The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1868.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 160, 4 February 1868, Page 2

The Westport Times AND CHARLESTON ARGUS. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1868.

Sir David Munro 'has been delivering an address at Nelson, on the Abolition of Provincialism, during the course of which, he pointed out the great saving which would be derived by the abolition of Provincial Councils. Provincialism after all is only a question of time, and the sooner it is done away with altogether, or considerably modified, the better for the general welfare of New Zealand. The Government of New Zealand is an anomalous one in British legislature, and therefore it is almost impossible for it to work well. It consists of a number of petty Governments united under one General Government in certain matters. Each of the petty Governments having its own Parliament with its retinue of officers and its own Governor, mast necessarily be more expensive than if they were under the control of one head. It may be said that this will give too much central powers, but we differ from this opinion, inasmuch as each district would have the power of dealing with its own particular local wants, thus, while the local wants would receive due attention, the petty jealousy of provincial institutions would be done away with. The taxation under the present system of Government for New Zealand amounts to the sum of £l2 6s per head, or say £7O for a family of six. It is a common thing to allude to the over-taxed population of Great Britain, but according to Sir David this only amounts to £2 6s 4d per head —compare this with £l2 6s The hon. gentleman then proceeds to ask the question—what is the cause of this excessive taxation ? and proceeds to say : General Government in the colony, and we have nine Provincial Governments. These different Governments, |

General and Provincial, have a common interest in the revenue raised by taxation. The General Assembly has the first pull of the revenue, aim it votes what is required for the Colonial Service. But when it is done the balance remains for the use of the provinces. They are in the position of residuary legatees. They are entitled to all that the General Assembly does not vote. It is therefore clearly their interest that that residue should be as large as possible. But this is not tho whole, nor the best of the thing, looking at it as a species of grim joke ; and surely, if it ever were allowable to laugh at political anomalies, one might laugh at this. The men who compose the Provincial Legislatures, and the men who compose the General Assembly, are practically one and the same body. The Assembly is an aggregate of provincial representations. I do not mean to say that there are not men in it who take larger views of their duty, and who are capable of looking beyond the narrow circle of their provinces. But as a general rule —true it is, and it is a melancholy truth —the Asseinconsists of an aggregate of provincial representations, and the interest of the particular province with which the representative is connected in too many cases appears to be considered by him as his primary duty. The province may thus be said not only to be residuary legatees, but at the same time testators. At all event, they have the power to place enormous burdens on the back of the unhappy colony ; and they have every inducement to do so, because the larger these burdens the larger is the share of the revenue to be applied to local purposes. Can any one reasonably expect a low scale of taxation with such a state of things as this ?" He then proceeds to illustrate his subject by a reference to the year 1800, when the Ministry had expended £35,000 more than the appropriation occasioned by the breaking out of the native rebellion, and which it was proposed to charge retrospectively. It was contended by the Provincial, party, that excess of expenditures over appropriations are liabilities for which provision must be made out of future revenue, either by loan or current appropriation, and this view was adopted on the motion of Dr Featherston. What really took place according to Sir David was this:—"The provinces got their surplus revenue of 1860, according to the appropriation, and not according to the surplus that remained after actua expenditure. The ■ colony was done out of its own revenue and had to go borrowing for the deficiency ; and resolutions were passed, that for the future the provinces should be paid three-eighths of the Customs revenu whatever happened. The Surplus Revenue Act of 185S, carrying out the intentions of the Constitution Act, had been passed to legalize and methodize the payment to the provinces of such balances of revenue as might remain after the wants of the colony were satisfied. But in 1860 all this was revolutionized. The condition of things was exactly reversed. The provinces were considered first. They had threeeighths of the gross Customs revenue guaranteed to them whatever might happen. The balance was to go to the colony. No matter what its necessities, it had to pay away three-eighths of its Customs revenue. This amount was, as it were, mortgaged. If the colony wanted more money it was told in so many words that it was to borrow it." He then proceeds to review the various acts defining what is colonial and what is provincial revenue, and after discussing the whole matter of provincialism, he proceeds to point out a substitute for Provincial Councils : "jl hear people saying every now and again, " Well, we don't like the Provinces ; but what are you going to substitute for them ? People talk about the Provinces as if they were an essential part of the machinery necessary for the development of a new country —What I should like to know is this : how do other young countries get on without Provinces ? There are none of them, so far as I know in New South Wales, in Queensland, in Victoria, in South Australia, or in Tasmania ; and yet the progress of these colonies has been great ; and their material prosperity rests at the present time upon quite as firm a basis as that of New Zealand. Local self-Govern-ment might be provided for in the most effectual manner by a quite different machinery from that of Provinces. Tho provinces, in fact, do not give it; they are. after all, but lesser centralisins. It; is far more effectually given by the District Councils of South Australia, or the Shire Councils of Victoria. A somewhat similar system might be introduced here with great great advantage, both to the pockets and the liberties of the people But with regard to all these local bodies, a

point of the utmost importance to be' misted on is this ; that they should receive no portion of the general revenues of tho Colony. No system more fatal to economy, more opposed to a low scale of taxation, more calculated to lead to dishonest combinations' and corruption of Government can be devised than the application of general revenue to local purposes. I would still allow to the local bodies the enjoyment of the Land Revenue ; although, in almost all other countries it is treated as general revenue, and is paid into the general chest. But the system of applying it locally, having been carried out so far, there would appear to be a certain injustice in disturbing it. With the exception of the land revenue, I think that all money that is wanted for local purposes should be got by local taxation, by rates on property for instance, and other direct means. But then, I would propose to relieve the local bodies of the charge of certain establishments which are borne upon the Provincial Revenues at the present time. The gaols and police would be more economically and better managed under one head than under nine, as at present. If, when Burgess's gang of murderers

were about, the police had been under one bead, their surveillance would not have ceased as it did at the Provincial frontiers. It would have been their duty then to have escorted the murderers out of the Colony, and not out of a particular province, and we might have been spared the tragedy of the Maungatapu. Hospitals and charitable aid are also things that the public generally, and not particular localities should provide ; although, in time, no doubt, in New Zealand,, as in older countries, these _ requirements will be to a great measure met by the endowments of individuals, and by the gifts of contemporary benevolence." This is the substitute we w r ould decidedly support in lieu of Provincial Councils. Local self-governments has acted well in Victoria, and the other Australian Colonies, and is in our opinion in every way preferable to the clumsy expensive machinery of Provincial Councils.