SPIRIT OF THE PRESS ON COLONIAL POLITICS.

Southland Times, Issue 681, 10 June 1867, Page 2

SPIRIT OF THE PRESS ON COLONIAL POLITICS.

— — "♦ '. ■■ ■ <EVom the Examiner," May 7-) The impression, that the time is fast approaching when, the Provincial €hv yernments of New Zealand must do battle for their ; very existence,: is TapidFf . gaining force and distinctness. It would be well if an equal distinctness;, existed in the ideas generally entertained- con* cerning theitrue nature, tendency^ aact proba.ble issue of the struggled- Respecting this, as indeed most other political questions, -there are two elements which •stand in the .way of its 'just apprehension. . and its satisfactory solution. These, are, first, a shortsighted selfishness which loots only to narrow considerations of local or temporary interest; and, secondly, the lazy 'tendency to acquiesce in wha£•ever maybe put forth by the leaders of party as •&' watchword or- rallying crjr> without taking the' trouble ito 'ascertain how far the stock arguments, orphrases which pass for arguments, really . apply to the case inpoint; There is no doubt that these two elements to a very great extent influence and. control each .other, or perhaps it would be more. correct to say that the last, owes its existence, iff great measure, to the first. Nothing so surely distorts and clouds the intellectual vision as a narrowririLnded selfishness of aim and motive ; and when such motive* and aims exist, the most irrelevant arguments are advanced with audacious reckj; lessness,^ and the most inapplicable warcries are accepted with ; unsuspecting confidence. Abundant illustrations of : the general assertions which we hava made, will be found by any one who has taken the trouble to attend to; the risfr and progress of t'ae controversy respecting the Provincial G-overnments. Such an observer cannot . to, be forcibly struck with the extreme narrowness of purpose displayed by ■ Provmcial politicians in different parts, of the -colony, by their apparent '■ readiness to sacrifice I general to local interests, and the ■wonderful clap-trap which passes current. . pvith .■' those Who have committed then** ! selves to the stream of faction;" and catch : eagerly at any phrase which sdundis, j however remotely, like the assertion, of & principle. One of the most glaring instances that we know of the use of mere ad captattdttm argument, involving a total misapplication' of words, is found in the constant efforts ;of the thick and thin supporters ; of Provincial institutions to represent the qiief-^ tion now. approaching' an issue in th# colony as a struggle-between the principle of local self-government on the one hand, and that -of 'centralisation on thff ,other. The name of centralization, is- abhorrent to Englishmen, and suggests to j them all that is- odious in the European I systems of despotic government ; and. oa the other hand, the name of local; self- ! government appeals at once to their traditional .opinions as involving the idea 0f ... all ;that; is necessary for maintaing th»i rights and liberties of citizens. When so good a Cry was at hand, it is perhaps nb£ very surprising that the leaders of part^ should^ at once avail -themselves of ife without pausing to remark that unity ana . centralization do not mean precisely thff same thing, and that the right to local self~gpvernmentdoesnotmvolye,butratlier excludes tb,e right to govern others. In> deed, if the cry aboutlocal self-government and centralization, is to be made applicable at all in the present case, it canr only be done by reversing the mode in* which the terms have been used. -\ Tb» Q-eneral G-overnment of a country posses*sing representative institutions can nerae^. become centralizing in. the dangerous or objectionable sense of the term, and-th* doctrine that the only preventive- of centralization is to be found in the division of the! country into separate Pjwvinces, each possessing* its own : legi*- ; lature, is as gratuitous as it is fallacious. But the. Provincial Governments themselves do, in fact, involve many ofthow evils of centralization against which thejr are so pertinaciously represented a* the only safeguard. For a Provincial Gh>vernment means the centralization of tl» power of a large tract of country iff '» particular town, and the absence of local self-gpvernment in the other parts oftlte Province. And the aim of those wno propose to themselves the gradual extinction of the Provincial &<r~ yernments, is, by the establishment of Municipalities or some kindred institutions, to give to all parts of that " colony that local self-government which. they have not yet enjoyed.^ And, whilst it is thus a gross perversion of argument; „-- tp'represent tneProvinciar GFovermneniSrl as the natural opponents ,of all the ob* jectionable features of : what isjpalJedcenTf^ tralizatioii, it may, on the o^hef nand/ bcf cpnfidently asserted that; so v long as our separate Provincial Institutib&s are maintained upon their present, basis, the unity ~ of the colony .is a thing impossible, ex- , cept in name. :Of this truth it seemsJ : \ almost superfluous to attempt to adduce proofs, so obvious is it, to the most casuat' - glance at the general state ,qf. the colony.- x Every province is an imperium in, foi" perio, looking with jealousy and suspicion upon all neighboring provinces, ancl

3<Egg?«*s.T^cr the Q-eneral Government as an -i^Epa Eisation to be- supported only so long .-.3BKE Setanc^ quid pro quo can be obtained S&ssiiit m the shape of some special act c^abrer to the province. The existence .sJjf 32, mmfiber of separate territories which saasKsr.iagi^e or combine together, except little judicious log-rolling seems H§sigr4s> -serve the temporary purposes of •jgsseSiiSa succession, is necessarily, as we jUasssTsaad, absolutely fatal to the unity of ili&efisow that, it is distinctly admitted .aßSSbai&serted by some of the most able. sssfesstesiies of the Provincial system, that -of the colony has ODly a nomisaa^esEsetence, and they allege that this the nature of things, and is iaSß&fgseesgnised, not caused, by the insti•gjfeg^n -of provinces. They assert that Saaafc «eoimtry colonised, as New Zealand ■sSSHNeeLsnised, by the establishment, one .•3£§2£ of separate settlementsc3Bjß6n 3ihe coast, isolated, and at a great csefe^sea iroin each other, the formation <a^^33sr^nces was the natural and obvious •saSEffiSSj -and was merely a formal recogni?gjgpjD'Sigj ±he Constitution Act of a state ogfisiEEgs actually, did exist. Nel--,36951, JLyfcfcelton, and Dunedin, say they in no sense parts of one ■glaaafesgeaeous whole. Their desires, -saacc^, Interests, were separate and dissis&afea~ they were in every sense distinct -tsessaassssiiies, and -it -would have been> pretend to a unity which could 52^5sss3t. To a good deal of this argussassss/^see should feel no reluctance in giv-,siag-:«*s§2.' assent,, but we should most dedeiseSEs: insist that ther argument Should ia&*eß2S3ed out to its logical conclusion, jsssljbOss only logical conclusion to such •jHEgsiaes appears to us to be found in sqme .israssi^easure as the New Provinces Act of -g^hs .fi§£sfford-Eichmond Ministry, which iwlien rightly considered,, merely a ■sss^;, somewhat cumbrous perhaps, of c^s&rslly extinguishing, by subdivision, Provincial Governments, and substi3i%gS?Fty |mu6ieipal bodies in their place Jiis? -slis argument about separate inte- 1 -&&&&, :and capacity for self-government, *aaeaa©ii, with any show of reason, be sas^Seed to the firtt-formed settlements, of necessity be applied to new i£3^i£sE«£ents as fast as they arise and .ysSissiMiat it shall -be applied to them. 'Hlbsse, therefore, who argue from the .^g^^sss «f .things on behalf of Provincial iSE^^fesiion'a, should remember ±hat there iSEa&issidency to progress in the nature ..:,-ssf?3£sliScal and social things, and that a ggsilgsesl and social machinery which does that tendency is liable to away as a mere incumbrance. ~om tgst&j -& person who desires fairly to jjSs&§33>£ : i?he question about the value and Igg^sßS&eaee of Provincial institutions, £sS^pi&<'t© begin by examining the natural r^iyLasßcessary tendency of things. Let -zsßk.. -himself this question : . Is Ht &beSs&M& fliat this country, as it becomes populated, will remain divided isi^SisejsaTate States, governed by inde--•^ss^sat. legislatures ; or rather that all .sriH' gradually amalgamate, and -r3^ coinbined into a homogeneous ~&s%3ksj? ,Thia is the real issue. ProvingsSssm. -cannot maintain itself in its r^^ssesa* jcondiMon. It . must either : 2&bs&3£& 'or Seerease; it must either .z&s&sssfihe General Q-overnment for all -^sasSieai purposes, or it must itself be • by t tlie extension of those •jsisdKf&s :6f : local self-government for -^gi&£b it has vaunted ; itself to be the only $&&fa&s&!jr ne determination of such an : £&s&£ris23siob, we think, be doubtful, but with what modifications the -^Esa^sEay be achieved, are questions deseparate discussion. All that ■s^eSss^a now. attempted has been to clear ■oksz T>y showing the fallacy of i&3B3S&is£&.e stock arguments of party.