A.-1

15

Memoeandum for His Excellency the Goveenoe

(No. 28.) Premier's Office, Wellington, 29th June, 1895. The Premier presents his compliments, and begs to acknowledge the receipt of His Excellency's memorandum dated the 21st June. He very respectfully expresses his unfeigned regret at His Excellency's refusal to accede to the reasonable request of his Advisers for the appointment of four Legislative Councillors, whereby vacancies in the Council caused by resignation and death would have been filled. The Premier is aware that His Excellency, in the early part of the year 1892, offered to the Ballance Ministry to make nine appointments in lieu of the twelve then advised. That Ministry took exception to His Excellency's views. A series of correspondence passed between His Excellency and his then Advisers, and ultimately, on the 4th August, 1892, His Excellency intimated to the late Premier, Mr. Ballance, that he would be prepared to forward Mr. Ballance's memorandum to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies. The question was accordingly referred to the Secretary of State, and on his advice His Excellency made the twelve appointments. The Premier begs to further urge that, constitutionally, there is no recognised limit to the strength of the Council. If the contention is to hold good that a general average of the strength of the Council should be struck and adhered to, then the Premier would point out that His Excellency should include in any calculation the years immediately before 1887 as well as after that date—years wherein the average strength of the Council was forty-nine. Were this done, the advice to make four appointments should be accepted, seeing that with the four additions there would be only fortyseven on the roll of Councillors. To fix a limit or an average based on a period arbitrarily selected is without precedent or logical warrant. In 1856-66 the number of members of the House of Eepresentatives virtually remained unchanged, whilst the number of members of the Legislative Council was increased from thirteen to twenty-eight. From 1866 to 1873 the number of members of the House of Eepresentatives varied from seventy to eighty, and the number of members of the Council was increased from thirty-six to forty-nine. From 1873 to 1884 the number in both Houses remained almost stationary. In 1885 the number of Councillors was increased to fifty-four, but the strength of the House of Representatives remained unaltered. In 1890 there were thirty-nine Councillors to ninety-four members of the House of Eepresentatives ; in 1891 there were forty-six Councillors and seventy-four members of the House of Representatives. This proves incontestably that there is no limit. At the time the legislation was passed reducing the number of members of the House a Committee of the Council had just reported in favour of reducing the number of Councillors to one-half the number of members of the House of Representatives. Yet the Atkinson Administration, which introduced the measure in the Lower House, and appointed this Committee, did not deem it advisable to press the Council to approve of the report of the Committee. In the same session, 1887, the same Government introduced a Bill to limit the number of members of the Council to one-half that of the House of Eepresentatives, but it was discharged before it reached the second reading. (See memorandum from Earl of Onslow to Lord Knutsford, No. 1, 2nd March, 1891.) Subsequently, in the session of 1890, a Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council by a private member to reduce the Council's strength to one-half of that of the House of Representatives. It was amended by the Attorney-General to meet the views of the Government, and cordially supported by the Government in the Council, but was rejected by that body; and a new clause, moved by the Hon. Mr. Shrimski, to limit the number of the members to thirty-seven, and make no new appointments until the number of members of the Council was reduced to thirtyfive, was rejected by 24 votes to 2. It is a matter of history that, after the general elections held in 1890, in January, 1891, seven additional Councillors were appointed—thereby increasing the number from thirty-nine to forty-six at a time when the Atkinson Government had suffered emphatic and unmistakable defeat at the general election, and when there were already thirty-three Legislative Councillors on the roll who supported what is known in New Zealand as the Conservative party, as against six supporting the Liberal party. Moreover, this was done when the number of members of the House of Representatives had just been reduced from ninety-four to seventy-four. It does not follow, therefore, from the latest precedent, that with a reduction in the number of members of the representative Chamber there has been or should be an accompanying and corresponding reduction in the numbers of the Legislative Council. As stated by the Premier in a previous memorandum, the efficiency of the Council, or its ability to properly perform its functions, does not depend upon its nominal strength, but upon the possession by it of capable members willing to perform their duties. It is well known that many of the life-members, from old age and its accompanying infirmities, are unable to attend, and do not attend. That has been conclusively proved by the division-lists. The average number given as voting has not been that voting upon matters of local import, but upon the policy measures of the Government—measures of great importance to the people of this colony. In their case the voting only averaged twenty-eight; and at no division were there more than thirty-five votes recorded. The Premier ventures to draw attention to the following words in His Excellency's memorandum now under reply; namely, "by proposing to fill vacancies it is the Government that is proposing to keep up the Council to its arbitrary strength, without previous arrangement with the Opposition or reference to Parliament." From these it may reasonably be inferred that His Excellency suggests that when filling vacancies in the Council the Government should arrange with the Opposition or refer the matter to Parliament. The Premier notices this with surprise ' and concern. Ministers are charged with the government of the colony, and they are responsible for the proper transaction of parliamentary business.