OUR GOVERNOR.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5580, 15 February 1879, Page 3

OUR GOVERNOR.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SEW ZEALAND TIMES. SIE, —The British Constitution is not a distinct creation, or the fruit of a summer, but it is the growth of ages. In its development it has adapted itself to the changing circumstances of the times, and has so expanded and become so moulded as to meet the requirements arising out of the advancing civilization of the people. During this progress, development, and adaptation, the relation in which the Sovereign has stood to the other branches of the legislature and to the people has greatly changed. But notwithstanding this everchanging relation, general harmony continues to prevail ; a harmony unequalled by any other political constitution with which mankind ever has been, or is at present being, blessed. The fact that great changes have taken place not only without destroying the equilibrium, but to the increased stability of the whole fabric, furnishes a practical illustration that further changes may yet take place without in any way interfering with that peace, order, and good government of the British people, on which prosperity depends. As a colonial Governor is the Queen’s representative in that part of the Umpire to which he is appointed, it is probable that his relationship to the other branches of the legislature and people over whom he exercises the Queen’s prerogative may, to meet the altered circumstances produced by advancing civilisation, also change. That that change should take the form of his being elected by the people, instead of being appointed by the Crown, is a view of the subject which very few thoughtful colonists entertain, especially so long as the Crown’s prerogatives are so fairly, justly, and constitutionally exercised as they have been by the Marquis of Normanby during the last eighteen months. By the exercise of the Crown’s prerogatives in declining to act on the advice of Ministers, when that advice was obviously for party purposes, and contrary to the spirit* of the constitution, he has saved this country the great expense of an election ; and what is far more important, from a state of confusion from which it could not have for some time recovered. Had he carried his prerogative a little further and prevented the appointment of some of the creations of the Premier to the Upper Chamber, he would have still further earned the thanks of the people of this country. Although, if rumor speaks truly, he has exercised a very considerable check in this matter, otherwise some more noodles would have been appointed ere now. Thanks are due to the Governor that he did not, in 1877, accept the Premier’s constitutional doctrine—that the Governor should always act on the advice of his Ministers ; and without rhyme or reason, on the pure dictum of the Premier, should grant a dissolution of Parliament. There was at that time no question of policy in dispute, but a general agreement on both sides of the House as to the line of policy that should be pursued. Had the Governor last session denied the Premier a dissolution, when his Government was defeated on two of their most important constitutional measures, viz,, their Electoral Bill and their financial proposals, ho would, according to the plainest constitutional practice, have acted most arbitrarily, and would have given the Premier just cause for complaint. But when they fell on the beer did they ask liberty to go to the country on the beer ? I trow not. When they were defeated on their Electoral Bill—because they insisted on maintaining in it the dual Maori vote. Did they ask for a dissolution ? Oh dear, no. That little affair of the manipulation of the four hundred Maori votes at the Bay of Islands was too fresh in the minds of constituents for that. These two long leeks they swallowed without a whimper, or a wry face, or a word about going to the country, although they were again and again challenged to do so. There is no doubt but that the Governor would without hesitation have taken Ministers’ advice on the matter, because there were reasonable and legitimate grounds for an appeal to the people. Their policy—if it may be called by the name—was rejected by the House, but no appeal to the country was made. The Ministry could not think of such a thing. They said—“ Oh dear, no ! Such a c ourse will endanger our seats. We must stick to them. Never mind our policy. What is p olicy compared to pay and power?"—l am, &c., Observer.