The Star. MONDAY, MAY 17, 1869.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 314, 17 May 1869, Page 2

The Star. MONDAY, MAY 17, 1869.

& It may, we think, be taken for granted that the .best guarantee of good government is publicity. In the first place, we cannot expect men to take an interest in things which they know little or nothing about. That style of government in which all knowledge is studiously confined to a privileged class, and jealously kept by that class from the geuerai public, is the fruitful parent of jobs, extravagance, and disaster^ It would not bo difficult, were it at all necessary, to prove this by some very striking examples. But the people of* this colony, and of this province in particular, are gradually becoming alive to the fact that they must insist on thorough publicity if they would be governed fairly, economically, and beneficially. Those who object to publicity are the men who govern or who expect to do so. They seem to have an idea that, the people were made for them, aud that it is absolutely necessary to keep Tip a sort of statecraft. They will tell you that the publication of an intended measure might be the means of its rejection, forgetting, apparently, that those who have to pay for the maintenance of government are, after all, the proper judges of what is for the best. They dread publicity an a certain class of religionists are said to dread an open and unrestricted perusal of that book on which the Christian religion is founded. They persistently maintain a species of be-hind-the-scenes machinery, and endeavour, by every possible means, to conceal the wire-pulling which they

are so very fond of. Their theory is based on the maxim that the people, whose servants they are, ought to be told just as much as is good for them, and that they, the wire-pullers, are the best judges of how much that is. It is perfectly f;ur to suppose that where so much trouble is taken to prevent publicity there is a great deal done which would not bear the light of day. That supposition is not extravagant or unjust. On what ground, it may be asked, do the opponents of publicity defend their position ? What arguments can they urge ; n its favour ? la a country such aa New Zealand, there can be no valid ground, that we are aware of, why every process by which its affah's are conducted should not be made free to the public. We believe it would be well for the colony at large were the principle of publicity carried oub to its legitimate conclusion in every possible direction so far as government is concerned. By a strange, yet easily comprehended inconsistency, the men who oppose publicity are the very first to complain of what they are pleased to call the apathy of the public. Some question arises on which an appeal to the great body of electors is necessary, or one party gets up a cry for the purpose of ousting its opponents and climbing into office. They invariably complain that the public will take no interest in the matter, and end probably in declaring that the people deserve to be badly governed, &c, &c. We wonder if it ever occurred to these men that they were themselves to blame for the so-called apathy of the public, that it is at their door that the " ignorance of the public ", which they talk about so glibly, is to be laid? Such is really the case. The system under which they govern, and to which they tenaciously cling, can only result in the apathy of the public; and if the people are ignorant, if they are not capable of forming a correct opinion on any subject about which their decision is nsked, they are not blameworthy. It is their rulers, the men who keep up that behind-the-scenes business which we have alluded to, that ought to be censured. They purposely keep the great mass of the people ignorant, or endeavour to do so. They try all they can to make the simple business of government a mystery, and to raise up what is usually called a governing class. They get their reward occasionally. The vei*y ignorance of which they complain, and which they have done their best to perpetuate, drives them now and then from the pleasant pastures of office, and hands over the reins U, their opponents. In a table published by the Provincial Government, showing the position of the Canterbury waste lauds, the quantity of reserves, for educational, and " other purposes," is a prominent feature. Altogether, these reserves amount to 65,206 acres — 18,41.6 acres for educational, and 46,790 acres for " other purposes." Some more detailed information about these reserves is very desirable, more especially about those described as edueationai. The Government recently appointed a person to manage these reserves — an appointment which, we believe, was not at all necessary, at least for the public interests. What is being done with the educatioual reserves? Do they yield any revenue ? If so, how much ? What is done with it? These are a few of the things that it is desirable the public should be told. Perhaps some independent member of the Provincial Council will ask the Government to supply the information.