Ministers to the confidence of his Excellency, and to express in terms not to be misunderstood in a self-governing community that the measures do express the feeling of the country.
“Ministers notice that his Excellency points out ‘that the suspensory powers conferred by the constitution on the Second Chamber is a constitutional check intended to give power to the electorate through the intervention of the Legislative Council at any time to step in and control legislation,’ and that ‘this plan insures greater freedom to the electorate than that favoured by Ministers.’ Ministers reply that the argument, if applied in practice, would prove immediately destructive to the constitution. It means that with the sanction and support of the Governor, the Council is at all times to possess the power to impose a general dissolution on the country; that a nominee Council is to be accepted as a better judge or exponent of the feelings of the country than the representatives of the people; and that a decisive majority in the Second Chamber is to be maintained by the representative of Her Majesty in order to ‘control legislation.’ It also means that a majority unresponsible for its acts may harass, by the expense and worry of an election, the representative body, and it suggests the fatal position that the Governor is to be associated with the Council as the practical application of the doctrine.
“If the Ministers could believe that this was the true intent and meaning of the constitution, they would despair of its survival beyond the popular recognition of the fact; but they have not so read it, and hope, for the sake of the constitution, that such a construction may not prove to be accurate.
“The construction may be stated (in accordance with actual facts in recent history) to be this: A majority in the Legislative Council should be in harmony with the minority in the House of Representatives when the Liberals are in power, with a penal dissolution suspended over the heads of the Government; but when the Conservatives are in power they should have majorities in both Chambers without the ‘constitutional check.’ If the first plan insures ‘greater freedom to the electorate,’ it is difficult to describe the constitutional bearings of the second. Yet Ministers have asked for no more than a respectable minority in the Second Chamber. It is against the application of such constitutional doctrine as these that Ministers respectfully enter their protest.
“Ministers thank His Excellency for the information that the series of correspondence will be sent to the Secretary for State and request that this memorandum may be included.
“Premier’s Office, Wellington, August 9th, 1892.”
It was evident that neither the Governor nor the Government would give way, and it was agreed that the dispute should be submitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Some of Mr. Ballance’s friends thought that in making this agreement he made a sacrifice of his dignity. He was sure of his ground, however, and felt that, in return, he would receive from the Imperial Government an emphatic declaration not only that he was right in his contention, but also that the Colonial Office had no power to stand between the people and their wishes.
