PROVINCIALISM VERSUS CONSOLIDATION IN NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4268, 24 November 1874, Page 3

PROVINCIALISM VERSUS CONSOLIDATION IN NEW ZEALAND.

(From the Australasian, November 7.) Tiie recent steps taken by Mr. Vogel, and by the General Assembly of New Zealand upon his invitation, towards the abolition of the Provincial Governments, have had the effect of recalling Sir George Grey from his retirement to an active part in the discussion the subject has occasioned. In a long petition, addressed to the Governor of the colony, and also intended to be submitted to the Imperial Government, Sir George warmly contests the policy and the constitutional right of the proposed changes. On the constitutional point he argues that, as the Provincial Governments derive their existence from the same Act as that which established the General Government of the colony, the General Legislature has not the power to dispossess the smaller Governments of their authority, and that no advice given to the Governor “ by one or more of these estates will justify him in attempting, directly or indirectly, to deprive any other estate or estates of existence, or of the powers or privileges which the Constitution Act assures to them.” As to the policy of the contemplated change, he argues that the provincial or federal system has been very successful in overcoming difficulties and securing contentment. He also considers that the present system opens worthy objects of ambition to all inhabitants of the islands, as under it any' parent may hope to see his child raised by his fellow-colonists to high, useful offices. On these and other grounds he hopes that the Imperial Government and Parliament will not be led by the Premier to alter tho Constitution Act so as to enable the Central Legislature to sweep away the Provincial Governments. The petition—which may be almost called a manifesto—of Sir George Grey raises many questions that will no doubt receive full consideration before any change is undertaken—considerations that can only be properly appreciated on the basis of full and exact local knowledge. But it is evident to all that, in coming forward in this way to oppose the present movement, Sir George Grey is setting himself against one of the most strongly marked characteristics of the national politics of the present day. Xle refers to the movements in a federal direction going'on in different parts of the world, and sees it exemplified by the Sclavonic race, the population of the United States, Germany, Italy, and Canada. He hopes to see it extend to the British Empire, so as to unite hereafter the whole English-speaking race in one great federation. But in talking in this way it is evident that Sir George Grey is confusing two things so distinct as tho federation of independent states and the consolidation of separate states into one nation. So far as any general tendency is to be collected from the examples he cites, it is to use federation merely as a transition stage on the way to a much closer union. We see this in Germany, where the. loose federal form has been exchanged for the solid unity of an empire. In the United States, every change that has taken place in the relations of the Governments of the separate states to the General Government has bean to strengthen the latter at the cost of tho independence and authority of the former. The federal Dominion of Canada has only been completed during the last year or so, and already there is a movement for the more intimate fusion of the small colonies on the seaboard—Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward’s Island, and Newfoundland—into a single province, to be called by the name of Acadia, after the old French province. If, as Sir George Grey contends, there is a wide-spread tendency to hind small states together into federal unions, there is an equally obvious tendency to weld federation into the more homogeneous structure of nationality. No one can well doubt that a time must come when the need to make this change will be felt in New Zealand. Even the success of the provincial administrations, to which Sir George Grey points as a reason for their continuance, tends to make their maintenance unnecessary. In forming the roads, railways, and telegraphs of the different provinces, in facilitating settlement, and getting a large continuous population spread over the whole face of the country, the minor Governments are laboring towards attaining a state of things when they will become quite unnecessary, and when the lines dividing the provinces will be quite unmeaning. The more successfully and effectively they fulfil their functions, the more do they hasten the inevitable time when they must be swept away as no longer required. The only practical question is, has that time now arrived 2 This is one that will require careful, deliberate consideration before the existing order of things is disturbed. A part of the subject to be considered will be the alterations of the system of local government that the change will make necessary. The remarks of Sir George Grey as to the openings now afforded to honorable ambition by the provincial administration aro in some respects just. The fact that such advantages are presented by the existing system is doubtless something in its favor. But unless a system of government had something far more substantial to plead for its continuance, it could hardly be maintained that it ought to bo preserved on account of tho openings it offers to men of activity and ambition. With respect to this it can only be hoped that’ when the Provincial Governments are abolished, the political ability of the country will combine to assist the General Goverment to discharge the additional duties that will then devolve upon it, and that it will find ample scope for its energies in doing so.