PROVINCIALISM V. CENTRALISM.

Marlborough Express, Volume IV, Issue 172, 24 April 1869, Page 5

PROVINCIALISM V. CENTRALISM.

Two years ago Provincialism in Auckland was supposed to be at its last gasp, and Mr Stafford significantly announced in the Assembly that he was prepared to bury it decently during the recess. Vigorous retrenchment, and the good fortune which flowed through the Thames _ goldfields, floated the almost stranded province, and so far from desiring to abolish-Provincialism, an attempt is now being made by the northern portion to get itself constituted —not into a municipality or county, under the patronage of the General Government—but into a province having the power to manage itself as it thinks best. Local Self-government may be extended to any degree under the provincial system. Road boards may be tried under it, and abandoned where not suitable. Municipalities may be created in conformity with local requirements, and, if found deshable, readily dispensed with. The elasticity of provincial institutions is such that all that the General Government can offer,Provincial Councils can offer also, with the additional advantage of legislating with more patiencq and adaptibility to purely local requirements. This feeling is strong all over the country, and its strength is shown by the insignificance of the petitions for Local Self-government presented last session, after the “ political pedlers” had been doing their best to decry the provinces. On no subject of general interest (says the Lyttelton Times') have the people of New Zealand heard so much, and on no subject has there been such diversity of opinion. Mr. Stafford’s famous declaration in his Nelson speech—that the table of the House of Representatives would groan with petitions in favor of Local Self-government—may he taken to

represent the extreme view on one side, and it becomes a question of very considerable interest to know how many petitions were actually presented during last session of the Assembly, from what districts they came, by how many persons they were signed, and by whom they were presented to the House. A day or two ago we* received the annual “ Journal of the House of Representatives,” and from certain entries therein we arc enabled to throw some light on the subjcct. We may remind our readers that the party in favor of Mr. Stafford’s Local Self-government scheme have frequently said that petitions signed by about 15,000 persons were presented in its favor. A very careful synopsis of each petition is there given, which shows that the signatures attached to the whole (thirty) of the petitions only numbered 4223, or (as the Times says) about one fifty-fifth of the European population of the colony. This estimate of “ one fifty-fifth” is, however, open to objection, because we have a right to presume that the 4223 “settlers” “inhabitants,” “rate-payers,” “landowners,” “electors,” and “highway trustees,” from whom the petitions are variously stated to have proceeded, were adult males, and the males of 21 years and upwards number only 80,122. Still the fact remains unquestionable, that—even if the petitions were bona fide, signed by persons entertaining strong convictions of the uselessness of Provincial Institutions—they are in the minority of one to nineteen ; when, however, it appears (as it does on further examination) that many of the petitions do not profess to be inimical to provincial institutions, but merely for extended power, the failure of the attempt to create a feeling in favor of Centralism becomes sufficiently marked to prove that the temper of the Colony is altogether inimical to this cardinal principle of the present Government.—lndependent.