TUESDAY, AUGUST 23. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Otago Witness, Issue 2009, 25 August 1892, Page 17

TUESDAY, AUGUST 23. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

In the Legislative Council io-day a .batch of bills wero read a first time, and two local bills were passed. The Eight Hours Bill was thrown out by 16 to 4 after a brief debate. The following is the division list on the amendment :—: —

Ayes (16). — Messrs Barnicoat, -Dignan, Holmes, Hart, M'Lean, Oliver, Ormond, Pharazyn, Pollen, Reynolds, Scotland, Stevens, Swanson, Tuiaroa, Walker, Whitinore. Noes (4).— Mr Baillie, Sir P. A. Buckley, Messrs Stewart and Wahawaha.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

In the House of Representatives Supply was set up, and this gave the leader of the Opposition the opportunity of opening the debate on the correspondence between Ministers and the Governor on the subject of appointments to the Legislative Council. The Premier followed. Mr O'Conor moved an amendment in favour of an elective Council, which was lost by 31 to 8, and the House rose. THE GOVERNOR AND THE MINISTRY.

On the motion that the House go into committee of supply,

The Hon. W. ROLLESTON thanked tho Premier for fulfilling the promise he made last week to afford an opportunity for discussing the memoranda laid on the table with reference to the appointments to the Legislative Council. He said he desired to approach tho question apart from all party spirit, and ho hoped the House would discuss it without any consideration that ib was under party whips, or that it would involve a question of waut of confidence in the Government. If it was the belief of tho House, after reading tho correspondence, that the principles of constitutional government had been iufringed, it was the duty of the House unmistakably to express that opinion. If it did not do so he thought they would be unworthy of the position they occupied as representatives of the people. It seemed rather strange to him, after watching the events of the colony for the last 25 years, that they should have to discuss memoranda of/ this kind. Ho recalled the names of Stafford, Fox, Bell, Domett, Fitzherbert, and other eminent men who had been connected with tho government of the colony, and asked what they would have thought if memoranda of this nature were brought before them. There was no doubt at all they had certain traditions to live up to, and he hoped they would not be wanting in adhering to the principles which had guided them in the past, or that they would allow temporary political expediency to sacrifice all they had held dear in tho past. He referred to the correspondence before the House, and expressed the opinion that the advice tendered to the Governor from time to time by Ministers was misleading. The first point that occurred to him on reading this correspondence was that it involved on the part of Ministers the abdication of their functions as representing the House and people of the colony ; secondly, the unconstitutional position adopted by Ministers with respect to their responsibility as the Government of the colony ; and thirdly, the utterly unreasonable conduct of Ministers in not accepting the nine members of the Council that the Governor was willing to appoint. He (Mr Rolleston) knew of no precedent whatever for referring this matter to tho Secretary of State, or anything that would justify that proceeding. He quoted from Todd to show that the course adopted by Ministers oyer this matter was altogether unprecedented. He ventured to think that if Ministers read up the subject, they must come to the conclusion that there was no precedent for their action. They must also bs well aware that in every case when the Governor's action with respect to refusing to appoint Councillors for political purposes came before the House tho action of the Governor was upheld. After quoting other precedents, he said he had done so to show that Ministers had caused useless wa^to of time in referring this matter Homo, and that it was one of purely local concern. lie wished the Houss to see that tho appeal should not h:ivo been mad's outside the colony, but to the House itt-cIF, and if that appeal was not satisfactory, the Governor could then consider what stops he should take for a settlement of tho difnsulty. Hes.ud ho co.ild come to no other conclusion than that Ministers were simply putting off a settlement of the question ior the purpose of gaining time without perhaps realising the grave "responsibility they wore incurring. As to tho question wbe'therornot Ministcrsshouldcontinue to hold office after the rejection of their advice by the Governor, Ministers quoted in a jaunty way a passage from Todd to justify them iv rutainin<* office. That authority was to the i>ffect that in the case of an Imperial concern Ministers were responsible for the advice they give to the Governor. But this had been made a matter of Imperial concern, as it had been referred to the Home Government. _ Where was the self-respect of Ministers in sitting on those benches after the refusal of the Governor to accept the advice .which they deemed so important ? Where was their loyalty to their party in occupying that position ? He assured Ministers that nobody wanted to take their places on the benches, and that the country would be the best judge of their actions iv this respect. He utterly failed to see why Ministers should not have accepted nine members of the Council, after going about the country talking of a Juuta of

Tories in the Upper House that were overriding the will of the people. If they were sincere in their desire to alter this state of things, why could they not have accepted nine appointments, which would have considerably strengthened them in tho Council ? He denied that the Legislative Council had rejected really Liberal measures. What had they seen in the case of the Land Bill of last session ? Why, it was brought down this year by Ministers iv pretty much the same state as it was altered by the Council last session, although the Government refused to go on with it last' year because of the Council's amendments. Then there was the Land and Income Tax Bill, which the Council passed without any alteration. There was also the Factories - Bill, which passed the House and Council, but was altered by the Upper House iv such a manner as to make it a much more effective measure. As to the general bearing of the question, he pointed out that if 12 members of the " right colour " were appointed now it would be competent at the end of seven years, supposing what was called a Tory Government were iv power, for- that Government to retaliate by putting in 12 more Councillors of the opposite side, and that would have thu effect of creating strong party feeling in tho Council. After quoting from several despatches in support of his contention, he siid ho thought the House would admit that Ministers had not aoted in accordance with right principles over this matter, and had sacrificed their principles to expediency. 'The voice of thn people must ultimately prevail, and he felt fcure thit voice would, be cxprtss-d in condemnation of the action of the Government. He thought tho correspondence had shown not only a want of respect to the Crown, but that it showed a want of consideration to a man who, alone and single handed, was asked at tho point of the bayonet, after being only two days in the colony, to take au important step of this kind. He" desired to say that in anything ho had said he had not spoken in any way in a p"»rhy spirit, but simply as an old colonist of New Zealand. The Hon. Mr BALLANCE said Mr Rolloston prof essed' to approach this que^-tion in a nonparty spirit, but he felt doubtful of the sincerity of that statement. He had stated h§ did not wish to see members vote on this question under tho party whip, but if the leader of the Opposition prepared an indictment against the Government for acting unconstitutionally it was surely unreasonable'to suppose that Government supporters would not vote on the matter on party lines. Mr Rolleston had quoted the names of Fox, Whitaker, and other great men who would not have acted as the present Ministry had done, but he forgot to tell the House that some of those men had left them a precedent, and had referred important questions to the Home Government in more than one case. He defended the position taken by the Government in referring the matter to the Secretary of State, and said that this was undoubtedly a case in which the Governor should have accepted the advice of his Ministers, especially so long as the Government possessed a majority in the House. Ho quoted from tho correspondence between the Marquis of Normanby and Sir G. Grey in 1877 with respect to the refusal of tho latter to appoint Mr J. N. Wilson, and said Sir G. Grey did not feel called upon to resign on that occasion. The present Government took tho same view, and they thought under all the circumstances thoy were not called on torosigu office, thinking that the matter might be settled by a friendly effort. Ho (Mr Ballance) held moreover that a grave constitutional crisis had been avoided by the Government not resigning office and leaving the Governor without any Advisers at all. That would have been much graver than retaining office and referring the matter Home. Ha -pointed out that tho late Sir H. Atkinson had : justified sending papers .Home to the Secretary of State in the case of Mr Wilson's appointment in 1877, and the late Premier had actually moved the adjournment of the debate to enable the matter to be sent Home. He alsij quoted from Todd to prove that the Government were perfectly justified in appealing to the 1 Home Government as to the exercise of power by the Governor acting as an Imperial officer or on his own responsibility. He said further that he had referred certain papers in the* case of W. B. Edwards to the Secretary of State last session, and that it was generally recognised by the Premiers of the other colonies that the Government had acted rightly in so- doing. TJiat was a similar case to the present. • In one caso the Government asked for a modification of tho instructions, in the other case they asked for an interpretation of the instructions. Referring to the remarks made by Mr Rolleston, that no precedent existed fojr the action of the Government, he point el out that in 1864, after responsible government had been established in the colony, the late Sir F.JWhitaker had requested the Governor of the day to remit' certain papers connected with Native prisoners Home to the Secretary of State, aud the Governor had not only agreed to do. so but had expressed approval of the line of action proposed to bo adopted by Ministers. That was clearly au important precedent. He quoted another case in which the Governor of the day had stated that at the request of his Ministers he had referred certain documents to the Secretary of State, and had expressed no disapproval of Ministers' action iv asking him to do so: Ha further quoted the cisc of Sir H. Atkinson in 1876, who had advised the Governor to telegraph to the Secretary of Stite that there was no fear of the cousequences predicted by Sir G. Grey resulting from the passing of the Abolition Act. — (Mr Rollestou : Those cases aro not parallel to the present on^.) — They were not parallel, but they showed that the Government were acting on a well-defined principle, and in accordance with precedent. They were told by Mr Rolles.t^n that the Secretary of State was an outside authority, but they were not told tha£ he could advise the Queen to disallow any measure passed by the House, and he therefor s exercised au important influence on the legislation of the colony. The Secretary of State was therefore clearly not an outside authority. They were also told that tho Government of the colony should not interfere in the appointment of Governor. But what had happened aftev thfr departure of Lord Onslow ? Why, the names of two geutlemeu were submitted to the Premier of the colony for his approval ; na,y. more, a candidate for the odico of Gjvernor bA'l requested Uio Ageiit-^oneral to make a recommpndatiou on his behalf ior the Governor's olliio Would it therefore be said that the Govern men*; bail no right to be consulted in mnUers of this kiml ? He went on to quote another important precedent in the ca3e of the the Governor-general nnrt Ministers in Canada in 1579, when the question in dispute was referred Hoin.i by com:no:i consent of the Governor and hi 3 Ministers, and the. Secretary of State confirmed ',the liberties contended for by the Ministry, and said the Governor was bound to accept their advice. He thought he had clearly shown that there was ample precedent for the action of the Government over this matter. Mr Rolleston had inferred that no parties existed in the Council, but ho (Mr Ballance) asserted that there was a strong party in that Chamber who were opposed to all Liberal measures. Why, the present Goveruineiib were living on buffer-

ance owing to their weakness in the Council. The hon. gentlemen opposite wanted an elective Council, because a body of that kind would destroy the liberties of the House. They were told that the Council passed Liberal measures, but he denied that. What the Government contended for was the right of the people to govern ; and he believed there was more virtue in their own Constitution if. properly administered than any others they could be under. They were told the Council was a Liberal body ; but they had just thrown out the Eiglit Hours Bill. Ho cpncluded by expressing his opinion that the Government had taken a perfectly constitutional course in the action they had pursued in referring this correspondence Home, and sniil they had abundant precedents for that action byseveral eminent statesmen of the colony. They looked with confidence to tho majority of the House to support them iv that course.

Mr O'CONOR said they were asked not to regard this question in a p.irfcy spirit, but looking at the speeches of tho t.vo leaders he thought a good party fight was imminent. He expressed his surprise at the Premier stating that an elective Upper House would infringe tho liberties of tho people. Did the Premier wish to raise a despotism iv the country, in whi-:h tho PremW yf tho d.iy mijjht be the ruling power. That <U<l not rualite his views of a democracy. Hij d*plurtM the evils of parly government, and Haiti thit no matter what important meisure was proposed, the House would vote on it on party Hues, irrespective altogether of its merits. He proposed as an amendment — "That the Gjvemmsnt be requested to introduco this session a measure to provide for the election of mem lors of the Legislative Council, ami that pjiitjiitg legislation on this subject n > further appointments should be mide to tho C<>u!iiil "

Mr Mickintush, Sir G.or^e. CJvey, Mr G. Hutchison, the Hon. Mr S d lon, Sir John Hall, the Hon. W. P. R.sevo«, Mr Scobia Mackenzie, and Mr Shera also spoke on the question

The following is the division list : —

For Mr O'Conor'a Amendment (8) : — Messrs Duthie, Guinness, H,ill, llarkneas, Houston, O'Oonor, Rhodes, Rolleston. Against the Amendment (31) : — Messrs Ballanco, Blake, Bruce, fiuckland, Buick, (Jadtnan, Carnrross, Carroll, Duncan, ICarnshaw, Fish, Frascr, Hall-Jones. Hokk, Joyce, Liwry, Meredith, J. M'Kenzie, M'Lean, 0. H. Mills, Moore, Piukerton, Rees, W. P. Reeves, Sanrlford, Saunders, Seddon, Shera, E. M. Smith, W". C. Smith, Tanner. Paira. — For : Messrs Richardson, Swan, Taipua, Valentine, Wilson, Russell, Buchanan, J. Mills, Lake, Allen. Against : Messrs 11. Reeves, Mackintosh, Parata, Kapa, Ward, Rees, Dawson, Kelly, Thompson, Taylor.

Tho House went into Committee of Supply, but progress was immediately reported. The House rose at 1.30 a.m.

THE SAN FRANCISCO SERVICE.

The Hon. J. G. Ward, who returned from Napier to-day, has received no advice from tho Imperial authorities that they propose to discontinue the subsidy to tho 'Frisco service. .Ho does not believe that the statement is correct, but he intends to cable to England on the subject iv a day or two.

TAWHIAO'S PENSION.

Tho Hon. A. J. Cad man believes that the agitation regarding Tawhiao's pension is promoted by interested parties. There can bo no doubt, the Native Minister says, that Tawhiao accepted tho pension. Ho has received tbo first quarter's allowance, and he believes he will continue to take tho money. Thi3 is the third time the attempt has been made to show that Tawhiao is not satisfied with the arrangement for a pension. Ths Minister considors the story groundless.

REVALUATION OF LAND.

The Minister for Lands, the Hon. J> M'Kenzie, intends to bring down this --session the Selectors' Land Revaluation Continuance Act Amendment Bill, rejected last year by % tho Legislative Council. The bill enables holders of deferred payment or perpetual leases, pastoral licenses, or grazing runs to apply for revaluation of their lands, and is intended to meet those cases in which lands have been taken at too high a value.

THE COUNCIL AND THE EIGHT HOURS BILL.

As much capital was sought to be made to-day by Ministers out of the rejection of the Eight Hours Bill by the Legislative Council, it may be interesting to note how the division list was made up. Out of tho four Legislative Councillors who voted for the bill tyvo were nominees of the so-called Conservative party — viz., Mr Stewart, one of Sir H. Atkinson's last nominees, and Mr Baillie, nominated .by Sir E, W. Stafford — only two being "Liberal" nomU nees — viz., Sir P. A. Buckley and Mr Wahawaha. On the other hand, of tho 16 who voted against the bill there wero no fewer than tin nominees of the so-called " Liberal " sideviz., Messrs Dignan and Reynolds (by the Grey-Ballance Ministry), Pharazyn, SwansoD, Taiaroa, and Walker (by tho Stout-Ballanco Government), also a seventh (Dr Pollen) who was nominated by Sir J. Vogel, the colleague of Mr Ballnncc in the last " Liberal" Administration. This completely knocks the bottom out of Messrs Ballance and Seddon's contention as to the party nature of the division on this bill, which, by the way, was not a Ministerial measnre at all.