GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 373, 23 August 1875, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

[By Telegraph.] [Per Press Agency,] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, August 20, THE ABOLITION DEBATE. On the House resuming at 7.30, Mr Fitzherbert rose amid great applause,. He said he regarded the present circumstances of the colony as critical in the extreme. He should inform the House that he felt somewhat embarrassed on this occasion, because he should have to make up for last session, when he had not an opportunity of speaking to the abolition resolutions when brought down last session. He felt as if he was speaking to a dead wall, inasmuch as he was speaking to a foregone conclusion. He would have felt more embarrassed still, but that he saw some holes in the wall which would enable an echo to reach the public beyond. The hon member proceeded to criticise the arguments of the Colonial Treasurer regarding the legal power of the Assembly to abolish the provinces—namely, that if they could abolish the North Island provinces, they could also legally abolish those in the South Island ; and that as they could do this, they could logically abolish all. The hon gentleman in reply to that quoted the case of Macbeth v Ashley, in the House of Lords, 16th and 17th May last, a, case which was exactly analogous. In that case it was decided that, magistrates acting made an Act of Parliament, although empowered in their' discretion to take certain districts under their jurisdiction separately and in detail, could not do so in globe by one operation, as such would be an invasion of the law. Comment was unnecessary. The peculiar kind of reasoning of Treasurer was shown in another point held'. " He would not meddle without he could amend, but he did meddle and did not amend, To come to

lu> finance of the colony as affected by the Bill. Large appropriations out of land fund were to be made, but the proposal appeared to him to amount to this. It was throwing a sprat to catch a mackerel. The sprat would fall into the open maw of the provincial districts, but the land would become subject for all time to the disposition of that House. The provincial districts would never see their land fund again. The land fund would become subject to all appropriations of the House, and any clamour made to get it back would be fruitless. The reply of the Colonial Treasurer would be. “ hands off, that’s colonial revenue.” The requirements of the co’ ony would soon become enormous. Further funds would be absolutely necessary. Taxation would become inevitable, but the Ministry dared not venture their seats by trying that. No, they would throw out a tempting bait to enable them to lay hands upon the land fund. He could tell them that the appraiser—he would not say bailiff—had already been here and taken stock as to the amount of security they could offer for further loans, and if they went into the market for further loans, he would assure the Government that they would be prepared to offer to the next lender the land fund as specific security. When doubts were raised that the Government would subsidise to the extent proposed out of the consolidated revenue. they were told it was done in Victoria, in ignorance that the land fund there was consolidated revenue. The system of finance proposed was retrograde. It was re-introducing the vicious system of provincial charges, and would lead to scrambles and log rolling. Another illogical argument used by the Hon the Colonial Treasurer was, he accused provincialism of centralising too much, and in the same breath actually held up as a crime that they had created Harbor Boards and Education Boards, for doing in fact the very essence of decentralising by divesting themselves of a great portion of their powers. The provincialista were accused of a want of national .feeling, but speaking with a full knowledge of the subject, he said that nothing did more to create a national feeling than provincialism. A great deal had been said about him changing his opinion, of being an ardent centralist one day and another a provincialist; but as long as a change of opinion was not coincident with a change of interest, it was not derogatory to a man. The Colonial Treasurer told them the question had been referred to the electors, and they had decided. Well, he referred the House to the words of the Hon Major Atkinson when addressing his constituents at Taranaki, when he told them the Government did not intend to abolish the Southern provinces or interfere with their land fund. He also said the public works scheme was meant to eventually extinguish the provinces. How could he at once bring opprobium upon his colleagues, and claim to have acted in obedience to the expressed wishes of the public. There had been no such wishes, and his colleagues had promised to preserve intact the Southern provinces which they now desired to destroy. The Colonial Treasurer told them there had been a great conflict for years past between centralism and provincialism, but their Parliamentary history disproved that statement. The Hon H. Sewell expressed his desire to act in cordial co-operation with the Provincial Governments. The Hon W. ■ Fox entered office afterwards for a short time, and during that period proposed that a fixed proportion of the land revenue of the colony should be made colonial revenue ; next came the Hon E. W. Stafford, who had carried the resolution for localising the land revenue, and in opposition to any portion of it being treated as colonial revenue. This was the gentleman

wno now came forward as the Government champion, but who at that time had held these opinions, which could not be designated by any other term than that of the narrowest provincial spirit. In : 4858, under peculiar circumstances, his hon friend passed the new Provinces Act, which some of his friends contended was in the interests of the provinces; it could not, certainly, be taken as a measure for the destruction of the provinces, but rather for their multiplication. The Hon W. Fox replaced the Hon Mr Stafford in 1861, and during the whole of that time had been considered a strong provincialist, and he would aSk therefore where had been the great struggle spoken of by his hon friend the present Colonial Treasurer. He next came to the Domett Ministry, and in 1862, Mr Fitz Gerald, a private member, introduced the Nominated Superintendents Bill, which was discharged from the order paper. In 1865, on the motion of Sir J. Yogel that half the stamp duties be taken for the provinces, the Weld Ministry went out and Sir J. Yogel succeeded, but did he give the provinces half the stamp duties when he got into office ? In 1865 the Hon B. W. Stafford came into office, and the Local Go/ernment Bill and County of Westland Bill were introduced. In 1869 the Hon W. Fox again took office, on the ground that the Stafford party was too antiprovincial. In 1872 the Hon Mr Stafford took office for a short time, and was succeeded by the Vogel Ministry, and in 1874 the resolutions for the abolition of the provinces in the North Island were brought forward in that Assembly. There was no sign of any erreat conflict in all this. Comins? tn

the Minister of Justice, he told them that every Colonial Treasurer, himself among the number, had to resist the organised pressure of the provinces, but was that any reason for destroying them. The hon gentleman tried to jjbe severe on what he pleased to call Cresarism, but this Bill seemed to him a remarkable piece of Csesarism. It reminded him of the enactment prepared for the first Napoleon,

enabling him to throw any one into the Bastille, and when the Act was shown to him he said, “ I must have a preamble of two pages, and they must be full of liberal ideas.” Then the speeches of Ministers contradicted each other. The Colonial Treasurer told the House that the country was with, them, but the Minister of Justice told them they must lose no time, and he was right. He was afraid to go to the country for he knew that they would never have the ghost of a chance of carrying the Bill in that way. [Opposition applause] Touching upon the financial nature of the Bill, he must emphatically say it was nothing more than a design upon the land fund of the provinces.. It was the falsest of false pretences to say it was the needs of the provinces which was the cause of it. Touching the measure and the position which the hon member for Timaru held towards it; he occupied a most equivocal position. It was he who should have had the framing of that measure, and the introducing of it from the Government Benches. The hon gentleman quoted the words of the hon E, W. Stafford

in 1872, when he was a prophet of gloom, and he quoted his recent speech when he stated he would loyally support the Government upon any question upon which they would stake their position. Now he would like to know how far the support of the hon gentleman would go upon the question of raising the loan and its subsequest investment—how far he would go regarding the dealings of the Government with the confiscated lands—and the sale of native lands—how far he would be willing to continue the great question of the treatment of the Judges of the Supreme Court. Touching the capitation grant and the changes made in it, although he admitted his side of the House was wrong as to the facts and figures regarding that grant, still his side was right in spirit, because the change made was capricious, and upset all that regularity and certainty in the resources of the provinces, which was so important to them, especially when their income was so small that they should be able to calculate it exactly from year to year. The hon member for Timarn freely quoted the history of Greece, France, and the United States to show the evils of something supposed to represent provincialism, but he never heard such a reading of history, or of history so turned upside down ; for if the world was indebted to any people, it was those despised and wretched little republics which illuminated the genius of mankind. Then the hon member for Timarn instanced France to show the evils of provincialism. What was the state of France when her provincial governments were destroyed ? The nation was emasculated; she became like a man bound hand and foot for years when you cut his thongs. He was still paralysed from long bondage. Another unfortunate instance was that of the United States. There the central government was no doubt greatly provoked, but they did not destroy the States. They suspended them, And to what could the President attribute his present unpopularity, but' to the fact that he punished the State of Louisiana too much by carrying punishment too far. But no one in the United States ever once thought of abolition, which they would if they had been of the same mind as that House. There was one instance amongst nations to show the. vitality of provincialism. There was Swit-. zerland. What better example could they have ? These little cantons had no doubt tostrengthen the whole power, to resist outside. pressure, but they never abandoned their provincial rights. The danger with them im New Zealand was the growth of the overshadowing power of the central power of; this country. The hon member for Timara told them that Mr Justice Gillies’ opinion as to the legality of abolition was not given as a lawyer but as a political partizan. Veil he did not believe that that gentleman., now occupying so high a position, would hold two opinions and deceive the people. That gentleman had told him that he had no doubt that the .legislature -had not power to abolish, and he quoted the very decision quoted to the House that night. The hon member for Timaru gave them personal experiences of his own regarding provincialism, and of how the Council would not indemnify him for an expenditure of £SO he had made twenty years ago. Purely the future historian of New Zealand would attribute the downfall of provincialism to the non-pay-ment of that £SO. They were told that Superintendents were not representatives of people, or that they had no power as such j but how many deputations had Superin. tendents to attend to in the course of the year ? What would Ministers do if they had to discuss and attend to the thousand and one small wants that Superintendents had to attend to ? Or put it this way, how would it suit the people of the country to have to find their way to the offices of Ministers to remedy their grievances, which, however small from a colonial point of view, were most important to them ? His answer at once to the hon member was, that provincial institutions were the palladium of their liberties, and this House, although the biggest Provincial Council in Zealand, was the most impotent and incapable. Turning to the Bill, what did they find it but a mass of imperfections, covered by the power of his Excellency to amend by Orders in Council. ft was fhe most antilocal Government Bill that could well have been

proaucea. re naq no more construction about it than a pile of bricks thrown down in the street. He admitted there were many defects in the present system, but he was dissatisfied with the mode of change proposed by not giving the people their own revenues without interference, and the power of electing their own chief executive officers. They deprived them of the most necessary elements of sound and popular government;' The hon gentleman then read to the House the opinion of a high British civil functionary, to the effect that the British Parliament was! becoming far too overgrown, and that largerpowers should be granted locally; that Irish affairs should be managed in Ireland,' find Scotland’s affairs in Scotland; and he would warn that House that if they carried thir measure they were taking the speed)' t course to sever the colony. The people w not submit to it. They would rebel '°. ui( J it, Road Boards and shires w nn ?| ai “ 8 f satisfy the aspirations and am bitions of the people. They would h»r, e to “ a k e UD their minds to sit six, eight. a • make in Wellington. Were and mne T nt f hs that? He asked them r aey prepared for bungling work, and , ? accus f d ° f i• ; J not to disregard the Pnminff trf t * ie wishes of the people. , ® T ° reeling of the people of the if iJV 01, - e respect it was intoxicated, an been, * BO f or years. It had been exist-

tp? , tt Pp a stimulants. la conclusion, Mr warned the House that by pressip.g this measure through without appeal to the people they were doing their utmost to bring about the separation of the colony. During the past five years the average •of : their annual colonial revenue was £1,300,000 ; their annual borrowing power was £2,000,000 for the same period as they had borrowed ten millions. In the same ratio the borrowing power of France would be £133,000,000 yearly for five years, and of England it would be £102,000,000 yearly for a like period. If

either of these Governments possessed such enormous spending powers on public works, the effect upon the community would be, that in England even, the liberties of the people could not be maintained against the influence of bribes which the Goverment might offer. Nothing could resist the control and exercise of so vast a monetary power and yet they were asked to increase the already too dangerous power of the present Government. 1 » T The House adjourned at 12.20 to Tuesda* - nest, *

(From a correspondent of the Press.) Following were Mr references to Mr Stafford, and his peroration. A,*to the member for Timaru, he was prepared to state that had he brought down the Bill there would have been nothing to complain of, that the country would have had nothing to reproach him with, but it would have been very different. But as to the one before them, he considered he had proved in the course of his speech that the Government had in this matter basely deserted the party on whose shoulders they came into office, and had broken their pledges, and therefore their act was deserving of the utmost opprobrium. What was the hon member’s attitude towards the Government which was continuing on and adopting the policy he so vehemently condemned in 1871-2, Since the member for Timaru had announced his intention of supporting the Government on every question on which their existence depended this session, he would ask how far that hon gentleman would go with his supporters ? Was he prepared to vote with them upon the four million loan negotiations, and upon the investment of the proceeds 1 Would he justify the action of Sir J. Yogel in issuing the four million loan when nearly two millions of other loans were yet unraised ? Was he disposed to condone the questions on which there must be investigation, as to the mode on which the confiscated lands had been disposed of, and of the purchase and letting of the native lands; and was he disposed to condone the treatment of the Supreme Court judges. Those were a few important subjects, any one of which was quite sufficient to make Ministers tremble for their seats, unless they could come out absolutely clear. Yet he would like to hear the hon member’s reply as to what position he meant to take up in respect to them. What reply would the Hon Mr Stafford give to the question, “ What means this dinning of sheep in my ears.” Perhaps the theory to account for this was to be found in the fact that during the recess the Government feared to meet the House without losing their seats, and they appealed to Hon B. W. Stafford—this dismal jimmy with his screw —and adroitly diplomatised and availed themselves of the weak points of his favorite hobby of centralism, on which he promised to ride in triumph, forgetful of the age and infirmities of his old spavined steed ; so that what the Government with no decency or prospect of success could hope to do, they tried to do with his assistance —in fact to win with him. The strictures of the Hon Mr Stafford on Sir George Grey’s remarks about the Hon Major Atkinson and the Hon C. C. Bowen were not justified by fact and utterly unworthy of the time. The remarks of Sir George Grey were only such as had been repeated from one end of the land to the other. There was not a tittle of ground for saying that Sir George Grey had attempted to trample upon the younger men, and the rebuke administered to that hon member by the member for Timaru had given him (Mr Fitzherbert) pain beyond measure. He appealed to Ministers to answer what would be the effect of pressing on the Bill and disregarding the just and constitutional appeal to the people. If, as the result of their bungling work, they found the Superintendents and Provincial Councils standing in the way to prevent them getting clean little deeds, they should not resort to the course of killing them to enter and take possession. Instead of doing their work in that hasty way, which would have the effect of raising conflict upon conflict, they should concentrate their energies upon maintaining the credit of the colony. What would people think of them, that in order to take possession they had killed its occupants, in order that they might have a clear sheet, so as to mortgage the deeds, the answer would be—” Look at your bungling work, you have taken the life and let out the blood, but the carcase remains against you.” That carcase was the provincial districts, which could not be got rid of. They should take care that within that carcase there did not grow up a nest of hornets. He warned them that for every sting they might have received from the industrious bee in its efforts towards the advancement of the provinces, they would provoke the venom and sting of innumerable hornets in the provincial districts. Why not remain to hury the carcase, to dispose of it decently, instead of leaving it to fester during the recess. For the past few years the country had been in a state of complete intoxication, resulting from the expenditure of borrowed money. During the past five years the average annual colonial revenue was £1,360,000, and its annual borrowing power £2,000,000. In the same ratio the borrowing power of England would have been £102,000,000 yearly, as against £77,000,000 of revenue, and in France of £133,000,000, and the effect in those countries would have been that the liberties of the people could not have been maintained against the bribes which such an enormous expenditure would have enabled the Government to give. Finally, he appealed to the Government as honest men, to allow an appeal to the country. [Loud cheers.] • It is understood that the Opposition will not go to a division. HON. O. C. BOWEN ON THE ABOLITION QUESTION. The following is the Hansard report of the Hon O. O. Bowen’s speech on the Abolition debate: — Mr Bowen —Sir, I am glad to find from some expressions in the speech of the hon gentleman who has just sat down, that the theory is abandoned that there is anything: new in the proposal to make a change in the constitution. The hon gentleman admits the necessity for change, but he goes on to say that he wishes the Government had stated that it was owing to the financial difficulties of the country that they brought down these measures. Well, sir, the Government would iave said that had it been true, but it so happens fortunately that it is not true. There are no financial difficulties at present, fortunately lor the country; but difficulties have arisen in this colony from the very first, owing to the system of government that has been adopted in New Zealand. There is not a Colonial Treasurer that has sat on the Government benches who has not from time to time protested against a system which has ihade him a sort of guardian of the public chest against organised raids upon that sliest from the time when a colonial treasurer, who is now one of the most able judges of the country, complained bitterly .of the rapacity of the daughters of the 'horse-leech—from the time when another colonial treasurer very ably defended the colonial chest for several years against the claims of the provinces—l- refer to the .bon member for tb.e Hutt, who complained

from year to year of the difficulties of his task iu thus defending the funds of the colony. It is just ten years since that honorable gentleman found it necessary to charge some £125,000 of unauthorised expenditure upon loan out of regard, as he said, to the requirements of the provinces, and that was at a time when the loans were not raised for reproductive purposes, but were raised to meet the pressing necessities of the country. Within two years of that time, we find him again complaining, and I am quite sure it must have been pain and grief to him to have to give away, as he had to give away to the provinces, large sums, to which he did not consider they had any right, complaining that they were no longer six or seven Oliver Twists asking for more ; but sturdy claimants, making as though they would seize what they appeared only to solicit. And I do not wonder that he complained, because, to use his own words, at the time of the consolidation of the provincial loans, he had to make some £183,000, which was due by the provinces, disappear, and he added that it was an unusually pretty transaction. It is these unusually pretty transactions that the country cannot stand, and the hon gentleman knew it as well as anybody else, and pretested against it at the time. In the next year, Mr Hall, another Colonial Treasurer, was still more piteous in his complaints. Things had gone from bad to worse, when Mr Hall said that representative institutions were becoming impossible, as no Ministry could exist against the banded factions that from time to time demanded more money or life. The fact is, every Colonial Treasurer has had to give way to provincial pressure, and it is no wonder that the late Colonial Treasurer, during the enormous expenditure that was going on, had to give way, as all Colonial Treasurers had to give way before him No Treasurer can sit on these benches without giving way to provincial pressure, to such an extent as will land the country in financial disaster. And this is one great reason why it is admitted on all hands that there must be some change iu the Constitution Act. I think it will be admitted by those who have watched the history of the country that there have been a large number of thoughtful men who, from the very promulgation of the Constitution Act, have said that there must be a change sooner or later. I do not think anybody, when that Constitution Act was first promulgated in New Zealand, looked on it as more than an instalment of what we had a right to expect. The colonists considered it a great boon ; but they looked on it, after a long struggle for constitutional rights, as something they had a right to demand ; and I must appeal again to my honorable friend the member for the Hutt, who was one of the most careful defenders of our constitutional rights, to say whether these were not the views entertained by those who belonged to the Constitutional Society, formed for the purpose of defending those rights. He no doubt recollects a gentleman who was in New Zealand at the time, who was an advocate for constitutional rights, and who spoke ably on behalf of those rights. I refer to Mr Godley: and those who knew him well know that no stauncher advocate of local rights ever delivered a speech in New Zealand. It is really worth while to see what men said about the constitution when that constitution was first proclaimed. They certainly did not look upon it as a sort of Ark of the Covenant which they were never to lay hands on. It was fairly criticised at the time, and particularly so by Mr Godley in a lecture on the Constitution Act, delivered in Lyttelton in 1852. I should like to read one passage from this lecture, which shows remarkable foresight with regard to the future of the provinces. After pointing out the merits and defects of the Constitution Act, he alluded to the position of provincial institutions, and went on to say,— “ I attach, too more importance than I think they do, to the inconvenience and evils of having these islands cut up into six or eight petty States, with different codes of law, and perhaps different,systems of government; and therefore it is with . some hesitation that I have been led to advocate the complete municipal independence of the provinces, especially as there is a danger lest such unreserved independence tend to perpetuate the little j ealousies and rivalries which the various circumstances of their respective origins have produced. On every account I look anxiously forward to the time when their complete amalgamation will be possible. I have no wish to see a hexarchy prolonged in a country the whole of which is of perfectly manageable dimensions, not larger than Great Britain and Ireland, or than many of the American States. The normal state of New Zealand ought, in my opinion, as regards this point, to be that of England, not America. I see nothing which ought to prevent at any very distant time the Parliament of New Zealand legislating for all the islands, just as the Parliament of Great Britain legislates for Caithness and Cork, and that of New York for Long Island and Buffalo, The question between federalism and unitarianism (if I may so call it), is in my mind entirely one of j geography, where there are no essential differences of race, or other social peculiarities which forbid amalgamation. Unity is best where you can it, and the tendency of things is towards making political unity more and more possible every year among peoples hitherto divided. Electricity and steam are the most powerful of political amalgamators ; it is easier now to govern the Highlands and Connaught from the Home Secretary’s Office, in Downing street, than it formerly was to govern Devonshire and Northumberland ; and 1 hope many of you will live to see the Bluff and the Bay of Islands brought as near to each other as John o’ Groat’s House and the Lizard.” He says again—

“ I am not therefore, as some of my friends are, disposed to look with jealousy on the possibility of the central Assembly wishing to retain too much power in its hands. I am more afraid of the provinces wishing to retain for an indefinite time ampler powers than will ultimately be consistent with the utmost development of the national greatness and prosperity of New Zealand.” I think, sir, that that was remarkably prophetic language from a man who, as I said before, was one of the staunchest advocates of local self-government in the country. The principal of elected heads of provinces has been advocated as one of the greatest mainstays of popular liberty. I have very grave doubts as to that, especially when I find that the strongest advocacy of elected chiefs is united with the greatest contempt for the representatives of the people. It is a remarkable thing that Cmsarism has ever turned its back upon the representatives of the people to appeal to a plebiscite; Invari"

ably, when Caesar has been ambitious of the Imperial purple, it has been in the name of the people that he has seized the liberties of the people. And now wo have absolutely heard it suggested that it would be a great day for New Zealand when we should live under a sort of glorified Superintendent ; a sort of elected Cfesar. I think, sir, that it would be a very sad day indeed for New Zealand if we had an elected Caesar, turning away from the representtives of the people, and appealing, as I said before, to a plebiscite—turning away from the representatives and saying—“ I am the people—l alone am the real representative of the people ;” for that is what Caesar always says. And I think we had an instance of this in a small way not very long ago. We have seen a Provincial Council—one of those last refuges of the liberties of the people, as we have heard them called by the hon member for Auckland City 'West—pass a resolution one day, and rescind it within two or or three days at the order of the Superintendent. We saw that happen not very long ago ; and we heard of the Provincial Treasurer standing up'in his place and telling that Provincial Council that if they thought anything they could do would hamper or fetter the Superintendent they were very much mistaken. That is not what I call representative government, and I carnot look upon the place where it happened as the last refuge of the liberties of the people. We have been asked—and I think it is another instance of a contempt for the representatives of the country—to stop, and not to do anything in this important crisis, not to dare to legislate, until we have got leave from home. Sir, the advocate for popular local government, whose warning as to the tendency of provincial institutions I have quoted, told us not to trust too much to the Colonial Office or to the Governor —not to trust too much to the Imperial Parliament—never to be satisfied until we could govern ourselves without the veto of that Parliament. The hon member for Auckland City West has expressed his mistrust of the Colonial Office and of Governors, but there was this difference between the cases : At the time that that advice was given us of old, the Governor only represented, and only could represent, either the Colonial Office or himself. Now, the Governor can only represent Her Majesty the Queen he can only represent the Crown, which is the symbol of the Empire to which we have the honor to belong. I hope it will be a very long time before the Crown ceases to send men to represent it in these colonies —men skilled in council and in camp—whose only interest and duty it can possibly be to see that every party and interest in the colony has an equal access to political power, and who are in themselves guarantees for the unity of the Empire. I need not here dwell for a moment upon the question of what we claim to be our right as a Legislature, because I think it will be admitted by all of us that the first charter of liberty of Englishmen is to live under the laws that are made by their own representatives—not to live under la ws which require the sanction andleave of some Parliament elsewhere. And that has been the tendency of all modern legislation with regard to the colonies. We heard a complaint the other day that the Imperial Parliament passed the last Act that enlarged our power of legislation after midnight. Well, sir, a hundred years ago a great statesman in the English Parliament said that the best thing that could happen for the colonies was a wholesome and salutary neglect. We now have from England a kindly a salutary neglect. If we do not take care we shall soon be treated with contemptuous neglect. We are asked now to go, “ with ’bated breath and whispering humbleness,” to the Imperial Parliament, and tell them we have managed to raise a doubt—out of what ? Out of a law which has been stated by our law authorities here—because I know no other law authorities whom we should consult but the law officers of the Crown —to give us ample power to legislate. They have said that there is no doubt, and we have not had the great legal authority produced which states that there is a doubt. I think the hon gentlemen opposite are bound to tell us who their great constitutional lawyer is, who says that there is this doubt, because by and bye, and very soon perhaps, we shall be able to test his opinion by a still higher authority, even than the law officers whose opinions have been laid on tbe table of this House, And I think, when it is said that these doubts exist, against the authority of men whose legal opinions have certainly been respected in the country, it is at least fair that these hon gentlemen should say what legal authority they depend upon. But, sir, the position they take is a wrong and humiliating position altogether. Even supposing there was a slight doubt as to the meaning of that Imperial Act at the time it was passed, still, if we thought it was for the good of the country that a law should be enacted here, we should pass it, and we should send it home. I am quite sure her Majesty would never be advised to veto any Act we chose to pass to amend our constitution, and that the Imperial Parliament would not undertake any further interference with our legislation. The colony has grown together from one end to the other ; we are now united by steam and by electricity; and one Government and Parliament can more easily govern this country than one Parliament and one Government could govern England in the days of our grandfathers ; and yet we are told that the country cannot be governed unless an exceptional system which arose out of necessities that have ceased to exist, is kept up in this country. I can barely understand how honorable gentlemen arrive at the conclusion that the provincial form of government is necessary in New Zealand if it is not necessary in any other colony in the world, or in any other country almost in the world—for it was a most ingenious scheme, adapted to a most exceptional and temporary state of things. We have, as I said before, come to a time when there must be a change. It is not from these benches that any reproach will be thrown upon the administrators of the system that has hitherto existed. No men will be moie ready to recognise what has been done in the provinces—none will be more ready to recognise the ability and the public spirit of the men who have hitherto conducted those affairs—than the occupants of these benches. Surely it is not from men who have themselves been interested from the first in the provincial system of administration that such reproaches are likely to come. I believe I am speaking rightly when I say there is not a member on these benches who has not been at one time or another a member of a Provincial Government. I do not think it is likely they would complain that the provinces had been neglected or maladministered by those who

have endeavored to do their best with the system that has existed. But it is no reason, because things have been done well, that there should not be a change when the necessities of the country require one. We do not say that it is because there has been maladministration in the provinces from the first, that therefore they must be swept away, nor can those on the other side siy that because the provinces have been, to a certain extent, successful when that form of government was necessary therefore they must exist for ever. I do not suppose there was ever a time when some of the qualities of the English race came out more nobly than they did in the dajs of the Heptarchy; hut that was no reason why the Heptarchy should have existed for ever. The public works and the immigration that have been carried on during the last five years have advanced us almost a generation in the progress of civilization, and we now want to bring our political machinery to a level with our social condition.. Last year the truth of this was recognised, and resolutions were passed instructing the Government to prepare measures for abolishing the provinces in the North Island. But since those resolutions were passed, the cry has come from one end of New Zealand to the other, “ If any are abolished, all must be abolished.” It came first from the North, and it then came from the South. [“ No, no.”] I appeal, Sir, to the official heads of the provinces in the South. I say that it came from the Superintendent of Otago, who said, “ All or none.” It came also from the Superintendent of Canterbury, who said, “All or none.” And there was absolutely no alternative left to the Government, if they were to do their duty, but to bring down a measure applicable to all. It was necessary that the measure should be prepared for abolishing all the provinces—for altering the system at the same time all over the country—not only because such a course was called for, but because the Government recognised the justice of that call; for when they came to look into the matter, to examine into how the thing was to be done, it was found it would be neither fair nor just, in a financial or administrative point of view, to attempt to make a different Constitution for each island. The Government, on considering the matter, determined also that it would not only not be their duty, but it would not be right, to attempt to set up a nother paper Constitution. Their duty was to prepare such a measure as was absolutely necessary for the time, and to clear the way for building up another Constitution, which should grow with our growth, and be moulded to our necessities year by year. We had to consider too what we had to leave, and what we had to alter. I will give two distinct reasons, which I think the House will consider sufficient for our having retained the name and the fact of provincial districts. That is an expression which has been very much criticised, and there may appear cause on the first blush for accusing the Government of inconsistency in abolishing provinces, and yet keeping provincial districts. These are the two reasons for our doing so —First, there is a mass of legislation which has grown up in the various provinces, and in each province only extending over the territory of that province, which it would have been more than folly—it would have been midsummer madness—to have attempted to alter and consolidate in one session. It was necessary to leave that mass of legislation existent in each province until it was repealed in time, and until gradual consolidation could take place. That reason alone was sufficient for retaining the provincial districts; but there was another, and it was the question of the land revenue. Now, I am not going to talk about the compact of ’56, but of something that came before that so-called compact, and on which it was founded. It is the real principle on which the land laws of this country, from one end to the other, have been based si .ce that time. When that so-called compact of ’56 was made there was a great difference of opinion as to the two principles which should regulate the land laws. One was that you could put a nominal value on the land, which was supposed to be its intrinsic value ; and the other was, that there was no such thing as an intrinsic value of the land—that it had no value in itself, and the only value it could attain to was that given to it by affording means of access and putting people upon it. That was the real underlying principle of the Wakefield theory, and I may say that it is not dependent upon the price of tbe land at all, or upon whether it is disposed of for cash or by means of deferred payment. These are immaterial considerations, comparatively, to the main principle that the so-called price of the land is the contribution that the purchaser pays towards getting access to the land, and putting people on it. That is the basis of the whole land legislation of New Zealand, and of the compact of 1856, and upon that basis the different provinces have legislated, acted, and calculated up to the present time. It would therefore not only be an injustice and cause confusion worse confounded to attempt now to adopt any other principle, but it would strike at the root of as sound a principle of political economy as has ever been enunciated. These are two very good reasons for retaining what we call in this Bill provincial districts. The next point we come to in the Bill is one which I must say has been very much misrepresented —I hope unintentionally—from one end of the colony to the other : I mean the following provision : “ Until the end of the next session of the General Assembly, the Governor may from time to time delegate all or any of such powers, duties, and functions either to the person who immediately before the abolition of a province hereunder was the Superintendent of such abolished province, or to such person or persons as the Governor may think fit, and that either without restriction or subject to such restrictions or conditions as the Governor may think fit.” I should like to give the House the history of that clause. When the Government began to realise what were the difficulties before them, and what work would fall upon them in* the mere turning over of the work of the provincial departments to those of the General Government, they naturally felt that no men could better assist the country and assist the Government in. that work than the men who had. charge of the departments previously. Just, as when a business„firm turns ovqr. its business . to another firm, surely thq men who had carried pn the business before would be the best to conduct the transfer. The Government, therefore, thought that they could fairly depend upon and call upon the public spirit of the Superintendents to assist them at such a crisis That was the reason why the Government

first turned to the Superintendents, and proposed that the delegation should be made lo them, in order that they might assist at the transfer of .the provincial departments to ihe General Government. We also thought it was possible that some Superintendents could not or would not help us, and it was therefore necessary to make provision to enable some person who had the knowledge to do the work. But this is certainly not a point to which the Government is pledged. They felt bound to say to the House what they thought the most convenient plan, but it is not a main principle of the Bill, or one that they are bound to insist upon. I haye thought and still think, that we have a right to call upon the public spirit of the Superintendents to assist us in this work. We do not suppose for one moment that the Superintendents would care to become what has been called the nominees of the Government, We should be very sorry indeed to suppose that we should not see them again in this House. It would indeed be a melancholy sight to see these veteran gladiators coming up one by one and addressing you, you, sir, solemnly, “ Morituri te salutant,” if we did not hope to see them appear again in this arena. I am sure we shall see them fighting in other battles with the same vigor and the same weapons as of old—the man with the net and the man with the noose—and certainly the provocator will not be wanting. My honorable friend the member for Avon seemed to speak of the proposal to hand over their own revenues to municipalities and other local bodies, and to give them a share of the consolidated revenue, which is very largely raised in the centres of population, as a system that could not be long carried out. Now, there have been great debates in England and much controversy upon this question, which has been lately raised, and it has been more and more held that rates should be consolidated, and that part of the taxes should be distributed among the local districts, That is a doctrine gaining ground' in England, and I think we have taken the fairest measure of the amount of the revenue raised by taxes that ought to be given to those different bodies, by taking the amount for which they are prepared to rate themselves as the amount to which they should be assisted out of the consolidated fund. We are not going to give them the land fund, for we consider it to be a special property, to be devoted to special purposes ; but I cannot understand on what principle of reason it is held that where large masses of men are congregated together in different parts of the country, and doing their share of the work of the country under conditions that require large expenditure for sanitary purposes, they not get a fair share of the consolidated revenue,- which is derived from their own taxation, in order to enable them to save life; for I maintain that they have not been able as yet to give those decencies of life which make towns commonly healthy. We propose to give them only what we consider their fair share of the amount that they themselves have paid to the taxation of the country, so that they may provide the necessaries which will keep themselves and their children in healthy life. I do not think that any outlying district in the country will grudge the municipalities their fair share of the taxes, which are so largely raised in the municipalities. The gold field revenue we propose to hand over absolutely to the gold fields, I think that it is only reasonable that whatever taxation is levied from the miners should go to facilitate the work of the miners, and to open up mining districts. I must say I think the hon member for Dunstan took a very reasonable view of that matter in the remarks he made upon it. The hon member for Parnell made some observations —a confession I may say—about the capitation grants. It has been said that the provinces have’given up looking at the capitation grant as a grant for keeping up certain departments, and that they consider they have a right to spend it as they like. This view has arisen from the fact that as a matter of account the Treasury has been in the habit of withholding a proportion of these grants for complaint that a portion has been withheld for the payment of the interest on provincial loans. Now, the hon gentleman said that that was the particular reason for which the capitation was given— I hope I do not misrepresent him ; —that the capitation was given to pay provincial loans. It has been a long time suspected that such an idea existed, but I ( never heard it coolly asserted before by a Provincial Treasurer. Another assertion was that the municipalities and road districts would find the grants made to them by the Government dwindle away just as the capitation grant did ; but the hon gentleman chose to forget entirely that when the capitation grant was reduced very large provincial charges were taken over by the General Government. I was looking over some returns the other day, and I am perfectly satisfied that the bargain was a very good one for the provinces. The hon member for Akaroa, whose remarks and criticisms were, I am bound to say, from his point of view, very fair and candid, made, I think, some very remarkable suggestions. He suggested, or appeared to suggest, that the £2 for £1 to be given to some Road Boards was not to be compared to the amount they were now receiving out of grants from provinces, and he quoted as instances several Road Boards of Banks’ Peninsula. I know these bays very well —I knew them, long before the hon member did —and they used to be considered very hardly treated bays ; but, fortunately for them, of late Canterbury has had a Superintendent who has taken a special interest in them, and still more fortunately for them they have now as representative in this Assembly, a gentleman who had a very large share of influence in the Provincial Council, and hence they have been very well treated bays lately. I think those bays will still be very well treated, but instead of being dependent upon what may be done for them by the Provincial Council they will have a fixed income of their own, and will, over and above that, have their fair share of whatever land revenue remains. We are not taking one iota from the land revenue that is not already taken from it by law ; we will not make one charge on the land revenue that is not already made on it by law ; but we have taken care that whatever may ultimately be the share_ of land revenue given to the districts or shires they shall at any rate have a certain amount of fixed income : that is the real position of affairs. The hon member corrected, and I think very justly, the hon member for Parnell in bis unfortunate remarks about the Waimate Road Board, and he pointed out that that Board had a very considerable amount of money in the bank, an amount which certainly precluded any idea of poverty ; but the hon member forgot to add

that the Board possessed this very large sum of money because this district happened to be in a part of the country which had been take n to some extent out of the provincial system. The Waimate district is within the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works district, which is one of the first instances of a county in New Zealand; and the very great wealth of this road district is due in a great measure to that fact, as well as to the large laud sales in the locality. Another very important provision in the Bill that has been taken exception to by the hon?member for Avon, is the clause which enables the Government to issue Treasury bills where the land revenue is deficient and thus to equalise the amounts of land revenue that may be received from any particular district over aS(ti is of years. It is not proposed by this measure, as has been said, to add to the loan, but it is intended to provide that in the case of certain districts, where there is a large area of land that will come into the market within a few years, the Government shall be enabled to distribute the expenditure of the proceeds of that land over a series of years, instead of leaving a district to be starved one year and to be in affluent circumstances the next. It is admitted that the Queen’s Government must be carried on, and it is a great deal better to dp that by a fixed and regular system, than by giving small eleemosynary doles to one province, aud to be wrangling with another province as to how much it may .subsist upon. It was far better to say at once—“ If you are unable to find funds this year, we will ease the matter for you; we will find you money, but you shall repay it by-and-by, when you have proceeds from land sales Jto pay it with that is a far juster and fairer way of dealing than by so-called advances to the provinces, made irregularly from time to time in order to carry on the government of the country. There is one more matter, and only one more, connected with this Bill, which I shall dwell upon. The clause which gives the Governor in Council power to make regulations has been greatly misrepresented. It is to be remembered that we have to provide for a state of transition which will only last a few months, and we have to organise some machinery for doing the work of the country until the legislation which is imperatively necessary can be introduced into this House; and therefore it is that the Government have, with great reluctance, taken on themselves this responsibility, which we know will be more damaging-to them than to any other person in this country. If we could have seen any way of getting out of this responsibility, I assure you, Sir, we would not have undertaken it; but, as we did not see our way out of it, we were determined not to shirk the responsibility. The departments that are being taken over from the provinces are departments which I do not think any one would assert could be better administered piecemeal than as a whole. Ido not mean to contend for a moment that local administration should cease, but that these departments should be administered as a whole rather than piecemeal. Because we regard the land revenue as a whole, it does not follow that the whole administration should cease to be local; the administration of the land fund must be local. When we speak of surveys, does anyone for a moment contend that the surveys have been better carried out because they have been done piecemeal? It will be admitted that a general scheme of surveys is necessary. If we speak of the gaols, will it be denied for one moment that our system of gaol administration is most imperfect 1 Ido not wish to throw any blame on the gaol officers ; on the contrary, I wish to speak in the highest terms of praise of the manner in which they have performed their duties, under difficulties which only those who know the circumstances can appreciate—under a system which is rotten to the core. I think it is absolutely necessary that the gaols should be conducted on a general plan. Will it be maintained that it is better to have the police administered piecemeal, on a system that has been described as hounding criminals from one province to another ?—and I speak advisedly when I say that this has been done. Is it well to conduct education without regard to the necessities of the whole colony 7 In all the provinces some efforts have been made to educate the children, but it is not right that in some provinces there should be ample means for carrying on education, and in others scarcely any. I say that this is not right, and it is a state of things that will recoil on the country,and especially on those provinces that have not educational advantages. Then, sir, comes the question of the time. It is said we must wait; we must hang up this measure which we have brought before the country. We declare that it is imperatively necessary that the change should take place; the question has been prominently before the country for a year, but yet we must wait. As I said before, with reference to administration by Orders in Council, if the Government consulted their own interests, if they merely—as it is the fashion to say of Governments—cared to stick to these benches, they would hang up the Bills and go to the country. If they were satisfied “—— animam prseferre pudori,

Bt, propter vitam, vivendi perdere cauaaa”— if they did not care what would happen afterwards, it would be a Terj good thing to go with such a cry of reform to the country. Sir, I assert that no honest Government dare come down and propose to do such a thing. We have declared positively we believe this change to be necessary ; we believe that it would be absolutely dangerous to let the country remain in the state it is now in ; indeed we believe a scramble would take place within a year that would ruin the finances of the country. Yet we are asked to wait; we are told it will be easy and pleasant for us to wait and go to the country ; but we are not prepared to do anything of the kind. I believe that when the country has weighed the circumstances of the case, and when they have carefully considered them—they are considering them every day—and know the position we are in, whether they may praise or blame the Government for what they have done in this matter, they will at any rate be satisfied that there is no time to lose—no time to rest until we shall have cleared the way for a better system of legislation. I think there are two courses open to this Parliament, The present Parliament has not yet had the opportunity of doing any great deed. The last Parliament initiated a system of public works and immigration, and a system of pacification in this island, which, I; believe, advanced us a generation in civilization : it is for this Parliament now to complete the work. They have but two alternatives before them—either to do their duty and earn the gratitude of the generation that is to follow them, or else to retire into obscurity, covered with the ignominy that punishes cowardice.