The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 303, 1 September 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1875.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right; \\ e shall deny to no men justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

The report of the second reading of the Abolition Bill in the House of Representatives, conveys a sound that will be welcome to many an anti-provin-cialist. To the settlers of this district it brings glad tidings of great joy, for it is the key note in the grand diapason of events which will follow the dead march of Provincial Institutions. The mournful cortege is preparing : the requiem is being said; but the end may not be yet at hand. The grave in which provincialism is to be entombed may not yet be dug, albeit the political sextons are zealously at work. The division list, although it swells the majority for the Government, and may be said to, be a criterion of the real feeling of the country on the question of Abolition, per He, is not to be accepted as a final verdict on the Bill now before the House. There is much, nay, we may say, the bulk of the work has yet to be done before it is definitely settled that abolition is a fact. A cursory glance at the list of “ Ayes,” will shew that it contains names of many hon. members who have stated that they are in favor of abolition, but wish the question to be relegated to the country for its decision; others again have openly declared that they will support the Government to the second reading, and then “ cry off.” These members belong, practically to the Opposition, as far as the immediate settlement of

Abolition is concerned ; and the somewhat unexpected division on the second reading will, in part, explain the tactics of that party who have lately adandoned their plan of attack by battalion movements, until they have harassed the Government by a little skirmishing in open order. This is now to be don.e in Committee, and it will be a matter of surprise if the Bill emerge therefrom before it is emasculated of some of its chief adornments, after which the Government will have to stand the chance of an ultimate defeat ou a third reading in the whole House. The Government do not appear to have made the Bill a test of their stability on the Ministerial Benches, a fact which has caused the Opposition to be indifferent as to whether the fate of the Bill is decided on the second or third reading, or in Committee. Had the Ministry staked their political existence on the principle of Abolition, the second reading would have decided the question according to parliamentary usage. However, we may be thankful for what is so far gained ; and, although we are of those who think that the Bill ought not to pass until after the general election—as the voice of the country would be, then, even more pronounced than now —we shall join in the general exultation that will prevail when the cumbrous and unsatisfactory system of Provincial Governments is at an end.

It is the opinion of some, that, with regard to the election of a member to fill the vacancy —consequent on the retirement of Mr. Woodbind Johnson— in the representation of Turanganui, in the Provincial Council, is a matter of the most perfect indifference; as there will not be another Session of the Auckland Council. Those who entertain this opinion—an unrcflective one, we think—conclude that Provincial Abolition is, already, an established fact; and make no allowance for the “ifs,” and the ” buts ” that have yet to be provided for. But, even allowing that the question of Abolition were definitely settled, we cannot see how the business of the various Provinces is to be disposed of without another meeting of their several Councils. The question of governing a people is, in fact, nothing more in principle, than that of governing an estate. The estate still exists, and is to be handed over to a new stewardship: but, before doing so, it is necessary that the old accounts should be squared off ; and we incline to think that this principle of “winding up,” was contemplated by the framers of the Abolition of Provinces Bill. Clause 4 says :—

■On sueh day, not later than ninety days after the commencement of this Act, as the Governor shall, by Proclamation published in the New Zealand Gazette appoint, the following provinces shall be abolished, viz. :—The Provinces of Auckland, Hawke's Bay, Taranaki, Wellington, Nelson, Marlborough, Westland, Canterbury and Otago. In such proclamation a day shall be fixed for the coming into operation thereof, and the day so fixed is hereafter referred to as the date of the abolition of the said provinces. We can hardly conceive it as probable that the Bill would have allowed ninety days’ grace unless it was to afford the Governments of the various Provinces an opportunity to settle their affairs. If so why not have made the rule absolute, and declare that the Provinces would be abolished from the passing of the Act ? Clause 7 also provides that: — Immediately upon the abolition hereunder of any province, and without any proclamation or other act by the Governor or otherwise, the person who was then in office as Superintendent of such province shall cease to hold such office, and the Provincial Council of sueh province shall be dissolved. Now, what under these clauses (provided that they form part of the Act) is there to prevent the several Superintendents from calling their Councils together, to do what, according to them, sepmeth meet ? The Councils are not, ipso facto, dissolved until the Governor’s proclamation appears, which, as it will assuredly be towards the latter end of the grace days, will take us probably into the beginning of January; andit would certainly be both unbusiness-like and imprudent, if not unconstitutional, and unlawful for the Provincial Governments to wind up without the further aid and advice of their Councils. Viewing, then, the matter in this light, we advise as deliberate a course being pursued in the matter of the forthcoming election as in which has preceded it; and the fact of the Government having ordered the election to proceed, is a proof of the probable necessity for the member’s attendance in another Session of the Auckland Council.