The controversy involved one of the most important political questions of the day. It gave a great deal of anxiety to Mr. Ballance, Mr. Seddon, and all members of the Government and the party. Lord Glasgow could hardly have been acquainted with the feeling of the country in regard to the two political parties. In refusing to accept the advice of his Ministers, he evidently acted without obtaining full information on the subject, and the determined and uncompromising attitude he adopted from the first nearly led to a deadlock. If the Liberal Party had been guided by less skilful leaders than Mr. Ballance and Mr. Seddon, there would have been a crisis. It was a constitutional question whether, if the Governor refused to accept the advice of his Ministers, they should not resign; and their opponents strongly urged this aspect of the case.
Lord Glasgow admitted that some fresh appointments to the Council were desirable, but he felt that the number should be limited. The limitation he fixed would not have helped the Government, which would still have been represented in the Council by a hopeless minority, and there would have been no chance of it relying upon its policy measures being passed. In that case, the nominated chamber, not the popular one, would have ruled the colony, and the will of the people, as declared at the polls and as represented by the party in power in the House, would have been flouted. The Government had certainly been hampered by the Council, and already had good cause to complain of its actions, which had, at any rate, delayed for a whole year reforms that the Government was absolutely pledged to give.
Lord Glasgow took up the position that it was the duty of the Governor to exercise the power vested in him in his capacity as an Imperial officer, without limitation or restraint, and he felt bound to resist the Government’s advice on the ground that to grant the number of nominations Ministers asked for would be an unconstitutional interference with the liberties of the Council.
The Government held that the Governor, being neutral in politics, was not permitted by the constitution to do anything that would prevent the feeling of the country from being expressed in
