features, but they all arose from the same cause, namely a disagreement between the Executive and the outside members of the Council. It was in Mr. Rolleston’s time as Superintendent that “the crisis in the fray” assumed a new shape.
Mr. Rolleston, who was elected in 1868, was a man of strong personality—perhaps somewhat obstinate—and he had no idea of being dominated by his Executive. He was ambitious to have a seat on the floor of the Council, so that he could take his own part in the rough and tumble, as he was well fitted to do, and in 1869 he actually proposed to become a candidate for one of the Christchurch seats which chanced to be vacant, and very reluctantly gave way to the protest which was made on constitutional grounds. Defeated in his first attempt, he returned to the charge by sending a message to the Council, June 4, 1869, that he intended to ask the General Assembly for legislation enabling him to sit in the Provincial Council ex officio. The Council replied with a resolution “that the business of the Council and country should be conducted as heretofore until the Council shall have agreed to some modified form of Government.”
In the following year (November, 1870), there was a distinct breach between the Superintendent and his Executive. The actual question at issue was unimportant, relating to an item charged for interest by the Bank of New Zealand, but the principle involved was whether the Superintendent or the Executive should be responsible for the policy of the Government. The Executive had the support of the Council, but the Superintendent surmounted this little difficulty by declining to call the Council together, even when requested to do so in an address signed by a majority of the members of that body. This deadlock went on for many mouths, until, owing to the unexpected postponement of the meeting of the General Assembly, Mr. Rolleston found himself
