232 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART II 
was intended by statutory enactment to establish the 
practice which obtains in England. It gives no vested right 
to a Lieutenant-Governor in his office for five years ; it does 
not place him in the position of a judge who holds office 
during good behaviour, although removable by vote of both 
houses. The statute merely operates and was meant to 
operate as a check upon the capricious and arbitrary exercise 
of the power of dismissal by compelling the Ministry to 
submit the reasons for the exercise of the royal pleasure for 
Parliament. A Lieutenant-Governor is still removable and 
ought to be removable whenever it is felt by the Dominion 
Government that it is for the public interest that he should 
be displaced. Due regard should of course be had to his 
feelings and position, and the power should not be lightly 
exercised ; but it is not necessary that he should be tried, 
convicted, or even charged with gross moral or personal 
wrong. 
If, as in the case of Imperial officers of like position, it 
becomes necessary or expedient for the advantage, good 
government, or contentment of the people governed that he 
should be removed, it is the duty of the Dominion Govern- 
ment to discard him. His usefulness may have been 
destroyed by accident or misfortune as well as by fault, but 
still the usefulness once gone the office should also go. This 
is, we know, the practice in England, but there Her Majesty’s 
Government have the means from the multiplicity of offices 
at their gift to remove the unsuccessful or erring Governor 
to another sphere of action. Here the same means can 
scarcely be said to exist. It may perhaps be said that 
stronger reasons should therefore be assigned for the dis- 
missal of a Governor ; but, on the other hand, a Canadian 
officer so removed is not deprived of any professional status 
or prospects. He belongs to no service, and his office is 
considered more as a dignified retirement from active political 
life than one of profit or emolument. At the end of his five 
years he has no claim for another appointment or for further 
consideration, and he stands in a position similar to that of 
a minister who has lost power. In Mr. Letellier’s case it is 
not in the opinion of his Excellency’s advisers at all necessary 
in order to justify their advice to go behind the vote of 
Parliament ; it is sufficient for them that Parliament has 
passed a censure on his official conduct. 
After such a vote it must be obvious that he cannot either 
with profit or advantage be maintained in his position. At 
the same time they must express their full concurrence in