FICTIONS OF ANTI-PRO VINCIALISM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1312, 30 January 1868, Page 3

FICTIONS OF ANTI-PRO VINCIALISM.

To tho Editor of the Hbbald. Sir, —Your morning contemporary has acorreepfndcut who signs hiineolf "ACountry Settler," who occasionally indites lettors in which he successfully demonstrates two things—his exalted opinion of himealf, and his bitter hatred' against the independence of Aucklhiid. When onoeoesn letter on provincial affairs signed "A Country Settler," the reader would naturally suppose the writer to be one whose interests are localized in the province. Docb the assuming this signaturo rmrk a desire to sail under true colors, or false ? I think that the signature is symbolical of tho cause that tho writer advocates. If we are to believe that a Government place-holderor place-hunter is a fair specimen of country settle™, we may further believe that the clamor of tho writer in favor of district Belf-managemont ia something else than a sham. But the one is as much a fiction as the other. A Wellington placeman is a different person from an Auckland country settlor; and to obt.iin a full development of self-government in the country districts, wo con take a better course than delivering ourselves over, bound hand and foot, to the tender mercies of Wellington.

'i'he honorable settlor's letters indicate, as I have said, n high conception of the authority of the writer, and a keen hostility to the independence of the Province of Auckland. Tery possibly, indeed, the latter characteristic - might be resolved into the former. Not improbably the so-called "Country Settler's" undying hostility .o Auckland things and Auckland men might be traced to the circumstance that the towering superiority of the honorable settler has not usually received among us a tlue homage of oboieance. Not every Superintendent or overy Council has bowed the _ knee to the htgh descended " Settler," put thoir hands uetween his hands, and said, "Wβ are thy men." ~Vtry possibly also the zeal of the honorable settler may be quickened bv the present possession of £400 per annum, administered by the General Governmort, as a slight return for presiding on a few occasions in the course of some three or four months of the year. That is rather in contrast to the action of our Provincial Council with reference to the hor orable settler, when supposed to be a candidate for its Spoakerehip. It is conceivable also that just now the vacant Spoakership of a certain other Counoil would be no unacceptable boon to the honorable settler —a Council sits at Wellington, and the Speakership of which is in the gift of the General Government. We may also, without much audacity of imagination, surmise that to upset the independence of the Fro vince of Auckland would be accepted as good service to the powers that be in Wellington. In a letter which appears to-day from " A Country Settler," a new argument is discovered against P ovincial self-government. The honorable settler has been in the habit of declaiming against the evils of what ne calls "double-government," namely the Government at Wellington and the Superintendent and Council of Auckland. But now he amende the phrase, and lo! it is triple government that is denounced, to wit, Wellington, Auckland, and the local Boards. You oannot, eays the honorable settler, get rid of the first; you will not give up the last; therefore, he triumphantly infers, away with all vestige of the second. O, je powers of logic, what an ingenious rustic this " Country Settler" is! What an admirable chairman he would make of a country Board! Without attempting to grapple with the mighty dilemma in it»elf, let us just extend our commiseration to the unfortunate country settlers of England. What a sad case of manifold government is theirs! They have the Imperial Government legislating supremely over them. They have the county grand jury, with its executive and road sessions. They have the poor-law Union Boards; and they have also, subordinate to these, though independent in their own way, the several parochial vestries. Thus rustic John Bull staggers on under the distraction and thg weight of quadruplj government if the honourable gettler'a argument is good for anything. That argument, however, ie a fiction. John Bull has not quadruple government; but the functions of the publio business are admirably arranged and balanced, so that they are partly centralized and partly local. The citizen of the United States also tnjoye the perfection of order and selfgovernment combined; because the powere of tbe general government at Washington are clearly and sharply defined. What we in New really

want is a return to, and a reform of, the Oonetitution. We actually irant insular separation. Failing that, we require a properly restricted and defined General Government. Subordinate to the Provincial institutions, and to a great degree taking their place, we need a developed self-management of the several districts, ae to their local interests, whetber by means of the machinery of the existing highway Boards or otherwise. In the capital of the Province w-e require to retain a controlling power, appointed, and well watched by ourselves, as the centre of reference for whatever may need to he referred from the several dietriots. By this means we should have, not a double ox triple Government, but a system that would afford the beat seourity to be had for attaining the utmost amount of honeety and economy,—Yours, &c, Spectatoe. Auokland, January 28, 1868.