THE DISSOLUTION QUESTION.

Evening Star, Issue 3038, 13 November 1872, Page 4

THE DISSOLUTION QUESTION.

The Australasian says, had New Zealanders paid a little attention to the correspondence connected with Mr Duffy s resignation, they would have been saved from much apprehension upon a very simple question. Sir Geo. Bowen, like Lord Canterbury, was right. In New Zealand, as in Victoria, there has been formed from wm eating House a Ministry which appears capable of carrying on public business. This fact sufficiently proves the practical wisdom of the refusal t.O dissolve. It is obvious that a dissolution involves gi’o/fl lp s -> inconvenience, and expense, both to tbe country and to the candidates, and that so costly a remedy ought not to bo heedlessly applied. A dissolution is, no doubt, a most effective and useful remedy in the proper place, but for that very reason it must bo reserved for those emergencies that imperatively demand it. Besides, there was, both with us and in New Zealand, an objection to a dissolution that was obviously fatal. There was no question for tj f e country. The differences between political men were mainly persona’, or at most related to matters of administration. There was no question of public importance in regard to which any material differences of opinion existed. In such circumstances a dissolution would simply amount to a surrender of the prerogative as guided by the advice of Parliament, and the substitution for it of the voice of the ballot-box. In other words, if this system wore once established, we should have Ministries elected directly by universal suffrage. This may or may not bo an admirable form of Government, but, at all events, it is not ours. We possess representative institutions, and it is the duty and the function of Parliament, and not of the constituent bodies, to advise the Grown on the exercise of its prerogatives. Nothing can be more emphatic or distinct than t}|e declaration of English statesmen of all opinions that a dissolution must never be used for merely party purposes. Both Lord Canterbury and Sir George Bowen have acted in conformity with this rule, and we therefore trust that we shall hear no more of the right of a defeated Minister to at least one dissolution. At the same time Parliament must remember that the power which it possesses in the vote of want of confidence is one which depends for its efficiency upon the prudence and moderation with which it is used. Two votes of the kind within a single month are not creditable to any Assembly. If the House of Representatives has escaped a dissolution, it has to thank its good fortune and the forbearance of the Governor much more than its own good deeds.