The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, FEB, 15, 1879.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5609, 15 February 1879, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, FEB, 15, 1879.

The winter of the article “ What is a Colonial Governor ?” in the Nineteenth Century of December last appears to be apprehensive that, because the Marquis of Lome, the new Governor-General of Canada, is personally connected with the Crown, a “ dead-lock ” in the working of Responsible Government in Canada during his administration may lead to a collision between that Dominion and the Mother Country. That apprehension is put forth as a motive for what is called *a better definition by Imperial Act of Colonial Responsible Government. Now, we feel sure that, if the new GovernorGeneral takes his proper part in the working of Responsible Government, no serious collision need be apprehended. In that course he cannot do better than follow the example of his immediate predecessor. And we are also quite sure that the accidental connection of the Marquis of Lome with the British Sovereign, will not weigh for one moment with the Imperial Ministry on his side in the event of a collision. The British nation has long grown out of royal back-stairs influence. No Ministry at Home would stand for a moment if it dared to risk the separation of Canada, because the Governor-General was the son-in-law of the Queen. But the argument in the article is not confined to such a flimsy reason. It is urged that the Colonial Constitutions are subordinate, and that they differ from each other; that the Legislative Councils are in some places elective, in others nominated, and nowhere analogous to the House of Lords; and that the Governor has only limited authority, and is bound to regard Imperial interests, and to obey Imperial instructions. We might answer all these objections by asking the objector to point out any other system of government than responsible which would work, we do not say better but at all, in Canada, the Australian Colonies, and New Zealand. We might also easily launch him into an endless sea of troubles hy setting him to work at that definition which he fondly advocates. But we take a different line. We do not attach any importance, so far as Responsible Government is concerned, to the difference from each other of Colonial Constitutions, or to the difference of Legislative Councils from the House of Lords. The essential object of representative institutions is self-government, and we defy anyone to show a system that will, in the Colonies which we have named, better secure that object than it is secured by Responsible Government. There is, no doubt, some substance in the argument that the Colonial Constitutions are subordinate, and that the Governor is an Imperial officer. Both those difficulties were foreseen when, thirty-two years ago. Responsible Government was first conceded to Upper and Lower Canada, and within the next ten years to the other Provinces of North America, to New Zealand, New South Wales, Yictoria, and South Australia. We have considerable experience of the working of Responsible Government in those Colonies, and we confidently say that upon the whole, notwithstanding the difficulties named, the system has worked admirably, and, so far from provoking collision with the Mother Country, has more than ever promoted the unity of the Empire. England is not likely to risk, except under the strongest necessity, collision with a self-governing Colony. Collision in that case would mean that Engird will either undertake the cost of governing that Colony, or tax it for that purpose without its consent. Resort in these days is not likely to be had to either of these alternatives. There is no doubt that in a Colony with representative institutions, its people must ultimately have its own way. The object of Responsible Government and of otherparta of the British Constitution adopted in the Colonies is to establish that system of check and counterpoise which will, as far as practicable, secure the deliberate and settled expression of the will of the people. We wont to be governed by the voice of the people, and not by the shout of the populace. That is the reason why we require firmly established in onr midst the principles, the whole principles, and nothing but the principles, of the British Constitution.

In support of his arguments, Mr Wilson, the -writer of the article in the Nineteenth Century, refers to cases of constitutional collision in Colonies, namely, in Victoria and in the Cape of Good Hope. We shall refer shortly to each, and shall show that Responsible Government is in no way responsible for those exceptional difficulties. Let us take the case of Victoria first. Governor Darling twelve years ago, and Governor Bowenlately, both infringed Responsible Government when they lent themselves to aid the Ministries of the day to break the law and to coerce one branch of the Legislature. We believe that in England, even in the celebrated case of the Reform Bill, the swamping of the House of Lords would have been unconstitutional. And we have the high authority of Lord Brougham, in his autobiography, that the then Ministry, of which he was a leading member, although it had the consent of the King, would probably never have resorted to that revolutionary operation, even if the House of Lords had not at the time given way. It is clear to us that in Victoria, Governors Darling and Bowen and their respective Ministries acted unconstitutionally in spending monies not properly appropriated, and in commencing a system of terrorism for the purpose of coercing

the Legislative Council. Btitutional course is to amljj people, even more than once- ani if harmony cannot he rostmo appeal, as pointed out i n a to patch of the Secretary of c - 3 - Colonies, to the Imperial Pari:' f ° r re-model the Constitution, s ‘ r aill<illt enable the dead-lock to he w.™-. 38 . ally unlocked. Thus, legiti matA ‘ tutlrj, »- would be taken for securing r effect to what proves to he the Cal determination of the people. ' The case in the Cape of Good u bears a close resemblance to the tion of affairs in the days of p ° S ‘‘ Memorandummiad in New 7.f eat The Cape had its Kaffir war an/j rial troops. The Colonial were jealous of Imperial intorfo* 15 and began to organise Colonial V*'*’ and to dispose of them in tlie'fi u without reference to the military a rity of the Governor-General, wk/':' also commahder-in-chief, or 0 f general commanding her MaW - forces. Sir Bartle Frere, the Cover^ 3 General, remonstrated, till at last X' Molteno, the Premier, came to tC elusion that, if the Colonial and*! 002 rial troops are not to he subject" control of the responsible li m ; 3t they ought to be withdrawn. go I 7! Mr Molteno acted as Mr Weld r!,i i/' 1 in 1861. The Gorem„ «t“lf * believe that such advice was in accord ance with the wishes of Parliament n would ever be approved by the p ai j; ment of this Colony.” Here the diver, gence between the cases in the Can* and in New Zealand commences /j Sir Bartle Frere acted quite constitutionally. He dismissed his Minister who would not resign when informed they had forfeited his confidence and he appealed to the Cape Parliament: In the meantime a new Cabinet formed by the leader of the Opposition and when the Governor’s action was challenged in Parliament, the Assembly rejected resolutions involving censure on the Crown. The Governor reason* ably contended that he could not fairly be charged with any unconstitutional proceeding, unless the Opposition “is prepared to deny the constitutional power of the Governor to inform Ministers that they have lost his confidence, and to summon other Ministers to office subject to the necessity of their securing the support of Parliament.” The instances of Yictoria and of the Cape of Good Hope, if they are carefully examined, strengthen rather than weaken the cause of responsible s> vernment. Unreason and reason, each in its own way, test its virtue, and latest is borne successfully.