The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, DEC. 4, 1875.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 4620, 4 December 1875, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. SATURDAY, DEC. 4, 1875.

In the noise and fury that arose on the Government’s attempt at Abolition by a coujp d'etat and its defeat, the immediate issues of the contest have alone been kept in view, the vastly wider and more important issues have been either ignored or thrust into the background.

The chief question that was started was tho question of finance. “ What will become of our Land Funds P” was the cry of tho richer Provinces. “ What will become of our debts P” was the cry of the poorer Provinces, The contest seemed narrowed down to a paltry squabble about money. Nothing could have been more fortunate for the Government. Tho richer Provinces and the poorer ones were sot by the ears, and in the hubbub tho fight was almost won. It was indeed a wonder that the more manly Representatives did not stand aloof from the undignified tussle, and say, “ Let the Provinces go; we will “ not stain our fingers with the unholy “ scramble for pelf.” It was well for the destiny of New Zealand and unhappy for the Government that this minority were fully conscious of the wider issues of the battle and determined to fight it to the death. But for the time they had to take the issues set before them; reference to wider issues would have been misunderstood, or would at least have failed of their effect in the heat of the straggle. Hence the likeness to truth with which mean and paltry motives could be attributed to them. Now that they have secured by their action time for reflection, it is well that the battle change front and reveal its more distant consequences. - Is it to be believed that this is the last step—or rather leap—that will be taken towards Centralism ? Can we stop or sail back when once we have entered the whirlpool? Is it possible that such upright and far-seeing statesmen, as composed the minority, would fight with a pertinacity almost bordering on that lawlessness which is at times a terrible duty, if only a few thousand pounds on this side or that bad been at stake ? Does the high feeling that upholds a man in a painful path of duty ever accompany the mere commercial instinct or the love of property ? Would it he statesmanlike to embarrass the existing Government, to throw the country into ferment, to endanger the peace of New Zealand for that of which the poorer Provinces already had a fair share, whether the richer would or not ? It will be tue salvation of the Government and the ruin of the Opposition to keep this as the chief issue at stake. If this be all that is fought for, the Government can promise as lavishly as the Provinces have spent. Promises are the Government’s paper currency, which coats little or nothing in minting, and staves off the evil day till they have effected their purposes. And in the Abolition Bill they have made an exceedingly judicious issue of the currency. These Cerberuaes —Road Boards and Municipalities—have been effectually sopped till the Bill is passed, and we are far on the road to loss of political life. But even their promises are but robbing Peter to pay Paul. They are giving these bodies just wbat they are taking from them, and have all the credit over and above of making a generous gift. Their transaction with the Land Fund is exactly like that of a man who, first asking a shopkeeper for a sixpenny loaf, ultimately took a sixpenny-worth of whisky instead, and when asked for the payment of the whisky replied, “ Tea, but haven’t I given you the loaf for the whisky?” and to the argument; “But you didn’t pay for the loaf,” again answered, —“Andwhy should I? don’t you see, I didn’t take the loaf P” It is not a question of pounds or acres that is before the Country—though that itself is a question of no mean importance-—it is a question of the political life or death of a whole community. Centralism —which, either in an unlimited Monarchy like the French Empire, or in a Democracy like the United States, or any of the British Colonies, means unmitigated tyranny —is the point at issue. It matters not whether we gather the reins of absolute power into the hands of a body of men or of one man, the result is the same —that every decision of the Government, whether right or wrong, is without appeal In a tyranny or pure democracy the minority must sit in patience under their wrongs. Of course the instruments are different where the tyranny is that of one and where it is that of a majority; but whp would not rather have the thumbscrew of prison or noose of the tyrant than the slow, relentless torture of public obloquy, execration, and social proscription that an irresponsible majority can, and always does, bring to bear on the individual or minority ? The names of Provincialist and AntiProvincialist misrepresent the issue. Most of the minority are as willing to reform the Provinces as the Government is to abolish them. The only 1 names that would give the true position of the parties are Centralist and AntiCentralist. By the former names the Government obtained all the public sympathy which an Opposition cqpimonly gathers to itself; they threw the onus probmdi upon the Opposition ; they had no need to adopt positive opinions or an affirmative which they would have to prove good; they were only opposed to a certain political creed which they considered pernicious to the Country. Thus, while having the Parliamentary majority, which a Government always has, and must have at its back, they gained all the public feeling which a manly minority, fighting under difficulties, commonly receives, and kept up an expectant attitude, professing to wait for the arguments and proofs of their position that a party with a positive creed—aa the Provincialist party, nominally seemed; —had to bring forward. Let the Government party be called Centralist instead of Anti-Pro-vincialist, and the Opposition be called Anti-Centralist instead of Provincialist, and the battle-ground and posture of the combatants appears changed at once. The Anti-Centralists have only to attack; the Centralists have to prove their position good. Who would ever have demanded from the Opposition a positive policy if tho temporary name that was thrust upon them had not produced a belief that they ought to have a positive policy P The office of aa i Opposition is that of siegers, not of besieged. All they have to prove is that . Centralism is politically ruinous, and sucks out the very life-blood of a i nation. • Mr Stevens, in his speech on Monday . night, indicated that this was the real

issue ; and, with a stomach for Centralism and tyranny, worthy of Carlyle, swallowed the Oentralistic weed entire. “ Parliamentary responsibility ” was the sauce which helped tho tough morsel down. “ Away with all your Elective Boards and Councils and Superintendents ; lot us have but one Elective. Council—two, perhaps, if you will have a check, and we can spare tho men from the other; give the Executive, and nothing but the Executive, the absolute power; and the Country will become a financial paradise; ‘ the barren hills will be turned into fruitful valleys,’ in the words of Sir Boyle Roche.” Such is Mr Stevens’ political creed and advice to the electors. But he prudently refrains from following out the creed to any of its logical or historical consequences. We propose to do this for him, that the electors may see definitely towards what they are surely drifting.