THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2082, 6 September 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1875.

It is undoubtedly a great advantage on the eve of a dissolution for a Ministry to be able in parliamentary phrase "to go to the country" with a popular measure as their party cry. Mr Gladstone proved this beyond the possibility of doubt when in 1868, power of place being to him as was generally reported-essential as well as

agreeable, he and his party went to the country on the question of the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church, and all the British Isles for some three months or more re-echoed with the pros and cons of the said chupch's abolition. The result of that party cry was that many candidates were returned .bound by promises to swell the ranks of the Abolitionists, though opposed by men immensely (in some cases) their superiors both in intellectual attainments and popular address who would not give their names ai supporters of a measure iirfblv-* ing spoliation. Had Mr Gladstone made concessions to any of those whose voices he would, gladly have had omhia sid«« and no doubt, the gaining over of Lord; Selborne who voted with the Conservatives would have been a great point with ,Abolitionists—-or had he proposed any State Church in the room of th? one he purposed to destroy, the question of Abolition on its broad issue could never have been put to constituencies, and it is more than probable that the downfall of the Liberal Government would have been hastened by a few years. ' We refer to these tactics of the Liberal leader of seven years ago, because an -obvious analogy exists between the Ministerialists of New and the position of Mr Gladstone and his supporters in '68. Both parties are in their last term of office (we make use of anachronism for the sake of comparison), both parties are desirous for an extended lease of .power, and both parties rrfake use of the same word, though in different senses, as their gathering cry, riz., Abolition. Th<j Home country and the Colony—as far as reliable public opinion can be obtained —are both in favour of Abolition, and it is more than probable that were the Government to follow Mr Gladstone's example, and go to the country on the broad principle at issue, candidates would be returned so pledged to forward the views of their constituents as to make Abolition a matter of certainly. We may go further and say that were abolition —total, not partial— the question by which candidates chose to stand or fall, the most popular of Provincial candidates would, in a constituency similar to our own at the Thames, stand no more chance against an abolition advocate than did the conservative at Birmingham against Messrs Dixon, Muntz, and Bright. But instead of making the best use of the strength they possess in the large majority they have in the House, or availing themselves of the popularity of total abolition to take the voice of the country in their favour, the Government of New Zealand seem determined to engender dissensions among their supporters in the House, and suspicion and dissatisfaction amongst their constituents in the country, by proposing measures utterly at variance witk that abolition they have hitherto professed. Such an attempt seems to be their proposal to establish Boards of Works throughout the country to dispense to their several districts the balance of the land fund. Government seem to forget that one of the principal objections urged against Provincialism was that it was costly as well as unnecessary and cumbersome, and that one central form of Government was sufficient to meet the wants of the colony without, as it were, having any other form to go between the ruled and the rulers. And yet now in the attempt, as it would appear, to conciliate Macandrew and Otago, they introduce a bill in which this system of " go-between " will be multiplied, and stultify themselves and disgust their well-wishers by a scheme as needless as it is objectionable. One form of Government is enough for the wants of Ne^ Zealand was the key note of Ministerial harangues; the boroughs can govern themselves, responsible only to the Parliament of this country, so Provincialism must be destroyed. Such was the Cato-like cry of Major Atkinson among the many who spoke on the subject, and yet he is now the very man to propose placing Boards of Works to play in many little ways the worse than useless part which Provincial Councils enacted on a larger scale. Even if these proposed Boards of Works were free from every other objection and did their work Without proving a thorn in the side of the Local Government, still they are, or rather should be, unneces • sary. Then why go to the expense of setting them up ? Once set up these Boards of Works would no doubt require salaried officers; .these officers again [would require clerks, and other expenses, and would under a different name give us | something akin to that Provincialism which has been decried as so unnecessary and cumbersome. If the Ministry are j sincere in their desire to simplify the Government of the country, and save expense by abolishing the' Provincial form How useless, they have many who can and will back them. But if they simply use abolition as a party cry to gain another lease of office, and do away with Provincialism only to replace it by other forms just as—if not more—objectionable and unnecessary, they will lose many friends and make more foeß amongst those " who would rather bear these ills they have, than fly to others that they know not of."