New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, AUGUST 21.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4499, 21 August 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, AUGUST 21.

The debate on the Abolition of Provinces Bill was continued yesterday to the exclusion of all other business. Three speeches, as against five on the previous day, were all that we can record in the way of progress for yesterday's sitting, but as Mr. Fitzherbert occupied the entire evening this fact is easily explained. Indeed, it was understood that the Superintendent of Wellington was to make one of his great efforts on behalf of the Constitution, and the evening sitting was willingly S6t apart for his argument. It is only fair to say that those who depended upon Mr. Fitzherbert were not disappointed. His speech was somewhat discursive, no doubt ; but it was also pointed and pithy, and placed the question in a much clearer light from his point of view than it was before. We cannot help thinking, however, that he would have been much more effective if he had been shorter; but we are not disposed to be hypercritical with a speech which must be regarded in tho light of a general summing up on the part of the Opposition. The contrast between Mr. Stafford and Mr. Fitzherbert is very marked indeed. The former has few equals as an impressive and effective speaker; the latter, while very often tiresome by reason of prolixity, or redundancy of illustration, is nevertheless the more convincing speaker of the two. Mr. Fitzherbert insinuates his ideas, so to speak, into the minds of his audience, who become gradually impressed with the conviction which he desires to convey. Mr. Stafford, on the other hand, attempts to take their judgment by storm, and too often depends more upon rhetoric than on logic for creating tho desired effect. The analysis of his speech last night by Mr. Fitzherbert brought out the marked characteristics of the two men. It was a keen, caustic, but overminute criticism of one of the most brilliant speeches that has ever been delivered in tho House. It was pitiless in its dissection and laying bare of the fallacies of his opponent, while it was, at the same time, open to objection on nearly similar grounds. The truth is, historical parallels are always more or less faulty and misleading. There are always exceptional circumstances which prevent anything like a fair comparison being instituted, and more especially is this the case when the comparison is sought to be made between the institutions of States constituted of races differing widely from each other in temperament and intellectual force, and flourishing at different periods in the world's history. The civil institutions of a nation or State depend far more upon the idiosyncracies of race than upon any external pressure whatever. Geographical position has also much to do with it, for tho influence of Nature, in develop-

ing the genius of a race, is very potent, as all students of constitutional history well know. Thus, it has been truly held, we think, that the almost prodigal seaboard of the fringe of continental territory and numerous islands occupied by the Hellenic race, was the cause of the peculiar form which Greek civilisation assumed, as it undoubtedly waa a powerful factor in determining the civil institutions of that people. In like manner, it may be argued that the physical features of ftussia point to a strong centralised Government, more or less despotic according to the measure of education and enlightenment of the xaeople. While, therefore, the greatest measure of political freedom and enterprise is to be looked for from maritime nations, a strong centralising government may invariably be looked for in those countries which do not possess extensive coast lines and numerous harbors, and where the physical conditions are favorable to the development of a vigorous and aggressive race, as in the case of Russia and Germany. Wherefore, we hold that the lesson of history should lead us to make our minds easy in New Zealand on the score of an overshadowing Central Government, which may in time trample on the freedom of the people. There is no danger whatever on that head. The physical configuration of this great island country is a material guarantee against any such political calamity. We may abolish provincial institutions as soon as ever we please, but we cannot abolish the natural landmarks of the country on which provincialism has been engrafted. Auckland, and Otago, and Wellington, and Canterbury will be separate and distinct communities, for all municipal and commercial purjioses, as long as their respective harbors and dependent territories exist; strong enough also to suppress any attempt on the part of the General Government or Assembly to establish any form of centralised tyranny.

But we need not pursue this part of the subject further. It is self-evident to any man who cares to reflect. The only question is one of time and expediency, •and this will be duly considered by the Legislature and the people. Returning to Mr. Fitzherbeet's speech, we may briefly state that he fairly, and conclusively we think, refuted the statement that there had been a contest between Centralism and Provincialism from the first. He also defended Provincial Councils from the sweeping accusations brought against them, and showed that they were the real authors of local self-government in the country. With regard to the financial proposals in the Bill, he characterised these as vicious. It was evident that the intention was to abolish the land revenue of the South, to meet the necessities of the colony. The Government dare not propose increased taxation ; money must be had to satisfy the public creditor and complete the great undertakings entered upon, and that could only be had by absorbing the land revenue, a statement, by the way, which Ministers deny. It was, moreover, a vicious and dangerous principle to subsidise local boards out of Consolidated Revenue, because it was clear that so long as that was done the country would be loaded with taxation. He condemned the Bill because it destroyed Provincial Councils and elected Superintendents, and gave instead that most arbitrary form, Government by Orders in Council. It was a measure opposed to local selfgovernment and destructive of it. Local self-government meant the right to their own revenue without interference, and the right to elect their own executive officers; these rights would be abolished by the Bill. Mr. Fitzheebert dwelt on the equivocal position occupied by Mr. Staffoed, who was committed to a general support of a Government which he had frequently denounced, because they had cleverly adopted his abolition hobby and abandoned the principles on which they took office. This part of his speech was delivered with much point and bitterness. Mr. Fitzheebert also vindicated Sir Geoege Grey from the attack made upon him by Mr. Staffoed, who was certainly not justified in what he said by anything which fell from Sir George in his speech on the second reading. In conclusion, Mr. Fitzherbeet warned the House that by pressing this measure through without an appeal to the people, they were doing their utmost to bring about the separation of the colony. The country was in a state of intoxication from the expenditure of borrowed money. During the past five years the average annual colonial revenue was £1,360,000 ; their annual borrowing power was £2,000,000 for the same period, as they had borrowed ten millions. Now, in the same ratio, the borrowing power of France would be £133,000,000 yearly for live years, and of England, it would be £102,000,000 yearly for a like period. If either of these Governments possessed such enormous spending power on public works, the effect upon the community would be, that in England even the liberties of the people could not be maintained against the influence of bribes which the Government might offer. This was not the time to press these constitutional changes upon the country. Let it get breathing time to reflect before the institutions they enjoy are swept away.

We have given only a faint indication of Mr. Fitzherbert's speech, but our space does not admit of further comment. For the same reason wo can only add that Messrs. Mervyn and O'Conor spoke in favor of the Bill during the afternoon sitting.