DECLINE OF PROVINCIALISM.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume 6, Issue 317, 23 October 1865, Page 1

DECLINE OF PROVINCIALISM.

(From the Daily Times, Oct. 4.) The system of Provincial Government seems to be on its last legs. It stands condemned by its practical results. Under the New Provinces Act almost fatal facilities have been offered for political disintegration, and the erection into a sort of semi-political independence of territories unequal to the task of maintaining the institutions of self-govern-ment, and still more incapable of making adequate provision for the prosecution of public works and other measures necessary to advance the development of those great material interests upon which the prosperity of young countries depends. No more notable illustration of the viciousness of the system could he afforded than the history of a neighbouring Province, which clamored for separation, obtained separation, celebrated the anniversary of separation, and then suddenly collapsed and became bankrupt. In the interval, however, although it extended only over a year or two, an enormous amount of extravagant speculation had been entered into, and a heavy weight of public debt allowed to accumulate without assets to meet it. Not only is it a fact that Southland has almost helplessly crippled herself by the thoughtless and improvident use of the powers of self-government conferred upon it by its charter of “independence,” but its recklessness of action has imperilled the public credit of the Colony. The principle on which the system of separate provincial governments rests, appears to be in many respects essentially unsound. The old countries of Europe have grown to greatness upon stable foundations. The process has been marked by the natui'al and progressive development of great permanent interests. In the provincial system, as we have it in operation amongst ourselves, the demand for separation and independence has arisen out of some special, and—in many instances it has proved—exceptional and temporary prosperity. There has been a forced growth, not a natural development of strength. Where the elements of prosperity have proved permanent, the result has not been on the whole unfortunate. But in the instances in which a more than ordinarily brilliant day-spring has been rapidly succeeded by clouds and storms, there has come the season for repentance. In the early days of the Colony, provincialism meant what it can never mean again, in its history. In a country comprising widely separated coast settlements with few opportunities of inter-communication, the necessity was urgent for a machinery of local administration. But this could hardly be said to involve any dealing with political questions with parliamentary and ministerial government; with land policies; or with loans for public works. It is just in proportion as the Provinces of New Zealand have become connected by intimate ties, political and commercial, and have approximated to a national consolidation, that the unsound features of the provincial system have revealed themselves. There are doubtless provinces entirely capable of standing by themselves, if allowed to enjoy to the full their own resources, and if exempted from all responsibilities but those strictly proper to them. But the tendency to an infinitesimal subdivision is one deserving to be strongly resisted. The great want of the Colony is a consolidation of interests and a unity of Government. As the fringe of settlement gradually extends along the coast line, the necessity becomes daily more sensibly felt for a system of Government that shall deal with the Colony—or with each natural division of it—as a whole, with wants to be cared for on grounds of general and not local and sectional interests. A uniform law, and a combined system of action in the prosecution of great undertakings would seem to be one of the vital conditions of any country possessing a nominal political unity. Such a uniformity of law, practice, and enterprise, it is an impossibility to realise under the existing Provincial system; and it cannot be wondered at that the disposition generally manifested by the Assembly, is to repeal or

modify in some essential respects, the law as it now stands. Under this law any number of persons constituting a certain proportion of electors in a district possessing a port, &c., can petition for Separation, and the Governor is bound to grant it, under ordinary circumstances. The Government, at the commencement of the Session, introduced a Bill into the Assembly, authorising the Governor in Council to refuse the prayer of any petition for Separation in any case in which proof should not be produced that the interests of the petitioning district had been neglected by the Government of the Province from which it sought separation. That was the first attempt made at a stand against the tendency to dismemberment, which the recent history of the Colony has displayed. It was of course understood to he made in the interests of Canterbury and Wellington as a sop to those two provinces, which were threatened by petitions for separation from the districts of Hokitika in the one case, and of Wanganui in the other. Our Wellington correspondent has sufficiently explained the Parliamentary tactics by which this measure was defeated, with a view to the adoption of the “ Hew Provinces Act” introduced by Mr Macandrew. The Bill proposed by the member for Bruce, virtually repealed the existing law, without giving the Governor the discrepower proposed to be conferred on him by the Ministerial measure. It made the Assembly, uot the Executive, the tribunal before which petitions for separation should be made. It provided that for the failure no new Province should be erected, except by a special Act of the Legislature. According to it, the claims of any district demanding separation were to fairly and openly discussed iu the Parliament of the Colony, the petitioners showing cause, and the other side showing cause in opposition. The specialty of the meesure that recommended it, was the limit it set upon the application of the principle of Separation without withholding it as a measure of relief in the case of any district that could establish, in an open court of Parliament, a substantial grievance. It will he remembeied that this Bill lapsed when the motion for its second reading came on recently iu the House of Representatives, through the withdrawal of their support by the Otago members ou grounds connected with Parliamentary tactics. By our last Wellington advices we learn, however, that the motion for the second reading had again been made an order of the day, and that on Friday last it was carried by a majority of twenty-seven votes to fifteen. The second reading of the Bill was supported by Mr Burns, Mr Crosbie Ward, Mr Stafford, Mr Gracroft Wilson, Mr Reynolds, and other members. In the division list we find the names of Mr Dillon Bell, Mr Brodie, and Major Richardson, and other members of the Government in the House, recorded against the Bill. What is really affirmed by the measure is not that the Provincial system should cease or that complaining districts should he deprived of the opportunity of being erected into new Provinces, but that districts with grievances should come to Parliament for redress, and have a perfect right to claim Separation after the establishment of their case before the Graud Inquest of the Nation. As a check to the undue tendency to provincialism, without involving any revolutionary change in the political system of the Colony, the enactment of this measure may be regarded as a healthy piece of practical legislation. We subjoin the text of the Bill, which has been read a second time by a large majority in the House of Representatives. “ L The short title of this Act shall be ‘ The New Provinces Act, 1865.’ 11. From and after the passing of this Act, no new Provinces shall be created or established within the Colony of New Zealand, unless by special Act of the Legislature, anything contained in * The New Zealand Provinces Act, 1865/ to the contrary hereof notwithstand-