THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2136, 8 November 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1875.

Though Mr Stout, while addressing Iris constituents at Caversham, disclaimed as was only fit and proper any idea of wishing to be thouglit the mouthpiece of that Opposition of which he is a member, yet doubtless the views which he there enunciated would be embodied in the Opposition programme in some form or other, if it appeared to the leaders of that Opposition that they found favor in the eyes of constituencies at large. And herein the cunning of the serpent is apparent in the policy of the wily Opposition leaders, in allowing some follower of lesser mark to propound schemes, which may serve to test in what direction the tide of popular sympathy flows, ere they commit themselves irrevocably to a programme which may "win or lose it all," as far as Federalism or Centralism is concerned. Federalism in some form they still will have, and the particular form which appeared good to Mr Stout and his audience in Caversham drill shed was that in place of nine provinces there should be but four or five, and " then they might have a good Government." On what grounds Mr Stout bases his conclusion is not very apparent. It is true that he —, advisedly perhaps — makes use of the word "might" in speaking of the " good government" which is to follow the reduction or absorption of nine provinces into four or five; and it is equally true that stranger things have happened than that a good government might be the result of this reduction; but not one word'of argument does Mr Stuut make use of to show that it will happen—nay, not one ■single instance does he quote to show that it even may happen. All he saya is that there is a possibility of its happening. This we are free to admit; but this is not enough. We prefer certainties, or moral certainties, or at all events what we deem to be certainties, to any amount of contingencies or possibilities; and however pleasant it may be to land the long odds, yet it. is at the best a dangerous experiment to take them. Mr Stout almost admits that nine provinces are too many by proposing to reduce them to four or five. If it be necessary to reduce the provinces at all, surely it is best to reduce them as much as possible, and the question then resolves itself into not " whether four or five are better than nine," but, whether "one is not better than four or five P." That is, can we not govern New Zealand from one centre without having these four or five subgovernments, which are to take the place of nineP Instances in point are not wanting to stonr" that ire can; instances

too which we should do better to follow and trust to than any suppositional advantage which may, in Mr Stout's opinion, be derived from a Government of four or five. It is true that union is strength, it is also true thaKit is folly to endeavour to unite elements iti themselves incongruous. Then we simply have this question to answer, are the elements of which, the different province*" in New Zealand are composed sd incongruous 'or incompatible in themselves as to make it folly on the part of those who govern 'tis to attempt to acquire-that strength which must follow as the result of their union, by uniting them under one 'central form of goxewiment. ?* Weunhesitatingly answer no, and we point as one instance put'of many to the mother country to show that it is possible to have satisfactory, &£e,j^(£Jvi|fr governments, without having recourse to federation in any form. The fact is this, we have at present nine ■. useless sub-goyernmenti tinder one central Government, which hindered 'and hampered by these is expensive and .cumbersome. As a substitute for this same there are—Mr Stout to wifr-rwlio propose having)fpur large provinces whicli.withoutassigning any reason he tells'xis'will produce I*1'* a good Government" simply because four is alessnumber f-and therefore a more convenient number—than nine. Again thejteare others who ke&4heir'way to reduce this number still further ; and propose insular separation, because two is less than four.' Surely by a parity of reasoning—if assertion can be deemed to be reasoning at all—we may go a step further and advocate centralism because one is less than two. .The gist of the matter lies in this; if the federal .or provincial form of government be a satisfactory form, by all means ex pand it rather than reduce it, and let nine provinces have the benefit of being governed in that way rather than four. If it be not satisfactory—and that it has not been so in its actual working few will gainsay-^by all means do away with it, not, bnlyin partbut as much as possible; in other words, altogether. It is all very well for Mr Stout to assert that a good government will result from his proposed plan, but he must show that it will, or at all events that it is likely to, before we care to see the experiment made. We are quite prepared to admit that having four subgovernments lessens the greater evil of having nine, and also that having two, or insular "separation, further lessens the lesser evil by one half; but even in its diminished form we believe it to be an evil still, or shall until Mr Stout gives us further proof that it is not than what he calls " the faith that is in him." We do not care to notice the condemnation Mr Stout passed on the abolition party, or the praise be accorded to his own. Both praise and blame were not indulged into any extent more than we are accustomed, and a great deal, of what is reported to have been said was deserved on •ither side. Mr Stout made niuch of the point that whereas the mere legislative departments this year cost about £34,000, the cost of Provincialism, including everything, amounted to only £32,000. This was rather an unfortunate reference on Mr Stout's part, as it strikes the casual reader that if Provincialism costs so much and does so little why should it not cease to exist, and save the country £32,000 ? |f r Stout surely cannot mean to say that it is advisable to do away with a central form of Government entirely, and save about £34,000 by having nine petty little colonies totally independent of each other, so some part of this £34,000 must be needed to supply that Central Government ; this Mr Stout, if he has not willingly lost sight of, has omitted to mention. With regard to Mr Stout's " belief" or " sacred duty," or his joining the brotherhood of Tennyson and.Swinburne in his endeavor to coin words, we have nothing to do. His speech may be summed up as having temperateness as the leading feature; assertion and self-con-demnation the characteristic points.