THE GOVERNMENT FIASCO IN NEW ZEALAND. Dublin, 2d January 1865.
Sin—Though reluctant to occupy your space with further discussion of questions which cannot be expected to command general interest, I must request permission to criticize in one particular your paper of last week on the late political crisis in New Zealand. You say, 'Responsible government, successful in Canada, is a fiasco in New Zealand" ; and again, " Responsible government has been proved of doubtful practicability in New Zealand." Now, Sir, against these assumptions I most respectfully but earnestly protest ; and I think it the more necessary to do so because they are sure to be taken advantage of, and enlarged upon, by those who are inimical to the principle of responsible government generally, and to its application to New Zealand particularly. The fact is, that responsible government has not failed, because it has not been tried. I take the proof of this from your own narrative. The responsible Ministers, 1. e. the Ministers selected as possessing the confidence of the Assembly, were associated with Ministers who, although independent of them, and not responsible to the Assembly, were at the head of the principal departments of state, and were separately consulted by the head of the Executive. Now, I do not undertake to say that such a system, however anomalous, might not possibly have been put up with and worked for a time : I am not about to discuss the question whether the constitutional Ministers were or were not wise in accepting office under such circumstances, or, after accepting office, were or were not precipitate in resigning it. But I do say, not only that the arrangement which I have described was not responsible government as understood and practised in England and Canada, but that, while the resemblance between them was superficial, the differences were essential and fundamental. I cannot think it is necessary to prove this assertion by argument ; it is proved by the very statement of the ease. If, as you seem to think, Colonel Wynyard was prevented by his instructions from conceding real responsible government, the inference surely is, not that this latter is of doubtful practicability" eimpliciter—still less that it has been a "fiasco"—but simply, that those instructions must be rescinded before it can be introduced. The failure of a sham proves nothing against the reality.
I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, SOHN ROBERT GODLEY.
Previous page
