New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4276, 3 December 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1874.

Sib Georoe Grey has still provincialism on the brain. The best remedial treatment which we can recommend is election to the House of Representatives before next session. Let him there prove his assertion that that body does not truly represent the people of New Zealand, and “ that it is undoubtedly greatly “under the influence of those who “ exercise the powers of the Crown in “ New Zealand.” Does it not strike the mind of Sir George Grey as possible that Kawau is not “the people of New while that island is convulsed at the prospect of provincial abolition the rest of the colony should take it so quietly, or rather, if we may judge from public utterances, should ask for more of that kind of abolition than the Ministry seem prepared to offer. Sir George Grey evidently thinks himself the Deus ex machind who is to save provincialism, and that vox del is vox populi. Such men are sometimes mistaken. His letter to the New Zealand Herald , which we reprinted on Monday, is full of fallacies. In order to prove his argument that the General Assembly cannot lawfully, as the laws now stand, abolish the provincial form of government, he quotes his own assertion, and tho “sound legal “advice” of some anonymous person. Tliis be very satisfactory proof to oir George Grey, but it can hardly be held to determine the question at issue. At all events, the opinion of the Government who have, we presume, been advised by the Attorney-General, is entitled to equal consideration. Having assumed the illegality of the projected action of the Colonial Legislature, he next dilates on the dreadful con sequences of its attempting to do an unlawful act by force. A petitio principii having cleared the ground, Sir George Grey roams about in all the unlicensed freedom of deduction ;—constitutionally and logically, he kicks up his heels, if we may use the expression, in all directions. He thinks it incredible that a Legislature, two branches of which arc nominated by the Crown, and the third branch of which is under its influence, should be permitted to destroy without their previous consent “freely elected “ and thoroughly independent legisla- “ tures.” He cannot believe that the people will submit to “so unexampled an “ act of oppression.” He is grieved that the Colonial Legislature, “which does “ not truly represent the people,” should dispense its revenues and burthen us with vast debts, “ whilst the very funds “ so applied are taken from truly repre- “ sontatiye legislatures.” This is certainly a new revelation. We have been under the impression that Provincial Legislatures, “ freely elected and thoroughly in- “ dependent,” never had anyfunds of their own, but preferred living on the funds of the non-representative legislature. Such a course of life combined many recommendations. It spoiled the Egyptians ; it obviated the unpleasant exorcise, by the free and independent, of tho power of taxation; it saved them from any unpleasant distraction on the subject of ways and means, and allowed them to concentrate their faculties on appropriation. We are all wrong, and the theorist of Kawau must bo right, but still if it were

with our last breath we must say that the facts (so much the worse for the facts) are against him. We are next gravolyitold that it is most humiliating to have Responsible Government, (for so we interpret a rather misty passage about an office more powerful than that of Governor being filled up by the Ministers chosen by a Legislature not truly representative,) and that if Superintendents and Provincial Councils disappear we shall “ bo loft “ under a form of government which the “ people of England would not tolerate.” Now, it appears to us, but of course wo must bo wrong, that this is the form of government which the people of England not only tolerate but justly regard with pride. If our Governor is not representative, no more is the Sovereign, and in

fact loss so, for the Sovereign ascends the throne by hereditary right, while the Governor is selected by Ministers who represent the United Kingdom ; the House of Lords is less representative than the Legislative Council; the House of Commons is not elected by so comprehensive a franchise as that which elects ouv House of Representatives. If a Prime Minister, or Minister, in Hew Zealand need not be elected by a constituency, no more need he bo in England. Responsible Government here is analogous to that at home ; the power of the purse rests in our elected House as much as in the House of Commons. What then is meant by the words that this is a form of government which the people of England would not tolerate 1 English history, or the English language, must differ at Kawau from its ordinary acceptation. The next argument to which Sir G. Grey treats us to rotates in a vicious circle. The resolutions must have been sent home ; they must have been accompanied by the Governor’s or Ministers’ remarks ; the statement that they can lawfully be passed must mean that the Imperial Government would bo asked to get an enabling Act passed : therefore the resolutions are unconstitutional ; therefore the colony has a right to know, &0., &c. It does not seem to us a matter of much importance whether the Governor has or has not communicated the resolutions to the Imperial Government, so long as the General Assembly has legal power to give effect to the resolutions of the House. The Governor has assorted that he believes it has, and that he knows the Ministry have no intention to apply to the Imperial Parliament for further power. It seems childish, therefore, to argue that the statements that a measure can lawfully be passed prove that an Imperial Act would be necessary. It means so, if Sir James Fbrgdsson’s and Sir George Grey’s views as to the present powers of the General Assembly are identical, but, as those views are opposite to each other, the meaning also is opposite. Nor do we attach any public importance to the question of transmitting these documents to the Colonial Office. Wo think it rather a pity that they were not sent, and we do not agree with our late Governor that an incorrect statement of premises justifies withholding a petition to the Imperial Government. It is the duty of the Governor to transmit the document, and at the same time to point out what he thinks is its incorrectness. The argument that the document is not addressed formally to that Government may have some technical weight ; but that objection can be easily removed. Five minutes would enable the petitioner to alter the address accordingly. If so, we hope that fhe Marquis of Normanby may be advised to send the documents home. Bushels of similar petitions have been sent from disappointed minorities to the Colonial Office. They are no doubt carefully docketed and laid before the Secretary of State, who, with an aristocratic shrug and smile, looks at a precis for five minutes, and directs a reply to be sent that “after most careful considera- “ tion he sees no reason to interfere with “ the action of the Colonial Legislature, “ &c., &c.” No one knows this better than Sir G. Grey, as the experience of others, and there can be no possible objection to his testing it himself. As we stated before, the proper course for him is to fight the question out in the House of Representatives, Their action will have no practical effect unless it is supported by the people of New Zealand ; therefore, in choosing that as his battlefield, he submits it to that people to whom he appeals. Let him muster his forces, and march them to Coventry. We are under the impression that they will be-

* l, ' wrong, and they may return as conquer ing heroes.