New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4240, 22 October 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1874.

We were right, the other clay, in our surmise that the telegraphic summary of Mr. Buckland’s speech did not do him justice. A report of his speech is before us. In it we find that he alluded to the resolutions proposed by Mr. Vogel, for amending the Constitution, and gave his reasons for supporting them. Perhaps, all things considered, Mr. Buckland regrets that he the Premier, who, to his infinite surprise, is going to Europe, and has entrusted the “drafting ‘ 1 of the Bill to a solicitor or barrister, “ who in his turn would remit the qnes- “ tion to the Chairmen of the different “Highway Boards.” To our mind, this is not a subject for regret. On the contrary, by adopting the plan which Mr. Buckland condemns, the opinion of the most competent men to give advice on the subject will be obtained, and their suggestions worked into the general details of the Bill. But Mr. Buckland has the idea that it is the Premier’s duty to draft every Bill embodying any great principle of public policy. This is a mistake, however. The drafting of Bills is the work of the law officer’s department; and by employing a special lawyer for this task, the Government give an assurance to the public that they mean to make the measure as perfect as possible. “His impression was that Mr. “Vogel had undertaken a most serious “ task, and lie ought not to have run ‘ 1 away and left the accomplishment of “that task to other hands”; in other words, Mr. Buckland conceives that the Premier should have drafted the Bill. It is true that he makes use of the expression, “ devising the scheme,” but the context shows his meaning. Now, the General Assembly has already affirmed the general principles of the Bill. The scheme has been already “ devised” and its main features agreed to, and it is for the legal gentleman employed to work out the details for approval by the Government before next session.

Mr. May took an exceedingly sensible view of the subject, however. He said : He was of opinion that the provinces might be done away with. That, although they had done a great deal of good, they had now ceased to be useful, and in many cates were hindrances. There had been a great cry about what would be put in their place. He was of opinion that they did not want a great machinery to take their place. With the Highway Boards, Harbor Board, City Board, and such local bodies, it was not necessary to substitute anything. In Auckland they had the two sets of government. There was the Superintendent and the General Go vernment Agent, which might be considered similar, and there were the two Land Offices. He thought under tho new arrangement there would be a saving of expense, but not to any great extent. Of course, there would be the gaols, hospitals, asylums, and so on ; but he did not see why the General Government Agent could not manage all these,' and the Provincial Government bo very easily done away with.

On the question of appeal to the country, Mr. May was equally candid and sensible. He did not think there was any necessity for a dissolution, as members could ascertain the feelings of their constituents by meeting them during the recess. However, lie was of opinion that the provinces could be better fought together than in detail ;—-an opinion, the soundness of which wo take leave to doubt.

Mr. Buckland, speaking of Provincial institutions, said :

He had, in common with everybody else in New Zealand who had taken an interest in public matters, seen that provincial institutions had become effete. No doubt tor a considerable period they were exceedingly useful, and, in fact, highly necessary bodies ; but, so far as wo were concerned in tills province, and ho might say in the Provinces of Hawke’s Bay and Taranaki also, their services had become more useless than useful. He would instance the last session of tlie Previncial Council in Auckland, and wished it to be understood that, in speaking of Provincial Councils, ho alluded more to their legislative than their administrative functions. About forty or fifty members from different parts of the province were detained for a considerable period to make laws, and the measures that were submitted to them were of such a character that they could not pass them. There was oniy one Bill which received a considerable amount of attention, and that, it now appeared, was inoperative. He alluded to the present Highways Act, which he had been informed was really a dead letter. If the people chose to have so many law-making machines, they must expect a great many bungles. His desire was to reduce the number of law-making machines, so that the laws might become simpler. At the present there were about ten Governments in New Zealand, making separate and distinct laws—and for such a small community. The tiling was simply monstrous. His object in voting for the resolutions was to reduce the number of Legislatures, and to simplify the laws of the colony. (Cheers.)

But this was not the only reason for his vote. Mr. Buckland proceeded to expatiate on the financial embarrassment of the Auckland Provincial Government, and tlie necessity of handing over the management of the province to tlie General Government, to escape direct taxation. The Provincial Council had voted last session £130,000 on “bogus “ estimates,” of which about £30,000 would bo got. “ If, therefore, they spent “£130,000, the balance of £IOO,OOO “ would have to bo obtained from the “ General Government.” Here, again, Mr. Buckland displays considerable verdancy. His argument hangs upon an “ if.” “ Much value is in an ‘if,’” we know, but it is not the “ open sesame” to tho Colonial Treasury. The recent decision of tho Appeal Court in the Wellington case settles tho point. Unless the money is available it cannot bo spent ; and the General Government is not at all likely to make illegal advances to Auckland to sustain appropriations on admittedly “ bogus “ estimates.” Mr. Buckland may possess his soul in patience ; the contingency which ho foresees will not ai’iso.

But then he proceeds to show how this sum of £IOO,OOO would be taken out of the Middle Island land fund ;—a position quite as absurd as the former. He is entirely wrong also in supposing that the Middle Island contributes anything special to the North Island. Any one who goes through the various allocations of tire Public Works and Immigration loan will perceive the truth of what wo say; but inasmuch as the South contributes more to the Consolidated Revenue than the North, it contributes in the same ratio to the interest and sinking fund of the colonial debt. But that is necessarily a fluctuating amount, and has no relation whatever to the Land Fund, on which Mr. Buckland ignorantly led his constituents to believe that the Government was operating. There is no foundation whatever for the statement ; and that it has been made with so much precision by Mr. Buckland is only one of many instances that might be cited of ignorance on tiro part of public men of the working of the complicated fiscal system which Provincialism has rendered it necessary to adopt. One of the most immediate, and perhaps one of the most important results of the abolition of Provincial Governments would bo the simplification of the public accounts. Mr. Buckland may very well bo excused for not understanding the intricate accounts presented to the colony by the General and Provincial Governments, but there is no excuse whatever for misleading the public as he has done.

Again, the Waiuku settlers, were told that within three’ years the Grown lands of the colony would be seized, to satisfy the pressing needs of the Treasury '; that an income and property tax would bo

imposed ; and “that before long, mone- “ tary difficulties—aye, and social disturbances—of a character unparalleled in “ colonial history would inevitably flow “from the policy [of public works and ‘ 1 immigration]. That result might be “delayed for a short time, but it must “eventually come.” There is no reasoning with a man who deliberately holds such language. His reasoning faculties appear to be inverted. Ho sees only ruin and anarchy in a policy which is populating the country, and covering it with a network of roads and railways ; —which is introducing capital and labor, and making New Zealand a desirable homo for multitudes of people. Mr. Buckland deserves to be styled King of the Croakers. It is speeches of the character he delivered at Waiuku that give a colorable pretext for the slanderous statements that appear regarding New Zealand in Australian newspapers. We would advise Mr. Buckland, in all kindness, to moderate his tone, and put a curb upon his fancy. Let him stick to facts and never attempt to theorise, for as surely as he does, ho will be led into a maze of absurdities by his erratic imagination.