THE New Zealand Herald AND DALLY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1881.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6212, 14 October 1881, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DALLY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1881.

The widest extension of local selfgovernment and tlie utmost development of decentralisation, ought to be the main object and the chief insistance of the country at the approaching elections, as the two great remedies for some of the greatest evils from which the body politic suffers. The two are not quite convertible-terms, and this must always be borne in mind. It is by no means certain that with regard to all things which it is desirable to remove from the sphere of "Wellington control, it is possible to replace it° by that of a local body. We do not say that it is not possible but it would probably entail responsibilities which might necessitate a radical change of local self-government, a matter not to be regarded lightly. When we disturb what is, there is so much the chance of making things worse rather than better, that it is desirable to await the impulse of necessity. That necessity exists with respect to decentralisation and local self-government, but not with regard to every particular they may include. It would be to expect too much to hope an absolute carrying out of a theoretic intention, that is never possible with regard to any change. We recently referred to the necessity of party organisation, and without it, though the constituencies should compel an expression of opinion from candidates on the great questions of the day they may be retarded rather than advanced. We have but to look back at the proceedings of the late session. With regard to local self-government it was found that tot homines tot sententice. There was not only a great difference of opinion but the widest divergence, the extreme divergence perilling the whole question, but raising another, that of the restoration of provincialism. Mr. Moss, though repelling the idea of being its expositor, certainly is so, judging him by his words, which must be presumed to represent his convictions. Sir George Grey submitted a proposal to the legislature, in which probably the handiwork of Mr. Moss may be found, that would simply in-

tensify every evil that existed under provincialism and be a curse . to, the country rather, than a blessing. It will be out of the power of the electors to deal effectually with the subject of local self-government or <£ecentralisa 7 tion if they are to be plagued by conflicting and immature schemes instead of being offered large general propositions. It is impossible for the constituencies to consider and debate the details of the policy, they could only do that at a conference of delegates of local bodies : there could be no possibility of agreement -with regard to all the details of any proposal. Let us take the Bill of Sir George Grey for instance, or rather the Bill introduced by him into the House of Representatives. It cannot be credited that he is its author, because it is inconceivable that a public man of his experience would propound a scheme so crude as to be almost barbarous, creating a cumbrous machinery, the numerous parts of which would entail most evils, and cost and friction, as not the least. The great aim in politics, as in mechanics, is simplicity. It is the complexity of Government in Wellington that will seal its doom. Now it would be manifestly absurd to substitute for the central complexity a number of local ones—a number of small ones for one large one. It is manifest that one large one would be far preferable, for there would be but one set of machinery instead of many. It is by no means the function of constituencies, and only in a small degree that of candidates, to prescribe how decentralisation shall be brought about, and an extension of local self-government. As respects the leader of a party or a political programme, nothing more than an outline is desirable or an illustration of the application of the principle. For instance, it may be laid down that it is essential to remove from the control of Parliament as much of the revenue as possible, and that it should pass to its uses on a general system, and without central intervention, to prevent favouritism, corruption, debate, and waste of power in the departments. As an illustration of this —we give it only for what it is worth—it may be defined that the revenue from land shall be divided locally, with some abatements for central purposes perhaps, but only perhaps ; or if it passed into the Treasury, should do so only as a matter of account. In the same way other illustrations might be given; but we suspect that for all practical purposes the constituencies would do well to keep themselves free from pet schemes, confining themselves to the large but emphatic language that both" local selfgovernment and decentralisation shall be given the widest extension possible. It seems to us that if the leaders of party—if leaders there be, and Mr. Hall certainly is the leader of one—would be at the trouble of eliciting opinions from the chairmen of local public bodies, there would be added to their theoretic intentions a vast deal of' practical information which would suggest to them the best means of giving their intentions effect. With the estimates in his hand, such a leader could see the only items of public expenditure with respect to which the j principle could operate, distinguishing those to which it could be applied, because it would be impracticable, probably, to apply it to all. The leaders could do, and ought to do this. They should be able to come before the constituencies with the leading principles of a policy defined. In that case, the electorates would have the key-note of each, and as much of illustration as would make the plan plain. In the absence of this, there will be nothing left but for them to affirm a general proposition as a test for candidates. If they accept the illdigested or vague proposals of individual candidates, or" if they adopt any harum-scarum scheme, with all its details, they will set back for three years the settlement of a question which' ought to form the chief subject of legislation in the next session.