New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1875.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4322, 27 January 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1875.

The telegraphic summary of Mr. O'Rorke's speech, which we published yesterday, is quite as remarkable for what it suggests as for what it tells the public. Inferentially, we conclude that the charge brought against the Premier of acting under feelings of irritation, and without due' deliberation, is: disposed of byMr. O'Rorke's public confession. The Abolition- resolutions were considered in Council at least twice, and on one of these occasions Mr. O'Rorke, after an hour's discussion, succeeded in convincing one of his colleagues that his duty was to resign if the Premier persisted. This gentleman, however, changed his mind, and when the question next came:up for consideration,..he "actually supported " the proposal:and pressed it forward." Who i 3 this member of the Cabinet, distinctly charged by Mr. O'Rorke with breaking his word, with deceiving him,' and carrying his deception to the last moment, leaving the member for Onehunga alone as a standing -protest in favor of provincial institutions ? We think this is- a - charge- 'that should be promptly-met by the gentleman pointed at; because,: although ' every man has a perfoct right to reconsider his opinion on any public question, and-to change it if ho thinks fit, there would be an end of all honorable confidence and trust in public life were personal deception, of the kind distinctly alleged by Mr. O'Rorke as having occurred, to pass without the strongest public condemnation. This is a personal question in one sense, but it is a public question in another. We regard it in the latter aspect. So far as-it is a personal matter between Mr. O'Rorke and his late colleagues, we do not value it ono pin's point ; but so far as the honor and veracity of Ministers are concerned, the public have a distinct right to see the matter sifted to the bottom. It may bo, that the coloring put upon the transaction is not warranted by'the facts; if so, so much the/worse for Mr. O'Rorke ; but the. accusation has been made, .and it should be refuted, if refutation is at all possible. The apology made in an evening ; newspaper yesterday cannot be accepted by any honorable man. >..-:, Leaving the personal /matter imported into his speech by Mr. O'Rorke, and coming to its pith, we cannot say that wo feel ourselves strongly impressed by what he said. Either the telegram does him injustice, or his ideas were very confused. What, for example, does Mr. O'Rorke mean by saying that. f' on voting for the " resolutions the large provinces were u outvoted by the small ones 1" Ho explains himself in :this wise, but the explanation only makes the proposition all the more unintelligible : "The Su- " perintendents of Otago, Canterbury, "Wellington, Auckland, and Nol- " son, representing 287,000 people, " voted as ono man against it, whilst

!" the.'.Superintendent? iof- Marlborough '"• and Hawke's Bay, representing 10,000, t'&were for it." Does Mr.: O'RorkK mean ! to say that the voting was taken by provinces? To suggest such, a thing is pimply absurd.. Superintendents arounknown to the Assembly, except when they happen to be representatives of eloctoral districts; and they vote, > as such representatives, and not as Superintendents. The'gentlemen specified, therefore, instead of representing .287,000 people, represented- only- 2,750 electors. , Tliib will appear from the following figures, taken from the electoral rolls for 1873-4: „•,. . No. of . • . District. • Electors. Mr. Macandrew, Port Chalmers .'.' ..'. 503 Mr. Rolleston, Avon TrT Mr. Fitzueruert, Hult ... •■ .. •• ' *•>< Mr. Williamson, Auckland City West (i) . %0 . Mr. Curtis, Nelson (J) aSQ There are two members for Auckland City West, and two for Nelson City. Of the former, although Mr. Gillies voted against the partial abolition of Provincial Government, he was in favor of its total abolition, in opposition to Mr. "Williamson, who believes in provincialism under every aspect. Mr. Luckie, the second member for Nelson, voted for the resolutions ; and Mr. Curtis's speeches might be cited to prove that he believes in Superintendentalism only so long as ho happens to be a'Superintendent. But Mr. O'Eorke's pretentious speech, ,that the Superintendents of the five largo provinces represent 287,000 people in the House of Representatives, is the [veriest bombast when submitted to the test of' actual fact.

! .But in another.point of view, how can the five members in question be said to be outvoted by threo mombers—not two, as in the telegram, for the Superintendent of Taranaki voted for the resolution. The statement is simply absurd. It sounded big, however, and to the unthinking may have appeared incontrovertible ; but on second thoughts, we suspect Mr. O'Borke will be heartily ashamed of having "said anything so silly. However, it is a. note worthy and significant fact, that this gentleman, who has been held up as the Bayard of provincialism, should coolly ignore the House of Representatives and the electorate of.; the colony, and treat the Superintendents of provinces as possessing, and in fact as exercising, the entire Legislative power in the General Assembly, in much the same way as they.exercise the entire Executive power in the provinces. If Mr. O'Rorke's remarks on this point have any significance at all, if they are worth a moment's consideration, this is the meaning that must be attached to them. It is a strained one unquestionably; but it relieves the lion, member from the imputation of speaking a vast quantity of nonsense, by suggesting that he broached the idea of subordinating the constitutional guarantees of the people to the will of elected Superintendents. This would certainly be a dangerous power to invest them with. That they aim at it, we have not a shadow of doubt l .; that Mr. O'Roeke; in a moment of sanguine enthusiasm, assumed their aim an accomplished fact, must also be recognised ; but that they are doomed to bitter disappointment is the only certainty in case. . ' ~ -' < \

Mr.O'RoRKE •" objected to an experi"ment being made at the expense of "Auckland." If that refers to the Abolition resolution, even as it stands, the objection is groundless. The experi-> ment is to be made at the expense of the North Island, and Auckland will have Wellington, Taranaki, and Hawke's Bay keeping it company; We fail to see whaK better position Auckland-would be in, for the purpose of a political experiment, if the Middle Island bore the North Island company. There may bo other reasons why partial abolition should not be resorted to ; but these involve considerations of policy, while Mr. O'Rorke's objection is purely sentimental.

Then, with regard to Mr. O'Rorke's "further " objection to Wellington being "affirmed thepermanent Seat of Govern- ," ment," it comes rather late. He joined Mr. Vogel's Government after the permanent retention of the Seat of Government in Wellington, had been declared to' be a fixed part of the policy of the Government—just as Mr. T. B. Gillies, Superintendent of Auckland, joined Mr. Stafford's Government, which made a similar declaration. The Seat of Government will remain in Wellington so long as the people of Wellington are true to themselves, and act in a fair and generous spirit towards the rest of the colony ; but when they fail in . the performance of those duties, whether Mr. O'Rorke objects or not, efforts will be made to remove it. .'-,.. ...