New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1874.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 4289, 18 December 1874, Page 2

New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1874.

One of the most suggestivety-instruotive articles we have read tor a considerable time past appears in 4ho October number of the Westminster JRcview. It is based upon two important papers on Indian affairs recently laid before the Imperial Parliament; (1) “A return of cases in 11 which tho expenditure on public works “ in India has been considerably in ex- “ cess of the original estimates and (2) “ Observations on some questions of “ Indian finance, by Sir John Sxbachet, “ K.C.5.1.” The Reviewer heads his article with the suggestive title, “The ‘ ‘ non-responsibility 0 f the Indian Go- “ vermnent odlcials.” Comparing small things with great, and making every allowance for the (q mc the Public Works department of New a—., d has been in existence, it must be ['..dniii'.wj that much of the Westminster Eenewer s remarks might be applied to the state of things as they now ex lS t m tins colony. And it is simply because we feel this to And it p l .o l „luerit feilt ure, iu our present issue, of his criticism on the Public Works department of Indb' The Reviewer remarks that “ip* 3 now “ very generally stated th» 4 tlle future of “ India, as a British dependency, mainly “ rests upon the efficient working of the “Public WorJm department”; and wo

may add, that a similar opinion pretty generally prevails in this colony in reference to the future of New Zealand. However, we have, from the first, attempted to establish an efficient system of control, by appointing a Minister of Public Works, —an addition, which the Marquis of Salisbury, the present Secretary of State for India, thinks should be made to the 'Viceroy’s Council, for the purpose of reducing the Indian department of Public Works to something like system. Commenting on what transpired in Parliament the Westminster Review says ; “ The measure [lndia Council Bill] was “ discussed in Parliament in a manner “ calculated to convey to the general “ public little more than the impression “ that there has been great failure in the “ design and execution of Indian public “ works, and that it is intended to

“ rectify this by some new system o:

“ control.” It is well to bear this fact in mind, therefore, because whenever any one happens to question the utility or execution of anything that is done by the Public Works department of New Zealand, lie is silenced immediately by the “Indian experience” of the experts. Now, it is something to know that engineering blunders have been committed in India, and that “ there has

“ been great failure in the design and “ execution of Indian public works.” It may serve to dispel the superstitious reverence for “Indian experience,” which has been so sedulously cultivated in this country, and induce that free criticism which is essential to the efficient working of the department of Public Works. The great difficulty in India would appear to be the want of direct personal responsibility. “ The operations are car- “ ried on over an enormous area, and are “ dependent for success, in many of the ‘ L niosv -in.portuu h carsca, upon me cm- “ cient co-operation of two very distinct “ branches of the public service.” In other words, the local governments, or presidencies, and the India Council, which latter has presumably the control of the Public Works department. But the former do not co-operate with the Viceroy’s Council. Speaking of a single presidency, we find that, in localities where millions have been expended, all results are lost, owing to mismanagement; that the details of every work in Madras are settled by officers who have no knowledge of the localities; that the engineers, aware of this, are powerless to interfere; and are, when they attempt to do so, treated with utter contempt ; and that in two localities the mismanagement has been such as to prevent the cultivators of the soil from using the water. This is the substance of Sir A. Cotton’s defence

of the Public Works department. Accord-

ing to him, “the department has per- “ fectly succeeded in its part of the “ operations, and the Civil authorities (t have totally failed in theirs.” Indeed, he alleges, although he adduces no proof for the allegation, chat some of the largest irrigation works constructed in the Madras Presidency have remained uselessly expensive burdens owing to the conduct of the revenue authorities. There is, doubtless, a considerable degree of truth in Sir A. Cotton’s letter to The Times on this subject; but the Pevieiver appears to think i( that the question really at “ issue between him and the Civil autho- “ rities has been that of a compulsory “ water rate,” which, of course, would alter the general conclusions to be drawn from his letter. However, there is something moro in it, as we find Sir A. Cotton describing the case of a young officer, who had never seen an irrigation reservoir, being directed to prepare plans for enormous work of that description. This, however, is not a solitary case in India; nor do we think it is without a parallel in New Zealand experience. If, however, the local governments of India have .not 66 cordially co-operated “ with the central authorities in carry- “ ing out the details of the public works, ” and utilising them when constructed, so neither have the local governments of New Zealand cordially co-operated with the General Government, and for the same reason, namely, a jealousy of the supreme authority. Numerous instances might be mentioned in New Zealand in which public interests have been sacrificed to official jealousies. It is hardly so ruinous in its results, however, as it has been in India, where it threatens to break down the whole fabric of British rule. Sir H. Maine, a member of the Government of India in 1867, and the greatest of living English jurists, thus describes one of the weakest points in the financial system then existing. Ho writes, (and wo invito our readers to consider whether his remarks do not pretty accurately describe the relations of the General and Provincial Governments in New Zealand) ;

I do not think that anybody can have observed the recent working of our system of financial control without coming to the conclusion that if we be not on the point of an inevitable collapse, it is at all events in great danger of going to pieces unless the strain be lightened somewhere. The rules imposed ou the local governments for their force, like all laws, on the efficiency of the penalty which they threaten in the event of disobedience. The penalty js in the present case a reproof from the Government of India. But if any local government has become, which any local government might become at any day, callous to the rebukes of the Government of India, through discovering, which any local government may at anr time discover, that these rebukes load to uo ulterior consequences, what impediment

remains to the employment of one or more of the hundred expedients by which the Central Government may be morally compelled to condone infractions of its rules, and to allow the share of its revenues which it has allotted to a particular purpose to be “ So it was in and before 1807,” remarks the Reviewer, “ and so it has con- “ tinned up to the present time. Does “ this, illustrated by the proceedings “ described in the correspondence now “ published, point to decentralization as “ the one and sufficient remedy, or does “it lead to an irresistible belief that un- “ less responsibility be made a reality on “ both sides, reward and punishment, ‘ ‘ decentralization and improvement, may “ not be found convertible terms.” Our ultra-provincialist friends might do worse than think this subject out for themselves. However - , the Reviewer does not think, with Lord Salisbury, that the appointment of a Minister of Public Works, especially charged with the control of the department-, will bo sufficient. It is not proposed to abolish the local governments of India : the presidencies must remain for purposes of local administration. In New Zealand, however, we may advantageously abolish the local governments, and increase the direct control of the Minister of Public Works. On this branch of the subject, the Westminster lie view is well worth quoting. It says ;

Whatever may be Rained by the appointment of a Minister of Public Works, there must always remain much with which any such Minister can only partially deal, and exactly here lies the onlto which, more than tn anything else, are attributable faiinvo-, -ontimially i — : >n( in magnitude and cost, and ratal consequences in a future which is to see expenhitherto unknown. 1“ the Indian 1 übhc W orlts a^ i . tment rcS p o nsibility has been defined, assigned, and paid but it has not haen properly curiruod. if rules »na regulations defining, reS p on sibiUty were alone sufficient, the de- , partiuent AVouiA ioivn, o S o have, been a nearly perfect I macbi ,, v** illsLe ; Jul le unsatisfactory creation which I « said to puzzle everybody how to adi with it, and u now described as India’s greatest danger We are accustomed in New Zealand to accept, as a matter of course, that the expenditure on public works, general and provincial, should exceed the estimate; not so, however, in India. The papers which wore laid before Parliament show that the Duke of Argyll, Lord Ckanbokne, Lord Salisbury', and Sir Stafford Northcotb, in their despatches as Indian Secretaries, took very marked notice of this feature of the Public Works Department, not the least interesting part of the correspondence laid before Parliament being their comments on, and condemnation of, a system which passes current in New Zealand without note or comment. The Westminster Review summarises the facts of each case in the papers in which the expenditure exceeded the estimate. These cases show conclusively the insubordination of the local governments. It was manifested in the erection of public buildings, irrigation works, —the “reproductive” nature of the latter being simple delusions, like several of our New Zealand water-supply schemes —tidal laud reclamations, and bridges. The correspondence discloses errors in calculation, carelessness in preliminary surveys which appear in some cases to have been mere guess work, and a total disregard, by the local authorities, of instructions communicated from headquarters. The India Council Bill having passed, a Minister for Public Works may be appointed, but the Westminster Reviewer is of opinion that such an Executive officer will be as powerless as the Secretary of State and the India Council have been to prevent abuse in the Public Works department. However, the attempt is to bo made by Lord Salisbury. “ It seems probable that under his administration endeavors honestly made “ to draw attention to existing imperfeo- “ tions will be recognised and furthered, “ instead of being pooh-poohed by official “ optimism under cover of the more per- “ feet informfirm imrirnnftrhr nooU im " aucu attention from the real issue. Thus, the Reviewer, who concludes with these words : “To those who consider “ that this has been sufficiently shown, “ will probably occur the important ques- “ tion whether it can reasonably be “ believed that the defective system of “ administration proved to have prevailed “ in respect to public works, has had no “ existence in other branches of the ser- “ vice, the proceedings of which are not “ tested by the publicity to a great extent “ necessarily given to those of the Public “ Works department.”