227

The following Correspondence is published for general information:—

Wellington, 13th April, 1876.

Sir,—

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th April, in reply to mine of the 28th March, in which I informed you of the projected visit of the Honor of Messrs. Gisborne, Seed, and Knowles, and asked your good offices on their behalf.

Your letter opens up the whole question of Abolition of the Provinces. I do not feel that it is right for me to discuss with you the general question; for to do so would involve political controversy, into which it would be expedient not to enter, because each of us is addressing the other in his capacity of administering, not framing, the laws. Yet there are some points in your letter to which I feel called upon to reply, and I must comment upon them, though I am aware in doing so I cannot altogether avoid the political discussion which I deprecate.

The Government conceive it to be their duty to accept the law as it stands, and to make the necessary preparations for giving it effect.

The idea that the Assembly will be willing to except Otago from the operation of the Act seems to the Government altogether chimerical.

Your Honor seems to base it on two grounds:

One, that the people of Otago are wholly averse to Abolition; the other, that the colony will benefit from it at the expense of Otago.

To take the latter first, it seems to me that your Honor’s own conclusions answer this point. You state that “The probable revenue of Otago may be set down at about one-half that of the whole colony.” You consider also that, stripped of all extraneous matter, colonial finance, and not the good of the people of New Zealand, is at the bottom of the proposed change. If it be the case that colonial finance is the cause of the change, and that Otago represents half of all finance, it is evident the change cannot be made without Otago being included in it. Your Honor’s argument amounts to this:—The wealth of Otago far exceeds that of the other provinces, and therefore its interest is to evade a commensurate share of the general responsibilities. Clearly, such a deduction, if the premises are admitted, could not be accepted.

I will not deny that colonial finance makes Abolition necessary; but by the expression “colonial finance” I do not mean, as your Honor appears to do, solely the expenditure of the Colonial Government. The Governments, provincial and general together, are spending much more than the credit of the colony can afford. The difficulties arising out of provincial borrowing stopped all large provincial works; the colony, New Zealand has thriven because after 1867 and before 1870. At the latter period the colony stepped in and said that, rural districts have not been sacrificed to make huge cities. The country districts are the Colonial Government absolutely renounces.

The expenditure there has been given only to a population representation, and to bestow when the people of Otago come to know how entirely decentralizing will be complete.

To turn now to the first ground on which, it seems to me, your Honor rests your expectation that the Assembly will except Otago from Abolition—namely, that the people are opposed to it—I should be inclined to give much more weight to that ground did I not know that the people wholly misunderstand the meaning of Abolition. Your Honor’s letter is the benefit of all concerned.

The revenues from Education Reserves, the control of Education, of Charitable Institutions, of Harbour Improvements, will likewise pass to, or remain with, local bodies.

Where is there at present any such system of local government? Your Honor does not allude to it. The form of local government you wish that Otago should adopt is such that it will have no more to do with the management of its local affairs than it has with your local post and telegraph offices. For years the management of the police at Auckland has been in the hands of the General Government, and the people feeling that their local privileges are curtailed.

I am glad to feel assured, not than a thousand square miles in the country, larger than the capabilities of the province. The expressions “political communism,” “provincial institutions wantonly destroyed,” justify unlimited faith in Otago’s capabilities; but we lack the system of administration of its local affairs which is to be centred at Wellington.

Common prudence urges that we should defer priving it of its revenues, and bringing it to the opinion of those who do, and who urge them under the sole appropriation of the Parliament of progress. But your Honor draws no line—does not realize what Abolition means. It is fair to suppose that the people on whose behalf you speak are similarly misinformed; and in the face of this want of acquaintance with the effects of Abolition, their alleged opposition to it has little weight.

Part of provincial institutions which concerns the interests or the real local powers of the people will be destroyed. The people possess much more local control than hitherto, and the absorption of their revenue is mythical.

What will take place is this:—The form of provincialism will cease, and so will the powers of a small Legislature. Certain services, such as the charge of gaols and police, will be managed by the officers of the General Government. Certain others, such as the administration of the land, will be localized. The land revenues will be strictly devoted to local purposes; some small contribution may, perhaps, be given to the trunk railways, which cannot be regarded as local either in their nature or purpose, and the management of which the colony will undertake. There are abundant proofs that the management cannot be assumed too early for the benefit of the people.

During the last session of the Provincial Council appropriations were passed amounting to £909,000. Concurrently the province has sacrificed its land by large sales to runholders; it has endeavoured to withdraw from ordinary purposes enormous blocks of country, for fear the land might be otherwise absorbed; in short, the Provincial Government for some time past has proceeded as fast as it possibly could, in anticipation of a dreaded change. I wholly disagree with the idea that the colony will benefit from abolition at the expense of Otago.

In thus criticising the Provincial Government I am only acting in self-defence. Your Honor impugns the colonial finance as vicious, and says the province is sacrificed to it. My endeavour has been to show that the evil is not they have a direct subsidy. The road districts, wherever they exist, will not be under the control of the larger districts. They will have independent revenues, independent powers. The chairmen of counties will be representative elected men.

The administration of the land will continue to be localized. The land revenues will be strictly devoted to local purposes.

The towns will be distinct from, and have no powers over, the country districts. The country districts will have their own local management.