New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, SEPTEMER 3, 1875. THE ABOLITION BILL.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume III, Issue 123, 3 September 1875, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, SEPTEMER 3, 1875. THE ABOLITION BILL.

This Bill has been read a second time by a considerable majority, after a yery prolonged debate. The large majority in its favor, after the many able speeches made in opposition to it, is truly astonishing. This "Hill abolishes local self-government, and establishes a system of centralism, which amounts to despotism. There are some either so silly or so Btupid as to imagine that despotism and representative institutions cannot co-exist. But a greater delusion there cannot be. A majority is as capable of tyranny as an individual or an oligarchy. The history of the past, as well as contemporary history, affords innumerable proofs of this. But it is unnecessary to go beyond the precincts of our own House of Representatives for an instance in point. "What is the fact ? Is it not true, that a tyrant majority there, at present, has determined to force the Abolition Bill through Parliament in defiance of the reasonable request of the minority of members and of tens of thousands throughout the country, that the measure should be submitted to the constituencies; and in contempt of the serious doubts that exist as to the power of the Legislature -to pass it? Why, the veriest despot would not dare to enact a law under such circumstances. But majorities in Parliament care for nothing but their majority, which is their suprema lex. That this is strikingly, illustrated in the present instance is patent to every reader of Hansard. On laying down this book, which contains an authorised report of the speeches delivered in Parliament, we could not help exclaiming, " The title of the Bill is a misnomer, it should have been intituled 'The Provinces Spoliation Bill.'" It despoils iho people of control over their own affairs, and transfers it to men ignorant of them, and as Mr. Reid proved to demonstration, it plunders Otago to an enormous " extent. We looked in vain through the arguments of its support::-^ for grounds to justify its introduction, whilst on the other- hand, the apeeches of its opponents, such for example r.o Messrs. Eeib, Eolleston, Reeves, Macandeew, and Stout abounded •in strong arguments against it. These were the speeches of practical men and able administrator^ ; ..'hilst that of Sir Gteoege Geet was the speech of a high-minded, chivalrous, able and experienced statesman. The newspapers told us that Mr. Stafford delivered an eloquent and able oration in support of the Bill ; and his previous advocacy of such a measure, united with his undoubted ability and great experience .as a Colonial Minister, led us to expect that such would be the character of his speech. "When we received a copy of 'Hansard' we eagerly read his speech, but we are forced to confess that we experienced a great disappointment. We were unable to find in it a single reason why this Bill should become law. In our mind, amongst all the bad speeches of Government supporters, Mr. Stafford's was decidedly one of the worst, in an augumentative point of view. It cannot be denied that it was eloquent, and that it gives evidence of considerable reading and a commendable) knowledge of-the history of Greece, but as an argument for depriving the people of Otago, for example, of their institutions, it is a lamentable failure. la our judgment it contains nothing

whatever to the point. It was the duty of Government and its supporters to establish their position by showing that the failure of some of the Provincial Governments arose from their inherent defects, and not from the action of the central Government itself,, and by proving that their proposed substitute was not only a remedy but the proper remedy. Provincialism is in possession, and in argument, as in law, possession is nine points. But so far from succeeding in doing this, not one on the Government benches was able to clear the Central Government of the guilt of rendering certain Provincial Governments inefficient. And as to the Abolition Bill itself, it proposed to effect nothing but destruction. The Government seems to have no policy as to the future, they do not know what is to take the place of Provincial Institutions. The task of doing this is to be relegated to anew Parliament. All they seem capable of effecting at present, is to reduce the institutions of the provinces to a heap of ruins ; others may, if they can, combine these and build them into a beautiful and harmonious political machine. This is the strangest mode of proceeding imaginable. The institutions of the country are to be pulled to pieces, and no one knows what is to take their place ! It is the policy of children whose greatest delight is to smash their toy* through wantonness or idle curiosity. He must be a comical statesman indeed, who can delude himself so far as to imagine that the people of Otago and Auckland will long endure Government centralised in Wellington. So long as these provinces had local govennrnent and Provincial Councils, the Central Government at Wellington might possibly have been tolerated; though it is very doubtful if their patience would not have been very soon wearied ; but a very few yea^s of Centralism will, most probably, cause Buch an agitation either for ueparation or the removal of the seat of Government,,as New Zealand has not yet experienced. These provinces will not, and cannot, consistently with their own interests, long submit to the state of things that the Abolition Bill will bring about. This Bill has not been wisely drawn, nor has it been well considered, and it is most unwise to proceed further with it. Let these gentlemen who are so desperately enamoured of Centralism, which experience provei has always led to despotism, mature a plan and then consult the constituencies. But if they press the present measure, and pass it into law, the consequence will be, that at the general elections the cry will be the repeal of thin obnoxious measure.