The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1877.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XII, Issue 127, 31 May 1877, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. THURSDAY, MAY 31, 1877.

Our Australian telegrams informed us the other day that a new Ministry having been formed, the Victorian Parliament had adjourned in order to allow a custom uuknown to us in New Zealand to be carried out, namely, that the newly appointed Ministers should go back to their constituents for reelection. In the event of their being defeated others will have to be appointed, and they in their turn will have to pass tli rough a like ordeal, and so on, as it might happen, ad iifinitum. The practice appears to us to be one that contains a great deal that is objectionable, while we cannot see that it possesses any advantages whatever. The chief argument against it is that it allows the choice of the whole country, as expressed by its representatives in Parliament, to be set aside by the small fractional part of the electoral body contained in one constituency, comprising perhaps some three or four hundred vote^-s. Thus the man who is generally acknowledged to be the fittest and most able to lead the House and to occupy the position of Premier may by the caprice of a few be shut out from a sphere of usefulness, and his "services be lost to the community. It may" be argued that a constituency which has elected a representative to-day is not likely to reject him next week, but all who have had any experience in elections well know how a trifle light as air will sometimes influence the result in the most unexpected manner. That it is not a likely contingency to occur must be admitted, but why such a possibility should be allowed to exist we cannot conceive. Add to this the delay occasioned by Ministers, after the session of the Parliament has commenced, having to go back to their constituencies in various parts to seek reelection, and the practical objections to be raised to the practice must far outweigh any imaginary advantages. The Christchurch Press concludes a recent article on this subject as follows: — "The rule was founded in England as a safeguard against the excessive power of the Crown. It was intended to prevent the Sovereign from exercising an undue influence over the Legislature by the uncontrolled power of Ministerial appointments. We need not say that this has long ceased to furnish any ground for alarm. And in the case of a colony there has never been any room for the supposition. It would be too absurd to speak of the necessity of interposing a check on the overweening power of the Governor. Then again to look at the inconveniences. The number of members who are in a position to take office is already exceedingly limited; and if it were uecessary for each one, upon becoming a member of the Government, to return to his constituents, it would undoubtedly narrow still more seriously the field of choice. It is impossible to tell how at any given moment any gentleman may stand with his particular constituency ; while it is next to certain that if he fails with them he will not secure his reelection elsewhere. As for waste of time, we need only go back for an illustration to the session of 1872. Let us attempt to imagine what would have been the effect if all the members of the three successive administrations which followed each other in office had been under the necessity of getting re-elected. Certainly not less than six weeks, equivalent practically to half a session, would have been cut out of the working time of the Legislature. On the whole, we are decidedly adverse to such a change. The disadvantages very far outbalance any possible benefits to be derived from it. And while the former are real and practical, the latter are at best but shadowy and sentimental. Why the Victorians have thought fit to adopt their present p .-aefcice, we are at a loss to understand. We only hope their example will never be followed in New Zealand."