The Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 3013, 15 October 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1872.

IN weak and ill-balanced minds?, disappointed ambition is apt to display itself by a variety of petty annoyances. Such manifestations may be dismissed with a smile when they arc merely harmless exhibitions of individual feeling, but they arc not so readily excusable when aggregations of men are asked to aid in them, and to adopt them as rules of conduct. _ They then become mischievous, and insulting to the ccanmunity, and even to those wno are asked to‘ degrade Giem,solves by giving their support. No one cau lead the notices ot motion by Mr bIAIIORD and Sir David Monro without arriving at the conclusion that their object is to bring his Excellency the Governor, the Ministry, and the majority of the House of Representatives, into contempt. What earthly object can be sought by the discussion of the following 0 hypothetical proposition by Mr Stafford, excepting affording him an opportunity for blackguarding bii George Bowen for not granting a dissolution of the House, to give him the forlorn hope of the support of the country 1 — Mr Stafford gave notice of a motion asking for information whether, as the Ministty was founded by Mr Vogel, and as Mr Waterhouse was premier, the Ministry would, according to constitutional usage, be dissolved if the Premier died or resigned ? Even if Sir GEORGE Bowen had outraged the Constitution i» order to keep Mr Stafford in power, or if there had been any attempt to do anything unconstitutional on the part of Mr Vogel or Mr Waterhouse, such a motion would hardly have been tolerable. It is lucky, indeed, that Mr Waterhouse j lives in New Zealand, where British 1 principles, mul I’jriti.sh liouor, diul I British protection to life _ are the rule. Had he been in Russia or TurI key, or Egypt, or one of those Eastein | countries where the garter, the bow string, or the poison cup, anticipate nature’s doom, Mr Waterhouse might perhaps have felt he had got notice to cpiit cither the Ministry, or this nether world, or both. It would not be very difficult to shew that Mr Stafford’s idea of constitutional usage, as expressed in his foolish notice ot motion, is neither very clear nor sound, even in theory. At any rate it is plain that it is fortunate for the Colony that its allairs arc not administered by a man who deliberately proposes to task the time and money ot the country tor the mere gratification ot personal vanity. It is an ill return to Sir George Bowen for the pains he took to find precedents to justify a dissolution in Mr Stafford’s favor. From what has passed, the country has every reason to feel satisfied there will be no departure from Constitutional usage, no matter what event occurs, and such drivelling should be discountenanced both in ami out of the Legislature. Every move Mr Stafford makes tends to weaken confidence in the soundness of Ins judgment. As for bir David Monro’s notice of motion, it is an insult to the Govcmoi and to common sense. What right has Sir David, or Mr Stafford, or Mr Vogel, or anyone, to ask the House to stultify itself by passing a resolution so vaguely worded as to be utteily worthless. Even a debating club of boys would feel it a waste ot time to be asked gravely to discuss such a vapid proposition. Sir David MomVgave notice of motion to the effect that as the Governor appeared to doubt whether the House would grant supplies in case of a dissolution, the House assured him that it would always he leady to perform its constitutional functions. His Excellency had good reason to doubt whether the Opposition that condemned Mr Stafford’s Ministry would grant supplies- It was the only constitutional means remaining in their power to prevent the confusion and disorder that it was manifest the Stafford Ministry were about to plunge the country into. The constitutional functions ot the House of Representatives are equally to get rid ot an incapable Ministry, as to grant supplies and not to grant them until they are satisfied they are placed under the control of men who will not mismanage the affairs of the country. The majority that expressed their want of confidence

in Mr Stafford and his colleagues were in duty bound to say we cannot consent to remit to the country the question whether or not they shall remain in office. Our constitutional duty is to trust men of sound practical judgment: it is quite possible to choose ‘such a Ministry from the present House of .Representatives, and we believe they would bo supported. Until that is tried wo will not grant supplies, and in so doing wo are acting in strict accordance with constitutional principles. The House may safely pass Sir David’s resolution and continue to exert its constitutional functions, but the country should discountenance such senseless claptrap.