New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4579, 23 November 1875, Page 2

New Zealand Times. (PUBLISHED DAILY.) TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23.

The leading points of Mr. Macandbew’s “address, to the people of Otago ” have already been published in our telegraphic column. Eead in connection with Sir F. D. Bell’s speech at Waikouaiti, it gives a complete insight into the motives, aims, and intentions of Otago politicians. One is the complement of the other. That which the Superintendent of Otago leaves unsaid Mr. Speaker says for him. Influenced by very different motives, they both come pretty nearly to the same conclusion. Sir F. D. Bell looks at politics through glasses colored by self-interest. He perceives the near approach of the time when the pastoral interest, in which he is bound up, will be compelled to do battle with the freeholder class in Otago, and when a seat in the Colonial Legislature may make all the difference in the terms as finally settled. Mr. Macandeew, on the other hand, writes as political head of the province whose prestige he wishes to maintain. Both gentlemen, however, come to this practical conclusion, that so far as Canterbury and Otago are concerned, being able to perform their provincial functions they need not be abolished. Mr. Speaker, however, insists strongly upon the necessity for abolishing Provincial Councils to get rid of their political influence ; the Superintendent of Otago insists upon maintaining this influence as a safeguard of the people’s liberties. Both are perfectly logical and consistent from their respective standpoints ; and it may be amusing as well as Instructive to our readers if we allow these gentlemen to speak for themselves. Wo quote from the Otago Guardian : Sir V. D. Bell: The provincial system might continue well enough in Otago and Canterbury, and wherever the people could provide money enough to keep it up ; but could they wonder at the House having turned a deaf car to entreaties to continue it in those places where such could not be done? It was easy to pull down tho provincial system, but tho difficulty was to build up something in its place—not of a political character, but what would secure good administration for the people. That was the responsibility imposed upon the electors, and also on their representatives. What was to bo put in their place ? Ho would answer this question the same as he did when addressing his constituents at theMatauraby saying “Nothing." Speaking politically, he would say that it they wanted another political system, why wish to change tho one which they already had? If they were satisfied with a double system of government. with ten Instead of one, why ask to set up something in the place of those they wished to have abolished? Finance made abolition necessary; tho system, in fact, could not bo afforded. It was therefore Intended that provincialism should absolutely be put an end to, and nothing put in its place. What they wanted was to maintain, and what they ought to maintain was. the Independence of one province in its relation to the other; that tho money should not be necessarily mixed up. nor tho work either; and, in fact, that they should continue to maintain their present position to a great extent, minus the political power of tho Provincial Councils. The question was, how could that be done ? They 1 had before them two or three proposals last session as

to what they should do. He did not think there were a dozen members in the Assembly—certainly not a half-dozen—of any position, who supposed that the old provincial system, as it was, could bo brought back again.

Now this is extremely candid of Sir F. D. Bell, and we think the colony should thank him for expressing himself so plainly. His position is an intelligible one ; it simply means provincialism minus Provincial Councils. He would preserve the provincial machinery intact, at the same time depriving the inhabitants of the provinces (whose autonomy is to be preserved) from all political control over their affairs. This might suit Mr. Speaker’s views, but it will not suit the country. His abolition policy is a delusion and a sham; —a trick put upon the colony to filch from it political power while barring colonial unity. The policy of the Government and of the majority in the Legislature is wholly different. It means what it professes, namely, the complete abolition of provincialism and the substitution of an efficient and inexpensive system of local administration, giving the people, through their representatives in the General Assembly, absolute control over the public expenditure. Let us now see how Superintendent Macandrew views this question. He writes in his “Address to the people of Otago” ;

Reverting to the abstraction from the province of its land revenue, I look upon it, that unjust and injurious as this will be, the blotting out of the Provincial Council, as exercising a watchful eye upon the administration of the waste lands, will be more detrimental still, and will probably result in the public estate falling into the hands of the few instead ot the many, and in the indiscriminate renewal of the pastoral leases without reference to the requirements of settlement, or to their real value. There is nothing that I deprecate more than setting class against class. I have always regarded the pastoral interest as one of the greatest and most important in the province, and can see no necessary antagonism between it and any other. I regret, therefore, to think that the abolition of the Provincial Legislation is In a great measure supported by this interest, in the hope that it is likely to get a renewal of leases on, better terms under colonial than under provincial administration. In the course of the next few years, nearly the whole of the pastoral leases throughout the province expire. Should the administration continue in the hands of the province, the pastoral tenants will be greatly multiplied in number, and, instead of runholders, will become thriving and wealthy sheep-farmers, living on their estates and employing a large amount of labor ; a consummation which will add greatly’ to the public revenue, and will tend to elevate the position of the province both politically and socially.

Mr. Macandrbw assumes that Otago and Canterbury can fulfil their provincial functions, but he contends that so also can all the other provinces if they are relieved of ‘ ‘ the extravagant expendi- “ ture” of the General Government. This being so, he proposes in lien of nine Provincial Governments two Provincial Governments in each island with a Federal Government in Wellington, and a Federal Legislature whose functions shall be narrowed down to the mere recording of the decrees of the provincial assemblies. He is not prepared to abolish provincial institutions, but he is ready to meet public opinion half way and reduce the number of provinces. Sir F. D. Bell, with more force than elegance, says “ there is not a “ ghost of a chance of that being carried “ out—that the two provinces or four provinces scheme is equally impracticable. And here we agree with Mr. Speaker. '■‘ The proposal is impraoti- “ cable and absurd,” but nevertheless it is likely to give the country a great deal of trouble unless it is met by very different arguments than the ultra-pro-vincial and class arguments addressed to the electors of Waikouaiti by Mr. Speaker. The game is up if Sir F. D. Bell be accepted as a leader. Where is the use of using the “public creditor” argument as he does against Mr. Macandrew ? It is the veriest puerility. The public creditor lent New Zealand nearly twenty millions sterling under a Constitution of which Provincial Government formed an important part. This impersonal financial potentate, “ the public creditor,” did not question the security, never objected to provincial institutions, and does not care the snap of his fingers whether there be two provinces or forty, or whether they be abolished altogether, provided his interest is “paid punctooal.” And as Mr. Macandrew does not contemplate making default to the public creditor any more than Sir Francis, the public creditor need not be lugged into the discussion. It is a domestic question pure and simple, with which the public creditor has nothing to do. The Speaker is right, however, when he says that those who propose to narrow the functions of the General Assembly “lose sight al- “ together of what constitutes a voting “ power in Parliament :” they overlook the tendency of all representative assemblies to increase instead of diminish their powers. The House of Commons has gradually increased its authority until it has overshadowed the House of Lords, and were it not that the roll of the Peers of Parliament is constantly added to by the elevation of trained and active politicians from the House of Commons, in a very few years indeed the hereditary branch of the Imperial Parliament would sink into the position of a mere committee of reference to the elective branch. Look at the present French Assembly. It has so long exercised “con- “ stituent,” that is, supreme power, (which Mr. Macandrew claims for his prpvincial assemblies,) that it cannot be induced to surrender it and go back to the country from which it derives its authority. Perish France rather than surrender an iota of its prerogatives and functions. And so of the General Assembly of New Zealand. It gradually encroached upon the powers and functions of Provincial Councils ; now in one direction, now in another ; gradually, but surely it advanced, until attacking provincialism in its vital part, finance, it struck a deadly blow at the system. No more provincial borrowing, no more unrovised provincial legislation. Ultra vires was written against provincial ordinances, and a strict preaudit kept Provincial Governments within their income. At length the time came for the supreme act of provincial abolition and it was passed. But the Provincialists, themselves parties to the legislation we have roughly outlined, come forward and ask the General Assembly to forego its advantage, tosurrender the fruits of its legislative victory, and reversing all the teaching of history, to become a servant of servants and subject itself unto tribute. “There is “ not a ghost of a chance of it,” Mr. Macandrew, so you may spare your eloquence. Water will not flow up hill without external pressure, neither will a legislative body surrender power, except upon compulsion.