New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1876. A CHANGE OF MINISTRY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 178, 25 August 1876, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1876. A CHANGE OF MINISTRY.

It' credence can be given to telegrams published in the morning papers of last Wednesday, thtre is to be a chauge of Ministry immediately. Mr. Stafford, it is said, will become Premier; Mr. Stevens, Treasurer; Mr. Ormond, Native Minister; and it appears Mr. Donald Reid has been offered the Public Works Department. This will be a new Ministry, and with the exception of the question of Abolition, will perhaps involve a new policy. How can all this be explained? The Vogel Ministry has carried all its projects this session by large majorities in every division so far as these have been considered ; how is it then the Ministry has fallen ? How is it that a Ministry which has had a large majority in every trial of strength with the Opposition during the session has been compelled to retire from the Treasury Benches ? Of course we write under

the conviction that the telegrams announcing this change arefounded in fact. Two reasons appear to us sufficient to account for thisfact. First the Government majority whish has whitewashed the Piako Swamp business, defeated the Separation resolutions, and affirmed the principle of the Counties Bill has not really-represented public opinion. This is notorious. For example, had all the Otago and Auckland members been true to their hustings pledges, and attentive to the voice of their constituents, the Separation resolutions would have been carried, instead of being rejected. A. Government supported by a majority so notoriously at variance with pnblic opinion could not live long, no matter how numerous its Parliamentary majority might be. In such a case a rapid dissolution necessarily becomes inevitable. This is one reason, a reason sufficient in itself for the fall of the Vogel Ministry. Another reason is to found in the universal conviction, that the Vogel Ministry rushed into Abolition rashly, without any matured plan of Local Government, in fact without any plan at all, and for the sole purpose of seizing on thfr land fund of some of the Provinces for general purposes. And that this is the fact, nothing can be clearer. Last session when the Ministry was asked what was to take the place of Provincialism, the reply was — nothing. Driven even by their own supporters to provide some substitute, Ministers brought in a Local Government Bill which was laughed out of the House "of Representatives. This session the Bill of the last has not been heard of ; but a Counties Bill was intro duced by the Premier. This, it was said, would give local government everywhere, and be a great improvement on Provincialism. Colonists, however, have not been able to see this, and this precious Counties Bill has been so universally condemned that Ministers in order to secure for it a second reading were compelled to declare that it would be merely permissive — that is, localities might accept or reject it a3 they pleased. Why, the people of Otago, if they cared for counties, might have had them any time for many years past. For there exists a law, and a much better law than the one proposed by the Vogel Ministry, by which the people of this province were enabled to have counties if they desired such. But, suppose that this Permissive Counties Bill of Sir Julius Vogel became law, and then that it became a dead letter, as is most likely. Where is the provision for local government 1 What is to take the place of Provincial Councils and Superintendents ? Nothing 1 , of course, but the Central Parliament and Government. It is clear, then, the Vogel Ministry had really no scheme of government to supply the place of the provinces other than pure unmitigated j Centralism. Is it any wonder, then, that a Government, though strong in the House of Representatives by means of a servile majority there, should, nevertheless, have fallen, in the midst of its parliamentary triumphs, before outraged and indignant public opinion. And that such is the case, we rejoice to learn. The Vogel Ministry has fallen, and few will regret its fall. But, what about the prospects of Mr. Stafford and his party ; is he likely to have a long lease of power 1 Mr. Stafford lately said, in the House of Representatives, that he was favorable to the policy of taking the Land Fund from the provinces ; and it is well known that he is one of the Canterbury party which wishes to give fixity of tenure to the runholders of that province, and that he advocates the county system. Substantially, therefore, his policy is that of Sir Julius Vogel, and, consequently, his Ministry may also expect a speedy dissolution. No Ministry, with a centralistic policy, can stand long. The fact is the people of Otago will not be governed from "Wellington, and Centralism would be the immediate prelude to final Separation.