DR HODGKINSON’S PAMPLET.

Western Star, Issue 1244, 21 April 1888, Page 4

DR HODGKINSON’S PAMPLET.

The “ Thames Advertiser ” thus criticizes Dr Hodgkinson’s pamplet.—THe question of Local Government has |o much importance, that we need to make no apology, to our, readers for bringing it prominently under their notice. A pamphlet lias recently beqn, written on the subject by Dr Hod'g Icinson, the member for Wallace, aqd in it lie strives hard to make His readers believe that Provincialism was incomparably better than the general governmental system which has taken its place. Like all constitutional reformers, he starts with the assertion that the present system is a mpst thorough failure. It is most easy to make statements of this kmd,,but It Is . not a matter of equal facility to prove their truth ; and although <- ; >Dr Hodgkinson reviews the history, pf the colony for the past .twelve, years,,.and most strenuously labors to. convince people that what .he has written is correct, we do not think hep has satisfactorily done so. He has a, perfect right to hold what opinions he likes ou this matter, but so farms his brochure is concerned, .it does not demonstrate anything further than that in his opinion the abolition of provinces was a mistake! If, we are to believe this gentleman eyery defect In our constitution, and every blemish connected with our administrative system Is. attributable to the abolition of Provinces. According to him 'Abolition has “ degraded the Parliament of New Zealand from its proper status as a legislative body into a huge board of works, in which log-rolling:and localism have run riot.” The Doctor goes ou to say that the increase in the colpny’s .indebtedness, the gross extravagance; . and misanp icatipn ; of public, . money arc the direct result, and can be clcarly “traced to abolition. The 1 culpable .waste . of time, in Parliament, " tb'C improper , way the ; business: of tbo House is conducted, ■ and | the : ]ow standard of intellect eiijoyed ! by representatives. in; the Assembly,, arise .all from the same,cause,. “ In short,” ! (thus sums up Dr Hodgkinson) “It is' -not using too strong an expression to ■ say that, under the present pernicious systems of combined localism ..(and centralism, the,,, coustituences.,have ...been, corrupted, the Parliament degraded, an d the Ministry demoralised, while at the same time, the; Colonial debt has been greatly Increased.” The above is a most, grave charge to . . lay against the existing system; and If ' Cven a portion of it were true, ’there would be some reason, for a return to Provincialism. But it is not true. Our representatives in Parliament, though not of highly superior, moral, avd intellectual qualifications, will at an v rate compare most favourably with the gentlemen who occupy seats in the Assembly of any other colony; Though no doubt there have been occasions when undesirable “scenes” and alterations have occurred in,the House, no such disgraceful conduct as that which has sullied the reputation of the Parliaments of Victoria and New South Wales, can with any justice be .ascribed to us. Parliamentary representatives' ai-e v not usually chosen ou account of their specially good moral qualities—for a marked aptitude in concerns of business is far more useful in the administration of the affairs of a colony. As against Dr Hodgkinson’s statement that the increase in the public debt is attributable to the abolition of Provinces, we need hardly recall to our readers the fact that at no time in our history was borrowing and. extravagant expenditure so marked asin the period from 1870 to 1875,; when the Provincial system prevailed. During Ibis live years the amount expended on public works reached very nearly £10,000,000. Every Province was borrowing on its own account j provincial indebtedness am-nm cd. to quite a third of the whole debt of the colony, and the Province’'.manifested their economy by srciiding. a great deal more money than 7 their revenue brough; them. We think these facts use sufficient to show that Dr liodgkiuron’s argument, that the extravagance of the general gbvCrnmcnt has ensued through the S 1 -oliliun of Provinces, is entirely ii .aaoh-Tted by one single fact. Dr Hodgkinson advocates the lessening of fic number of counties from 75 to 2Q; the rc-msfat.emcnfc of read Boards, and the compulsory maintenance by the comities qf all Chari table Aid, Police; a>d Education, and by cutting off from them all general Government aid. Toi ; shows iliafc Dr Hodgkinson is of opinion that the County system is a' mistake. Bur. here again, we cannot , accept this pseudo-reformer’s statement. The Counties have since their in t.iguration done remarkably good work, nod what is principally needed, to ensure their future usefulness, is a settled source of revenue, which would ti . i i;t* i.hinn lo carry out necessary undertakings! without giving any encouragement lo local ix.ravagance. To make the Counties dependent 911 toe amount of rates collected, would bo to perpeliate an act of injustice s u-ii as no one with the slightest knowledge of the subject w.u'd ever dream of suggesting. Given a reliable s uiive of n*>.f’iue, and a larger population. there would be much greater likelihood of the complete success of the County system. It must; also be r membered that it is as yet in its infancy, and it is only reasonable to hope that as popul l ion mc-eases, i s sphere o' -1 - fulness w I expand with its ill* creasing age. We do no' think ,that Dr Hoilg.viiisoii'.'i pamphlet will nbtaip. forhim many converts to Provincialism, • u ,'S it. be. indeed, from among-t. those who have r 0 knowledge of the 8 . ihe colony in these times of vaunted superiority.