MR MACANDREW’S RESOLUTIONS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 35, 23 September 1871, Page 2

MR MACANDREW’S RESOLUTIONS.

[lndependent, September 16.] We purposely abstained from expressing any opinion on Mr MEacandrew s resolutions until they had been explained in all their bearings by the mover himself. We felt it due to the importance of motions contemplating the greatest organic change ever proposed in the history of .New Zealand, no less than to the position of the hon gentleman as a politician, and the weight attaching to his utterances in that large and important part of the colony over which for the third time he presides as Superintendent, that his views and those of the leading politicians of the House should be as fully and faithfully reproduced as possible. We regret that in thus exceeding our usual limits we were compelled to omit altogether the far-seeing and eloquent remarks of Mr Fitzherbert, who spoke on the occasion with great earnestness and power. Confining his remarks to points omitted by previous speakers and thus, like the mover, “ setting an example to the younger members of the Housed he showed the danger that would result in the future from the adoption of Mr Macandrew’s resolutions. The speeches of the Hon. the Premier, the Hon. Mr Hall, and Mr Rolleston, it will be seen, point to their effect in the immediate future. Everyone who dispassionately considers the question must admit that the weight of argument is on their side, and must see that the ever-sanguine mover must submit to a defeat. All these leading politicians admit that our provincial institutions require simplification and remodelling; but it was evident that they looked to this being effected rather in the direction pointed out by the Colonial Treasurer in his financial statement than in that indicated by the resolutions. It must have been very gratifying to the Government to receive the congratulations of the Hon. Mr Hall on the teudency of their present policy, and to be so earnestly assured “ that he w.as so satisfied,especially since the delivery of the financial statement, with the progress that had been made by the Government,” that he was “ unwilling to accept this invitation of the hon member for Port Chalmers.” But great as their satisfaction must have been in receiving these expressions of confidence from one of their predecessors in office, the candid confession made bv Mr Rolleston was still more gratifying. The former gentleman, last session, took an active part along with all his colleagues, (save the two now no longer in the House), in perfecting the measures brought forward by the Government, aud has always been distinguished for progressive and practical views. The opinion, somewhat indecorously expressed by Mr Richmond, when a candidate for Wellington, that Mr Hall was the marplot of the Stafford Ministry, is now generally viewed as one of those hallucinations engendered by an over-weening self-esteem, from which Mr Richmond is now suffering a recovery in an enforced political retirement. The practical assistance given by Mr Hall to the colonising measures of last session, and the great interest he has always evinced, both in and out of Parliament, in the development of the resources of the colony, emphatically prove that if New Zealand made little or no progress under the Stafford administration, special blame cannot be imputed to him. If the coach did not move, he, at least, was no unwilling horse. Nor can anyone reflect on the energetic action taken by the Superintendent of Wellington lately so much applauded, as we noticed, by our Dunedin contemporaries—an action which he himself aptly described “ as resulting in measures the complement of the policy of the present Government”—without admitting that to Mr Fitzherbert no special blame is attributable. It redounds greatly to the honor of these two gentlemen that they have given most valuable assistance to their successors in office in carrying out a policy of progress, while some of their late colleagues have not reached the same height of magnanimity and patriotism. But while it must he gratifying to members to receive these expressions of confidence from Messrs Fitzherbert and Hall, it must have been a pleasurable

surprise for them to hear from Mr Rolleston’s own lips that the fears of “ a wild gambling policy,” of “ ruin to the colony,” which he shared in common with Mr Richmond, the present financial statement has entirely dispelled. “ tie was one of those,” is the hon gentleman’s candid admission, “ who, last session, when he heard the financial proposals of the Colonial Treasurer, felt, and felt very strongly, that the steps he proposed would prove disastrous to the colony; but the safeguards, of which they had intimation in the Treasurer’s recent statement, would tend to prevent the great scheme ending, as he had anticipated it would end, in ruin to the colony. As he understood the Colonial Treasurer’s statement, it did away with all hope in the minds of those who looked upon the scheme as a general scramble, in which they might gain largely at the expense and ruin of the colony. That statement withdrew all fear of that gambling tendency which was so much apprehended by those who were of his opinion in the last Parliament. It adopted a special system of securing that works should only he undertaken where there were special securities to offer, or where the population was prepared to guarantee payment for the works'on the principle of rating. He hoped the hon member, if he wished that further consideration should be given to these resolutions, would postpone the consideration of them until they had had time to consider the proposals of the Government.” In other words, the Colonial Treasurer has, in his opinion, succeeded in doing what Mr Stafford promised to do. He “has made the scheme a safe and prudent enterprise, instead of a mere reckless gambling speculation.”

Mr Reeves, who next followed, after showing the inopportuneness, thus very tersely demonstrated the impolicy of the motion:—“ The reason why it would he impolitic was because the colony had, for the first time, entered upon a period of colonisation which would ensure their prosperity. He never shared in the frightful delusions expressed by the hon member Mr Rolleston ; he could never see any extraordinary delusions in the policy of the Government. He believed in that policy from the first, and he believed in it now. He believed it would be of the greatest good to the colony, provided the schemes were properly carried out; and experience proved that the Government had taken the most proper measures in carrying out the work of the colony. For these reasons he should be obliged to vote against the House going into committee on the resolutions.” Thus from all sides of the House the financial statement was successfully pitted against Mr Macandrew’s resolutions. The lion, gentleman is not easily daunted, and will doubtless lead the forlorn hope of the insular separation party with ability and courage; but even he must see that the day for that has gone by. In not consulting the Government, of which lie is a supporter, before tabling these resolutions, lie acted with scant courtesy ; while in not taking into his confidence the members from the Middle Island, he has fallen into the mistake of the hon member for the City of Dunedin (Mr Reynolds) who, last session, tabled his separation resolutions even before many of the Otago members had reached Wellington. Organic changes will never be effected without preconcerted action, and we are surprised that a politician of Mr Macandrew’s high standing should ever have thought otherwise. We are glad that the Government should so early in the debate have taken so firm a stand, and have so bluntly explained to the hon member that his proposals are both antagonistic to their policy and dangerous to the colony. . If by Mr Macandrew’s defeat the question of insular separation is for ever set at rest, he will have unwittingly rendered a great public service, but one for which he is entitled to claim no credit, Mr Stafford, according to a contemporary, will bring forward a series of resolutions having reference to Provincial institutions, going much further than the Fox Ministry, and may therefore be expected to give some indication of his views on the resumption of the debate. “ The Provincial party,” we are also assured on the same authority, “ are conferring with a view to taking united action to defeat Ministers on that portion of the Budget that particularly relates to

them,” and before next Tuesday, we are further authoritatively informed, “ something like organisation will have been effected, and very probably the Government will have to encounter two hostile armies.”

After the story of the income tax, it is clear our contemporary does not enjoy the confidence of the Government, and this report of two hostile armies of provincialists and anti-pro-vincialists is, to say the least of it, extremely improbable. Being not only “ hostile” to the Fox Ministry, but necessarily hostile to each other, it is difficult to see what “ united action” they can take. Mr Macandrew may feel some irritation at the courteous but emphatic rebuff of the Premier during this debate, but he is not likely to join a hostile army of anti-provincialists headed by Mr Stafford. An army of provincialists, judging from the applause that greeted the utterances of the Colonial Treasurer on the question, we take leave to think exists only in that land of shadows where imaginary majorities, never-imposed income-taxes, “ appalling deficiences,” and “ wild, reckless, and gambling policies,” flit about in a dreadful phantasmagoria.