THE OPPOSITION' PROGRAMME.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4567, 9 November 1875, Page 2

THE OPPOSITION' PROGRAMME.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, — Supporters of the present Government must bo very much edified by the political speeches of the members of the Opposition who have been recently dining in Otago, where so much has been said, one would have imagined it easy to glean some inkling of the policy of the speakers. But what is that policy ? The Superintendent of Otago would lead us to believe that, the liberties of the people of New Zealand would bo nowhere but for provincialism, and that the perfection .of these liberties would be achieved by merging the small provinces. in four largo ones. . I wonder what Messrs. Curtis, ? Ormond.' and Carrington think of this view of liberty. Sir George Grey’s views are much more extensive. If his words meant anything at all, wo can only gather from them that ho would ship his Excellency the Marquis homo, and request her Gracious Majesty not to interfere with the liberty of the subject hi Now Zealand by sending out any more representatives—for Superintendents are what free and enlightened people should fight for. Alas f6r the Major! Many of his best friends are sorry for him. , Why should ho, of all men, quarrel with the constitution of the House of which lie is the respected head and Speaker? Bid not he (Sir John Richardson) lay on the table at the close of last session, a list of the legislative work done by his own House, which list showed clearly to any unprejudiced mind that most of the legislative business of the country was done by the Lords, while the Commons wore squabbling and wasting time? Is this the time—when members of the House of Representatives are excited because of constitutional changes, and interested;in the general scramble for portions of the loans—to introduce the electoral element. With all its influences, into the Upper House? Sir John joins with others in crying out for separation. This cry Is taken up whore one would least expect it. . . . Who would have thought of ft staunch abolitionist like Hugh Carleton, of the Bay of Islands, issuing a manifesto In which separation boars a prominent part P I would like to know a little more of what Sir John Richardson moans by wishing to see “ the land for the people, and the people for the land.” 'Never a session passes but what there la an Otago waste Lands Bill brought forward; and if Sir John would

introduce a scheme which would Anally settle the land laws of Otago, representatives from other parts of Nevf Zealand would be devoutly thankful. . Well, time is passing I ' Candidates for election are already beginning to appeal to electors, and it is not too soon for the people of Wellington to think seriously of the important matters which will be brought before the next Parliament. Iho integrity of the,colony must be insisted upon. It affects Nap Zealand as a whole, and Wellington in, particular, as no other question can. Provincialism has not been abolished for the purpose of being revived in a different form, whether there be four provinces or two provinces. The country cannot afford to have a LieutenantGovernor in Auckland, and one in Dunedin. Nor can the country afford to shift the seat of Government, and expend £150,000 at least in Government buildings elsewhere. That would be a small part of the penalty of inconsistency. It is not stating too much to say that the Anancial prosperity of New Zealand will, in a great measure, depend upon the entire abolition of the provinces, and upon the whole of the legislative powers of the colony being administered at Wellington.—l am, &c.. Quest. November 8.