A.—l

16

Ministers claim that, although the Legislature has on several occasions altered the number of members of the House of Eepresentatives, it has never yet directly or by inference limited the number of members of the Legislative Council. Since the latest appointments thereto the number of the colony's electors has been doubled through the extension of the franchise to women. Yet the advice of Ministers, who possess the undoubted confidence of this great electorate, is emphatically rejected. Once more the Premier very respectfully submits that the advice tendered ought to be acted upon, and that His Excellency's Advisers ought not to have it hinted that their proper course should be to consult the Opposition in matters where the responsibility rests solely upon themselves. Another incident which should not be lost sight of is the decisive defeat at the polls of the Government which suggested limiting the number of members of the Council—a defeat suffered upon the first occasion thereafter upon which they appealed to and met the people. The Premier admits that under the Constitution the Governor has power to call to the Legislative Council such persons as he shall think fit, without limitation; but this power can only be exercised on the advice of Ministers. There is no power given under the Constitution Act for the Governor to make any appointment to the Legislative Council unless advised so to do by his Responsible Ministers. The Premier does not concur in the interpretation placed upon the meaning of the term "vacancy" by His Excellency. Whenever a seat is made vacant the Council accepts a resignation or declares the seat vacated, as the case may be; then there is a vacancy. There are many precedents for filling vacancies. For instance, the Earl of Belmore, Governor of New South Wales, in his Despatch No. 109, 29th September, 1868, paragraph 4, used these words: " Two death - vacancies also have occurred during the recess. These I have filled up by the appointment of Henry Moore, Esq., a merchant, &c, and Alexander Park, Esq., a former member of the Council before its reconstruction." Again, Sir Eobert Stout, when Premier, March, 1885, advised vacancies to be filled. (See his memorandum attached.) This advice was accepted, and the appointments were made by the then Governor, Sir William Francis Drummond Jervois. In New Zealand the advice tendered to fill vacancies has never been previously disregarded. The Premier concurs with His Excellency that appointments to the Council should only be made when necessary, and that each case should be considered on its merits and according to the requirements of the Council. It is owing to the requirements of the Council and the need that exists for its being strengthened and made efficient that Ministers have advised the appointments referred to. The Premier respectfully submits that the term " efficiency of the Council" has a wide and far-reaching significance. It means that Councillors shall be able and willing to perform the duties cast upon them—that the Council shall examine, discuss, and pass such laws as the necessity of the colony demands —laws the passing of which is required for the well-being and in the interests of our colonists. The Council's failure to do this has been clearly proved by the fact that, prior to the last general election, policy measures which had been introduced by the Government were rejected with but scant consideration. In December, 1893, a general election took place. The people demanded that the rejected Bills should become law; yet these same measures were rejected by the Council last session. Other policy Bills were mutilated and made well-nigh unworkable. The Council also claimed the right to amend money Bills. This was contrary to all well-recognised precedents. The business of the session was delayed. Ultimately, in face of an imminent crisis, the Council made a partial withdrawal, but without prejudice. In the memorandum under reply His Excellency states that " during the session of 1894 he thinks that on one occasion an important Government measure left the representative Chamber in such a shape that, had it not been amended in the Council, it would have been practically inoperative. This, he understands, was done on the initiative of the Council, and speaks well for its efficiency." The Premier would, with all respect, take exception to this statement. Facts do not justify it. If accurate, it would discredit Ministers and reflect upon the House of Eepresentatives. Indeed, it verges upon an unintentional infringement of the privileges of the House of Eepresentatives. Ministers, therefore, consider it to be their duty, as the constitutional defenders of His Excellency in the House, to call attention to the matter. In making the statement referred to, the Premier cannot but conclude that His Excellency has taken for his guides the speeches of members of the Council opposed to the Government and to the measure referred to —possibly, also, assertions printed in public journals which support the Opposition. The Premier contends that the facts do not warrant any reflection on those who represent the people in the House of Eepresentatives. In the Premier's memorandum No. 25 the sums of money deducted from the honoraria due to Councillors were quoted to show the intermittent attendance of members of the Council; but by that body's rules illness counts as attendance, and therefore there were no deductions made from the honorarium of any member absent from that cause. His Excellency's admission that, as the session was so long, members did not attend as regularly as usual, goes far to prove the Premier's contention that, with the strain of a long session, many members of the Council are physically unable to, and do not, attend. This session there is one member away on leave for the whole of the session. Another has intimated that he will not be able to be present, and others through bodily infirmity are physically unable to be in their places. There weie only twenty present at the opening of Parliament. On the second day certain needful business could not go on, for the Minister representing the Government in the Council found that, in the absence of the necessary number, the Standing Orders could not be suspended. It has been urged by His Excellency that there was a sufficient number of Councillors who could have attended if necessary. If this contention be correct, then the non-attendance was caused either by indifference or unwillingness to attend : probably the latter more truly represents the position.