THE Wairarapa Mercury. SATURDAY, MAY 25, 1867. CENTRALISM AND PROVINCIALISM.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 21, 25 May 1867, Page 2

THE Wairarapa Mercury. SATURDAY, MAY 25, 1867. CENTRALISM AND PROVINCIALISM.

The subject which heads this article is but ill-understood, though it will occupy a prominent position in the next session of the General Assembly. The articles which have recently appeared on the subject in our Wellington and Wanganui contemporaries are ’not calculated to render the matter more clear and intelligible. The truth is that the authors of

those articles, being- but young colonists, and consequently but imperfectly acquainted with tbe early history of the colony, and of the movements and policy of the political parties into which the colony has been divided, are not sufficiently conversant with the matter on which they write to render them safe and intelligent guides to the public with reference to it. For example, we are told by one writer that the movement now going on in British America “is clearly in the direction of Provincialism,” whereas the movement is clearly in the direction of unity and federation, Provincialism haying previously existed there in too intensified a form. We are told by another writer that “ the General Assembly has no overriding power over the Provincial Governments,” whereas the overriding power possessed by the General Assembly has been the cause of most of the mischief of which the Provincialists complain. Though tolerably conversant with the subject, we confess we do not exactly know what 'Provincialism or the Provincialists mean. We know what Centralism and the Centralists mean, but we do not understand the objects of their opponents. The Centralists' wish to establish a system of Government for the colony on the English model, and by splitting up the Provinces into municipalities destroy the former, on theold principle of “divide and conquer.” The constitution of New Zealand, before the Centralists tinkered it, was admirably adapted to the nature and peculiarcircumstances ofthecountry. With a few alterations, in the opposite direction to that taken by the Centralists, the constitution of New Zealand would, in the language of Gervinus, “ have rivalled the English most in excellence when it resembled it least in form.” But it does not follow because the Centralists mean to make use of Municipal Institutions to destroy the Provincial Legislatures and Governments that the Centralists are, and that the Provincialists are not in favor of local-self-government. There is no reason for instance why Wairarapa or Wanganui should not have a fair share of its own revenues, and the entire management of its own local affairs, under the Provincial any more than under the General Government. The Municipal Institutions promised by the Stafford Ministry are not necessarily antagonistic to the existence of Provincial Governments. Supposing that a fixed portion of the land revenue of an outlying district was handed over to its Municipal Council, it does not follow that the Provincial Government would have a smaller revenue at its disposal. The powers and revenues of the General Government could also at the same time, and by a like process, be de-centralized.

If, is .‘i curious circumstance, though one which could he easily accounted for, that the Centralists of New Zealand sympathize with the movements which are in progress in the other colonies having for their object the establishment there of a form, of Constitution similar in most respects to that which has been conferred upon Now Zealand. We also find that the Centralists of New Zealand who “go the whole hog” in favor of a strong Central Government, are opposed “tooth and nail” to the party in the United States who are the advocates there of precisely the same thing. The State Eight doctrine advocated by the supporters of President Johnson is precisely the same as that advocated by the Provineialists of New Zealand. The truth is that the Centralists as a body feci but do not think. Their faith is not based upon reason but upon sentiment. They are Procrustians. They do want a constitution suitable for the circumstances of this country, but they want to bend the circumstances of the country to fit a Constitution not adapted for it. The Bill now before Parliament for the federation ofthe North American colonies has the support of the Centralists of New Zealand, and yet the Bill is founded on the New Zealand Constitution Act, and gives those powers to the Provincial Legislatures and Governments of Canada of which the Centralists here are endeavoring to denude those of New Zealand, A Constitution similar in almost every respect to that granted to Now Zealand is not only now about to be conferred upon the North American colonies, but the late Duke of Newcastle, when Colonial Minister, recommended that a similar Constitution should be granted to the colonics of South Africa. Asia Canada there were to he Lieut. Governors instead of elected Superintendents, hut the powers of the Provincial Legislatures wore to be as great, if not greater than those originally possessed by the Provincial Legislatures of Now Zealand. The fact is the Centralists of this country are endeavoring to undo hero what they are glad to see the Imperial Parliament trying to have done in North America and South Africa.

If the Centralists had no objects in view but that of establishing- a Government in New Zealand on' - the English model, or that of giving powers of local self-government to the outlying districts, they would adopt other means to obtain that object than those they are now using. If the first had been their object, they would not have imposed a stamp duty upon newspapers, and they would have tried to create by means of a metropolitan press, a united public opinion. If the second, they would not have endeavored to deprive the people of that influence they are now able to exercise

through their Provincial Governments on public affairs until they had substituted other and better machinery for the purpose. Their hatred of Provincial Governments arises from their jealousy of popular power. The leaders of the Centralists are “ birds of passage,” would-be-aristocrats, and official locusts who dread the influence which the popular will is capable of exercising through the Provincial Legislatures in the Government of the country, and who in former times either always joined the enemies of free institutions and popular rights, or lent but a luke-warm and intermittant support to the party by whom they were achieved. The knowledge of this fact alone ought to make the people hesitate before joining the ranks of the Centralists, and aiding them in forging fetters for their children. But if we have no faith in the Centralists, or in Centralism, we have still less in those who would impose any longer on tin's colony the incubus of two costly systems of Government. We would rather aid the Centralists to destroy the Provincial Governments than that they should be maintained, not by denuding the General Government of a portion of its present large revenues and powers—not by limiting its action to the few matters which are of federal concern—but by the imposition (the scheme which was adopted last session) of additional burdens on the people. Wo think with the Colonial Treasurer, and Major Richardson that the present system ought not to be continued. We do not think with the latter that centralization should be substituted in its stead, as we advocate the de-centralization of both the Cen-. tral and the Provincial Governments, by transferring the whole administration of Provincial affairs to the Provincial authorities, with the necessary revenue for that purpose, and by granting a fixed portion of the local revenue, and full powers of local government, to districts as those of Rangitikei, Wanganui, and Wairarapa.