The Globe. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 1069, 30 November 1877, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1877.

Notwithstanding all that has been said on the question, there are still some amongst us who profess to believe that the loss of our land fund is due to Abolition, and that had that event not occurred, wo would have still been in undisturbed possession of our birthright. It is true that the seizure of our land fund has followed the passing of the Abolition Act. But the two events have no necessary connection beyond succession in time, and had the accidents of political warfare placed the party of “ confiscation ” in power earlier, we would have witnessed the seizure of the land fund, although the Provincial Governments were existing in undiminished power. Abolition was the result of the growth of the colony, and the colonial ising of the land fund that of the rapid growth of our debt. If then, national progress and increased indebtedness are necessarily connected, there may be some truth in the assertion of the provincialists. But, to all appearance, those gentlemen do not attempt even to present jthis view of the question. This woidd have been open to discussion. They carefully confine themselves to the reiterated assertion that Abolition and the loss of the land fund are necessarily connected, and refuse to listen to reason. Yet a moment’s thought would convince those gentlemen of the untenable position they have taken up. They refuse to believe that the Provincial Governments had no power to stem " the rising tide which had been setting in, in the direction of sweeping away the land fund into the maelstrom of colonial finance.” Yet the General Assembly has always had the power of dealing with the land fund, and could have repealed at any time the Act of 1858 giving the land fund to the provinces. All this is perfectly well known, and cannot be disputed. The provincialists, when brought face to face with this argument, have always evaded it, with a stronger re-assertion of the statement, that the provinces were in some mysterious way the guardians of the land fund, and that as long as they existed it was safe. The provincialists, when abolition was being discussed, were never tired of warning the country that the land fund would go with the provinces. Well, they were swept away, and the Abolitionist party did not at once fall upon their prey. The exigencies of colonial finance, it is true, compelled Major Atkinson to propose, that during the present financial year, the land fund of Canterbury and Otago should contribute a small per ceutage towards the consolidated revenue. But it was reserved for the Provincialists themselves to lay unholy hands upon it. As if they were determined that their predictions would come true, one of the first acts of the champions of the land fund for the provinces, has been to seize it, and make it colonial revenue as the only open and straightforward finance. The echo of the valiant speeches made by the noble band of patriots assembled in Convention in Dunedin, has hardly died upon our ears, before those very men turn round and do what they have just been denouncing as the greatest crime the New Zealand Parliament could ever commit. What is a necessity now, must have been a necessity nine mouths ago. The action of Mr. Macandrew and his followers during the past few weeks is therefore the most damaging testimony that can be produced against their honesty and sincerity on that occasion. We are curious to learn what answer our Canterbury members who are supporting the Grey Cabinet will make to the accusation that they have betrayed their trust and broken their solemn pledges. What will the Honorable Mr, Fisher have to reply when requested to explain why he has broken the promise given only a few weeks before when Mr Whitaker’s resolution regarding the land fund was under discussion. We cannot for a moment believe, as has been hinted, that Mr. Fisher is personally opposed to the policy of the Cabinet of which he is a member. Mr. Fisher has the credit of being an honest and independent politician. But were the report true that he is at the present time strongly opposed to the colonialisation of the land fund, then wo must come to the conclusion that place and power are more lo him than his convictions; that, in fact, he has basely deserted his constituents for the honor of a seat in the Cabinet. We cannot believe tins of Mr. Fisher. His character for honesty is too well established to justify such a view. We must seek for some other explanation. Nut* withstanding his assertion, that while lie was in the House there would be at least one voice raised against the land fund being made colonial, we must come to tbe conclusion that lie has changed his opinion. What his reasons for doing - so may ho, we do not pretend io know. It is possible that if they were made known they would not say much for his clearness of perception, but at any rate this explanation leaves his moral character mi-