New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, JULY 24.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4476, 24 July 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, JULY 24.

The Address in Reply to the Governor’s Speech was carried in the House of Representatives last night without amendment or division. It was understood to be a formal matter, which committed members to no definite declaration of opinion. But none the less was it regarded as an occasion for declaring opinions, in the most positive form, by leading members on both sides of the House ; because there are now sides and parties ‘in the Legislature, and last night’s debate was the first symptom of the healthy constitutional action of an organised Opposition. We say this in the belief that the more prominent members who oppose the Government have arranged a plan of action for the Parliamentary campaign on which they have entered. What that plan may be will be disclosed, no doubt, when the Ministerial measures are before the Assembly, meantime they gave the House a clear idea of what they really mean. Nor were Ministers less decided, while they refused to anticipate the debates on their policy, as embodied in their Bills. Sir Donald McLean announced that the cardinal feature of their policy was provincial abolition. “It was the fixed determina- “ tion of the Government,” he said, “to “ abolish the provinces and both Sir Donald and Mr. Bowen announced that as a Government they would stand or fall by their measures. This is a political landmark which all may see. Heretofore there were doubts and uncertainties regarding the intentions of the Government; there can be no misapprehension now. JVlembera see exactly what is meant on both sides. The Government say : “We “ propose to abolish the Provincial form “of Government in the colony, and “ make other provisions in lieu thereof ; “ and we shall stand or fall by our mea- “ sures.” The Opposition say, “Wo are “ not opposed to constitutional changes “ provided the question is first submitted “to the people. Let the constituencies “ be appealed to, and if they elect a House “ pledged toabolishthe provinces, we shall “ accept the verdict, and assist you to “ make the measures as perfectas possible. “We ask only for delay. It would be “ an Act of high-handed oppression and “ wrong for the Assembly, in its last “ session, to abolish representative insti- “ tutions in the provinces, without ob- ‘ ‘ tabling the assent of the people to their “ abolition.” As between the two proposals there need bo no difficulty in making choice ; and we suspect there will be little difficulty experienced by any member, although the votes of several may bo influenced by the fear of offending their constituents on the eve of a general election.

Having on former occasions expressed an opinion in favor of abolishing Provincial Government, we need not repeat our arguments. Suffice it to say that wo go entirely for provincial abolition, and for this, above all other reasons, that it will hrin" the General Government and the Assembly face to face with the people. At present, owing to the intervention of Provincial Government, the people of the colony have lost all control overtheExeculivo; and the House, which should be a colonial representative assembly, is simply an assembly of provincial delegates who find it almost impossible, from tho necessities of their position, to take a broad view of public policy. Their political horizon is bounded by the geographical limits of their respective ‘‘provinces. They speak and vote Otago, or Auckland, or Canterbury, as the case may be; and if we do not greatly misunderstand the signs

of the times, this tyranny of provincial thought will be manifest in the course of the debates on the Bills amending the Constitution. But the Government are to be commended for the stand they have taken. We believe the country is with them, and if their Bills are only reasonably well drawn, providing a simple form of local administration, we think they will be passed this session notwithstanding the strenuous opposition that may be offered to them. And this brings us to yesterday’s debate, a summary of which appears in another place. It was discursive enough, ranging over every topic in the Address, (which was an echo of the Speech,) from the loyal and hearty reception of the Governor to the "utility of invoking the wisdom of Divine Providence to guide the Government in perfecting their measures. Of the former, we may say that every one is gratified to learn that the Governoi'’s tour through the Middle Island was so agreeable to his Excellency, and of the latter, we may add, that if the invocation be responded to, in the sense doubtless intended by the Legislature, the country will have reason to be satisfied with the new Constitution. It would hardly be a charter provoking resistance, as Sir George Grey anticipates, but on the contrary, it would certainly evoke feelings of gratitude and loyalty. *' Leaving the by-play of the debate, however, it was remarkable for several striking features. Sir George Grey made his first set speech ; —a speech of which it is only scant justice to say that it was far above the average of Parliamentary utterances. And what is of far more consequence, it had the effect of giving a warmth and tone to the debate which had been wanting before. Mr. Stafford, who followed him, spoke with greater force and vigor than he has done for several sessions past, and we do him the justice of saying that he well sustained the reputation of the New Zealand House of Representatives for debating power. Mr. Fitzherbert, who followed the member for Timaru, likewise spoke with much power. As a criticism—keen, incisive, logical —Mr. Fitzhebbert’s speech was, in our opinion, the better of the two; but neither can be compared to Sir George Grey’s, which was rather the enunciation of a policy than a telling speech in the routine of debate. There were other speeches of ability and force, but the gentlemen named occupied foremost places. Our space does not admit of a criticism in detail of these speeches. A fair idea of them may be gathered from our report ; but this much we may say, that the administration of the Government was specifically challenged. Their constitutional position was likewise made a ground of attack ; but as all this was merely preliminary to the general engagement that is to come, Ministers reserved their defence. Mr. Stafford, who stood forward as the Government champion, was subjected to a very pointed attack by Mr. Fitzherbert, who said in effect that as he controlled the Government he should accept responsibility and take his seat on the Treasury bench. Mr. Bowen, who followed, repelled this insinuation, and said that Ministers wore responsible to Parliament, and were under no kind of influence whatever. The unfortunate correspondence on the four million loan was commented on, and the opinion was expressed that it should not have been printed ; to which it was replied that if it had been held back, Ministers would have been accused of concealing information. On public grounds, apart altogether from New Zealand politics, we think the correspondence would have been much better unpublished : but now that it has seen the light, it is the duty of the General Assembly to probe the matter to the bottom. There is evidently much to explain beyond what appears in these papers. Let the whole matter come out, for. we are impressed with the conviction that all the fault does not lie with Sir Julius Yogel, as was more than insinuated during the debate. Having read the papers, we are confirmed in our opinion that the negotiation of the loan was a successful operation, and that in the circumstances, no better terms could have been obtained for the colony. Unfortunately, however, other matters have been dragged into the official correspondence, besides that strictly appertaining to the loan transaction. Our objection is specially to those extraneous and personal matters ; but, indeed, the very first letter from the Crown Agents and Dr. Fbatherston, detailing tho steps taken to float the loan, is manifestly colored by personal feeling. However, as the subject will soon again come up in a specific form, wo shall not pursue tho subject. In conclusion,- wo may add that the House and country have reason to be satisfied with tho healthy tone of tho debate. It is clear that tho House of Representatives will not continue the practice of former sessions, and register the decrees of the Government without a murmur of dissent..