Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 80a

Enclosure 3 in No. 9

page 23

Enclosure 3 in No. 9.

Memorandum from Lord Onslow to Lord Glasgow, 16th February 1892.

Memorandum for His Excellency the Earl of Glasgow.

On the 13th of February the Honourable the Premier expressed the desire of his Cabinet to submit to me the names of eighteen gentlemen for seats in the Legislative Council.

The first question which arose in my mind was how far I ought, seeing that your Excellency's appointment as my successor had been announced, to undertake responsibility in the matter.

Upon reflection, however, I satisfied myself that having closely followed Mr. Ballance's recent utterances on the subject and the debates in Parliament on similar appointments last year (for which some blame was cast both on my advisers and myself), I had no right to shrink from doing any action upon such advice of my Ministers as I thought they were constitutionally entitled to give.

I do not think it necessary to enter at length upon the circumstances attendant on the creation of the Speaker and six Councillors last year; the reasons which guided me in that action are fully set forth in the public Despatches printed and laid before Parliament, as well as in my Despatches of the 24th of January and 3rd of February 1891.

I may add, however, that the position of parties was remarkably similar to that which occurred in New South Wales subsequently.

There, instead of enrolling themselves under the banner of one party, the Labour Members announced that their support would be given to either party "in return for concessions," and Sir Henry Parkes, the Premier, whom it was loudly proclaimed had been "beaten at the polls," continued in power with the help of Labour Members for a short time.

There was nothing to prevent a similar thing having taken place here in respect to Sir Henry Atkinson's administration, had it not been for his own ill-health.

Mr. Ballance claims that he is entitled to make seven appointments to counterbalance these, and six more at least to take the place of deaths which have occurred since (one of the deaths has been of a newly-appointed Councillor), on the ground that on taking office he might have advised six or seven creations, and then have advised more consequent on deaths.

It is to be borne in mind, however, that the six made by Sir H. Atkinson's advice were the first for three years and subsequent to the deaths of a considerable number of Councillors.

The latter contention would limit Mr. Ballance's requirements to twelve new men.

I made careful enquiry into the names of the Premiers to whose advice the existing Councillors owe their seats, and to their voting last session.

Before the appointment of Sir George Grey as Premier, I am content to assume that as far as existing party distinctions are concerned none can be called of Literal type. Since then Sir George Grey, Sir Julius Vogel, and Sir Robert Stout have advised the appointment of fifteen out of the thirtynine.

Mr. Ballance contends that Sir Julius Vogel was not a Liberal Premier, and that his influence on the Stout-Vogel coalition Government was so great that one-half of the appointments made on their advice were of the political complexion of Sir Julius Vogel and not that of Sir Robert Stout.

Whether the existence of any such understanding can be taken officially into account is a matter for your Excellency's consideration.

It became apparent then to my mind that it would not be easy to justify to the Secretary of State my action, were I to consent to add such a number of Councillors to the fifteen created by Liberal Governments as could give them a majority over the existing majority of Councillors appointed by other Governments—15 + 12 would make 27—the remaining Councillors would number but 24.

page 24

I should have been accused of lending myself to a scheme which might alter the complexion of the Upper House in order to enable the Ministry of the day to carry measures upon which the voice of the country had not been directly heard, and without the direct authority of the electors given to the proposal to briny: the Upper House into harmony with the Lower.

Under those circumstances I declined to receive advice such as was proposed, and desired that it might be deferred until your Excellency's arrival, inasmuch as my stay in the Colony would not enable me to see the end of consequences which a persistent refusal to accept the advice of my Ministers would entail.

Your Excellency will find that of the principal measures introduced by or supported by the Government last session their financial Bills were carried in the Council. The Factories Act and a few others passed with amendment, while the Land Bill and the Electoral Bill were lost in conference with the other House. The I and for Settlement Bill, Workmen Lieu, and Counties Bill, were rejected by majorities less than would have been counterbalanced by eight more appointments, the maximum to which I saw my way to accede, while the Shop Hours Bill and the Payment of Members Bill were rejected by very large majorities, not so great, however, as to remain unaffected if additions to the extent of Mr. Ballance's original proposal (18) were to be made.

(signed)

Onslow.

List of the several Premiers, to whom the present Legislative Councillors owe their seats.

Premier in office at date of appointments.

  • Stafford.
  • Domett.
  • Weld.
  • Fox.
  • Vogel.
  • Atkinson.
  • Hall.
  • Whitaker.
  • Stout.

Memorandum by the Clerk to the Legislative Council showing how the Legislative Councillors appointed in 1891 exercise their Votes on Measures introduced by the Government.

Session 2. 1891.
Hon. Mr. Bowen. Legislative Council Bill: 3 Divisions. Voted 2 with Government. Voted 1 against.
Aliens Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Truck Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Auctioneers Bill : 3 Divisions. Voted 2 against Government. Absent 1.
Factories Bill: 9 Divisions. Voted 9 against Government.
Shop Hours Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Female Suffrage Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.
Electoral Bill: 8 Divisions. Voted 6 against Government. Absent 2.page 25
Land Bill: 15 Divisions. Voted 14 against Government. Absent 1.
Payment of Members' Bill: 2 Division. Voted 2 against Government.
Selectors Land Revaluation Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Workman's Lien Bill : 2 Divisions. Voted 1 against Government. Voted 1 with Government.
Land for Settlement Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Hon. Mr. Fulton. Legislative Council Bill: 3 Divisions. Voted 1 with Government. Voted 2 against.
Aliens Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Truck Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Auctioneers Bill: 3 Divisions. Voted 1 with Government. Voted 1 against. Absent 1.
Factories Bill: 9 Divisions. Voted 5 with Government. Voted 4 against.
Shop Hours Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Female Suffrage Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Electoral Bill: 8 Divisions. Voted 8 against Government.
Land Bill: 15 Divisions. Voted 3 with Government. Voted 11 against Government. Absent 1.
Payment of Members Bill: 2 Divisions. Voted 1 with Government. Voted 1 against.
Selectors Land Revaluation Bill: 1 Division. Voted with Government.
Workman's Lien Bill: 2 Divisions. Voted 2 with Government.
Land for Settlement Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.page 26
Hon. Mr. Johnston. Legislative Council Bill : 3 Divisions. Voted 2 with Government. Voted 1 against.
Aliens Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Truck Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Auctioneers Bill: 3 Divisions. Voted 2 against Government. Absent 1.
Factories Bill: 9 Divisions. Voted 2 against Government. Absent 7.
Shop Hours Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Female Suffrage Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Electoral Bill: 8 Divisions. Voted 4 against Government. Absent 4.
Land Bill: 15 Divisions. Voted 12 against Government. Voted 1 with Government. Absent 2.
Payment of Members Bill: 2 Divisions. Voted 2 against Government.
Selectors Land Revaluation Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Workman's Lien Bill: 2 Divisions. Voted 1 against Government. Voted 1 with Government.
Land for Settlement: 1 Division. Absent.
Hon. Mr. Ormond. Legislative Council Bill : 3 Divisions. Voted 2 with Government, voted 1 against.
Aliens Bill: 1 Division. Absent.
Truck Bill: 1 Division. Absent.
Auctioneers Bill: 3 Divisions. Voted 1 with Government. Voted 1 against. Absent 1.
Factories Bill: 9 Divisions. Absent.
Shop Hours Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Female Suffrage Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.page 27
Electoral Bill : 8 Divisions. Voted 7 against Government. Absent 1.
Land Bill: 15 Divisions. Voted 14 against Government. Absent 1.
Payment of Members Bill : 2 Divisions. Voted 2 against Government.
Selectors Land Revaluation Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.
Workman's Lien Bill : 2 Divisions. Voted 1 against Government. Absent 1.
Land for Settlement Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.
Hon. Mr. Downie Stewart. Legislative Council Bill : 3 Divisions. Voted 1 with Government. Voted 2 against.
Aliens Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Truck Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.
Auctioneers Bill : 3 Divisions. Voted 1 against Government. Voted 2 with Government.
Factories Bill : 9 Divisions. Voted 4 with Government. Voted 5 against.
Shop Hours Fill : 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.
Female Suffrage Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Electoral Bill : 8 Divisions. Voted 3 with Government. Voted 5 against.
Land Bill: 15 Divisions. Voted 10 with Government. Voted 5 against.
Payment of Members Bill : 2 Divisions. Voted 1 with Government. Voted 1 against.
Sclectors Land Revaluation Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.
Workman's Lien Bill: 2 Divisions. Voted 2 with Government.
Land for Settlement Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.page 28
Hon. J. B. Whyte. Legislative Council Bill : 3 Divisions. Absent.
Aliens Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Truck Bill: 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Auctioneers Bill: 3 Divisions. Voted 1 with Government. Absent 2.
Factories Bill : 9 Divisions. Voted 2 with Government. Absent 7-
Shop Hours Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Female Suffrage Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 with Government.
Electoral Bill : 8 Divisions. Voted 3 with Government. Voted 5 against.
Land Bill: 15 Divisions. Voted 3 with Government. Voted 11 against. Absent 1.
Payment of Members Bill : 2 Divisions. Voted 2 against Government.
Selectors Land Revaluation Bill : 1 Division. Absent.
Workman's Lien Bill: 2 Divisions. Voted 2 with Government.
Land for Settlement Bill : 1 Division. Voted 1 against Government.
Rejected Bills.—Session 11.—1891. Local omitted.
Aliens Act Amendment. In Conference.
Counties Act Amendment. By Legislative Council.
Electoral. In Conference.
Female Suffrage. By Legislative Council.
Friendly Societies Acts Amendment. By Legislative Council.
Law Practitioners. By Legislative Council.
Land Bill. In Conference.
Land for Settlement. By Legislative Council.
Payment of Members. Laid aside by Legislative Council. (Not rejected.)
Shop Hours. By Legislative Council.
Selectors Land Revaluation Continuance ami Amendment. By Legislative Council
Workman's Lien. By Legislative Council.
page 29

"Evening Post," Monday, 15 February 1892.

The Governor's Lesson.

[Alterations and comments of Lord Onslow shown in Italics."]

Nothing could have been more apt, better-timed, or more suggestively true than his Excellency Lord Onslow's remarks on Friday night respecting the position and functions of an Upper Chamber. He very clearly defined the legal and nominal prerogative of such a Chamber as limited by constitutional usage. His words were pregnant with meaning in the position of affairs in this colony at the present time, although they were, of course, quite of a general character. It would have been improper for him to have pointed the application of the principles he laid down, but it is easy for the most careless observer to read between the lines. Paraphrased and simplified, his Excellency's remarks amount to this : that the constitutional function of a second Chamber is not to set up its own will in stubborn and immovable opposition to the will of the people, but to interpose such a cheque upon hasty legislation as shall give the people time to consider the subject fully, and to form and express a mature and decided opinion upon the questions at issue. For an Upper House to attempt to do more than this would, as Lord Onslow points out, be to admit that the common sense upon which Englishmen pride themselves no longer guided its action, and the inevitable result would be an irresistible movement for the abolition of such a Chamber. The House of Lords, the most time-honoured and Conservative of Upper Chambers, has never yet so set itself against the fulfilment of the well considered and clearly-expressed popular will. Had it done so it would ere this have belonged to the things of the past. Conservative although its majorities have always been, it has gracefully yielded when unmistakably shown that the matured opinion of the people was in favour of any measure of progress. The various Reform Bills at first unhesitatingly rejected by it have been accepted after direct reference of them to the people, and their receiving emphatic approval at the polling booths. The House of Lords, having made its protest, has ever yielded gracefully when the popular verdict has on appeal gone against it. It has never been necessary to resort to the once-threatened extreme expedient of swamping the House by a creation of Peers. Lord Onslow will himself return to England to take part in another early surrender of the views of the majority of his fellow Peers to those of the people. The House of Lords will undoubtedly reject the first Home Rule for Ireland Bill which the Commons may pass, and Lord Onslow will no doubt vote with the majority. Practically, of course, the question of Home Rule will be the issue on which the impending general election at home will depend, and if Mr. Gladstone returns to power a Home Rule Bill will certainly be passed by the House of Commons. But no matter what the majority there may be, the Bill will as certainly be rejected by the Lords. Then it will be Mr. Gladstone's duty to take his Bill to the constituencies, and ask them to express a direct opinion upon it. If such an appeal is made and answered by an emphatic expression of public approval, then the House of Lords will have fulfilled its constitutional duty, and Lord Onslow and his friends will, no doubt, with characteristic common sense, accept and yield to the will of the people. There will be no howl raised at home at the action of the Lords in refusing to accept the opinion expressed in the general election on the general question, and insisting on a specific reference of the Bill to the constituencies. It will be within its rights in thus delaying definite action, and no one will complain of such a course being adopted. So in like manner, and this, we take it, was the lesson intended to be conveyed in Lord Onslow's speech, has the Legislative Council been quite within its rights in refusing to pass all the policy measures of the present Government simply because they have been formulated by a Ministry chosen from the majority returned on general principles at the last general election. [The Council has a clear constitutional right to insist that the precise measures shall be specifically referred to the verdict of the constituencies] [not every measure but every great fundamental change]. Then if the people declare that they want these measures passed it will be the duty of the Council to bow to that opinion, however unwise they deem it. To oppose it further would be unconstitutional obstruction. The Government policy measures which the Council rejected last Session, and on which a most improper clamour against that Chamber has been raised, were the Payment of Members Bill, in respect to the largely-increased payment proposed; page 30 the Land Bill, so far as the extinguishment of the freehold tenure is concerned; and the [re-purchase of private lands for settlement purposes] [rejected by small majority]. The Council is perfectly right in insisting that the deliberate sense of the country shall be taken on these proposals. Certainly they were not prominently before the country at the general election. The proper course for the Government to adopt is to appeal from the Council to the country on these measures [or on the question of bringing the Upper House into harmony with the Lower], instead of attempting to swamp the Council by the creation of new members without the country being consulted, or the using of wild threats with a view to coercing the Council into abandoning its constitutional position. Lord Onslow has in the most admirable manner pointed out to his Advisers the constitutional course which they should follow. If they pursue it, they will, we are convinced, find that the Council will accept the interpretation of its functions as laid down by the Governor, and act constitutionally with the common sense credited to it by his Excellency.

Memorandum from the Premier.

The Premier presents his compliments to his Excellency, and has perused the Memorandum proposed to be left for Lord Glasgow. The Premier does not at present see the necessity of going into the question at length. The Government think that their position in the Council is such that the legislation demanded by the country cannot be given effect to, and that, in order to carry out the will of the people, as represented at the ballot-box, at least twelve new Councillors ought to be created. The Premier does not acknowledge the accuracy of the article contained in the "Evening Post," a journal personally and malignantly hostile to the Government.

(signed)

J. Ballance.

Premier's Office,

His Excellency the Earl of Glasgow:

The enclosed papers were shown to the Premier that he may know exactly what has taken place between Lord Onslow and his successor, but Lord Onslow judges that he is within his rights in leaving any memorandum he may think it right to leave for the information of his successor.

The article in the "Evening Post" only professes to interpret Lord Onslow's personal views, and Lord Onslow says that they accurately represent them.

The "Post" has also been, up to their article, "personally and malignantly "hostile to Lord Onslow," and it is not, therefore, for any reason that the article is appended except that it expresses in an easily-read form exactly that which Lord Onslow feels.

(Initialed)

O.