New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9.

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

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9.

Mr. Robert Stout' is a ,representative man,. His opinions are therefore entitled tojrespect. It does not follow, however, that because his opinions may'be treated with respectrthey should alsQ.be accepted as; conclusive. For our own part, while ' isposed to treat anything'Mr. Stout says with very great respect, we are far’ from agreeing with ;him on an almost endless variety of subjects.- Indeed, we know very few men in the colony who really do agree with him all round.

Mr. Stout addressed his constituents ail Caversham on Friday last, and a somewhat full report of his speech, by telegraph, appeared in our issue yesterday. With a modesty to which it appears Mr. Sheehan is a stranger, Mr. Stout spoke only for himself. • He did not assume to speak for the Opposition. This duty was left to the manager of that- important section of the Legislature, Mr. Sheehan, at the Clutha banquet. But it does, seem a little odd that such a prominent member of 'the Opposition as Mr. Stout should outline a new Constitution without the knowledge or sanction of his leaders. If this is the way the Opposition is managed we cannot commend Mi\ Sheehan’s skill or Sir George Grey’s foresight as a leader. But let that pass., Mr. Stout has propounded the four,provinces theory. .But : why four provinces instead of fourteen or forty? What virtue is in, the number four ? If the provincial form of government is to continue, for the life of us we cannot see why the number of provinces should be limited to four,' or even nine; as at present. - If provincialism is a good thing, the country cannot have too much of it. If, on the contrary, it is unsuited to the social and political condition of New Zealand, let it be abolished. This, we think, is' a fair proposition.’ Mr. Stout argues that provincialism is a good thing, essentially good ; but lest the *New Zealand public should have a surfeit of political blessings, he would limit the number of provinces to four. This is essentially a blunder. The member for Caversham is inconsistent with himself. He flies in thei face of his own principles. -If ho had explained why there should be four provinces and ho more—two in the North .and two in the Middle island—we might have been convinced by arguments of expediency, but no explanation appears to have been given. He stated the proposition with the oracular authority of a prophet, and the Caversham, electors, who put faith in his vaticinations, placed their hands upon the seat of their political conscience, and bowed their acquiescence : “Four provinces ; be it four “ provinces. We are content.” But why four provinces, ‘ Mr. Stout ? Answer us this simple question. We should like to know, for instance, how you propose to divide the Middle Island. What slice of country north of the Waitaki do you propose to add to the province of Otago, in exchange for the barren waste of mountain ravines and rock and snow you would tack on to Canterbury. An equal division of the Middle Island would be decidedly beneficial to Otago, and if Mr. Stout’s proposal were adopted, we suspect Superintendent Roleeston would change his tune, and, looking around him from his exalted pedestal, exclaim : “ Let me be Otago and Macandrbw “ Canterbury.” For there would bo no Canterbury to rule, but only the northern division of the Middle Island, which is by no means the equivalent of the plain country, fertile and well watered, where he now holds sway. Is this what Mr. Stout means, and had the, _ Caversham electors an eye upon thd meadows and cornfields of their Canterbury neighbors ? An equal division of the North Island, on the other hand, would be a decided gain to Wellington, which is hardly the intention of Mr. Stout ; and we can imagine the war-dance of excited Northern politicians, led by Sir George Grey, which would be improvised in opposition to such a proposal. The four provinces theory won’t do, Mr. Stout. It grows out of a selfish provincial feeling;—a desire to absorb and not to distribute political power. It is opposed to the principles of .local administration. It is,' moreover,- objectionable, because the Provincial Governments, while inferior to’ the General Assembly, would be strong enough to prevent anything like useful colonial legislation. The evils of the system which led to the passing of the Abolition Act would bo intensified, and efficient and economic administration would become impossible. But there is no fear of that happening, because the colony is tired of provincialism, and has made up its mind for a change. Mr. Stout says the country is not in favor of abolition, but in this ho is mistaken. He must bo convinced that frothy declamation at banquets does not reflect public opinion. We believe, and we have reason for our belief, that if the election in Otago is taken on the simple issue of abolition or provincialism, the abolitionists will poll a, large majority. In Auckland, we likewise know that the majority is in favor of abolition. - They are, however, in this position, that they feel;bound in honor to sustain Sir George

Grey, who came forward at their request, although differing from him on- this and other questions. In the other provinces, the Opposition have no show. . .With regard to the land question, to which Mr. Stout alluded, ,we need;not go Into particulars in this place. Our views are well known. Land must he provided for settlement. This is the policy of the Government; and it is the true policy. We are aware that Australian capitalists have recently been disappointed in acquiring large estates, simply because it is expedient to ihultiply freeholders and encourage settlement. Mr. Stout will find us with him on the land question, but not on his specious craze of leasing Crown lauds.- On that point we differ from him altogether. It is opposed to every sound economic principle, and would inevitably lead to such abuse, corruption, and extragance as would make it an intolerable social and political evil. Touching the subdivision of runs held under pastoral leases in the Middle Island, we have a word to say. Under the direct action and responsibility of the Government to the Colonial Legislature we do not~ anticipate any job in oonneo tion with these runs. We admit that the proceedings in connection with them in past years were not justifiable on grounds of public policy, but that was tinder provincial administration. We might safely go further, and still keep .within the range of truth. But the General Assembly last session displayed a vigilance in relation, to land transactions which will have a decided effect in preventing the initiation of any scheme of personal aggrandisement out of the plunder of the public estate. , Mr. Stout will be a. member of the General Assembly next session in all human probability. Let him take this matter up, and get a committee appointed to consider the whole question of pastoral leases. Private interests would be : duly cared for, while public interests would be respected by such a committee. The mass of facts collected by it would be of the utmost service in enabling the Government to prepare a plan for dealing with the Crown lands in a comprehensive way. One thing is certain, however, that no Government dare propose a renewal of existing leases, still less dare any Government propose to compensate runholders ioi the short period during which their legal tenancy has to run, on pretence of introducing a comprehensive scheme of settlement. Either proposal would be so manifestly unjust and improper, that a Ministry suggesting, one or other would be covered with deserved obloqpy. Nothing should be done in a hurry. The fullest information ■ should be obtained, and the Legislature itself, in the most public manner, should decide how this extremely valuable portion of the public estate should be dealt with. In conclusion, while, as we have said, we differ from much that Mr. Stout said at Caversham, we attach very considerable importance to his opinions as a thoroughly representative man. He has done this public service, at all events. He has demonstrated that the Opposition have no settled line of policy. They are drifting helplessly in the deep waters of abolition, and as they see the headlands and peaks of provincialism fading from their view, they amuse themselves by conjuring up visions of the past which can return no more. Mr. Stout is in some things a sensible man. Let him abandon the lost cause, and assist in the great work -of reconstruction which ; is before the country.