LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

Marlborough Express, Volume III, Issue 124, 4 July 1868, Page 5

LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

The following is a brief epitome of a speech recently addressed to the electors of Palclutha, by Major llichardson, which, as he is one of the Stafford Ministry, will serve to indicate what the present Government mean by Local Self-Government. Ihe Major spoke for an hour and three-quarters, taking for his subject the political aspect of the colony —more especially with reference to Provincial Institutions : “He gave an historical review, showing the original intention of the Legislature to have been to use Provincial Institutions temporarily, to be afterwards succeeded by local government, districtshaving one-third of their land revenue for public works. The time had come for abolishing Provincial institutions, but not for abolishing boundaries of provinces which would bo retained if possible. Separation never was more impossible than now. _lt would be better to accept any reasonable modification, if it could bo got, rather than to have the colony divided into petty powerless states. The General Government, instead of being agressive and criminally indifferent to the duties in that matter, advocated the abolition of Provincial Institutions should first be done; nominated Superintendents, with elected Council, holding two meetings quarterly, should follow; then a portion of the consolidated revenue, in proportion to the population, would be given to each province. As to the Allocation of Land Eevenue, one-third would be applied to Immigration ; one-third to Trunk Eoads; the other third to District Road Boards. Provinces would then be divided into Counties and Road

We take the following from a contemporary :

“ Mr. Julius Vogel has written an able letter in the Otago Daily Times, refuting most of the arguments adduced by Major Richardson at Balclutha, in which the latter “threw before them the shadows of forthcoming events.” Mr. Vogel disputes the gallant centralist’s figures, and successfully demolishes a number of political “ castles in the air,” constructed with the greatest care by the future Speaker of the Upper House. Mr. Vogel goes on to say that, were Major Richardson elected Superintendent to-morrow, lie would strenuously oppose his own suggestions.”

The following extract from the election speech of Mr. Fox, at Eangitikei, on the 22nd nit., treats the question of Local SelfGovernment from a different, and more correct point of view;—

“ The first blow which was struck at provincial institutions was the New Provinces Act, a most unstatesmanlike and dangerous measure, which, after it had done unlimited mischief, its own originators were compelled in self-defence to repeal. The mischief it did was not the creation of three feeble provinces, but the hanging of an halter round the necks of the old provinces which thus, uncertain when they might be led to execution, became paralyzed for good, and lost that self-reliant spirit which had animated them in their earliest years. I cannot forget that this measure was the work of a ministry of which Mr. Stafford was the head, and that as long as it was possible to keep that iniquitous law on. the statute book, he was found foremost among its defenders. And scarcely have the provinces got rid of this millstone round their necks, than wo have the men who supported that fatal measure coming forward with their Local Government Bills, their Timaru and Gladstone, and their Westport Acts. Pretending to plough with the heifers of better men, they assert that their object is to extend the powers of local self-government. Never was there a more hollow pretence. Let any one read these acts and they will see that their whole aim, object, and result, is practically to concentrate all local government, all power and patronage in the hands of one central government. It ia possible that such institutions as the Westport Council may suit the floating population of the goldfields, but they will never meet the requirement of communities which pre the offspring of

honci fide colonisation. I watched, as many of you no doubt did, the initiation of the Westport institutions, presided over by the Postmaster-General, who dictated to his little Council all they should do —(low they should tax themselves, how they should spend their revenues—and I thought I never saw a more feeble parody on self-government. The inhabitants of Timaru and Gladstone, as far as I can discover, have declined to bring their Act into operation —and the rtsult will probably be that it never will be put in force. In the meantime, the result is the same as that of the New Provinces Act —the original provinces are weakened and enfeebled and cease to perform their functions in the independent manner they ought. Any gardener will tell you that if you allow a mass of feeble suckers to grow up from the roots of a goodly fruit tree you will impoverish the parent stem and look in vain for fruit. Such feeble suckers will these county institutions prove; incapable of bearing fruit themselves, and destructive of the vital energy of the parent tree. What we want for the extension of local self-government must be something very different, if we are to have it at all. It must be a genuine thing and not a sham. Yet these county institutions, which 1 believe to be of so unsatisfactory a character, are a part of what 1 may call Mr. Stafford’s unavowed policy—a policy which, whatever its intentions may be, has as its result the destruction of the Provincial Institutions of the colony, and not the extension of local self-govern-ment as pretended. For my own part I still hold that the great error of our Constitution Act was the over-riding power of the General Assembly. As I have hinted already, the weakness of the Provincial Governments has arisen not so much from their not possessing powers sufficiently large, but from their only holding their powers on sufferance —liable at all times to have them (and not only them but the territories and communities over which they were to be exercised) wrested from them by combinations of men in the General Assembly, who perhaps, only represented minoi-ities in the provinces themselves. Doe* a tenaut-at-will over farm his land on the best system —does he drain —does ho erect new fence* —does he put up costly and expensive buildings ? Gf coarse he does not; But look at the owner of the freehold—or even the tenant under a lease of 21 years. He can venture to “do his duty by the land,” because ho has an inheritance or what is equal to an inheritance in it. It is this which has enfeebled the Provincial Governments; they have had ixo inheritance in their work; they fxave been brought to tremble before the lash of any outlying minority, and to dread the loss of their very existence, at tlxo will of any minister who may be adroit enough to conceal, or bold enough to avow his intention to exterminate them. How different might it have been if the statesmanlike warning of Mr, Gladstone had been heeded, when be predicted “ conflict, weakness, and confusion,” from this ill adjustment of power.presented by our Constitution Act. Is it yet too late to limit the General Government —to thwart its great appetite for aggrandizement —and to reinstate the Provincial Institutions, as the fountains from which real local self-govern-ment must flow V ’