TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph MONDAY, DECEMBER, 5, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3253, 5 December 1881, Page 2

TOWN EDITION. The Daily Telegraph MONDAY, DECEMBER, 5, 1881.

The Hon. Mr Hall, tbe Premier, in his addrees at Leeston, and in reference to local government, said that no two of all who demanded a change could agree as to the form the alteration should take. He said the cry for a new form of local government had not been responded to by the country. But although the attempt to create an election cry on this question had failed he would not deny thatsome improvements were needed, an-1 he believed they could be made. He then proceeded to point out the direction those improvements should take. He thought the system of government for towns was satisfactory, and it had been advantageously extended by the Act to create town Boards for the smaller towns and and suburban districts. For rural districts improvements should be in the direction of giving elasticity to the system of Counties and Road Boards, so that the people themselves might choose under which form they would have their local affairs administerd. To this might be added another improvement the necessity for which was recognised by the Government—he meant that there should be delegated to local bodies many of those powers which were originally and rightly given to Superintendents of provinces, but which when abolition took place, were vested iD the Government. The Government had no desire whatever that such powers should be " centralised in Wellington," as it was phrased, but they had not as yet had reasonable opportunity of dealing with the subject. Now, let U3 carefully note the drift of the Premier's ideas respecting the improvements that he suggests should be made in the existing system. In the first place he would make the Counties Act so elastic that any portion of a county might cut itself off altogether from County Council administration and place itself under a Road Board. Mr Hall's next step would be to delegate to local bodies " many of those powers which were originally given to Superintendents of provinces but which, when abolition took place, were vested in the Government." Here," we see that Mr Hall, whether consciously or unconsciously, has come round to exactly the views that were expressed by Mr Ormond in his celebrated no-con-fidence speech of last session. In that speech he said, " under the form of local government which I wish to see grow up I should like to see effect given to the plan suggested by the hon. member for Bruce—namely, the constitution of shires. I believe that if we had a properly defined system of local finance, it we endowed the local bodies with the funds they must have in order to carry on their functions, we should enable the Road Board system to expand gradually into the shire system, which would take ud the whole of the road-making functions of the country—all xUosc madmaking functions which would not be exercised by the higher governing body which I want to see introduced, and which should be large enough to be able to carry on the higher governing functions.'" Now, to what higher governing body did Mr Ormond allude ? Clearly to one to which could be delegated those powers which were originally held by Superintendents of provinces. There is practically no difference between the views Mr Hall entertains now and those enunciated by Mr Ormond last July. We will now see how far the country has responded to the cry for a new form of local government. In the first place there has not been a candidate for the representation of a constituency who has not referred to tbe question. If there had been no demand for any change, if everybody was satisfied with the existing system as it stands, there would have been _no occasion for any reference to the subject at all. We will now quote a few lines from the speeches of some of the candidates who have given a deeper attention to tbe question. Mr E. Stafford, speaking at Wellington, said:—"When we consider that Mr Macandrew last cession prepared a bill to give separate Legislatures to each island ; that Sir George Grey holds strong opinions in favor of Provincialism, and that Mr Ormond is an advocate for local self government, we feel suspicious of what is to come. I admit that the system of local government we now have is a sham. We have more than ten classes of governing bodies, such as Road Boards, Local Boards, County Councils, Rabbit Boards, &c. All these'boards have rating powers, and the network of local government seems an absurdity. We should consolidate these bodies into one, and if those who wish for local self government will, be content with destroying these bodies, and conferring vpon a single body all the powers that they enjoy, I am prepared to support such a measure, and also to confer such further powers, not being legislative powers, as may be necessary." Mr J. A. Tole, speaking at Auckland, said :—" The paramount question was a reorganisation of the public institutions of tbe country. It was a fact, however, that the only institution which had stood the test was the Road Board system. There was a great cry about local government, by which was meant something between the Road Board system, which did its work so well, and the other institutions which required to be reformed." Mr Reader Wood, also speaking at Auckland, asked, in connection with local government, how it was that the " General Assembly bad come to be unequal to the duties they had undertaken ? It had undertaken to do things which did not belong to it. Ten years ago it became a public Board of Works, and it was a very bad legislative machine. Mr Macandrew's proposal of separation did not simplify matters. Instead of one legislature there would be three." Following up that cue Mr Moss said, " What they wanted was local government, to manage their own affairs, and general questions could be dealt with by a House of 40 or 45 members, and half the present Ministry, and half the expensive staff of officials."