The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1879.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5715, 20 June 1879, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 1879.

The crisis in Canada is by no means confined to the difference between tho Marquis of Lome and bis Ministry, backed as that Ministry is by the majority in the Canadian House of Commons. Lord Lome has ignored the constitutional principle which requires him to take tho advice of his responsible advisers, or to take the consequences by doing neither. His apologists—tho opponents of the Canadian Government in fact —justify the conduct of tho Governor • General in various ways. The chief argument in his favour wo noticed tho other day. The rest wo propose to examine! now. One

lims of defence is to plead the extremely complicated ohatiiriW Ox the Canadian Constitution, > The* If mtro** duccd by quoting the famous ssj*®® °* Lord Dufferin, when ho described ft Constitutional Governor " MotteekflM ordinary duties aro very similar to those of a man attending npon a complicated piece of machinery.” From this it is inferred that the man m attendance sees a chance of a breakdown it is his duty to stop tho machinery. But this only shows that, like all epigrammatic political sayings, the saying of Lord Dufferin is in some essential respects false. It would be almost as correct to argue that a Judge, who feels that some particular statute of law is contrary to the principles of abstract justice, has a right io refuse to give a decision in accordance with its provisions. A decision given in such circumstances i*, on the contrary, tho very best thing that can happen in the general interests of justice—however unjust it may be to some individual —for it pointedly draws attention to the necessity of reform. So it is in the case of the man whose business it is to oil the machinery of Constitutions. If he sees that the result of his oiling is to cause .the machinery to run on with fatal smoothness towards a break-down* he may give warning to those whose business it is to provide alterations in the several parts, that there is something radically wrong in their relative arrangement, but he must go on oiling diligently, nevertheless. Now, the Marquis of Lome has done neither. By refaring to; take the advice of his Ministers in the “ Letellier case” he has neglected his duty of oiling, and by appealing to the Imperial Government he has misused the optional expedient open to him by giving warning to the wrong persons. Another reason given in justification of Lord Lome’s unconstitutional course is that his predecessor, Lord Dufferin, did not dismiss Mr Letellier St. Just. The cases of the two Govcraors-General are, however, widely different. The Canadian House of Commons passed a resolution severely censuring that Lieutenant? Governor, and hoping that some action would follow the resolution. No Ministerial recommendation was made in consequence of this to Lord Dufferin, as far as we are informed, and it cannot be held that any Governor is bound to acton a mere resolution of one branch of the Legislature. The Ministerial advice, in accordance with jthe resolution was given to Lord Lome, : who, if he had followed it, could not have been , charged—as his apologists assert—-with : virtually passing a censure on faisj illustrious predecessor by doing that which he had failed to do. And the other argument, to the effect that Lord Lome’s acceptance of the advice of his Ministers would have been tantamount; to a censure on a former House of Commons, is equally futile. The former House of Commons refused to censure the Lieutenant-Governor; of Quebec, it is true, but as a Legislative Assembly is not bound for ever by any of its resolutions, it would be monstrous to suppose that the. Sovereign or the Sovereign’s representative is required to act as if the reverse were the case. Moreover, the, Constitutional Head of the State officially knows nothing of the resolutions of any Legislative Chamber. The const! - tutional head of the State deals with the Ministry alone. The complication between Lord Lome and his responsible advisers will probably be soon settled by an intimation to the Governor-General to: accept the advice of the Ministry. But’ the settlement of that complication will not end the Canadian difficulty. The dismissal of the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec by the Federal Government of the Dominion, through the GovernorGeneral, is in reality an interference with the measure of independence intended to be guaranteed by the Federal Constitution to the several Provinces comprising the Dominion. The grounds of the difference between the Lieu-tenant-Governor of Quebec and his responsible advisers are not germane to the consideration of the position. The facts are that Mr Letellier dismissed his Ministers, and; that the constituencies of Ottawa sustained his action by returning a majority pledged to support the Cabinet which succeeded that which had been dismissed from office. The Canadian House of Commons of that day refused to censure Mr Letellier for the course he had adopted, but the minority freely characterised his conduct as governed by a desire to help the party of the majority in tho Dominion elections which were about to take place for a now Parliament. These elections resulted in a reverse of the positions of parties, the Liberal party, to which Mr Letellier belonged,' being in tho minority, and the Protectionist party finding itself in possession of power. The result was that a vote of censure was passed upon Mr Letellier, which was followed by the tender to Lord Lome of Ministerial advice to dismiss him from his Lieu-tenant-Governorship. As Mr Letellier had been supported by the Provincial constituencies of Ottawa in his action, his dismissal in consequence of that action is decidedly an unwarrantable interference with the political independence of the Ottawa Province. It would nob bo surprising if Mr LobeUier’s successor, when that officer is appointed, finds himself unable to obtain a Ministry to work with him. If such should be the cose, tho deadlock will lead to the alteration in an important particular of tho Canadian constitution.

Tbo present case has shown that, to place in the bands of o Federal Government the power of dismissing the Lieutenant-Governors of the Federated Provinces, is detrimental to the internal political independence of those Provinces, guaranteed to them by the Federal constitution. The inference derives additional strength from the terms of the resolution of censure passed bytho Canadian House of Commons upon the Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec for the dismissal of his Ministers. Mr Letollier’a notion was pronounced by that resolution to bo “ unwise tuid subversive of the posiaccorded to the advisers of the Crown since tbo concession of the principle of responsible Government to

the British North American Colonies." Now, speaking 'confiitationall/, most authoritlet will wo think- be ionnd to agree that dismissal by the Sovereign of Ministers is not contrary to principle, and can only bo unwise when an effective Ministry cannot be found to take their place. The resolution of the House of Oommons of the Dominion is clear! j vicious, and the Constitution Act enables the Government of the Dominion to enforce a vicious reeolation of the House against the constitutionally expressed wishes of the constituencies of ono of tbo Provincial Legislatures. That is an excellent reason lor amending the Constitution Aot of the Dominion, but it is not a reason why the Governor-General should refuse to administer that Act when occasion requires.