THE "Wellington Independent." Saturday, July 29, 1854.

Wellington Independent, Volume IX, Issue 917, 26 July 1854, Page 3

THE "Wellington Independent." Saturday, July 29, 1854.

Tho Constitution of New Zealand as framed by Parliament was incomplbto in two particulars of vital imporlajice. There, was no provision made fur Responsible Government j - and the limits between the Central nn4 Provincial Governmonts were not defined The pmis 7

sion was in neither case unintentional; but it. was considered by Ibose■•win* framed tlio Act, better to leave these, points open for adjustment'by ! ilie ■colonists Lhemsolves. On the. first, .point, j that o.f Responsible Government, think that such a; course, w.as prudent.; because it might havo been possible to' inaugurate Representative . Institutions(■for a time at least,) without it; and had such a course been followed, no cdllisdn would necessarily have resulted between the different branches of tho Government. Rut as regards the non-limilaiioil of the powers of ihe central and ■p.ronncial ihink it was a most serious error; because it was almost certain'to involve it conflict inure or-less serious between those bodies ; unless ]•:.- -deed the cent ral government .should exercise, it dcgi;ee of self denial • which those who have or. co hat! political-.power conferred upon them, tire generally: very little inclined to exercise. The highest authority on 'colonial questions, in' parliament, perhaps the ;n>st far-seeing statesman'of the day, Mr. Gle-d stone, was not slow to fier.ceive,' the danger, ami urged the Government by every argument he could use not to lenye an opening for a conflict which might prove fatal to the working of the whole measure. The sole'reply to Mr. Gladstone's', argument was.'a difficulty already' solved by the United States; but the Colonial Office .refused to- yield, and a branch capable of bearingonly. upp.les of discord was grafted on our tree of Liberty. There are two ways iii winch our Constitution nitty be carried into effect. Either as a pure federal'government, in which each state, (or province) shall enjoy independent and absolute power, in all matters which concern itself alone, while ihe central authority controls only those particulars in which all the States are collectively interested; .Or the several States may in their local affairs be subject to the "control and interference of the central power,.becoming in fact mere subordinate :agencies, obeying its mandates, and relieving it from tbe labour and responsibility of carrying them into execution. Between these two systems the colonists of New Zealand have to choose. The success of Republican Institutions in America has,- in our opinion, been owing almost exclusively to the perfect 'manner in which die first of these systems has been carried out. -The -failure of every attempt to establish popular government iv France has been owing', to the adoption,of ihe other. In America wherever yon meet with a; separate local necessity, there you find an independent hical organization to meet it; from the affairs of the township up to'lhose of the State, every local interest is administeied on the spot, without 'control by any over- . riding.authority. There is no centralization except for objects of central interest. In France, on the contrary, though the franchise of individuals iias. been carried out to the extremest limits, yet the administrative government arising out of that, franchise litis been centralized in the highest degree; the -functionaries of Paris virtually controlling the machinery of every department, commune, and municipality in France. Hence invariably the "machinery, constructed on two principles so utterly abhorrent, has Down to pieces on the first.-inrii of the handle ; and the people, dismayed at the crash, have fallen easy victims to the selfish schemes of absolute power.

Now, what, our Representatives at Auckland had to tlo, was to prevent the possibility of such an occurence in New by defining expressly the'limits of the powers of the Central Government; and rendering permanent ,by positive legislation tire independence of the Provinces. Have they done so ? If iho policy indicated by Mr, Fitzgerald is to be adopted, and the '_'-Enabling Act " proposed by him is to be passed, we reply that nothing hits been done towards ihe desired end.' On-the contrary, the mensure referred to is a very decided step in the direction of .centralization.;■ and is calculated to give effect to that fatal over-riding policy, which was advocated in the Governor's address, on the evils of which we have already dilated at length.' While this is really the effect (if the proposed measure,it professes to confer large powers on the Provincial Governments." But, in reality, it reduces them to that position of subordinate agency to which we have above referred.

The Empowering Acts passed by the several Provincial Councils, conferred, on the Superintendents certain powers created by the existing Ordinances of the Colony, and by those Ordinances vested in the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Theso-powers-relate exclusively to matters of niere Provincial interest, and.ihe Empowering Acts enabled the Superintendents'to'exercise them independently of extraneous authority. The General Government, however, taking advantage of a rcallytrifling want of uniformity between tho several Provincial, Acts, and professedly for no other purpose than to secure uniformity, repeals them all, (a stretch of authority .which we regard as altogether beyond its functions under the Cons.titution) and.in lieu of them proposes .to confer on the; Superintendents nearly the.-same powers as they conlerred,. hut requiring tho Superintendents to. exorcise those powers, not as before on the advice of their own Executive Councils, but on insinietioris to be issued by the Governor 6n! the advice of/it's Execu- ! Thus are tho Superintendents, "from being! independent Provincial 'Officers/ each responsible solely to 'the Colonists of. his own, Province, transformed in.to suboi'dipatc Oiligials'pf

the -General Government; and that in a vast- range of mauers.of purely Provincial interest. This will never do; it is utterly futal to any thing- like Provincial independence., and at once converts into a practical evil that over riding power of the General Government which beforo was only'a possibility,to.be dreaded, and a defect to be amended.

It may be argued in reply that the Provincial Councils may repeal any of the ordinances in the Enabling Actof the GeneeralAssembly and soleave tlie Governor, no fulcrum Corthe.leverbf his interference. Rut here is jn«t the difficulty. Before this threatened act of (he-General Assembly, no 'doubt the Provincial Governments couhl havo repealed an\ of the ordinances referred to. But now that they are adopted by an Act of the General Legislature and powers conferred on the Governor in I'sferetce 'to them, it would seem that iiny local Act interfering with them would be repugnant to the Act of the Genera! Assembly aiid therefore void. - Thus is tbe interference of the General Government in Provincial affairs thrust upon the Provinces, and by the same.'stroke the latter are incapacitated from'the only means of defence which they.previously.possessed. This is mischievous to die-highest degree, and coming from the- Superintendent of a Province, who ought fit least to exhibit a decent jealousy of intrusion ; by the General Government, it amounts to an utter abandonment of the interests of his provincial constituents. '"'..-

Bad, mischievous, unconstitutional, and contrary to every sound principle as the provisions of this Bill are, scarcely lo be reprobated is. the manner in wliich it is proposed to carry ii out. If the present Government means centralization, let it say so, and let it make centralization a part of the positive law of the land. : But under the provisions of this Bill, tho whole matter is left fast and loose. The Governor is authorised not required, from time to time to delegate certain powers; he may do itol not as he likes ; lie may resume them, and may dele gate them again as often as ever, he and, his Executive Council think proper. He may give them to oiie Province, he may with hold thorn from another; and this in a Bill the excuse for which is, the need for uniformity ! We don't want these discretional liberties. |W~e want our Cotistttution.,to be a Constitution ol'laws, not of discretionary power vested in we know, not whom ; we want permanently settled piincipl.es, properly defined boundaries ofpower; and not to be left to the vagueness! and uncertainty of the scratch of a Governor's pen, on the advice of his Executive! Council. '"-. : \

What ought to have'been'done is this, —The General Assembly should have declared by an Act, that iho several sub.jects -to which-the Ordinances nientiuijedin the Enabling Act relates, are proper subjects for provincial and not central administration ; and that the Provincial Councils should have nil necessary power to legislate on the same in wimteverttay each ntiglil think .'proper. This is'till'that should have been done in the direction' t'owdrds which' the Riia'oling Bill, is-pro-fessedly aimed. But we should have: gone farther,, and we , should have expressly declared Iry.ati Aot, that the power of the General Government should only extend to certain specified federal subjects. It is true that a Allure Assembly might have altered ihe limits so imposed ; but that is owing, to Parliament not having itself imposed the limits in the Constitution Aot, and so made tliera permanently binding. Our enactment would have gone as far as possible/under the circumstances,ton-ards their,establishment oii.u just nnd Consiitutionnl basis; and once established and understood, there would have been little chance of a subsequent change. Tbe Bill-as framed is a great-public fraud; we do not mean fraudulently intended by its framers: but n fraud in operation. Jt professes to confer large Provincial powers, in reality it utterly .strips the Provinces of their independence, and. hands thorn over helots to the General Government." What are w.e lo understand is the policy of the present ministry-.? Dr. Monro declined joining it because lie was avowedly for -centralization. The reference would he Hint Messrs. Fitzgerald, Welti, and Sewell, ure "umnistakeahle proyincialists. And 1 yot we find tbeni proposing a great fundamental measure, as full of centralization, as even Dr. Monro himself could possibly have desired. There certainly is not a word in either the Enabling-or tho llevenhrf"lßill to which lie could have objected. Fertile would be his inventive powers, if he could devise anything more completely centralizing. We repeat, if the Ministry mean centralization, let them say so. Let them.not hall.between two opinions like the poor cat in the adage, " letting I dare not, wait upon I would,"—hut boldly show their colors, and let us know whether we are to support or oppose them. Had this measure been introduced by a ministry which avowedly supported centralization, we should havo looked upon it as a treacherous attempt at publio delusion, and a desire to make the Provincial Governments instrumental in destroying Provincial, independence; These centrnlizcrs, we should have said, know that they cannot govern the country by their own machinery ;: that any attempt to establish such machinery in ouch Province for local purposes would meet immediate opposition ; and be nt once defeated. They know that the Provincial Governments can' alone do tho work-— they. tire;.riot satisfied with letting them do it-vbut tbey endeavour to convert them into mere tools for the central Gov?erumeiit to-work with, and make them.au

instrument for supplying the deficiency (if the latter, and pave the way for its ambition, Tho Provincial Governments we are satisfied will not for,an hour .submit to such a transparent device. It is fori them to do the the work ; they will insist on retaining (he povrer in their own hands and they will not be parties to any measure which may enable the centralizers to lie by, watch their opportunity, aiid when it occurs, extinguish in name, as they have already done in reality, the independence of the Provinces. Such 'would have been our remarks had the measure under notice proceeded from "nvn'wed .ceiit'ralizers. Coming from a Ministry which, at least does not avow itself so, we can only say that it demands .an immediate und unhesitating declaration on their part of the principle on which th-ey intend for the future to carry on the legislation of tbe Colony.