THE Wairarapa Mercury. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1867. DR. FEATHERSTON AND PROVINCIALISM.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 8, 23 February 1867, Page 3

THE Wairarapa Mercury. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1867. DR. FEATHERSTON AND PROVINCIALISM.

A few davs before the close of the last session of'the General Assembly, Dr. Featherston made what is considered a remarkable speech upon the relative positions of the General and Provincial Governments, and at the same time expressed his opinion that the question as to the relative powers of the two would be brought to an issue in the next session. This speech was not reported in the Wellington papers. It was nevertheless deemed of sufficient importance to be referred to indirectly in the speech put by Ministers into the mouth of His Excellency when closing the session. It has since been pointedly alluded to bv several leading members of the General Assembly. It has also furnished a text for numerous leading articles in the ministerial papers in which the views of Dr Featherston have been grossly misrepresented. We were in Wellington, but not in the House, when the speech was delivered, and its purport was conveyed to us hy an Auckland member the same evening, who could not restrain himselffi'om expressing - his satisfaction on the subject. We are convinced from what this Auckland member said, fi’om personal knowledge of the views of Dr Featherston, and from what we understand by the term “Provincialism” that the whole question has been purposely misrepresented. From all we can learn Dr Featherston expressed his belief, first, that the evils under which the colony laboured were owing chiefly to the Constitution Act not having been carried out in its integrity; and second, that next session a party would be organised under a recognized leader to reverse the policy which had brought these evils about. We need not say That but little notice would have been taken of this expression of opinion, had it not been for the threat with which it was accompanied. It was supposed at the time that Dr Featherston said what he meant, and meant what he said. It has ever since been taken for granted that the House, next session, will he divided into two hostile parties, one fighting' under the banner ol Centralism, the other under that of Provincialism, and the press, more especially of this Province,has done its best by argument and misrepresentation to secure for the first an easy victory. The journals which we have seen while they fail to give us any clear idea of what Centralism means, have been successful in conveying a very erronious idea of what is meant hy Procialism, and they evidently know little or nothing of the meaning which Dr Featherston attaches to that term. This being the case a few words from us on the subject will not be out of place at the present juncture. Dr Featherston is reported to have expressed a desire to see the Constitution Act carried out iu its integrity. Probably but few of his hearers knew precisely the meaning which Dr Featherston intended to convey hy this phrase. We do not ourselves know the precise meaning’ he now attaches to it. We only know that it has been a favorite expression of his, and what he formerly meant by it. His words and acts, his faith and practice have not been, no more than with other men, always in unison. Since, however, he has not vouchsafed to further enlighten us upon the subject, we take it for granted that the views he formerly held upon the relative powers and positions of the General and Provincial Governments, under the Constitution Act are those which he now holds. In Dr Featherston’s opinion, then, the Constitution Act can only be successfully carried out on the system of a Federal Union. He believes that the action of the Central Legislature should be restricted to the few matters of federal concern which are enumerated amongst the thirteen articles excepted from the legislation and control of the Provincial Councils. He believes that Parliament when it passed the Constitution Act intended to establish two separate and independent Governments —independent each in its own sphere of action—one for local purposes over each Province, the other for general purposes over the whole colony. “ Had it not been,” says he, “ the intention of the Imperial Parliament that these two governments should he independent, each within its own sphere, the probability is that the reation of the local legislatures would

have been left to the central legislature ; but the local legislatures having the same origin as the (ieueral Assembly can only be abolished by the Imperial Parliament.” Dr Featherston. then, believes that each Province should have the control of its own affairs, and that the action of the General Government and Legislature should ho restricted to the few, but not on this .account less important, matters which are of federal concern. This is what he means by “ carrying out the Constitution Act in its integrity;” this is what is meant hy “ Provincialism.” It is impossible nut to be struck with the similarity of tiie views expressed by Dr Featherston with those lately quoted hy President Johnson from a message of General Jackson. That popular President held, said President Johnson “That the action of the General Government should always be strictly confined to the sphere of its appriate duties. The true strength of the General Government consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves; not in binding’ the States more closely to the centre, but in leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper constitutional orbit.” Substitute “ Provinces ” for “ States ” and we have the views of Dr Featherston and the Provincialists of New Zealand briefly hut clearly enunciated in the passage here quoted. Our object has been to convey to onr readers what we conceive to he the views of the Provincialists rather than to express our own; but we do not hesitate to say that a system of Centralism is as unsuited to New Ze aland as it is opposed to the genius and institutions of the Anglo-Saxon race. It may not he advisable to have in New Zealand a miniture edition of the Constitution of the United States; but we are quite sure that the English Constitution, is wholly uusuited to serve as a model for us. We have the high authority of Gervinus for asserting that the English Constitution is not fitted to be a formulary for any other, “It may rather serve as a lesson to a people who in an equally patrioJc spirit, and desirous of making the same use of old and new institutions, might form one adopted to their nature and peculiar character, which might rival the English most in excellence, when it resembled it at least in form.”

With the Seat of the Central Government on the spot, with the enjoyment of a large official expenditure, with a pr.ss singing the praises, and justifying- every act of encroachment, of the central authority, the words “ centralism” and “centralization” have 1 income in (lie ears of the Wellingtonians as musical as the jingle of their tills, and without the triumph of the one they believehbyv will not he allowed the enjoyment of the other. But the time will come, and it is not far distant, when it will either be found that the true strength of the Central Government consists in “ confining itself to the sphere of its appropriate duties,” or that the two islands cannot be properly governed from one centre. Separation is a snake scotched not killed. The triumph of Provincialism would ho its death-blow. If for no other and better reason the cause of Provincialism should receive the support of the Wellington public. They have frequently given Dr. Fcathcrston credit for being more enlightened and far-seeing than themselves. They will give a stronger proof of their good souse than on any previous occasion if they credit him with these qualities in the present instance.