The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3968, 12 November 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1875.

To take away the local control of the land fund, uud to place the whole under one common government, is about as practical and as benebcial as to enact a law for closing the different banks, and requiring every man to open an account with the general bank, and that, too, with the manager’s parlor at Wellington. We scarcely understand this sentence of “ Caution’s” letter, and fancy lie is not aware of the relationship in which Provincial Councils stood to the land. It is a mistake to imagine they had true local control over the land. In fact, it was found necessary to curtail the degree of control they were once allowed, because of the land having been used as an engine for Provincial party purposes. The Crown has never parted with control of the laud, although by what is termed the Compact of 1856, the amount received from sale and rental of land within Provinces was made Provincial revenue. Whatever control Provincial Councils had was exercised under laws passed by the General Assembly. If “ Caution” will refer to the Otago Waste Lands Act, 1872, he will find the preamble runs thus—“ Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of New Zealand, in Parliament assembled, and by authority of the same,” and then follow the clauses of the Act, defining and limiting the functions of the Superintendent and his Council, prescribing the mode of procedure in leasing and selling land, and specifically the terms on which it shall be used and sold. The only control the Provincial Council exercised was in the way of recommending proclamation of Hundreds or blocks on deferred payments or otherwise, or reserves, and the Governor, “ if he shall think fit,” is authorised to comply with their suggestion. From “ Caution’s ” style of treatment of his subject, we conclude he is not given to abstract study or reasoning, and probably is not well up in the history of Provincial politics in Otago during the last nine years. In order to see how this limited control has been used, we should recommend him to look back into printed records, and read the Commissioners’ report on land, the report of the long debate on the Hundreds Regulation Bill, the reports of committees that sat on the Hundreds proclamation question, session after session, and it might not be amiss to make himself acquainted with the Island Block affair, and the sale to Mr Clarke and others, to liquidate an overdraft allowed by the Bank of New Zealand. We shall be much surprised if, after carefully studying those interesting documents, he remains wedded to the idea that Provincial Councils have been of such value to the Province as to be worth preserving, on account of their farsightedness and watchfulness over the public interest in dealing with the land. He does not seem to be aware that the true administration of our lands is in the hands of the Waste Land Board, the members of which, although nominated by the Superintendent, are practically appointed by the Governor, whose sanction to their appointment is necessary ; and that, in order to prevent the land being tampered with for political purposes, only

one member of the Provincial Executive to express the views of the Provincial Government can be a member of the Board. The Receiver ol Land Revenue is also appointed by the Crown. “Caution” must therefore plainly see that the. power of the Provincial Council over the land really consists in recommendations, which need not be necessarily acted upon, and which have more than once been ignored; and if he will exercise his memory, or look into the reports of the proceedings in Council, he will learn how much in those recommendations they have been guided by personal or party interest, and how little by a sense of public utility. Just as it is often better for interested parties, who desire amicable settlement, to refer a matter in dispute to disinterested arbitrators, might it have bsen an advantage bad oirr local quarrels been decided for ns by a disinterested majority in Parliament, We believe the Province would have gained by it. The professed intention of the Local Government Bill, draughted by the Government, was to secure the land revenue to Provinces possessing landed estate, and to provide for its being devoted strictly to local purposes. We need not discuss the merits or demerits of that measure. We believe we are correct in saying the Ministry only introduced it as a temporary arrangement, intended to take effect had the abolition of Provincialism taken place in November, as at first proposed. Having, however, been postponed until after the close of next session, and all things remaining nearly as they were until then, it became unnecessary to press it, and it is not of any moment to discuss it at present, although it should be weighed before next session. We thought it defective, but quite capable of amendment. Perhaps it may have escaped “ Caution’s ” notice that some members of the Opposition, for whom so much credit is claimed, made no secret of their determination to make our land revenue “ Colonial revenue.” Among those who hold this buccaneering view, in the face of the Compact of 1856, are Sir George Grey, Mr Reader Wood, Mr Sheehan, Mr Bunny, and we believe Mr Fitzherbert ; and alongside of them and in their interests, Mr Reid and Mr Stout, Messrs Murray and Thomson, with other Otago members, are found aided by his Honor the Superintendent. As neither Mr Reid, Mr Stout, nor Mr Macandrew coincides with their opinions, we confess their conduct is anomalous, for of necessity they must separate ‘from the Opposition under any circumstances. As for Messrs Murray and Thomson no one can wonder at them ; the surprise would be to find them acting on the dictates of common sense. “ Caution ” should now perceive that the difference between us is not in principle but in matters of detail. It is quite likely that in 1856 Provincialism was the best form of government in the circumstances of the Colony. When Auckland returned twelve members to Parliament, and Otago and Canterbury respectively three and five, there was little chance of the South Island receiving justice. Now matters are different, and the balance is in favor of the South. It is therefore our own fault if we return incompetent or merely party men. Our institutions, unfortunately, have been founded too much on tradition, and too little on the teaching of experience. We send local men instead of able men, and narrow their duties to the advocacy of limited territorial instead of general interests. We have not learned the difficult lesson that individual prosperity, except in special cases, depends upon general prosperity. We like the Belgian system better, in which each member represents the whole community, though elected by an electoral district. There is a famous sort of race provocative of fun at Home, in which each man rides an opponent’s donkey, and on its principle very probably more enlightened and less disinterested legislation would result, were North to legislate for South, and South for North. At any rate there would be less chance of logrolling. As this would not be tolerated in legislation, although the principle is held good in arbitration, the next best; thing is—what should be the practical result even of our system—-the concentrated wisdom of the whole should be brought to bear upon the equity and interest of every part.