The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1894.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10258, 29 January 1894, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1894.

j The Labour Party in New South Wales has lately held a. conference of ita leaders; and, in view of the near I approach of the general election in | that colony, the utterances of this I gathering must ba listened to with Gome interest. The more enthusiastic medibers of the Labour I Ph.rtj in the mother colony j are sanguine of being able to | well-nigh double their present I very considerable strength at the | forthcoming elections. Of course, if I tihey manage to do this no coalition I of their opponents, however strong, will be able very long to hoop them out of office and power. We observe ‘*tbat their conference has pronounced against party government as at present carried on and against the second chamber as known in Australia/’ !Wo are nob surprised at either of these expressions of discontent. The second chamber in the continental colonies is an elective body, and chosen under a very Conservative franchise. The result is that it is invariably found to !be more intensely prejudiced against reform and change than even the Legislative Council in New Zealand. | Then no Australian elective second ! Chamber can be diluted with democratic nominees as in New Zealand. We can well understand, therefore, that the New South "Wales Labour Party, despairing of the reform of the Upper Chamber, haa decided to agitate for ita abolition. Equally well can wa understand its dissatisfaction with party government as practisedin New South Wales. For many years there has been very little division of principle between the opponents in the rival Sydney political camps except on the subject of Frcetrado and Protection. Their fights have been little more than battles of the kites aud crows, or quarrels of plunderers over the division of the spoil. It was thought that the election of a strong phalanx of Labour members, pledged to important and popular changes, would have led to a better state of things; but, owing to various reasons, it has not. The chief of these reasons has been the deplorable mistake of the Labour members themselves in adopting the tactics which were, we believe, suggested to thorn three years ago by Sir Georg© Grey. These were to choose no leader for themselves, and not to attach themselves to any political party, but to stand aloof and endeavour to hold the balance of power. The first result of this suicidal policy was the fall of the Parkes Government and the coming into power of Sir George Dibbe, who was emphatically the statesman least likely to head a genuine forward democratic movement. The next result was a split m the Labour Party over the question of Protection, and the final outcome of two years and a half of work and fighting in the New South Wales Parliament has been that hardly a single useful or effectual Labour measure has been passed, j We.ara not surprised that the New South Wales Labour members are utterly dissatisfied with the system under which their efforts have led to no better result. At the same time, they have themselves to blame. Had they chosen to coalesce with some other section they were powerful enough to have directed it gradually into their own channels. They can now hope for nothing until the result of the next electoral battle ia known. If their expectations of greatly increased strength should be fulfilled we shall probably hear lees of their dissatisfaction with party government. They themselves will then be the dominate party in the State, and they will feel the necessity for party discipline. At the same time, if they could suggest any improvement of party government as usually carried j out, they will certainly eara tha

gratitude, not only of their own friends, but also of Liberals in other countries. We have never professed to consider government by party a perfect institution. All we have contended is that when a party honestly ‘Applies itself to carry out the behests of the people, it can, if ita members will sink individual selfishness, do much good and lasting work. History proves this beyond dispute.

PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE.

Few men are hotter qualified than Sir Julius Vogel to give to an English audience an entertaining sketch of the Past, Present and Future o£ New Zealand, and the paper the author of our Public Works Policy read at the. Imperial Institute last month was ,in every way worthy of an important occasion, and of a very remarkable man. Sir Julius, who is seldom wanting in tact, commenced with a very happy allusion to the Institute, which he described, in graceful language of his own, as a building destined to hold, for a period to which no limit can be net, the records of the advancement and unity of a great nation. From thin he proceeded to a concise history of New Zealand, touching upon the discovery of the islands and their formation into a British colony. He was careful not to be tedious when performing this part of his tank, and his apology for repeating twice-told tales was wholly unnecessary.- On the contrary, a large part of his audience would, no doubt, have bseu delighted to hear more of subjects which he dismissed in a few words. His reference to the “ liberal reading ” of the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, for instance, suggested material for half-a-dozen papers, and his hint that the geographical position of the colony has already had a marked effect upon the character of its people, opened the way to a still more interesting discussion. Sir Julius thinks, no doubt rightly, that the isolation of New Zealand has had a great influence, and will continue to have a great influence, on the character and modesof thoughtof the colonists. Iteobvious effect is to inculcate among New Zealanders self-reliance and a disposition to determine what they consider boat for themselves, without much deference to the opinions of the people whose countries are divided only by narrow water-ways or arbitrary lines. Of tho Natives, whoso present condition was doubtless in hia mind when he referred to tho ,r liberal reading”©? the Treaty of Waitangi, Sir Julius spoke in high terms. “ They are,” he declared, “a fervid, imaginative and singularly intelligent raco, endowed with many great qualities. It will be a profound misfortune if a civilised remnant of them do not survive to ones more grow into a numerous race.” It is gratifying to find in the latest statistics some ground for hoping that tho civilised remnant will be preserved. Whether it will grow into a numerous race is another question altogether.

But we have learnt, rightly or wrongly, to think of Sir Julius rather as a politician than as a historian. He is better qualified, most people will decide, to make history than to write it, lb is for this reason that those portions of his paper which deal with events in which he was one of the chief actors aro of special interest. Everyone knows of the part ho bore in the abolition of the provinces, and those who differed from him on this point will now find some consolation from his admission that the provincial system did a vast amount of good in the way of practically colonising the country. “It came to an end in 1875,” ha says, “ for reasons which scarcely reflected on its monte or its usefulness.” These reasons, it will be remembered, were chiefly of & financial character, and this is the way they aro described by Sir Julius to-day 1. The disparity of means and condition of the provinesa, chiefly occasioned by the deadening influence of Native difficulties, and the large quantity of land which, in consequence, waa shut out from settlement.

THE PROVINCES.

3. The interference with the colonial system of public works. The fact was that some of the provinces—-eager young giants in the way of progress—were not contented with the efforts of the whole colony, but desired to supplement them by extensive works of their own, entailing financial rivalry. The revenues of the colony, in short, could not stand the provincial system contemporaneously with the large colonial prosecution of public works. It, however, played a splendid part in Hew Zealand's advancement. Without it there would have been little colonisation ; probably everything would have been frittered away under Imperial control in dispute with the Natives. The ‘‘reasons” now given by Sir Julius ere particularly interesting in view of the local government reform promised by the present Premier; but hie allusion under this heading to the future is etill more significant. “1 am much mistaken,” he told his audience at the Imperial Institute, “if the last has been heard of the provincial system. It may be resumed some day with, modifications, which would not require to be of a serious character.” Hero, indeed, are words to cheer Sir George Grey and all earnest mou who joined the veteran statesman in opposing the abolition of the provinces.

From the Abolition of tha Provinces to the Public Works Policy ia a natural and easy transition. Ic is with the latter that the name of Vogel is indelibly associated, and here it will be better to let Sir Julius speak for himself. “It has/* he says often been said and written that the Public Works Policy was tha outcome of a speculative desire to obtain the expenditure of a largo quantity of borrowed money for the gain that expenditure would bestow, leaving to chanoo subsequent consequences. I will toil you tbs real facta, and I think I may. say there are only two or threo men now living who can speak with equal authority. The Public Works Policy seemed to the Government tha solo alternative to a war of extermination with the Natives. It comprised the construction of railways and roads, and the introduction of a largo number of European immigrants. The Government argued that if they could greatly increase the population of the North Island, and open up the means of communication through the island, and at the same time give employment to the Maoris, and make their lands really valuable, they would render impossible any future war on a large scale. They recognised that in point of humauitanaaiem there was no comparison between the peaceful and warlike alternatives. They considered also, that, financially, it was infinitely preferable to spend large sums on permanent development, ; to expending equal, ..nr. probably larger,.

PUBLIC WORKS POLICY.

amounts on issues of warfare.” These arguments have been heard before, but they are certainly worth repeating. Up to the date of the withdrawal of the troops, the colony bad expended ,£3,700,000 upon matters relating to Native difficulties. The Imperial expenditure from the Treaty of Waitangi to 1870 was upwards of .£6,700,000, so that considerably over ten millions sterling had been next to wasted on a War Policy. There were, therefore, strong grounds for believing that, from the financial as well as the humanitarian point of view, the policy of settlement was the more desirable. “It was,” Sir Julias continued, “ a bold departure for so small a community, and under ordinary circumstances it would probably have been proposed on a leas ambitious and rapid scale. But the circumstances forbade anything of the kind. The South Island would not be willing to give |ts credit to benefit colonisation in the North Island without inducements applied to itself of a large character. Hence, to really serve the North Island, it was necessary to frame the whole scheme on a scale sufficient to offer great advantages to the South.”

THE JUSTIFICATION.

It seems, then, that we in the south owe our public works, or a great part of them, to the necessities o our neighbours in the north. It would have been neither politic nor safe to have stated the position in this fashion twenty years ago, but to-day we can look at the results and see that the colony as a whole has not suffered. Apart from the success of the 'policy in ending expenditure on Native difficulties, the outcome has been highly satisfactory. Not only was the population most usefully increased, but, iu addition, the railways have enabled the lauds of the colony to be made profitably productive to an extent which would otherwise have been impossible. We may draw from Sir Julius's paper two illustrations which will make his case clear. Look first at the value of our exports during the first forty years of our industrial existence Wool .£84,000,000, grain £14,000,000, frozen meat £6,000,000, flax £2,000,000, gold £48,500,000, kauri gum £6,500,000, other products £34,000,000. Here is a total of £148,000,000, an average of £4,625,000 per annum. The average of yearly population during the same time—from 1853 to IS92—was 325,653, so that there has been over the forty years an exportation of articles produced in New Zealand equal to £l4 annually per head of population. Tho average in the United Kingdom—which prides itself on being a great exporting country—during the same period was £6 7s 5d per head. The other illustration will speak for itself. It is a comparison of the agricultural statistics of this colony for 1891 with those of the older colonies of Hew South Wales and Victoria for the same year

Well may Sir Julius Vogel conclude iKit a country "so rich ia resources in the hands of an educated people, so selfreliant and energetic, must advance to a foremost position.”

; New j Zealand. N.S. Wales. Victoria, Cultivated holdings' over one acre ...j -11,224. 51,550 35,945 Acreage under oul-j tivatiou ! 8,893,225 1,179,621 3>5S,496 Production of wheat' (bushels) 10,257,738 3,063,668 13,679,263 Oats '11,003,020 270,2.59 4.455,451 Barley ... ... : C8S,6S3 0o,-i46 S44.17S Potatoes (tons)i 162,046 23,560 300,525