New Zealand Times. MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4291, 21 December 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. MONDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1874.

Whether one agrees with Mr, Sewell or not, no one can regret his having written, “ for publication,” the letter to Mr. Wynn Williams, of Christchurch, which wo reprinted in Saturday’s issue. It comes, most opportunely, like a voice from the Past, Mr. Sewell has withdrawn from political life in the colony : but his memory is a storehouse whence he can draw to illustrate any position he may feel inclined to assume on public questions. He was for many years an active and leading politician ; clever, restless, untiring, courageous, and versatile to a remarkable degree;—what the Germans would call a “many-sided “man.” These qualities, invaluable in Opposition, rendered him a most undesirable colleague in any Ministry, where subordination to its Chief, loyalty to colleagues, and a reasonably continuous adhesion to a given line of policy, are necessary to harmonious action. It is within the memory of juniors in political life in Now Zealand, that Mr. Sewell was perhaps the strongest opponent of a Government of which he was a member while ho retained a seat in the Cabinet, not from any wilful desire to embarrass his colleagues, wo feel convinced, but because his active mind and energetic temperament were unequal to the dignified inaction which was properly the part of a new-made Minister of Justice having a seat in the Legislative Council, but who had in reality little or nothing to do with the judicial branch of the public service. Mr. Sewell’s characteristic eccentricities, however, were too much for the Premier, who requested him to resign, finding it impossible to keep him pnder proper restraint. Mr. Sewell thereupon assumed the position of political censor, and until

his filial withdrawal from public life, he certainly made things uncomfortable’ for the swift-changing Government, which has at last crystaliscd in its present form, under Mr. Vogel’s hand. The Colony, however, will not regret that Mr. Sewell has followed the example of Sir George Geey, and emerged from his privacy to say a word on the political questions presently engaging the public mind.

We differ from Mr. Sewell on some points, and we agree with him on others. Indeed, it would hardly bo possible for any man of Mr. Sewell’s political experience and command of language, to write at such length as he has done, without introducing debateable matter; and it is to be regretted that throughout he writes as a partizan, rather than with that judicial calmness one would naturally expect from his position as an unimpassioned looker-on. This is the great blemish of his letter. Re cannot forget his antagonism to Mr. Vogel. This colors every line of his otherwise valuable criticism of public affairs. He sees nothing in the proposal to abolish provincial institutions in the North Island except a discreditable political trick to divert public attention from colonial finance. Starting from this point, it is not difficult to follow him to the conclusion at which he arrives, namely, that under the present Government the colony is bound to come to ruin. It we believed this, as Mr. Sewell certainly does, we should go with him in au endeavor to avert the fatal consequences which he thinks are impending. But we do not believe in the correctness of Mr. Sewell’s theory. We know something of the history of the “abolition resolu- “ tions,” and certainly a desire to shirk discussion on colonial finance was not one of the moving causes. Indeed, a moment’s reflection must satisfy Mr. Sewell that tho proposal to abolish Provincial Government in tho North Island, for the avowed reason that the northern provinces are unable to discharge their functions without grants in aid from the Colonial Treasury, necessarily opens up the whole question of Colonial finance. Nay, more, it has already done so. Mr. Sewell himself has entered very largely into that question in his letter ; it was touched upon in the House ; it has been commented on, in the same connection, by Ministers and members of the Legislature since the prorogation ; and it has been considered, more or less, by every newspaper in the colony. If Mr. Sewell be correct in his theory, therefore, Mr. Vogel must be charged with political fatuity of the most incomprehensible character. But Mr. Sewell is wrong on this cardinal point, and his reasoning thereanent falls to the ground. _ ■ We shall only advert to the public-debt argument with which Mr. Sewell leads off his attack upon the Government policy. Tho colony is perfectly solvent; —of that there can bo no two opinions, and wo deeply regret that a gentleman of the high standing and character of Mr. Sewell should even insinuate the possibility that New Zealand would not keep faith with the public creditor. “I have “ not,” he writes, “ deducted the sinking “ fund, because my object being to point “ out our present annual liability, “ the sinking fund will not be an “ item of deduction. In something “ less than thirty years we shall, by “ means of the sinking fund—if we keep “it up—have liquidated, or been the “ means of liquidating, our present public “ debt.” Now, the meaning of this is obvious. It throws a doubt on the good faith of the colony. A sinking fund for the extinction of the public debt is part of the legal security of the public creditor, and to fail to “keep it up,” as Mr. Sewell hints is more than possible, would simply amount to repudiation ; —an ugly word to use, but the only one which conveys, iu concrete, the idea which Mr. Sewell has enveloped in a cloud of words covering a fallacy in finance. We protest against any imputations of this character, covert or open, against the honor and credit of the colony.

But Mr. Sewell’s comment on the nature and scope of ‘ 1 the Compact of “ 1856,” is of a different character. He understands the question thoroughly,— much bettor than most people who speak and write glibly about it; and he writes dispassionately, having no constituents to propitiate, or party obligations to respect. His review of the political situation, resulting from the proposal to abolish Provincial Government in the North Island, is marked by a keen perception of the outlying questions which must modify the policy of the Government, when Legislative effect is sought to be given to the resolutions of last session. Indeed, this part of Mr. Sewell’s letter deserves careful consideration by every xniblic man in the colony. Touching the now famous resolutions of 1850, the view which Mr. Sewell puts forward is one that must commend itself to every candid person, but it is also in marked contrast with the reported public utterances of Mr. Reynolds, at Dunedin, and more recently still, of Mr. Bowen, at Kaiapoi. We have already commented upon Mr. Reynolds’ speech. Mr. Bowen is reported in the Lyttelton Times to have said, that “he would not agree to any “ legislation which would place the “ South in a worse position with re- “ gard to its land revenue than it was “at present.” At the same time, ho argued that Canterbury and Otago should retain their provincial form of government, “as they had revenues of their “own, which were well administered,” whereas the Northern provinces should be abolished, because “ they had no “ revenues of their own to keep up their “ establishments.” Mr. Sewell replies to these stock arguments regarding the land fund, with much clearness and power ; and in the main we agree with him. There is a difference in name, but there is no difference in kind, between provincial establishments maintained by the sale of the public estate, and similar establishments maintained out of the Consolidated Fund. Of the two, the former is the more objectionable, and for the reason that it is simply living uponcapital, which is constantly diminishing, whereas in the latter case, it is living upon revenue derived from taxation. Wherefore, we conclude, that in the interest of economy, it were better to make a clean sweep of provincial institutions, and replace them by something less pretentious but equally effective for purposes of administration.