226 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [PART II
On the other hand, Goldwin Smith severely condemned his
inaction, and a large Parliamentary deputation asked him
to disregard the advice of his ministers and secure earlier
a decision of Parliament.!
But the Province of Quebec was a little later to be the
scene of a striking instance of the exercise of the power
of dismissal. The Lieutenant-Governor of that Province,
Mr. Luc Letellier de St. Just, an ex-member of the Mackenzie
Administration, found it necessary to dismiss his Government
for the reasons given in the memorandum of March 1, 1878.
communicating his decision :—?2
The Lieutenant-Governor deems it right to observe that,
in his memorandum of the 25th February inst., he in no
way expressed the opinion that he believed that the Premier
ever had the intention of taking upon himself the right
‘ of having measures passed without his approbation, or of
disregarding the prerogatives of the representative of the
Crown.’
But the Prime Minister cannot lose sight of the fact that,
although there was no intention on his part, in fact the thing
exists, as the Lieutenant-Governor told him.
The fact of having proposed to the Houses several new
and important measures without having previously in any
way advised the Lieutenant-Governor thereof, although the
intention of disregarding his prerogatives did not exist, does
not the less constitute one of those false positions which place
the representative of the Crown in a critical and difficult
position with regard to the two Houses of the Legislature.
The Lieutenant-Governor cannot admit that the responsi-
bility of this state of affairs should rest with him.
With regard to the Bill intituled * An Act respecting the
Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Occidental Railway ’, the
Premier cannot claim for that measure the asserted general
authorisation which he mentions in his letter, for their inter-
the question on meeting in August, but the Governor-General simply,
despite protests, prorogued the House of Commons-—as it had been under-
stood that the meeting was to be purely formal, and the Government’s
supporters were in many cases absent. But the Royal Commission’s
report was conclusive.
1 Cf. Sir A. Gordon’s views on the duty of a Governor in Parl. Pap.,
0. 3382, p. 268; Rusden, New Zealand, iii. 435, 436.
* Parl. Pap., C. 2445, pp. 102, 103.
