The Lyttelton Times.

Lyttelton Times, Volume V, Issue 267, 23 May 1855, Page 5

The Lyttelton Times.

Wednesday, May 23, 1855. The advocates of the theory of "Ministerial Responsibility," as attempted to be carried out in the Government of this Province, appear, for the most part, to ground the defence of their policy upon the danger of collision between the Superintendent and J the Council, which in their opinion would certainly arise under any other system. This, at any rate is the most argument adduced on their side of the question. Now if any good is to arise from the rather cruel experiments which the different Provinces are practising upon the Constitution Act in their first attempts to work it to their satisfaction, it will be by a careful comparison of these experiments and of their several results. Auckland, Nelson, and New Plymouth have not attempted to put the principle of " Ministerial Responsibility" into force, and as fyet we have heard of no collision between the Superintendents and Councils of those Provinces which has threatened in the smallest degree their good Government. Wellington and Otago have attempted to carry out the system : if we may judge by the speeches of" the Superintendent and Council in the former, and by dark and unintelligible rumours of " ministerial crises" in the latter Province. Perhaps it is hardly fair to quote the example of Otago on*the subject at all. Our southern neighbours have always shewn such a capacity for quarrelling among themselves on almost every subject, that it is not strange if they should take advantage of such an opportunity as that afforded by " ministerial responsibility." If A would not of old buy snuff or oatmeal from B, owing to some slight and vulgar differences, is it likely they should become reconciled when Bis a " responsible minister" differing from A on matters of state interest, and possessing the power of wounding and persecuting his opponent by a parade of his dignity as leader of the Council ? We will not therefore cite the rather violent collisions between the Superintendent and the Council of Otago as an example to the point. Let us turn to Wellington, one of

the most important and active of the political centres of New Zealand. As yet no difficulty has occurred. The " ministers" are personal friends of the Superintendent, who commands a large majority within the walls of the Council Chamber. But what is likely to ensue when a difference does arise ? We need be in no doubt about the matter, for His Honor the Superintendent of that Province has expressed his determination to resign his office, should the Government which he has chosen be defeated. He sees that he cannot get rid of his responsibility, he has at the same time attempted to work a sham; and he does not know how to get out of the difficulty in which he may any day be placed except by immediately proceeding to extremities. We cannot quote our own Province as a supporter of the system^ as far as it concerns the Provincial Government. We have heard it advocated, but have never seen it practised. We may boast of having helped to expose its absurdity by some curious evolutions on two different occasions which resulted in the shuffling of the " outs " into the births of the " ins." "If we had attempted,, to carry out the principle, in our opinion a collision would have been inevitable; for we do not think that His Honor is a man who '^would shirk his responsibilities or allow others to take them off his shoulders. So much for the use of " Ministerial Responsibility " to prevent collision between a Responsible elected head of the Government and the representatives of his constituents. If there are not other and more effectual means of preventing such a catastrophe, the sooner we petition for the | repeal of the Constitution Act itself the better.