The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5556, 18 January 1879, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, JANUARY 18, 1879.

In rendering an account of liis stewardship, the other day, to his constituents at the Thames, the Premier took the opportunity of giving them, a little lesson in Constitutional Government, as he thinks it ought to. be conducted, and on the relations which in his view ought to exist between the Crown and the responsible advisers of the Crown in this Colony. This is what he had the hardihood to say to “the eager crowd of ladies and gentle- “ men,” as the reporter describes them, who met him at the Grahamstown Theatre with cheers and waving of hats and handkerchiefs, a demonstration by which, as we learn upon the same excellent authority, the great actor was ‘ e sensibly affected.” Ha told the ladies and gentlemen that —“The Government of “ New Zealand stand in a totally differ eat « position from that of any other British “ possession. In the first place, at Homs,

“ the Government have always the power “ of dissolving Parliament whenever they “ like, and appealing to tho people. I have “ made a careful search during several “ months through the writings of modern “statesmen —or the greater number of “ them—that could tend to throw light on “ the subject. I find that the universal ‘ ‘ practice of the Government is that if so “ and so takes place we shall dissolve. “ They do not say we shall advise the “ Queen to do it. They assume that tho “ Queen must take their advice, which she “ invariably does. (Cheers.) They say, “ we will appeal to the constituencies if so “ and so takes place. They speak always “with the most perfect confidence that “ such will be the result. I think you will “ agree with me that there can be no pos- “ sible harm in an appeal to the people. “ If any question arise in Parliament, and “ the Government believe that some- “ thing wrong is being forced upon them, “ they are allowed to dissolve the Parlia- “ ment and appeal to the constituencies. “ That is certainly the proper course to “adopt. (Cheers.) In New Zealand, on “ the other hand, that right is expressly “ denied us. It is said the Governor here “ is to decide that question, and tho view “ taken of that right will vary from Gover- “ nor to Governor. Some Governors may “ please to allow it, other Governors may ‘ ‘ please not to allow it, as has been the “ case recently. Other Governors may follow what has been done at Home. We “ may be told, as we have been told, that “ New Zealand statesmen are not to be “ trusted as other statesmen are, and we “ have heard even members of the New “Zealand Parliament saying, ‘Thank “ God, that is the case.’ ” Of such a statement it can only be said that it is entirely untrue, and that its colossal impudence could only have prevented even “ an eager crowd of ladies and gentlemen ” from instantly detecting its real character. Sir George Grey knows the advantage which as a speaker he enjoys upon such occasions, in that he has no one to contradict or argue with him, and he certainly rftakes no scruple about availing himself of that advantage to tho fullest possible extent. It is not true, then, that in respect to the exercise of the prerogative of tho Grown ia the matter of the dissolution of the Parliament, “the Government of New Zealand' “ stand in n totally different position “from that of any other British possea- “ sion.” Neither is it true that modern statesmen, or the greater number of them, ever think or apeak of the Crown as a nonentity in the scheme of government; nor do they venture to speak of the Queen as a “poor creature,” as has been done hero. Men like the Premier, who have had from time to time personal or party ends to gain, and who are always rebellions to restraint upon their individual will, have tallied as he talks ; but they were not eminent statesmen any more than ho himself is. No English statesman to whose opinions men appeal as authoritative have said, or pretended to say, that under Constitutional Government tho Cabinet of the day should be an oligarchy exercising uncontrolled power in the administration of public affairs, with the right to an annual or more frequent dissolution of Parliament, with or without supplies, in order that the question whether they shall remain in office or go out of office may by that process be determined on the “stump,” aud not within the walls of Parliament. That is what Sir George Grey’s doctrine means, and now is ; but no “ modern statesmen” in their writings would venture to say that such a system would bo constitutional, or that it or anything like it exists in any British Colony or community enjoying representative institutions and parliamentary government. “We are all familiar, ” says Mr. Alpheus Todd, in a recent paper on the functions of a constitutional governor, “ with tho true doctrine of constitutional “ monarchy. We know that personal “ government by royal 'prerogative has “given, place to parliamentary govern- “ ment, aud that under our parlia- “ mentary system the personal will of the “ Sovereign can only find public expres- “ sion through official channels or in the “ performance of acts of State which have “ been advised or approved by respon- “ sible Ministers. But we must not lose “ sight of the fact that what has been “ termed the impersonality of the Crown “ only extends to direct acts of govern- “ ment: that the Sovereign is no mere “ automaton or ornamental appendage to “ the body politic—but is a personage “ whose consent is necessary to every act “ of State, and who possesses full dis- “ cretionary power to deliberate and de- “ terrnine upon every recommendation “ which is tendered for tho royal sanc- “ tion by the Ministers of the Crown. “ As every important act—that is to say, “ everything which is not ordinary “ official routine, but which involves a “ distinct policy or would commit the “ Crown to a definite action or line of “ conduct which had not previously “ received the Royal approbation—- “ should first be sanctioned by the “ Sovereign, the Crown is thereby en- “ abled to exercise a beneficial influence “ and an active supervision over tho “ government, of the Empire ; and an “ opportunity is afforded to the Sovereign “ for exercising that ‘ constitutional “ criticism* in all affairs of State, which is tho undoubted right and duty of “ the Crown, and which, in its operation “ Lord Grey and Mr. Disraeli, amongst “ living statesmen, have concurred in “declaring to be most salutary and “ efficacious.”

The Governor is, according to the Constitution Act, a distinct branch of the Colonial Legislature. A responsible Ministry is not known to or provided for in that law, or in any other; it rests upon usage and mutual agreement; both these bases have been violated by the present Government, but the usage and agreement are here exactly the same as in the other colonies, and in England; no Prime Minister in New Zealand before Sir George Grey has attempted to set up the doctrine that it is the duty of a Governor blindly to obey the will of his Ministers, even when he knows that these Ministers have ceased to possess, or have never enjoyed, the confidence of a majority of members in the House of Representatives. When he was himself Governor of New Zealand after 1863, aud was quarrelling at once with his own constitutional advisors, with tho commander of the forces, and with the Colonial Office, Sir George Grey’s views of the powers and duty of a Governor were very different from those which he

now finds it convenient to adopt, and to expound on the stump to an eager crowd of ladies and gentlemen, mostly very ignorant, it may safely be said, of the merits of the question, but very desirous of being moved to “ laughter ” and “cheers” by the antics of an eloquent actor, their worthy representative. The records of the well known “Memoran- “ dummiad” are readily available to those who desire to compare the opinions as to the functions of a Constitutional Governor held by Sir George Grey when he was himself the representative of the Crown in this Colony, with the views on the same subject, which, as Premier, it suits him now to express. Wo will not do so much injustice to hia intelligence as to suppose that he believes the nonsense that he spouts so volubly on occasion. Neither in the one capacity nor in the other has he ever been able to accommodate himself to the usages of parliamentary government; and as it seems hopeless now to expect that he will do so, he must give place to those who will be content to administer the Government in accordance with law and constitutional practice, as the servants, not the masters, of the people, and without aspiring to the tyranny of personal rule or autocratic irresponsibility which has been Sir George Grey’s ideal of Government throughout his long career as a Civil Servant of the Crown, and which he is now seeking to re-establish for himself by means of the stump and the uninformed “popular will.”