218 THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT [parT II 
Parliament on May 31st and did not resign until defeated 
by a majority of 13. 
In 1892, Lord Salisbury dissolved, but the Opposition 
previously voted the Estimates for the year and expedited 
public business. He was defeated by a majority of 40; 
but he did not resign until he was defeated by a direct vote 
of want of confidence. 350 to 310. 
He then quoted the case of Lord Onslow’s appointment 
of six members of the Legislative Council of New Zealand, 
and the approval of his action by the Secretary of State in 
1891. He pointed out that after his defeat in 1878 by a 
majority of between eighty and ninety, Mr. Mackenzie was 
allowed to appoint a deputy minister, a judge of the Supreme 
Court of Canada, four puisne judges, and a County Court 
Judge. He also asserted that the judges of Canada had in 
many cases, including the then Chief Justice, been appointed 
by the Liberal party, and that the Senate only twice in 
Mr. Mackenzie's Government refused to accept his measures, 
and then they were in sympathy with Mr. Mackenzie’s own 
supporters, and he added :(— 
1 may venture to remind Your Excellency that the 
exigencies of the public service and the difficulties to which 
you have alluded have been caused by the obstruction of 
public business by the Opposition, notwithstanding that the 
Government, of which I was the leader in the House of 
Commons, had the support of a large majority of that 
House. At that time the unfortunate circumstance to which 
I have referred, enabled comparatively few persons to prevent 
any legislation or public business being done by the House. 
Had the Opposition in Canada adopted the course followed 
in the Imperial Parliament in 1892, when the Opposition 
voted the estimates for the year and expedited public 
business, no such difficulty could have presented itself, and 
I fail to see why such obstruction on the part of an Opposition 
should entitle them to the special consideration of the Crown. 
With reference to the inquiries which Your Excellency 
has from time to time thought fit to address to the Clerk 
of the Privy Council, I can only re-state my impression that 
such information in times past has been sought and obtained 
by the Governor-General through communications with the 
Prime Minister or the Minister directly concerned. rather