CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 177, 21 November 1874, Page 12

CHANGES IN THE MINISTRY.

The Canterbury Press has a leading article condemning the Government for not bringing the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt Act into operation, as provided by law, on the Ist of October last. Doubtless Ministers are censurable. They may have been overworked, or they may have overlooked it altogether. Since Mr. Bathgate retired upon his laurels, there has been no Minister of Justice specially charged with the duties of that office, although one or other member of the Government has undertaken the work. We may remark, however, that the office was created for Mr. Sewell, when it was found advisable to put him into Mr. Fox’s Ministry of 1809 ; but the duties were never clearly defined. 'Ye suspect no very clear idea exists at the present time regarding it. Be that as it may, however, the Press attributes the delay in giving effect to the law for the abolition of imprisonment for debt to the want of a Minister for Justice. It asks : “ who is “responsible for this neglect? The “ matter lies in the department of the “ Minister of Justice, but that seat in the ‘ ‘ Cabinet happens at present to be un- “ occupied. No successor has been ap- “ pointed to Mr. O’Roeke.” Then follows an undeserved sneer at Dr. Pollen, who, we are told, “has suc- “ ceeded to the place formerly held by “ Mr. Gisborne, of man-of-all-work to “ the Ministry.” This description is not true of either Mr. Gisborne or Dr. Pollen, but it does not signify much one way or other. The Press has been pacified, we understand, and a Canterbury gentleman has joined the Government as Minister of Justice. We refer to Mr. Bowen, formerly Resident Magistrate at Christchurch. Perhaps the Press will be satisfied with this accession to the Ministerial ranks ; but if so, we venture to say that no public man, or newspaper, outside of Canterbury, will be satisfied. We are not aware of any claim Mr. Bowen has for high political office. He is quite unknown outside of Canterbury, and cannot possibly strengthen the Government, more especially as he must take a seat in the Upper House, where he need not hope to excel that experienced political gladiator, Dr. Pollen, who leads it. If a Ministerial recruit was wanted for the Legislative Council, surely there were men to choose from already in that House ; but this is a “ Government of Surprises,” and the colony will certainly be surprised at the selection that has been made. There is nothing to recommend it ; and moreover, it can only weaken the Ministerial party. \Ve have nothing to say against Mr. Bowen. He may be an able man, and we have no doubt he is ; but we object, in the most emphatic terms, to gentlemen being taken from the rank and file of the Civil Service and pitchforked into the position of Minister of the Crown. The outcry that was made in the case of Mr. Gisborne’s elevation and retirement is as nothing to what ought to be made on account of this latest Ministerial performance. The counti-y groans under the weight of the .Civil Service. It is made subject to tribute, in the most literal and unmistalceable way ; and if it submits to have its Ministers elevated for a season from the ranks of the Civil Service, and then, having served their purpose, retreating again within its lines, it may abandon all hope of economical or efficient government. We are friends and supporters of the Government ; but Ministers are not infallible. They are liable to err ; and in this . case their error is of the most serious character. We can conceive of no action, rightly considered, so well calculated to bring the Government into contempt as this one. What is wanted, above all other things in the absence of Mr. Vogel, is efficient administration ; and what possible guarantee can the colony have that a gentleman who has sat for a considerable number of years on the Christchurch Bench, as Resident Magistrate, is. an able administrator. This is not a time to take things upon trust; and we should fail in our duty as journalists, however much we may sympathise with Ministers, did we not condemn their latest act.