I could not refuse it in my native country if she, like Victoria, had a Parliament and a Government of her own.
The controversy on the dissolution extended to England, where it was debated on imperial grounds. Lord Canterbury, it was insisted, had violated the principles of the Constitution and thrown the administration of responsible government in colonies into fatal confusion by a wholly indefensible proceeding. The Spectator examined the facts in minute detail. It was the case (the writer said) of a Ministry which, by large and liberal measures, had attracted a most unusual amount of European attention. Mr. Duffy had been defeated by a small majority, and advised a dissolution in a state paper which, on constitutional principles, was absolutely unanswerable. He had not had a dissolution before, whereas his opponents had had five dissolutions. He had good reason to expect a majority at the hustings. The Times correspondent at Melbourne admitted he would get a majority:—
The Governor is bound to allow a Ministry to submit itself once wiithin a term of years to the popular vote. This obligation Lord Canterbury disregarded, apparently for no reason at all except personal dislike for the only reason given in his minute, that Mr. Duffy had been defeated by a vote of no confidence and not by the rejection of any of his measures, is perfectly childish, and is indeed an unanswerable argument for granting an appeal against a vote so obviously personal. … This sympathy, moreover, must be personal, and not political, for on the only question on which the victors have not adopted the policy of the vanquished—secular education—the Colonial Parliament defeated the victors and upheld the vanquished. Partiality of that kind is as fatal to a constitutional governor as to a judge, and if not a reason for removal, is at least a final reason against continuing him in a similar appointment after his term of office has expired.
The correspondence between me and Lord Canterbury was moved for in the House of Commons. I was assured on competent authority that the action of the Governor was disapproved of in the Colonial Office, and it is notable that he never after received any public employment.
Among the applicants for an appointment while I was in office one described himself as a kinsman of Robert Browning, and I sent his letter to John Forster, who knew where the poet was better than I did, to ascertain his wishes on the subject. In reply Forster wrote:—
