THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, NOV. 6, 1862.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 71, 6 November 1862, Page 2

THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, NOV. 6, 1862.

Self-government, so called, lias now had a probation of nearly ten years in this Colony, a period during which the complicated machinery of the double system of legislature, central and provincial, has had sutheient opportunity to exhibit its qualities, good or evil, to show by its working what are the features that require modification or alteration, what should be retained in any proposed reform, and what rejected. That it has not answered the expectations of its originators, we think will he admittedThat in many most important points it has failed to work harmoniously or beneficially—that it has also proved an excessively costly scheme, is likewise true —in fact it is the opinion of her Majesty's Government that but for the character of the colonists among whom it has been in operation, a system so vicious might have been productive of more serious evil than it has. With the various dead locks that have occurred in nearly all the Provincial Councils from time to time, occasioned by the almost equally balanced power of the equally despotic Superintendents and Councils, —from that of Wellington, which favored us with the first instance, to that of Marlbo-

rough, (one of the new Provinces) where we have a second Superintendent elected hy the Council before the resignation of the first, —our readers are doubtless familiar, and it becomes a question of considerable importance to the electors, how may the acknowledged evils of the existing system be removed or mitigated ? The battle between the advocates of “ a strong central Government” and those of a complete provincial system, that was fought at the introduction of the new regime will be well remembered by many, and the sort of half compromise which inflicted too much of both on the Colony may ho regarded as one great source of the evils under which we labor. This battle, from all that yet appears to the contrary, is to be fought over once again, the absolute necessity of a reform having become quite apparent in consequence of the failure of the existing system to meet the requirements of the colony. AVe have always been favorable to the provincial system, though we freely admit that it was capable of extensive improvements. A priori it is sufficiently evident that in a country where the centres of population are so scattered, and the communication between distant parts is of so difficult a nature as it is in New Zealand, a very extensive localization of the powers of government is necessary —at least, until these difficulties are in a groat measure removed by population in the intermediate portions, and the opening up of the country by means of roads, railways, telegraphs, and steam vessels—necessarily a work of time. We do not believe that the time for the abolition of the Provincial Governments is yet come, nor even for any very groat diminution of their powers, and we think a calm reference to the proceedings of the late General Assembly will bo quite sufficient to bear us out in this view,—which were, as a whole, far from being of such a character as would tend to elevate our ideas of its suitability for the requirements of the Colony. On this question, which, almost to the exclusion of all others, to which the attention of the Assembly was directed, the opinions of the public were not represented, and in the passing of the Native Lands Pill, the bill of the session, the prevailing idea seems to have been to support the false policy of conciliating (or attempting to conciliate) the native race rather than the interests of the European population, whose representatives they professedly were. One of the great objections to the provincial system brought forward by its opponents was founded on the fact of the Superintend, cuts being elected by (ho constituency. It, however, does not appear that the delegation of this power to the Council did much to remedy any of the evils complained of, rather, perhaps, it introduced others of a different nature. If, under the system pursued in the original provinces, the Superintendent, instead of acting as a wholesome check to the Council in keeping the interests of the Province as a whole in view against the local views and prejudices of the individual members, ho does sometimes overstep his legitimate bounds, and carry things by his own will in spite of them, it does not seem that 9 the new Provincial Councils are altogether free from the same danger, as the recent case at Marlborough seems to prove, while on the other hand, there is no danger of their becoming “ the mere tools of a party” in the council to whom they owe the honor of their seat. Nor does it seem that the view now advocated in certain quarters, and which was in great danger of becoming law during the late session of the General Assembly—that of nominee superintendents—would improve matters for the people, as this would offer more opportunities for patronage to the Governor for the time, and lead to the appointment of a class of men whose only fitness, for the office would consist in the fact that from previous military training they had learned how to obey their superior and tyrannize over all subordinate to them.

It is not, in our view, in either of these directions that the reform of the constitution is needed. We need no more splitting up of provinces, nor abstracting of political power from the people, the responsibility of superintendents to the constituency is better than to the Council, the patronage at present attaching to the office should be almost entirely removed, this, the great source of extravagance with the public funds-—the power to reward a supporter or silence an opponent by place and pay, is, and has been, the bane of both old and new Provincial Governments, and we see no reason to doubt that, this being removed, the Provincial system may yet be made the engine for the Government of the various parts of the colony with simplicity and economy as well as satisfaction to the constituencies—that it is capable of affording us enough of Government, and not, as at present, too much.