing Orders, so as to admit of a-temporary Supply Bill fo l ' two months being passed through all its stages In one day, with a view to an immediate dissolution, which had been assented to by the Governor, On this, Mr. Piddingtou moved an amendment to the effect that an address be presented to the Governor by the Speaker and the House, representing the many inconveniences and dangers to the public interest which would arise from a dissolution of Parliament in the then condition of public affairs. This amendment was carried, on the morning of the Ist February, against the Government, by a majority of 3S to 19. The same day the House was prorogued, before the Speaker had had an opportunity of presenting the address, and on the 3rd February Parliament was dissolved by proclamation, no provision having been made for the public service. Ministers, however, appear to have been unable to face the inconvenience and distress caused by such an extreme proceeding, and advised the Administrator of the Government in Executive Council (Lord Belmere having left the colony) to assent to an arrangement with the Government bank to pay the civil servants and other employes of the Government the salaries and wages due to them for the months of February and March. To this advice the Administrator assented, and Parliament was called together on the 30th April. In the meantime, however, an overwhelming majority against Ministers had been returned at the general election, and they resigned a few days before the meeting of Parliament ; but the new Assembly, notwithstanding such resignation, passed and placed on record, by a majority of 36 to 11, an emphatic condemnation of the proceedings of the retiring Ministry, including specifically the transaction entered into by them with the bank for the payment of ike services without the. authority of Parliain u nt. Here are precedents for which no parallel can be found in England. The financial year commenced without provision for the service of the year; the assent of the Crown to a dissolution granted, but the necessary supply for such purpose obstructed. Dissolution without supply follows; and the public servants are paid without the authority of Parliament.

The next crisis occurred towards the close of November, 1874, The Parkes Government having escaped defeat on the Gardiner question only by the Speaker’s casting vote. Ministers thereupon advised a dissolution and being in possession of supply to the end of the year, they were enabled to meet 'a new Parliament before the close of January in time to ask for temporary supply for. that month. This dissolution was therefore not hampered by any question of supply.

The next crisis occurred in March, 1877. In the early part of that year the Robertson Government had been subjected to successive defeats upon matters of administrative detail, and adverse motions upon other matters of a similar character were before the House. Whilst things were in this state, Mr. Parkes moved, on Tuesday, March 6th, a resolution affirming that the retention by the Government of office after the defeats which it had suffered was unconstitutional, and the resolution was carried by a majority of three. The wording of the resolution was significant, poin'ing unmistakeably to the retirement of the Ministry, and excluding the alternative of a dissolution. It was obvious therefore that if the Ministry disregarded. this indication of the feeling of the House, and advised dissolution, the question of allowing them. to get supply would be a matter for consideration by the Opposition. The Estimates and Appropriation Act for the year were as usual in arrear. Provision for the services of January and February had only been made by temporary Supply Bills, and provision for March had not been made at all. Mr. Robertson, however, advised a dissolution, and his Excellency the Governor accepted that advice, reserving to himself the right of reconsideration if supply were refused. With this qualified acceptance Mr. Robertson appears to have been satisfied : and on bis Treasurer moving the House into committee with the view of obtaining two months’ supply to provide t fpr the public service during a general election, an amendment was : moved declining to grant supplies to the Government then in office, and this amendment was carried by a majority of 33 to 27. Ministers then tendered their resignations, and Mr. Forkes was entrusted with the formation of a new administration. Here again are conditions for which no parallel-can be found in England. Nearly a fourth of the year had elapsed without any permanent provision for the services of the year. Ministerial advice to dissolve had been accepted by the Crown, bnt temporary supply for such purpose was refused by the Assembly,

•After four months’i experience of office, Mr. (now Sir Henry) Parkes found that the public business, with the exception of the Estimates, was in much the same condition as he found it, and that he was powerless to carry out any policy of Government. After repeated defeats upon minor issues, a motion wax submitted by Mr. Garrett upon the legal Interpretation of the Slsfc clause of the Land Act; which Sir Henry Forkes declared he would consider a vital' issue: and this .resolution was carried against the Government by a majority of 2. ITpon this. Sir Henry Parkes" moved the adjournment of the House, with a view of considering the course he would adopt. On Tuesday, 7th August, he stated that the Govern* ment had determined to take. If they could Iget it, the Appropriation Act for the year, and ab indoning, if desired, all their other measures, to recommend the Governor immediately to dissolve. On the following - day (the Bth August), when the Treasurer moved that the House should resolve Itself into committee of the whole to consider the question of the San Francisco mail service. Sir John Robertson moved, as an amend-

meat, the adjournment of the House, Sir Henry Parkes at once announced that if the amendment were carried, he would treat the vote m* equivalent, to a refusal of the Appropriation Act. Nevertheless the adjournment was carried against the Government by a majority of 30 to 24. On the following day (oth August) Sir Henry Parkes informed the Housd that he had waited on the Governor and tendered formal advice to dissolve. He.stated that his Excellency had ashed Mm how he Proposedto carry on the pnblio service pending the meetinar of a new Assembly, to which he bad repiled that ha would endeavor to obtain the necessary temporary supply. His Excellency had then inquired how he would aet ii the necessary s upplywa,refu,ed to.which he replied lie could only say that in such a case ho would certainly see his Lxcellency again. HU Excellency thereupon said he emdd < ™ l * | him the same answer as he had given to las predo cessor, namely, that ho was prepared , to “ “S 1 ,. 1 advice to dissolve, reserving to hlmseli as well as to Sir Henry Parkes the right of reconsideration it supply were rof'sed. With this reservation Sir Henry Parkes stated that he was not satisfied, and he had accordingly tendered his resignation, which had been accepted provisionally, pending the appointment of his successors Here again is a state of things for which it would be diflUult to find a parallel in the political life of the old country- The eighth month of the year has been reached, and the Appropriation Act has not been passed. The first seven months «f the year had only been partially provided for by seven temporary Supply Bills. The Government, which had got into office in March by refusing supplies for a dissolution to their predecessors, had proved too weak to carry out •any policy, and were asking in August for the Appropriation Act to enable them to make the appeal to the country which they had prevented in the case of their predecessors. Upon this being refused by a similar majority of the Assembly to that which had refused supplies in March, the Premier was advising a dissolution, and refusing to accept anything short of an absolute surrender of the prerogative, he himself being unable to state definitely to the representative of the Crown what course he would pursue with it under a special and by no means improbable contingency. ' , _ ~ , These tbeing the facts which presented themselves on the occasions of the last and of the previous crisis, the question for consideration is. was his Excellency the Governor right or wrong in giving onb' a qualified assent to the Ministerial advice to dissolve ? On the first occasion, in March last, the advice to dissolve having been tendered by Mr. .Robertson, it is obvious that bis Excellency had only three courses open to him, namely(l) Absolute acceptance ; (2) absolute rejection; and (3) qualified acceptance. The first course—absolute acceptance—would have Involved the risk of dissolving'without supply,—a measure en tailing so much inconvenience and distress as to be admissible only as a last resort. His Excellency may well have thought it inexpedient to incur such a risk, in view of the’slgnificant phraseology of the resolut on which had led to the crisis, and in view too of the precedents established in the previous crisis of February, 1872, when the House obstructed supply after a dissolution had been absolutely assented to by the Governor, and when the Martin-Robertson Government dissolved without supply, paying the public servants without the authority of Parliament. It seems only right, in view of these circumstances, for the Governor to have protected himself from any risk of being placed, by any pledge beforehand, in the position of being obliged to dissolve without supply against his cwn judgment, and of having then no choice but to subject the public servants to great and unm rited hardships, or to assent to an irregular mode of paying them which had already been emphatically condemned by Parliament. The second course—absolute rejection—would only have been justifiable if his Excellency had considered that a dissolution was undesirable in the public interest. Tf however, as seems probable, he considered that, looking to all the surrounding circumstances—to the equal division of parties and the impracticable character of the House—a dissolution was on the whole desirable, provided supply could he got, and that Mr. Robertson had some claim to a dissolution, nearly two and a quarter years of a trlennal Parliament—a Parliament which had been elected under the auspices of his predecessor—having expired, then an absolute rejection of the Ministerial advice could only have been justified by the uncertainty as to whether or not the House would grant supply. To have acted conclusively on such .a . doubt would have been to assume that the House would Home precedent and refuse supply. If a dissolution had been refused on this assumption—the correctness of which would not then have been susceptible of proof—Mr. Robertson and his party and with some reason, have felt rhemselves aggrieved, and the result might possibly have been a system of “stone-wall” obstruction, such as had been adopted shortly before in Victoria, under somewhat similar conditions, to the serious detriment of the public interests. The third course—qualified acceptance, reserving the right of reconsideration if supply were refused—appears to have been on the whole the coarse least open to serious objection ; and although it has been followed by a refusal of supply, and by the prolongation of the existence of an Impracticable Assembly, it is by no means certain that more serious consequences would not have resulted if his Excellency the Governor had adopted either of the other courses open to him. In the last crisis, when Sir Henry Parkes tendered advice to dissolve, it is clear that all the considerations which bore on the decision in the previous crisis applied with even greater force to his case. Here was a Government which had succeeded to office by refusing their predecessors supply to enable them to dissolve. Having thus, as it were, grasped the reins of office, they found that they had overrated their ability to guide the House or to carry out any definite policy. Sir Henry Parkes had doubtless himself been misled by the action of the House; but such an erroneous calculation, and such a futile attempt to cany on the Government, constituted no valid claim for special consideration. He asked, too, for an unqualified acceptance of his advice to dissolve, without being able to say how he would act if the House reiterated its refusal to entrust his Government with supply pending an appeal to the country. In short, in such a contingency—by no means an improbable one—he insisted on being made free beforehand to use the prerogative of the Crown as he might think proper, denying to the representative of the Crown the right of judging whether the time bad or had pot arrived for the extreme measure of dissolution without supply. It is not surprising that his Excellency declined to entertain such pretensions, as it must be obvious to every impartial person that if such an ex treme step should ultimately prove unavoidable, Sir Henry Parkes's Government was not the one primarily entitled to such a concession. It has been urged if Sir John (then Mr.) Robertson bad given an un tualified dissolution in March last, the Hou**e would have granted supply, and a dissolution might then have taken place. It is of course only natural that those who find they have, by disregarding Home precedent, prejudiced the public interests and made a grave party blunder, should seek to shift the blame on to other shoulders, by finding fault with the manner in which the proposal was submitted to them. Looking, however, to the temper of the Home at that time, and to the willingness habitually evinced here to use supply as a weapon of party warjaje—loolting, too, to the significant phraseoWy the resolution which had led to the crisis, and to the precedent of 1872, when a dissolution having been granted without qualification, supply was obstructed —there seems to be no reason for conclud ng that if on this occasion*an unconditional dissolution had been granted the result would have been other than what it was. ■ , . Even if it were otherwise, the question remains, would it be proper for the-Governor to surrender absolutely the prerogative with the simple object or enabling a Minister to coerce the House into domg what it ought to do without any such pressure? In view of the precedent established in 1872. of dissolving without supply, and of paying the public servant ia an irregular, roundabout manner, without the authority of Parliament.—in view, too, of the fact that the Ministry that adopted this course was presided over by a distinguished lawyer, since appointed Chief Justice, and by a gentleman who had been seven times a Minister of the Crown,—would It have been rl<bt for the Governor to run the risk of being precluded from saying “no" if a similar course were again proposed, merely for the purpose of enabling a Minister to go down to the House and say— 4 I have a dissolu ion in my pocket, supply or "o supply, and let those who refuse take the responsibility of their action T Apart from the risk, would it be dignified for the Crown to assist in playing, as It were, such a mere game of political brag? ~ It has been argued that the Crown, by making Us assent to a dissolution contingent upon the obtaining of supply, in effect remits the question of dissolution to the House itself. This ia doubtless to some extent true, but it is the necessary consequence of the Crown being left dependent upon monthly doles for the maintenance of the public service, instead of being granted twelve months supply In advance before the close of each financial year in conformity with the constitutional practice of the mother country. If this practice were adhered to, the Crown would be free to deal with advice to dissolve upon the merits of each case, unhampered with any question of supply. ,_ The contention, therefore, simply amounts to this, that being dependent, the. Crown does not act independently. When a crisis occurs at a time when there is no supply, and a dissolution is advised, there is no course possible which Is altogether free fro™ culty and danger—there is but the choice between evils; and being so situated. It can scarcely be said to be the duty of the Crown to exorcise Its prerogative In the polltlcai Interest of the Ministry of the day, without regard for the interest of the civil eervants and other emp’oyes, who, at all events, arc, not in any way responsible for making the function of dissolution habitually dependent on supply in the irregular manner described. It is this improper dependence of the executive function of dissolution upon the legislative function of supply which is really the source of all the trouble which has arisen here in reference to dissolutions. Ever since the establishment of Responsible Government, due provision for the service of the Crown before the commencement of each financial year has been the exception and not the rule. In twenty one years the Appropriation Act has enly on two occasions been passed before the commencement of the year to which it refers, as will be seen from the following statement:—

i It is difficult to exaggerate the evils arising from the irregularity above disclosed. They are greatly enhanced too by the fact that here there Is no Civil Service Act, and that with the exception of about £30,000 a year permanently appropriated by the Constitution Act for the salaries of a few high officials, the whole public service is dependent upon the annus!

votes of Parliament Without going Into details however, it will be sufficient to state generally that the practical effect of tills departure from the constitutional practice of the .mother country in reference to supply has been to weaken the check of the taxpayers upon the public expenditure, to demoralise parties in the Assembly, and to detract from the efficient administration of public affairs. Under such a system Ministers drag on a feeble and uncertain existence. dependent from month to month upon a small majority, which may at any moment be alienated by disaffection or disappointment. The Inevitable tendency of the system is to make Ministers pliable, and to add to the influence of individual voles, it is possible that there may be members in the Assembly who find enjoyment and advantage in the uncertainty and confusion which result; but no impartial lookeron can note the operation of such a system in all its bearings without becoming convinced that it will, if continued, prove fatal to the success of Parliamentary Government in this country. ■ It is in Its bearing upon this objectionable practice, of deferring supply that the question under consideration of qualified assent to Ministerial advice to dissolve assumes its gravest imp rtanco. If a political crisis arises when the Crown is without supply, and the Minister is entitled to ask that the prerogative should be handed over absolutely to him, so as to enable him to‘threaten the Assembly, and, should such threats prove ineffectual, to carve his way out ot his difficulty at the expense of the public servants, then there would seem to be little prospect of a change in the present objectionable practice. But when the leaders on both sides find, as they have now done, that If Ministers neglect to make timely provision for the service of the Crown, and a crisis arises, their claim to a dissolution will in all probability be contingent upon their ability to obtain supply, a strenuous and united effort will perhaps be made to arrange for supply in advance, in accordance with the constitutional practice of the mother country. The conclusion arrived at. therefore, upon a careful and impartial consideration of the question in alj its bearings, is this; that whenever a crisis arises when the Crown is without supply, and a dissolution is advised, an absolute acceptance of such advice, in view of what has occurred here, is not only inadvisable but improper—at all events until every effort to obtain supply has been exhausted. If a dissolution is undesirable on public grounds, the advice should of course be absolutely rejected ; but if a dissolution is held to be desirable in the interests of the public, provided supply can be got. then the advice should be accepted, but only subject to that qualific ition. These simple rules are based upon considerations. affecting the public welfare, and not the predominance of particular sections or parties in the Assembly. They are, it is submitted, consistent with sound constitutional principles, in view of the normal state of things existing here of the C. own being left habitually without supply ; and if their adoption on the last two occasions be regarded as precedents for future guidance, they will, it is to be hoped, tend to put an end to an irregularity in the working of the Constitution which is inconsistent with the good government of the country.

No. 2. Sir Hercules Robinson, G.C.M.G., to the Earl or Carnarvon. New South Woles. (Confidential.) Government House, Sydney, 21st September, 187 7. My Lord,—ln ray confidential despatch by the last mail I reported the formation ofa Government by ■Sir John Robertson, and tire adjournment of the House pending the re-election of Ministers. 2. Parliament reassembled on the 18th instant; and as soon as Ministers were sworn in, Mr Parnell at once gave notice that lie would move, on the following day, “ That this House has no confidence in the present Administration.” This motion would, it is believed, have been carried by a considerable majority, but Ministers refused to postpone the Government measures to admit of a debate upon it, and tonk a division upon a temporary Supply Bill for September, on which they were defeated by a majority of two. 3. Upon this Sir John Robertson waited on me yesterday afternoon, and advised a dissolution “ whether supply is grante I or notbut I felt that it would not be right to adopt such an extreme course until I had satisfied myself as to the impossibility of forming a Government out of the existing House, that could command sufficient support to pass the Estimates and Appropriation Act for the current year; as a dissolution at the piesent time, and in the existing condition of public business, would render it difficult to pass the annual Appropriation Act before the close of the year to which it refers. 4. I am by no means songnine.of success, but I feel it right to make the attempt, and I shall communicate the result to your Lordship by the Suez mail which leaves this next week. I have, &c., Hercules Robinson. No. 3. Sib Hebcules Robinson, G.C.M.G., to the Babe of Carnarvon. New South Wales. (Confidential.) Government House, Sydney, September 29, 1877. My Lord, — In continuation of my confidential despatch of the 2ist instant, forwarded by the San Francisco mail, I have now the honor to report that I the same day sent for Mr. Alexander Stnart. formerly Colonial Treasurer, and on* 1 of the ablest and most respectable of the members sitting on Sir John Robertson’s side of the House. I pointed out to him the paramount importance of passing the Appropriation Act before a dissolution, for the icasons which I h'd embodied in a memorandum, a copy ot which Is enclosed, and asked him if he would be willing to make the attempt. He entirely concurred in my view of the effect of dissolving without the Appropriation Act, which Sir John Robertson had then no prospect ef passing, and said that although the acceptance of office would entail on him serious pecuniary and very considerable domestic sacrifices, yet he felt constrained by a sense of duty, and a desire to extricate the country from impending difficulties, to attempt the formation of a Government as I desired. 2, On the 2Sth instant Mr. Stuart called again and Informed me that he had hoped until late the previous evening that he would have succeeded in forming a strong Administration, but some of those upon whom he relied had then declined to join him. and he felt that he had no longer sufficient grounds to justify him in going on. The position of parties in the House was very peculiar. The Hons- is composed of 73 members, and after deducting the Speaker, and those absent from the colony, the voting power is reduced to 69. Of these 32, when present, usually vote with Sic H. Parkes—3o as steadily support Sir John Robertson—whilst a third party of 7, holding the balance of power, has for many months rendered government by either of the chief parties Impracticable. It appeared to Mr. Stuart that the only way out ot the dead-lock was to seek to draw together some of the leading men from his own side of the House and from the cross benches. This he endeavored to do, but as at the last moment the leader of the third party of 7—Mr. Famell- refused to join him, he felt bound t» return to mo the commission with which I had entrusted him. 3, I then sent for Mr. Stephen Brown, who occupies on Sir Henry Parkes’s side of the House the same independent and influential position that Mr. Stuart does on the other, with a view of testing whether there was any possibility of effecting a coalition between the third party of 7 and the party of 32 with which Mr. Brown was associated. Sir. Brown said that he had, as I was aware, for a number of years repeatedly refused to take office, but that at the present juncture he felt bound in duty to comply with my invitation to endeavor to form a Government strong enough to pass the Appropriation Act before a dissolution, and he wonld accordingly make the attempt. On the following evening, however, the 27th. he called on me and told me that although he had succeeded in persuading Mr Famell—the leader of the 7—to join him, he had found it difficult to form what he would himself consider an unexceptionable Government, and that failing this ho thought it would be better to let Sir John Robertson take a dissolution. He said that after the double failure of Mr Stuart and himself to form a new Government, he, for one, would now support Sir John Robertson in passing the Appropriation Act for the current year, before a dissolution—which was really the point for which I was contending, 4, I then wrote to Sir John Robertson the same night—the 27th— informing ‘him that I was at length reluctantly compelled to accept the opinion expressed by him, that there was no reasonable prospect of forming any Ministry out of the existing House that could command the support of Parliament; and that I was accordingly prepared to accept the advice rendered by him, to dissolve the present Parliament forthwith, whether supply be granted or not. I enclose a copy of the letter referred to, and also of all the correspondence which has passed between Sir John Robertson and myself, since his defeat, on the 19th instant, when moving a temporary Supply Bill for the current month.

5. I have only further to remark, that although the negotiations, which I felt it my duty to enter upon for the formation of a*new Government, have failed, the attempts which I made will, I think, be productive of much good to the public. If I had accepte i Sir John Robertson’s advice of the 20th instant, to dissolve, he would not then have had the slightest chance of obtaining the Appropriation Act of this year before a dissolution ; and it is qnito possible that in the then temper of the House he might again have been refused even temporary supply. Now lie will have no difficulty in obtaining two months’ supply to carry on the Government pending a general election, and I am not without hope that he may even be able to carry the Appropriation Act.

I have, &c,, Hercules Robinson. No. 4. Sib Hercules Robinson, G.C.M.G., to the Earl of Carnarvon. New South Wales. Government House, (Confidential.) Sydney, October, 18.1877. My Lord.—lm my last confidential report of the 29th ultimo, I stated that I was then not without hope that Sir John Robertson might be able to pass the Appropriation Act for the current year before a dissolution, It having by that time been clearly shown that there was no longer any possibility of forming another Government out of the then existing House that could command the support ot Parliament. This hope I am glad now to be able to report, has been realised The Appropriation Act and Loan Acts were passed on the 10th Inst. Parliament was prorogued bv proclamation on the 11th. and the Legislative Assembly was dissolved on the following day,; The writs for a general election have since been issued, and the new Parliament will be summoned to meet for the session proper to the year an Tuesday the 27 th November, about a fortnight earlier than last year, but still many months behind the proper time of m | ot Qn' reviewing now as impartially as I can the transactions of the past session, it appears to me that the course which I pursued throughout, in exhausting every reasonable chance of forming a 'Strong Government before consenting to disaolve without supply, was the proper one, and the result has been, on the whole satisfactory. The Appropriation Act has been passed before the dissolution, and there is now, I think, a general desire to revert as soon as possible to the system of supply in advance, in accordance with the constitutional practice of the mother coutry. I have, &c., Hercules Robinson.

No. 5. The Earl or Carnarvon to Sir Hercules Robinson, G.C.M.G. i

-• New-South Wales. , . (Confidential.') ’ , • Downlng-street, December 15, 1877. Sir,—l have received, and had under my consideration, your confidential despatches of the 20ln of August and ISHh of September, in which, with reference to the last two Ministerial crises which have occurred in New South Wales, you request my opinion whether, when supply is in arrear, the Governor ia justified in giving, only a qualified acceptance to the advice of his Ministers to dissolve. Parliament, and contingent upon their first obtaining temporary also received and considered in connection with the same matter, your confidential despatches of the 21st and 20th of September, in which you infonq mo of the circumstances attending the last Ministerial • 3. As the question you have raised is one of niuch interest and importance, I have thought it desirable to consult Sir Thomas Erskine May upon the subject; and I enclose, for your information, a copy of the opinion with which he has furnished mo. together \vith a copy of the letter in which I caused the question to be submitted to him for his consideration. 4. I will not allow this correspondence to.close without expressing my approval of the course you took in endeavoring to check the usage of delaying to obtain supply, and of carrying on the Government either without supply or upon temporary Supply Buis, and I sincerely hope that your action in the matter may tend to open the eyes of the people of New South Wales to the danger of practices which are inconsistent with the true spirit of Representative Governm|ntj h aV e to add that, although the correspondence has been marked confidential, you are at liberty to use your own discretion as to giving more or less publicity to it. _, ‘ I have, &c., Carnarvon.

Enclosure 1 in No. 5. - Mr. Hbrbbrt to Sir T. JBrskinjb May, K.c.r. (Confidential.) Downing . streetj 3 December, 1877. Sir, —I am directed by the Earl of Carnarvon to acquaint you that the Governor of New South Wales has asked for his Lordship’s opinion upon a constitutional question which has arisen in the colony under his government. . „ . . 2. It appears that it is not unusual for a Ministry m New South Wales to bo without supply, and that Ministers are content to accept this position, provided they can find any expedient or excuse for holding office under it. . , , , , „ 3. Sir H. Robinson desires to bo informed whether, if whilst in this condition a political crisis arises and Ministers advise a dissolution, the Governor ia bound either to accept or reject this advice absolutely, or whether ho would be justified in to dissolve conditionally upon temporary supply being first obtained, if In his opinion the public interests should appear to rendersuch a middle course desirable. 4 Lord Carnarvon desires me to enclose a copy of the despatch In which Sir H. Robinson has sabmi ted this question for consideration, accompanied by a paper which he has drawn up containing a full statement of the circumstances attending the late Ministerlal crises in New South Wales, and of the action which he has taken on these occasions. . 6. It will be seen that on the last two occasions Sir H. Robinson has accepted the advice of his Ministers to dissolve, but has reserved to himself the right of reconsidering his decision if supply were refused. G Lord Carnarvon apprehends that from one point of view Sir H. Robinson maybe considered to have been substantially right in the course ho adopted. # it would be the duty of the Governor in a colony having Parliamentary Government on the English system to discountenance any course which would have even a tendency to render the Executive Government independent of supply; but his Lordship also thinks that t may not unreasonably be contended as a matter of argument, that in point of form it would have been better if in his answer to his Ministers the Governor had confined himself to the state of facts which had then arisen, and had not anticipated the future by giving a hypothetical decision ; since, if he had informed his Ministers that, inasmuch as they had not ;ot supply he was unable to grant them a dissolution, lie would not have laid himself open to the criticism that he was attaching a qualification or proviso to their advice, which it may bo urged it was his duty to accept or reject without amendment. 7, His Lordship would, however, be greatly obliged if you would favor him with your opinion upon the whole subject. * I am, &c., Robt. G. W. Herbert.

P.S.—Since the above was written, Lord Carnarvon has received two further despatches, copies of which are enclosed, which seem to render it somewhat doubtful whether Sir H. Robinson can fairly bo said to have attached a condition to his acceptance of the advice of his Ministers on the question of dissolution.

Enclosure 2 in No. 5. Sib T. Erskine May, K.C.8., to Mb. Herbert, House ot Commons, December 6, 1877. Sir,—l beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, together with the correspondence and papers transmitted to me bv direction of Lord Carnarvon, and I will briefly state my views upon the subjects referred to, as desired by his Lordship. 1. The first question raised by th se papers is whether the Governor of New South Wales, in giving a qualified assent to the advice of his Ministers to dissolve Parliament, adopted a constitutional course. It seem i to me that as the power of dissolution rests absolutely with the Governor, as representative of the Crcwn, he is entitled to insist up m such conditions as he may deem necessary for the public interests, before he proceeds to exercise that power. He was therefore warranted in giving a qualified or conditional assent according to his own discretion. 2. At the same time, the form in which his conditional assent was given appears open to some objections. His resolution being communicated by his Ministers to the Parliament, it practically gave to that body a veto upon its own dissolution, and even encouraged it to withold the supplies. And further, the Governor took upon himself the responsibility of granting or refusing a dissolution, instead of # laying that responsibility upon his constitutional advisers. 3 I think that the course more recently taken by the Governor, in regard to Sir John Robertson’s Administration, was entirely free from these objections, and was in every respect judicious and constitutional, according to the usage of the mother country. 4. To dissolve Parliament before provision has been made for the public service is so serious an evil that the Governor is entitled to the high est credit for his endeavors to discourage such a practice, and I have no doubt he will continue to discountenance it by every means in his power. But I should venture to suggest that in future the Governor, after discussing with his Ministers all the circumstances under which they advise a dissolution, including the financial situation and the probability of obtaining supplies, should either accept or decline their advice without conditions, or should defer his decision until every effort had been made to secure the supplies or to avert a dissolution. , , , 5. It is to bo Imped that the difficulties which have arisen, and the great pnblio inconvenience caused by the present methods of providing for the sublie service in New South Wales, will lead to improved financial arrangements, and to the separation of questions relating to the supplies from the conflicts of political parties.—lam, &c., T. Erskine May.

No. .6. . From the Speaker op the House op Commons to the Earl op Carnarvon. Glynde, Lewes, December 10,1877. Dear Lord Carnarvon, —I have received your letter ot the 3rd instant, transmitting papers with reference to the recent, political crisis in New South Wales. 1 have also heard from Sir Erskine May that the same papers have been referred to him by your direction, and that he rep rted his opinion at length in a letter of the 6th instant, a copy ot which he has sent me. I have carefully gone through the papers, and I concur generally in the substance of Sir Erskine May’s report upon them. ' I apprehend th-t there can be no doubt ot the right of the Governor, acting in the public interest, to qualify his acceptance of Ministerial advice, although by so doing he incurs serious responsibility. The course taken by Sir Hercules Robinson upon the recent occasion of a political crisis seems to have been thoroughly constitutional. He declined to accept unconditionally the advice of his Ministers until he had endeavored through other arrangements to carry on the government, and when his several attempts had proved abortive, he then acquiesced in the advice originally tendered by his Ministers. It appears to me that the Governor and his Ministers and the Legislative Assembly can never be placed in proper relationship, so long as the present system prevails of deferring supply: for the Governor ceases to be independent, the Ministers are hampered by the constant need of temporary Supply Bills, and the House has a strong inducement to stop supply, in order to prolong its own existence. It is to bo hoped that the complications arising out of the several crises occurring recently in New South Wales will open the eyes of the colony to the propriety of voting supplies more in accordance with the practice of tho mother country. Believe mo, &0., H. Brand.

Mr. J. H. Bethnne notifies that he has been appointed agent to the Sun Fire Office, London, and that ha is prepared to issue policies of all descriptions at current rates. The Bureau-Veritas for 1877-78 publishes the following statistics relative to the existing state of the mercantile.navy of the various nations;—“ Tho total number of sailing vestels amounts to 51,912, gauging 14,799,130 tons ; and that of steamers to 5,771, with 5,567,690 tons. Since 1872 the former category has fallen from 56,527 to the present figure ; but the tonnage has nevertheless increased by about 230,000 tons. The steam navy, on its side, has risen from 4,836 to 5,471, and its tonnage from 3,680,000 to 6,567,690. In that double movement, in France, the ships of both classes have diminished. Tho sailing vessels have fallen from 4,790 to 3,300 ; the tonnage from 982,696 to 666,767. The steamers, which were 316 in number, are now no more than 272, but the tonnage is 319,172, in the place of 240,275. England maintains her maritime preponderance. She possesses 17,765 sailing ships,; gauging 5,526,930 tons; imd 3,188 steamers, with 3,283,916 tons—that is to say, very nearly, the half of the tonnage of the whole world. The United States is the second, maritime power, but it has only 542 steamers.’’ Jonah In the whole’s belly was safer than those who, being swallowed up of sickness and disease, yet neglect to take the only remedies that can save them, ■ It is an Indisputable fact that "Ghollaii’s Great Indian Cubes ” ore tho surest restorers to health of any medicines ever yet discovered. Persons who have been ill with Rheumatics and Gout for over 20 years have been cured by these meritorious medicines, Sold by all Chemists—see testimonials.

Appropriation Act for 1857 was paused March, 1857 1858 Nov., 1858 1859 April, 1859 it 1860 July, 1860 1861 May, 1801 1802 Jan., 1802 { f 1863 ‘Dec.. 1862 1864 1865 ;; April, Jnne, 1804 1805 1806 1867 April, *Deo., 1860 i860 1808 April, 1808 1869 April, 1809 1870 May, 1870 1871 Jnne, 1871 1872 Ang., 1872 1878 Jan., 1873 1874 Jf - April. 1874 1876 Aug., 1875 1870 Aug,, 1876 • r : 1877 hot pawed Sept., 1877