Abolition of Provinces Bill

House at present to make all these charges local. We can resolve that they shall be local, but it is for a future Parliament to say how long they will remain local. These changes must come in time. We cannot bind the future in regard to them. It is my intention to vote for the Bill passing through the House this session in all its stages, because we cannot have anything like good government in this country until the provincial institutions are abolished. There are some portions of the Bill which I would like to see amended in Committee. There is no doubt about that, I will endeavour to have some amendments made; but I will not do anything to imperil the passing of the measure. If I cannot get the alterations I wish made in Committee, I will not on that account vote against the third reading of the Bill. I consider that it will be a great public advantage to get the Bill passed through this session. Any defects that may be discovered in the working of the measure can be remedied in a future session; and the new Parliament will be in a better position to judge of what is best adapted to the wants of the country. I venture to hope that, at the next meeting of Parliament, both parties in this House will join together to give such a measure to the country as will be most advantageous. I will vote for this Bill because it will tend to the unity of the colony, and tend to improve the public credit of the colony; and in face of the large amount of colonial works we have undertaken, in making trunk lines of railway throughout the country, I think it very desirable that the credit of the colony should be maintained at the highest point possible, so that we may be able to enter the money market to raise fresh loans for finishing our main trunk lines. I think we cannot get money to finish those lines of railway while Provincial Govern ments are in existence. I think the passing of this Bill will do more to advance the interests of the colony in the United Kingdom than any other measure one can possibly conceive. I shall also vote for this Bill because it will bring this Legislature face to face with the people. They will see what legislative body taxes them, and what body expends the money; and that if they wish to have any grievance redressed, whether public or private, they must come to this Legislature. So long as the provinces exist, they will make this Assembly their tax-gatherer; and I think it is desirable, in the interest of the colony, that this should be remedied, and that this Legislature should be brought face to face with the people. I shall vote for this Bill because I believe that by passing it true liberty will be secured to the people, and not the sham liberty which is offered by Provincial Governments. I shall vote for the Bill because the members of this House will be held in higher regard by the people as their representatives, A great number of members come here at present merely as supporters of the Provincial Governments and Superintendents. Now, on this account the people look towards the Superintendents only, instead of to the members representing them in Parliament; and I think it is time this system should cease, and that the constituencies should look to their own representatives instead of to Superintendents and Provincial Executives. And I believe that when provincial institutions are abolished this Legislature will become a real school for statesmen. It has been said that Provincial Councils are schools for statesmen; but I entirely deny that. It is utterly impossible to exercise true statesmanship in Provincial Councils. Then feelings are so local and narrow that it is impossible for a man, whatever his ability, to rise to the position of a statesman. When these local legislative bodies are done away with, this Legislature will become a true school of statesmanship. And I shall vote for the Bill because it will enable the Government of the day to deal with large questions—to deal with the inequalities of taxation, now felt all through the colony, and with which, under the present system, it is impossible for any Government in this House to deal When a Government is always fighting for power with rival governing bodies during the session and during the recess, it is impossible for them to direct their attention to the large questions pressing on the country, and which require a remedy at their hands. When the Bill passes, I feel certain that a system of government will spring up in this country more suited to its requirements, and more conducive to its progress; and that it will be utterly impossible, while Provincial Councils are in existence, for that system of government to spring up which is necessary for the true progress and development of the resources of the colony. Believing that this Bill will give effect to these views, I shall support its passing through all stages this session.

Mr. Stout.—Sir, it is with some diffidence that I rise to address the House on this occasion, and for two reasons : first, because I am new to this House, and it may perhaps be considered presumptuous on the part of such a young member, knowing so little of the forms of the House and of its members, to speak on such an important subject; and, second, because I had not the privilege of listening to the debate upon the Bill. Had I not regarded the present occasion as a crisis in the history of New Zealand, I should not have addressed the House at all; but at the same time, from the manner in which the debate has been conducted, and from the persistence which the Government have manifested in forcing the Bill on this session, whatever may be the result of the present debate this will be regarded as a crisis in our history; and it therefore becomes every member to express his views, whether he be with the minority or with the majority. There is one part of this subject which I wish to brush away at the outset, and that is the legal aspect of the question. With all due respect to this House, I do not consider it the proper forum to decide purely legal questions. I do not desire to cast any reflection upon its members, but I think they will recognize this: that, in a House composed of members having different sympathies, different feelings, and dif ferent sentiments, it would be almost impossible for them to approach the purely legal question unbiassed, or to decide upon it in a thoroughly impartial manner. And even if this House had to decide this question, I do not know that its page 670 decision would be of much avail. Any one who reads the Declaratory Act, upon which the powers of this House are founded, cannot but be struck with this: that, at all events, the Act, in its spirit, was never intended to sanction an Abolition Bill such as that now before the House. In whatever way the letter of the Act may be twisted, one has only to refer to 25 and 26 Victoria, cap, 3, and 31 and 32 Victoria, cap. 92, which is not a new enactment, but one framed to declare the intention of the Imperial Parliament—any one looking at that Act will see that the Imperial Parliament meant to give the Legislature of this colony power to alter the boundnries of provinces, power to create municipal government where there were no provinces; but did the Imperial Parliament, when this Act was passed, mean that this House should sweep away the Constitution granted to New Zealand? I look upon this legal question as one of really little moment, for I should be sorry to hear it said that the people of New Zealand were not competent to frame a Constitution for themselves. If this Bill is passed,—and I judge from the tone of the House that it is likely to pass its second reading.—I can only tell the House that this is only the beginning of the constitutional changes which the people of New Zealand will demand, There are other constitutional changes as great as this Bill proposes to effect, which the people of New Zealand have been asking for for years, and which this House has not yet taken up, There are many phases of this constitutional question which will no doubt be raised; but I intend to pass them by, and address myself to the question before the House. And, Sir, I hope those who are in the majority on this occasion will be prepared, notwithstanding some of the remarks made during the course of the debate, to grant to the minority that right of opinion which a minority ought to have granted to it. The minority may be sincerely desirous to advance the welfare of New Zealand, although they are the minority, and what are called Provincialists. In speaking against this Abolition Bill, I do not intend to take the ground which other honorable members hare taken—namely, that this is a Bill that should be referred to the constituencies. I know that if I were compelled to vote upon it, even if the constituencies should declare in favour of it, I should be found in the lobby voting against it, and I shall, before I sit down, attempt to point out why I think that the practice and the theory of central government set forth in the Bill are unsuitable to the Colony of New Zealand. There is one other remark I wish to make before I proceed further, and that is with reference to the observation of the honorable member for Clive, who characterized the Opposition as a party without a policy : they were divided upon all kinds of subjects; the only point upon which they were agreed was their opposition to this Bill. I am not aware that it is even the duty of the Government, the Ministers of the Crown, to be united on all subjects. Why, if I look at Hansard this session, what do I find? That on a question which roused the sentiments of a large number of members of this House, three of the members of the Government voted one way and three another, That Bill was the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill So there must be even amongst Ministers of the Crown a free expression of opinion, and sometimes a large difference of opinion. It is not to be expected, because the Opposition are united In opposing this Bill, that therefore they must be united in everything else. I believe that the Ministers of the Crown are not united on questions of as great importance as the change in the Constitution of the colony. I would ask, if each of the members of the Ministry were put into a separate room and asked to draft a Constitution for New Zealand, do you think any two of the drafts would agree? And so in reference to the members who at present support the Government. Are they united in opinion? I will undertake to say that there are not greater divergences of opinion amongst the members of the Opposition than there are amongst the supporters of the Government. If, however, it should be as the honorable gentleman said, that there is no organized Opposition in this House, what does that signify? Is it not a proof that parliamentary government in this colony has failed? If, after the trial we have had of parliamentary institutions in this colony, a leading supporter of the Government gets up and says that, notwithstanding the length of time that form of government has been in existence, we cannot even frame a Parliamentary Opposition, that would be an admission that parliamentary government is unsuitable to the people of New Zealand. Instead of being a slur upon the opponents of this Bill, it is a slur upon the people of New Zealand and upon this House. There are various ways in which this question has been approached by different speakers; and I will first point out that the onus of proof that change is necessary does not rest with the Opposition, although that seems to be the leading argument of those who support the Government in this measure. They say that the Opposition should be prepared with a form of Constitution for the country; but I say that that is not a function of the Opposition. The function of the Opposition, as I understand the matter, is to critically examine the measures brought forward by the Government, and especially great constitutional measures such as this. I have yet to learn that the highest aim of the highest statesman is to frame a paper Constitution for the country; and I have yet to learn that it is the duty of an Opposition to come down and frame a Bill to carry out a change. The Opposition means this; that the present change is undesirable; and therefore they do not wish another Constitution for the country. What are some of the grounds on which this Abolition Bill is founded? One of the first is the charge thai there has been provincial mismanagement. That, I think, has been advanced by every speaker whom I have heard address the House in favour of the Government Bill. It has been the beginning and end of every speech that I have beard from that side of the House. What, then, has been the provincial mismanagement complained of? First, as was stated by the honorable member for Invercargill, and repeated by the honorable member for Clive last night, that the Provincial Governments page 671 have been selling large blocks of land. Is that a crime? Is it wrong to sell large blocks of land? Has this House ever declared how much land one man shall hold, or how much he may purchase? If this House chooses to say that the purchase of large blocks of land is an injury to the colony, why is it that, in every Act passed by it, there is no limit to the quantity of land that may be purchased by a single individual? And if the big block system is wrong, why do not these opposed to it insist that the quantity shall be limited, and also that hereafter those who have got beyond a certain quantity must either give up their land or pay additional taxation for it? That would be putting their principles to a test. If this big-block system is wrong, I should like to see honorable gentlemen bring down a fair limit of what should be held, and then insist that no person in the colony shall hereafter hold more. But I am afraid that those who say that they are opposed to this big-block system would be the last to support such a Bill. It is a very curious thing, as far as Otago is concerned, that the gentleman who opposed me at the last election was a gentleman who purchased the large block of land so much referred to, and who is a supporter of the abolition of provinces. It is a curious fact in regard to Otago—and I believe the same thing will be found in other parts of the colony—that those who wish to see the provinces abolished are those who hold large blocks of land. Therefore, to make it a charge against the provinces, that because they have sold large blocks of land they have mismanaged their affairs, seems to me to be a very peculiar thing. I heard a cheer given in this House to the assertion that the provinces ought not to have any discretion in the sale of land; but I ask, if this House gives the Provincial Governments no discretion in the matter, how are they to prevent a person who comes with the money in his pocket from purchasing what quantity of land be pleases? What right have honorable members to cast blame upon the provinces if large blocks are sold under these circumstances? There is something further in this matter that has still to be brought out; and I say that, if large blocks of land have been sold in the Province of Otago, it is not the Government of that province but this House which is to blame. It has not only no control over its land, but it is on account of the action of this House, taken without consulting and against the wishes of the Provincial Council and people of Otago, that that very block of land which has been so much referred to, the Moa Flat block, was disposed of. I need only refer to what took place in Otago in 1868, when the runholders, in consequence of the fall in the price of wool, appealed to the Provincial Council, and begged that the arrangement or compact of 1866 should be so far modified that they might receive compensation for the abandonment of their leases. The Provincial Council of Otago did not see its way to granting that, and so they came to this House and got an Act passed which gave them compensation to the extent of 2s, 6d. an acre. That Act was passed against the wishes of the Legislature of the province, who did their utmost to prevent its passing. What did the people do? They fought against it, for they saw thatt it contained iniquitous provisions, and that, if they acted in accord anee with it, vested rights would be created; and so they determined that nob one acre of land should he thrown open for salo until a new Act was passed. I do not wish to detain the House at any length upon this point, but I should like to point out another Act by which almost three-fourths of the land in Otago was taken out of the hands of the people, without their having been consulted in the slightest degree upon the matter. I mean the Gold Fields Act, which practically gave, and gives to this moment, unlimited compensation to pastoral tenante to such an extent that even with-in the last month or two a pastoral tenant, one of a class who are only paying 2d. per acre for their land, and 7d. a head on his sheep, and 3s. 6d. per head for cattle, actually applied for £1 an acre compensation for giving up his run! That is the sort of thing which the province has to fight against. I say that every move taken by the Provincial Council, and every attempt made by that body to provide for the settlement of the country, and to introduce what I may term a democratic principle into the land laws, has been met with rebuff after rebuff. It is wrong, therefore, on the part of members of the House, who have brought this state of things about, to turn round now and throw it in the teeth of the Provincial Government that they have mismanaged their affairs. Another charge of mismanagement made against the provinces is that they have not made roads into the outlying districts. I should like to ask any honorable member of this House to consider the amount of money which the General Government has got from the Province of Otago, and the quantity of money at the disposal of the Provincial Government, and then say which has done the most benefit to the country, I am willing to take that test, I would ask the honorable member for Wakatipu, who alluded to this question of road-making, how was road-making to be done in Otago? Any honorable member who knows anything of Otago, or the way in which small rushes take place in that province, must know that no Government worthy of the name of a Government would say, "Here is a level piece of land, let us make a road through it; "but they must accommodate their road-making to the rushes that are taking place. At first they had not the money; and when they had, I do not think it would have been a wise thing to make a road to the interior, careless of the Location of the miners. Another peculiar thing is, that those who charge the Provincial Councils with centralization at the capitals should be those who by this Bill propose to give to the centres of population in capitals far more money than the Provincial Councils give them. I need only take as a practical example the city of Dunedin, which will be benefited to the extent of £10,000 a year by the proposals in this Bill. Is that decentralization? If this money is given to the capital it must come from somewhere, and I presume it will come from the outlying districts.

Major Atkinson,—No.

Mr. Stout—The honorable gentleman saya "No;" but the money must come from some where, and if it does nob come from the outlying districts it must be out of moneys lying unused in the bank. I shall show hereafter that this proposal La no earing whatever to the Province of Otago; bat I shall not dwell upon that question now. The charge, therefore, that the outlying districts hare been neglected seems be me to be a peculiar one, at all events so far as the Province of Otago is concerned. I have yet to learn that, even if there has been provincial mismanagement, abolition is the proper remedy. Has there been no mismanagement in this House, or by this Government? Reading the speech of the Hon. the Treasurer himself, what does he admit in his concluding remarks? Those remarks contain a charge against this House, and plainly say that in the past it has not been able to manage its finances properly; for he says,—

"The continued existence of the provinces means the continued and constantly increasing pressure upon the Government and upon this House for money, in the interest of a locality, without any reference to the neceasities of the colony as a whole."

What does that signify? To put it in plain terms, this House has been in the past in the habit of giving public money, without reference to the interests of the colony, simply to please a few persons because of their locality. Sir, I do not think I could point out a graver charge ever made against any House than the honorable member has made in his Financial Statement. If I take up the statement of the Minister for Public Works, what is there disclosed? It discloses this: that because the fullest local information was not obtained, and the surveys were not properly made before the railway works were commenced, there has been great loss to the colony, That is the substance of the 4th and 5th pages of the honorable member's Statement. What does that mean? Does it not show that there has been gross mismanagement in the matter of the colonial railways? Why should this House, that can do nothing wrong, hare sanctioned the construction of railways before the fullest information was obtained, and before detailed surreys were made? Why have they sanctioned yearly votes for railways, yearly additional votes? The Minister for Public Works has come down and asked for a vote for works on the gold fields to the amount of £10,000 one year; next year he comes down and asks for £20,000; and the third year says the cost will amount to £30,000. Is that management? Is that the way in which the affairs of the colony are to be conducted? But, Sir, because this is the case, because there has been mismanagement in colonial matters, is that any reason that the people of the colony should have it said to them, "You have mismanaged colonial affairs; therefore you ought to have no colonial government, and we must manage you from London"? That is the exact argument—as far as this Abolition Bill is concerned—brought before this House. Suppose I admit to the full that there has been gross provincial mismanagement: is that any reason why the provinces should be abolished? What does this Bill propose to do? Those who support the Bill, and amongst others the Commissioner of Customs, whose very lucid speech I listened to last night, say that this Bill is to give greater powers. But if the Bill is to give greater powers to the people then, because the people have mismanaged their own affairs in the past, they are to have greater powers in the future. That seems to me a most extraordinary argument to address to this House. If the people have mismanaged their affairs in the past, and have shown themselves utterly incompetent to conduct their affairs under the provincial system, will you make them more competent in the future by giving them greater power? That is the kind of argument addressed to this House. I have yet to learn that this is a proper way to teach the people to govern themselves. I may say I do not care which way it is put. If those who have proposed this Bill say it is to give the people great power, they say they do that because the people have mismanaged their affairs in the past, There is an absurdity on the face of it which I shall not argue. If this Bill gives them less power because they mismanaged their affairs in the past, what follows? Are we to step into use a phrase of an honorable member—and put a sort of buffer between the people and their rulers? If the people have mismanaged their affairs in the past, how is it to be remedied? Not by taking power from the people. Surely we do not expect there can be any good government in any country if, so soon as the people make blunders and mistakes, we take the control of affairs out of their hands, and make something over the heads of the people—a sort of protecting structure. Sir, it is said that provincialism is to be abolished because it is costly. I first dispute that is costly. There is, I believe, a Provincial Council in Taranaki, and if that Provincial Council is abolished they will have, I presume, a Shire Council in Taranaki. I have yet to learn that a Provincial Council could not be conducted just as cheaply as a Shire Council. Where is the distinction? A Provincial Council requires a chairman, and he is called the Speaker; a Shire Council requires a chairman, and they call him Chairman. Where is the difference to be? The Shire Councils may not have such great powers of special legislation, but I will deal with that aspect of the question by-and-by. So far as any explanations have been given, I have yet to see where savings can be effected. If you expect Shire Councils to perform the same functions as Provincial Councils, you cannot get them performed more cheaply. But if you get them done more cheaply, do you think the people who have mismanaged their affairs in the past, and have been at useless expense, by merely calling a Provincial Council a Shire Council will suddenly become more economical? And this is one of the arguments also addressed to this House. I have yet to learn that there will be any saving. Unfortunately perhaps all those honorable members who have addressed themselves to the question of saving hare reviewed it as relating to their own districts. The honorable member for Manawatu addressed himself to it as affecting "my district," page 673 and another honorable member—I forget the district he represente—also addressed himself to it as affecting his district. In New Zealand it perhaps must necessarily be so, because in New Zealand we have no common centre. I will take this question as it affects one of the largest provinces in the colony, the Province of Otago. Honorable members may not know the cost of what may be termed "Provincial Council para-phernalia" in Otago. The cost of everything, including the honorarium, the Speaker's salary, printing, &c., is £4,000 a year. That will all be swept away, and there will be a primary saving; but some persons must perform the duties of the Provincial Council. The work must be performed. We cannot be stopped altogether. Some persons must pass the Ordinances the Provincial Council used to pass. Estimates of revenue and expenditure must be prepared as the Provincial Council used to do. All that will be done, I presume, by this House and Shire Councils; but will they do it for nothing? Will it cost the people of Otago nothing? What the saving will be I cannot conceive. I have yet to learn where the saving can possibly be, for no honorable member who has addressed himself to the question has pointed that out. So long as the people desire certain certain governmental work to be done for them, it must be done at their expense. You cannot save expense by merely changing the form of government. It may be said that you are getting rid of Superintendents, Provincial Secretaries, and Provincial Treasurers. Granted that you do: it will be a further saving; but some persons must perform their functions. Yon can call them clerks, nominated Superintendents, or nominee officers of the Government, or what you, will, but some persons must perform those functions, and, so far as Otago is concerned, instead of being a saving it will be a positive loss. I think I can show the House that in a very few minutes, In Dunedin there are only three clerks in the Provincial Government offices that deal with executive matters. I exclude those in the Land Department, because that will be kept up as long as there are waste lauds for sale, whether they be under the control of the General Government or the Provincial Government. And so long as you have separate accounts in the Provincial Treasury, you must have separate clerks to look after them. There are only three clerks besides these, and one of them, who attends to the General Government immigration matters, has a very great deal of time taken up with them. You have only two clerks left, and any one that sees the amount of correspondence that has to go through their hands relating to the gold fields and various other matters, must feel that, instead of there being two clerks, you will require at least half-a-dozen if this Bill pasees, for they will have to be in constant correspondence with Wellington, where everything is to be managed. So, instead of the number of clerks being decreased, it will be increased. Where then, I ask, can the saving be? I have referred to the question of saving money; but, after all, I consider that, if you put to the people of Otago the interrogatory, "Will you have the administration of your own revenue, and the administration of your own waste lands, and pay £4,000, or oven £10,000, a year extra ?" I should not be afraid of the decision they would come to. But, Sir, leaving the question of saving, I approach the subject from another point of view; and that is, the way in which the government is going to be carried out in the future. I am not going into the details of the Bill, and will only point out that this House is asked to do a most peculiar thing. This Abolition Bill is not, strictly speaking, an Abolition Bill at all; and it does not go the length of real centralism. Can it be an Abolition Bill, when it keeps up the old provincial boundaries? Why are these provincial districts still preserved? Not only are these provincial districts preserved, but the Bill provides that every year the House shall be asked to vote the annual surplus that may remain over of the land fund of Otago, after payment of charges against it—that is, to vote purely Otago money for Otago purposes. Surely that is not a principle that this House should go upon. I will ask this House, how it would be if some Shire Council had a surplus—if the Shire Council of Taranaki had some surplus funds amounting to £20,000 or £30,000—it may be so, for, according to the honorable member for Sew Plymouth, Taranaki is to become suddenly rich by the Bill—after providing for their pressing wants would it be a proper thing for this House to say upon what road or bridge the money that purely belonged to Taranaki should be spent? If there is any surplus over in the Otago land fund, this House has to determine what is to be done with the surplus of purely Otago revenue. That seems to me a most peculiar thing to ask a central Government to undertake. There are, however, one or two principles in this Bill to which I desire to allude, the first of which I have only casually referred to. The granting of subsidies to towns seems to me a most peculiar system of decentralization. Towns in the leading provinces of New Zealand, that have never had anything from the provincial revenue at all, are suddenly to become rich by subsidies or doles out of the Consolidated Revenue. That is a very peculiar principle in this Bill. Another peculiar principle is this: I understand it has been laid down by the Colonial Treasurer and other honorable members that one of the main reasons why this Bill was introduced was that some of the North Island provinces required aid from the colony. And because those North Island provinces required aid from the colony, therefore this House ought to see how this aid is expended. It ought not to leave it to the provinces to expend funds raised by this House. I think I am correctly stating the arguments used by the honorable gentleman. But what does the Bill do? It introduces a localizing system of subsidies. Is that allowing the locality that raises the money to spend the money? What is the distinction between a sub-sidy to a Road Board and a subsidy to a province? The latter is made, it is true, by vote, and it may be varying in amount: it was fixed by capitation allowance, and afterwards there were special grants. Grants under this system will be made to the Road Boards out of the Consolidated page 674 Revenue, which they can spend without this House having a voice in the matter If the principle is now to be introduced into the colony that this House, which raises the money, is to spend the money, this subsidy to Road Boards cuts at the root of the whole. An honorable member, in alluding to the evils that would be got rid of by this Bill, used the term "law-making machines." One honorable member said in my hearing, "Surely a colony of 300,000 people does not require nine Legislatures," But, Sir, if this Local Government Bill is carried out in its integrity, it will create 2,000 Legislatures. Are you to deny to the Road Boards the power to make by-laws? And what are the powers to make by-laws but simply legislative functions within certain defined limits? And what are the provinces doing? Are they not performing the same duties and functions? I say that, instead of provincial legislation being abolished, it ought to be encouraged; nay, not only encouraged, but something more should be done; it ought, Sir, to be distinctly limited and defined, so that there would not be, as in the past, overlapping between the General and Provincial Governments. What do I find? I have here before me a list of Bills, which the whole of the representatives of the colony are supposed to debate, and are supposed to understand. What do the one-half of these Bills refer to? The honorable member for Newton referred to this last night, but I had taken a note of the same point before the honorable gentleman spoke. I say that one-half of these Bills are Bills that could be very well dealt with without coming to this House at all. Is it necessary, in order to abate a nuisance at Napier, that the people of Otago should come and assist the people of Napier to do so? Is it necessary, before an Athenæum can be incorporated in Wellington, that the people from Auckland, Marlborough, Nelson, Otago, Canterbury, and other provinces should be asked to aid in having that done? We have got an Athenæum in Otago, an Athenæum in in Dunedin—as good an institution of the kind as there is in any of the colonies. We have a Provincial Ordinance, and we are able to deal with that Athenæum without the aid of the General Assembly at all. Why could not the one-half of the Bills now before the Assembly be as well dealt with by the Provincial Legislatures as this House could deal with them? Is this, then, the saving we are to have under the proposed new system? Is not this a greater waste of power than having even nine Legislatures? Here you have representatives drawn from various parts of the colony, and who are expected to Stop in Wellington four months. To do what? To pass local Acts about local matters of which the representatives can have no possible knowledge, and which they must take on trust from the honorable members who introduce those Bills. This is not the way to create a nation in New Zealand—to ask what I may call its Imperial Parliament to spend its time in abating a nuisance at Napier, or incorporating the Athenæum at Wellington. What do I find with regard to the matters that are brought before this House? One of the first questions I heard put in this House—and which so struck me with amazement that I asked myself, Is this the kind of questions that are to occupy the attention of the central Legislature?—was this : Whether the Government were to have a clock-tower erected on a public building at Invereargill. Is this then to be the way we are to create a great nation in New Zealand? is this the way in which the time of this Imperial Parliament is to be taken up? in abating a nuisance at Napier and erecting a clock-tower at Invereargill! Is this to be a sample of the central legislation that is to be in the future, when, the provinces are to be abolished? I ask honorable members—I ask honorable members the Centralists in this House, why the people of Invercargill could not be left to take care of this thing without taking up the time of the representatives of the colony about it? That is a sample of the kind of central administration we are to have in the future. I go further, and say this: I assume so far that this Local Government Bill confers a boon upon the people that has not been conferred hitherto. Well, as has been already pointed out by some honorable members who have addressed this House, this Local Government Bill is almost a copy of the Otago Ordinance with its blunders. The word "not"—and I see the papers have noticed it—is where the word "not" ought not to be. This is section 27 of the Local Government Bill, which the Government are about to introduce, I need not read the clause; it refers to the power of voting, and provides that anyone having property of the annual value of "not lees" than fifty pounds is to have one vote. I assume it means "less." Before this central Legislature or Government could confer a boon upon, the people of the colony, they had to go to a trumpery Provincial Council and copy its Local Government Bill—I mean the Otago Ordinance, with all its errors. Now, so far as the Province of Otago is concerned, what power of local government does this Bill of the General Government give to the people there that they do not now possess? How did it happen that before this House thought of Road Boards—before this House had its attention directed to real local self-government—the people in Otago, through their Provincial Council, had passed their Road Ordinance, which provided for their local and municipal government before this House ever thought of conferring local government on the people of the colony? I say, that so far as this Local Government Bill is concerned, it does not confer a single boon upon the people of Otago that they do not already enjoy; but it takes away the privilege they possess—the privilege of dealing with their revenues according as they think proper. That is all that the Abolition of Provinces Bill and the Local Government Bill do. It has been said that this Bill is not an infringement of the liberties of the people. Well, it depends entirely on how you use the word liberty. If liberty means the liberty to do with your own as you please, then this Bill is an infringement of your liberties. What are some of the arguments which have been adduced on the other side? It has been said by the Minister page 675 of Justice—I will not quote his exact words : I will give the substance of them—that this colony should be reduced to what one might term a dead level. He said that one district in the colony has no business to be rich and another district poor; that that would be an injury to the colony. That was the kind of argument he used. I am not quoting the exact words; I am quoting the drift of his argument fairly.

Mr. Bowen,—I did not make use of any such argument.

Mr. Stout.—I think the honorable member put it in this way : He said the people in Auckland had not education, and they ought to have education, the same as Otago and Canterbury, and that this House ought to provide the funds. What does that mean? I ask the honorable member, if this be the new principle of government which is to be carried out in the future, why have local government at all? If every-thing is to be reduced to one purse—if every city and every town and every Road Board is to have but one distribution of the revenue, not caring whether it will be a poor town or a wealthy Road Board—why have this local government at all? Why not have one purse and one dictator to distribute the funds as he thinks proper? I also ask him to carry out this principle in private life. This, Sir, is a specimen of what I might call political communism. Let him apply it to private life. There are a large number of people who are very wealthy, and there are a large number of the community very poor. What would be thought of the Minister of Justice passing a Bill to make those people who were very wealthy give it up, so that they might divide their all with those who were very poor? I do not think the honorable gentleman would approve of that kind of what I might term justice. And if the Bill really means anything it means this, for those honorable members say that because one or two provinces happen to be rich at present they are to divide their riches with those provinces that are poor. The North Island provinces, when the Maori question is settled and the railways are made, may perhaps become as wealthy as the Middle Island provinces, for they have a fine climate and resources that may hereafter make them as great as, if not greater than, the Middle Island provinces. But would it be fair to say to the Middle Island provinces, "You are wealthy now; you must give up your wealth and share it with us?"—because this is the new kind of justice which is to be introduced in regard to our political institutions. I ask those honorable gentlemen—and I speak for the Provinces of Otago and Canterbury and their constituencies—I ask the supporters of the Government from Otago and Canterbury, who think that under this Bill our land fund is safe, to consider this : Let them look at what this Abolition Bill means. It may be said that this is a local view of the question. I find that all those honorable members who have spoken in favour of this Bill have grounded their support of this Bill on not only a local feeling, but on a small local feeling, because they have asked for this constitutional change not so much because it would be a great benefit to the colony is because it would benefit their own districts. The honorable member for Dunstau has spoken in favour of the Bill because his district has not got roads; the honorable member for Wakatipu will vote for the Bill because his district had not roads; the honorable member for Manawatu said his district had been neglected; and an honorable member from some part of Auckland—the East Coast—said he was in favour of the Bill because his district had been neglected. Is this the kind of national feeling that is to be aroused by this Abolition Bill—that every out-district is to outbid its neighbour, and we are to say, "I want the Constitution of the colony changed because my district is neglected? "I may therefore be pardoned for looking at the question from an Otago land-fund point of view, and not from any district point of view, I say this Bill is no conservation of the land fund at all. If this Bill becomes law, and if this alteration of the Constituting the effect of which in to create a great nation, takes place, I ask those honorable members who look upon this national feeling which we are to have in New Zealand in future, and which I shall touch upon presently—I ask them to be consistent and sincere, and to wipe out these provincial districts altogether, because they are a delusion, a sham, and a snare. What is the reference to the land fund? It is true that the land fund is given under this section of the Bill, as the Commissioner of Customs very clearly explained last night. What are those provinces to do which have no land fund? The honorable member for Grey Valley stated last night that Westland would have to receive £25,000 a year—that that amount would have to be got somewhere for the Province of Westland, The Colonial Treasurer acknowledged that he had made provision for the payment of the £25,000. Who is to pay the £100,000 Treasury bills which the Colonial Treasurer is to raise annually? Who is to pay them? Will it not come from the revenue? It is the same thing as going to a wealthy man who has got a large amount of money out at interest, and has a large amount of money from land—you go to him, and say: "You keep your rents as long as you please, but you must pay all the interest at once." That is what this Bill means. The Treasury bills may go on at £100,000 a year, but at the end of the year it must come out of the Consolidated Revenue at once. It is simply saying to the Province of Otago: You may take your land revenue; but out of your Consolidated revenue we will give assistance to all those provinces that have got no land revenue at all. This is a very peculiar system of conserving their land revenue—such a peculiar system of conserving their land revenue that, if it was applied to social life, there is no man, however rich, who would see or recognize the justice or the necessity of it, That is the kind of security that is being given to our land fund. I shall now deal with another question—and that is, what is termed the national point of view. Reference has been made to the speeches of a man whom I consider to have been one of the page 676 greatest men who ever lived in New Zealand, I allude to Mr. Godley. I intend to quote Mr. Godley to show that, if we were honored by his presence in this House, he would be found in opposition to the Government. But before I quote from some of Ms speeches I wish to ear this: that I have yet to learn of a national feeling having ever been created in a country by a majority in it doing an injustice to a minority. That is not the way to create a unity of empire. We have only to look at history to see that, instead of a bond of unity being created by such a couse, it has only been the cause of dissensions and bickerings which have existed up to the present day. If the people of Ireland considered that they had obtained full justice from the English Government, should we have any agitation at the present time for Home Rule? That is a standing warning, I may say, to those who want to be framers of Constitutions, to beware of wounding the feelings and sentiments of the people, and not to rashly go in for what may be termed central legislation. Now, I shall quote Mr. Godley to show this : that after all, Governments, so to speak, are only relative, That is, no one has yet been able to say: "This is the form of government which I believe to be best, and all other forms of government are wrong,"

Mr. Bowen.—Hear, hear.

I ask honorable members who vote for this Abolition Bill whether this will not be government from a distance? An honorable member says "No;" but if that honorable member will go down to Otago—I do not know what is the case in Auckland—what will he find? He will find the people there more agitated over a Road Board election than over an election to this House. I came to this colony when a lad, and consequently I speak of a comparatively short time, but I have seen a seat in the House of Representatives going a-begging, when Sir Julius Vogel himself was nominated by a clerk in the Registrar's Office, without a single voter being present at the poll And why was that? One has only to go to Dunedin to see that every election, even for municipal bodies, is sharply and hotly contested; while, when an election for the House of Representatives takes place, there is a great difficulty in getting any one to stand. And why? It is simply a sample of distant government, and a sample of this, that in Otago, at any rate, we have not got that leisured class that can go into politics as a profession and neglect their own business. I shall only refer to one other quotation from Mr. Godley, and it is with reference to what has been in my opinion the weakness of the Constitution of New Zealand; and I put it simply, as stated before, as the want of specialization of the functions of Provincial Governments. If we had laid down, as Mr. Godley pointed out it should have been laid down—a strict line of demarcation within which Provincial Legislatures should have full power to legislate, and within which this House should have no power to veto—we should never have had this interminable conflict and continual overlapping that is going on. That is what Mr. page 677 Godley pointed out in one of his speeches when he said,—

"It is essential, therefore, that when the Central Legislature shall have formally abandoned certain powers to the provinces, from thenceforward all questions of jurisdiction be referred to the Supreme Court of the colony; and that this Court, moreover, shall be so constituted as not to be, nor even to appear, dependent or partial."

So that I do not take it that the argument for Provincialism is merely a question of outlay; and I go further, and say, if you view Provincialism as a theoretical system of government, it takes a higher stand than the ideal of a central Government—of central legislation and administration. We are taught by political economy that if you want good articles you must have specialization of functions. To use a homely illustration, if you want to have a good bootmaker you do not make him at the same time a tailor, a baker, and a grocer. And so with reference to questions of government. If you wish for good government you must have specialization of functions, and that is exactly what the provincial form of government professes. It professes to do this: To leave to this General Legislature certain functions, and to the Provincial Legislature certain other functions to perform; let not the general laws interfere with the provincial laws, nor the provincial laws interfere with the general laws. Each has its specialized functions, and each its specialized structure. That is the only way in which you can hope to get complete efficiency in government or in anything else; and that is the ideal, I contend, that those who are in favour of Provincialism really desire. Of course all theories of government are subject to limitations: a theoretical form of government is only fit for a theoretical people. You cannot set up a fetish of government—a political fetish—and fall down and worship it. You cannot so set up a Central Legislature and Central Administration, and say of it, As soon as you introduce this into the colony, all financial extravagances will cease, and strict economy will soon be established. You cannot expect that, because a Government must grow with the people; and if a Government is a Government of the people, it will be a Government reflecting the vices as well as the virtues of the people governed. And so it is that the greatest men of all eras have propounded different theories of social advancement. We have had Plato's Republic; we have had More's Utopia; we have had David Hume's idea of the ten thousand county representatives; and we have had Comte's idea of small communes. These are forms of government fitted for a theoretical people. But what is this national idea? It is simply an exalted fetish—a fetish of nationality asking the people to bow down to it. If they will only worship this golden image, economy will come in, extravagance will vanish, and the people will be well governed. But if we examine this provincial system from a theoretical point of view, we shall see that it is just as perfect and as suited to the requirements of this colony as any system yet propounded. I have yet to learn that the provincial system is not national. If this pro- page 678 posal had been made in Italy, where there is no central Legislature, or in Germany, where there was no central Legislature until the States were federated, I could understand it; but here we have a central Legislature. We have a national feeling, and in order that that feeling should not be destroyed—in order that it should be fostered—we must guide it into national channels. And it is by the retention of these institutions which you wish to sweep away that we ask to have the national feeling cultivated. Some of those honorable members who have spoken during this debate have sneered at Provincialism. They ask what is the good of it. Others have argued that it is a good training school for our young men. That is a great deal to be said in its favour. If we were to expect the young men of this colony who have made their homes here, and who, whatever laws may be passed, whatever schemes may be propounded, do not intend to quit this country—if you expect these men to be educated politically, how can you do it by taking the opportunity from them, by depriving them of the chance of mixing in the councils of the nation? What young man can afford to come up here to spend half the year? What tradesman, what merchant, can afford to remain away from his business to attend this Assembly for many months? What professional man, if he has to depend upon his profession, can afford so much time away from his office? Then what must be the consequence? You must create a class of men who will make politics a trade. I am not a man of leisure, and possibly may not return to this House after this session; and if you centralize the legislation, you will deprive these young men who desire to take part in the affairs of the nation of the opportunity. You are ostracising them, and leaving politics to become what it has become in many other countries—a refuge for the destitute. If you sneer at provincial institutions, why have local government at all? The simplest form of government, if you want the simplest, is the autocratic. There is simplicity; there is cheapness; but the people of New Zealand do not desire that. They desire to have government of the people by the people, and educating the people in their own affairs, believing that, after all, even if they make mistakes, and even if it costs a little more, they have the privilege of arranging their own affairs without outside interference. If those honorable members who sneer at Provincialism wish to have no training school for the politicians of the colony, why do they wish to retain any form of local government? Why is local government to be kept? Is it because of its cheapness? Local government may not even be so cheap as central administration. You may have, for example, a map of the colony, and mark on it a main road that must go this or that way, and send out your subordinates, saying, "You must make a road to so-and-so." But that would be a form of government that would not suit the people. And why is this local government left to the people? It is because they wish to manage their own affairs, even though it may be more expensive. De Tocqueville has been mentioned as furnishing strong argument in favour of the proposed change; but here is a passage from that author which I would recommend to the attention of those who desire to take away local management of their own affairs from the people. De Tocqueville (vol ii., p. 384) says,—

"To manage those minor affairs in which good sense is all that is wanted, the people are held to be unequal to the task; but when the government of the country is at stake, the people are invested with numerous powers: they are alternately made the playthings of their ruler and his masters—more than kings, less than men."

That applies exactly to this case. Those who favour this proposal say, "In the provinces the people have mismanaged their own affairs; therefore don't let them do it in the future." Then, on the other hand, they say, "We'll then have local government," In conclusion, I wish to say that I have spoken on this question knowing that there will be a majority in this House in favour of abolition. I might, though a young member, be permitted to warn that majority of the effects of the change. I do not desire to Hansardize honorable members, as it is termed, and to point out the wonderful change of opinion that has come over many of them, I do not desire to do that, because I recognize this, that my honorable friend the Commissioner of Customs would not have become a leader of the Centralist party had he not been convinced by the very able arguments that have been addressed to him. Let me ask the House what has been the cause of all the mischief that has fallen upon France? What is it that has always been held out to the French people? They have been told, "Look after your plans of government; there your salvation lies." We have been told only to look after our Constitution, look after This doctrinaire principle, and that will be the salvation of your country. This, Sir, is the second thing that has been placed before the people of New Zealand to tempt them to believe that they could get a good form of government by some hocuspocus. There is no such thing. The only hope of getting a good form of government is by educating the electorate to look after their own interests. It will be a very evil day for this colony when the people are taught that they can get rid of misgovernment by changing their Provincial Councils into Shire Councils. That is not the way to get good government. It is all very well to say that you are bringing the people face to face with the Government. Do you not bring the people face to face with the Provincial Governments more even than you do in this House? It is nonsense to say that you do not; but you are bringing them up to this French system, and making them believe that they will obtain some great benefit for the country by a continued series of surprises. The whole of the legislation which has token place in this House for years past has been a succession of changes. There has been some new scheme propounded to every Parliament that has assembled in this chamber We have had scheme after scheme propounded: and what has been told to the page 679 people to induce them to vote for it? I am sorry such a phrase has been used to the electorate, but they have been told, "Oh, you vote for this scheme, and you will get some of the money spent in your district." That is the kind of bribe that has been held out. Not only that, but what does this Bill propose to do? It gives the provinces certain grants, and it puts a member at the peril of his seat if he does not vote for it, because his constituents may say, "You are depriving us of an annual expenditure of £10,000." I ask, is that a fair way to submit a constitutional change to the people? Is it a fair way to put a constitutional change before any people? It is unreasonable to expect that from a change put in this manner you can get a good form of government, On the contrary, you are only leading up to troubles in the future, because, as in the case of ancient Rome, when the proletariat were led to believe that they would get largesses and bounties, when these largesses and bounties were not forthcoming, a revolution came about,—so it will happen here. If you train the electorate to believe that the duty of the General Assembly consists in propounding some new scheme to give to the masses in the cities some additional public money to spend, you are doing away, I think, with all chance of obtaining good government for New Zealand. You are not educating the electorate to loot after their own affairs, You are degenerating them, and teaching them to look to the form of government for redress, instead of teaching them to rely Upon themselves, and that a good form of government is a thing of slow growth. It is a thing that must come by gradual evolution. It is not by a leap in the dark that you can hope to get a good form of government, I am not one of the leisured class. I have come here this session, and perhaps only for this session, because I saw that a great danger was about to befall the colony. I came to it when quite a lad, and have watched the progress of events with ever-watchful interest, and I believe there is something at stake now of far greater importance than the form of local government—than the question of shire Councils. There is underlying this Bill another sample of that vicious system introduced into this colony—the system of change. The people are led to suppose that they will obtain some great boon simply by changing the forms—the paper Act—under which they live. I trust honorable members will look at this question fairly. I do not plead for delay. It is quite possible the Ministry may have a majority, but it will not be from amongst the settlers of the colony—the true colonists—that they will obtain that majority. They will be backed, as they have been backed, by whom? By the monopolists and capitalists of the colony. They will not only be backed by the monopolists, they will also be backed by that section of the Press which is under the thumb of the capitalists. I know, as a matter of fact, in what manner the politics of a portion of the Press of this country has been determined. What will honorable members think when I tell them that, at a meeting of the directors of one of the leading papers in the colony, the decision Arrived at by a majority of one was, "Oh we must go against Provincialism"? Is that the kind of way in which public opinion is fostered in the colony in favour of a change like this? I warn honorable members to look carefully at this proposal, and to bear in mind the well-known adage, "Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentea." I warn those who think that this Bill will give a great boon and vast liberties to the people to look carefully at this matter. I shall not speak of other provinces, because there is not yet in New Zealand a warrant for good government and public opinion throughout the colony; but, speaking for Otago, I say that those who are supporting the Bill are not the miners and the scttlers; but they consist of two classes: those who rely on the General Government for having money spent in their districts on public works, and those who have got millions of acres of the best lands of the Crown, and decline to give up one acre for settlement by the people. I do not wish to name persons to this House; but I say it is that class, and not the people of the country, who are supporting the Government in this proposal, I warn those honorable gentlemen, who look forward to New Zealand taking its place and stand amongst the nations of the world that they will never bring that to pass by a measure of this kind, but they will make this colony become a nation of feudal lords and feudal slaves. It will only become a great colony by true democratic—I do not mean demagogic—feeling. That is the only way in which it will become a great nation, and not by passing such a Bill as this, and leading the people to believe that you can, by a simple alteration of the Constitution, give them some great boon and some great advantage.

Mr. Wales.—Sir, in addressing this House after the honorable member for Caversham, who has just sat down, I appear before you at great disadvantage, in consequence of not having had that training which the honorable gentleman has had during the whole course of his career in this colony. I shall not attempt to follow the honorable gentleman through his speech, which has been altogether a tissue of sophistry and special pleading. I can only say I am sorry that he has attempted to stir up the class feeling in the colony which was about being abrogated. It would, perhaps, be unbecoming of me if, before I proceed to make other remarks, I did not congratulate the House on the accession to its numbers of such a distinguished citizen of the colony, and so eminent a member of the profession of the law which he follows, and in which he has already, although a mere youth, carved for himself a nicho in the temple of fame. I will even say more, that if he does remain in this House he will, I doubt not, take a position as prominent in it as he holds in the profession of which he is both an ornament and a leader. But, notwithstanding his learning, I would warn honorable members not to be led away—shall I say by the strong prejudice he showed in favour of Provincialism? As he says himself, he came to this colony a mere lad, and has been reared in Otago as a Provincialist Now he looks at every thing through provincial spectacles. I came page 680 to Otago some few years ago, at a time when that province was flourishing from very similar causes to those under which the colony is now flourishing. It was flooded with emigrants, not brought in with borrowed money as they are now, but paying their own passages; not coming here as poor men, but bringing with them large sums of money; coming, of course, to benefit themselves, but coming nevertheless to assist in developing the resources of the colony, and to found homes for themselves and their families, I thought at that time that this state of prosperity was the result of Provincial Governments, and I said to myself, "Here is a country whose extremities are as likely to be attended to as its centres of population are, and whose outside interests will be fostered and cherished by these local Legislatures." But by-and-by I had an opportunity of visiting other parts of the colony and centres of population, and what did I find there? Not the same state of prosperity, but a state of discontent prevailing throughout—feelings of jealousy in every breast, the cry for change echoing from shore to shore, from town to town, from hamlet to hamlet, from mind to mind, until it found expression in the separation of Hawke's Bay from Wellington, and Southland from Otago, and in the passing of the Westland County Act and the Timaru and Glad-atone Board of Works Act. The honorable member for Timaru has, we all know, worked assiduously for years with his party to bring about the system proposed in this Bill to abolish Provincial Governments, to give local government and administration to the outlying districts, and to do away with the anomalous legislation which existed in the provinces, I do not wish to detract from the good the provinces have done, because I believe that when the colony was in an infantile state they were needed. I have no doubt that if the affairs of the different provinces in the North Island had been administered by men of ability—men of broad views, or, to use a favourite expression of the honorable member for Port Chalmers, "men with souls above sixpences"—if they had been administered by such men as have had the charge of affairs in Otago, there might not have been a necessity for this change. I believe there is not so much in the form of government under which we live as there is in the men by whom the Government is carried on. I will not take the honorable gentleman's speech m detail, or follow him through the various theories he has propounded, for after all there has been nothing practical in his speech, although it has been the most able one delivered from the point of view which Provincialists take; but there are one or two matters in it to which I must refer. It was not my intention to address the House upon this subject; but as it is expected that each member should give reasons why he supports this measure, I suppose I too must do so. Before coming to that, however, I may perhaps be allowed to glance at one or two of the statements made by the honorable gentleman. Prominent among these, and affecting myself as a representative of the constituency of Dunedin, is bis statement that that city will benefit to the extent of £10,000 if this Bill passes. Alt I can say is, that I do not know the feelings of my constituents in this respect; for before I left dunedin this matter was not before the constituents, and it was not expected that the whole of the provinces would be included in the Bill. Nevertheless, when addressing my constituents after last session, I gave them distinctly to understand that, if proposals were brought in for the extinction of the Provincial Legislatures and form of government throughout the island, and if the provisions of the Bill met with my approval, I should support it. I have not heard a single opinion from my constituents in opposition to that view, and I am therefore free to act according to my belief and common sense. From what I have seen of this measure, although I do not think it is a perfect one, I mean to support the Government in passing it into law, not because Dunedin will gain £10,000 a year by the change, if it be so, but because I believe it will result in a more extended local form of government for the whole colony. The honorable gentleman also stated that the saving to the country by the abolition of the provinces would be very trilling, and he estimated that the amount in Otago would be about £4,000 a year. Let us consider, then, what that £4,000 is expended on at the present time. I ask honorable members to look at that point. It is expended in making some forty or fifty laws each session of the Provincial Council, the majority of which have to pass under revision of this House, and to be assented to by the Governor, That is an anomalous state of things, and I do not know what is the necessity for it, but there it is; and it requires to be rectified, During the recent sitting of the Provincial Council of Otago, something like forty-seven Ordinances were passed through, six of which were not assented to by the House, and two were disallowed. One of these disallowed Ordinances was in force for a considerable time—about two months—and affected about seventeen other laws, some of which it repealed. Then suddenly the Ordinance itself is disallowed, and these seventeen others come into force again. I do not know that any serious consequences will result from that; but there is the fact, and it is a most anomalous state of things. That is what this £4,000 is expended on, and it gives more work to the profession of which my honorable friend the member for Caversham is a member than anything else in the country. Another point he made was that Provincialism is economical, and that only three clerks were required in the Superintendent's office of Otago to conduct all the correspondence; and he argued that, if Provincialism were abolished, a greater number would be required for the correspondence between the General Government and the authorities in the new districts. I would ask the honorable gentleman how many clerks are employed in the various provinces, and how much of the time of these clerks is taken up in carrying on angry and unpleasant correspondence between the General and Provincial Governments, which it would be a very good thing to do" away with? The honorable member made a great point in proving that page 681 the land revenue would not be localized; and that should cause the honorable member for Parnell to vote for the Bill. The mainstay of that honorable gentleman's opposition to the Bill was, that it did not generalize the land revenue from all parts of the colony; but the honorable member for Caversham has declared that the Bill does generalize the land revenue, and each district will get an equal share of it; consequently, as that is what the honorable member for Parnell wants he should vote for the Bill. The honorable member for Caversham quoted from Mr. Godley's work, and I think the sentiment contained in the portion he read has been over and over again given expression to by Superintendents in this House, and it will be given expression to by them for all time should they continue to exist. They will never agree to the abolition of Provincial Legislatures. I would reply to other arguments of the honorable member who has last spoken, but they have been anticipated by honorable gentlemen who spoke earlier in the debate, and I will not take up the time of the House. There will be ample opportunity for discussing the Bill clause by clause in Committee, and I shall there give my best assistance in improving it. I call upon the honorable member for Caversham to give this House the assistance of his ability in making this measure as perfect as possible, so that we may not be open to the charge of passing an Act through which a coach-and-six may be driven. Since the honorable gentleman has come amongst us we shall be able to make our laws perfect. One thing the honorable member for Port Chalmers laid great stress upon was bis surprise that representatives from Otago should support this Bill, in consequence of the manner in which it distributed the land fund. I took occasion to ask the Government a question with regard to this matter. There is no question that the Bill is not perfectly clear on that point; but the assurance of the Government was that they would assent to any amendment that would make that matter as secure as it could be. I now challenge the honorable member for Caversham to prepare an amendment which will make this question more secure, and I believe the majority of members for the North Island will consent to it, and the Government will not oppose. It now rests with the honorable member for Caversham and the Government to make that matter right.

Mr. J. C. Brown.—Sir, it appears to me that, on this occasion, it is perhaps more necessary for me than for some honorable members to explain the reasons for the vote I intend to give upon this occasion. It will be recollected that, on the division which took place last session upon the proposals from which this Bill emanated, I voted with the minority. On this occasion I intend to support the second reading of the Bill: not that I approve of the Bill now before the House, but simply to affirm the principle that a change is desirable, and looked forward to by the people. I expected, when the Government brought down the Bill containing proposals of such magnitude, that they would have included in it some reform of the Legislative Council, In making the few remarks I intend to offer on the other branch of the Legislature, I will not cast any reflections upon them, for I am one of those who believe that they have done very good service, and hare frequently checked hasty legislation, which would, I have no doubt, have had a very injurious effect upon the colony. I object to the nominee system, and think that all legislative bodies ought to be elected. I have a proposition to make, respecting the Legislative Council, which I hope will be acceptable to the Government. The nominee system may have done well in the past, but that is no guarantee that it will continue to do so in the future. The Council should be more of a representative character. When the Government wish to nominate persons to it, they invariably choose men who will support their proposals, and thus gentlemen have been brought from the Civil Service and foisted upon us as our rulers, with seats in Cabinet. We have had three cases of the kind since I have had the honor of having a seat in this House. Fortunately the gentlemen so nominated are men of known ability, and from what they have done in this Assembly they have proved that the selections of the Government were wise and good. That, however, is no security as against any future appointments. In all representative institutions, we should be ruled and governed by the representatives of the people, and not by the Civil Service, We have found in one case—and possibly it may be so in others—that, as soon as any danger threatens the Government of which, they are members, they find shelter and refuge in some snug appointment, which has been kept warm for them. The House will certainly agree with me that it is anything but desirable that honorable gentlemen occupying positions as nominee members of the Government should upon the Government being defeated, retreat into some snug corner, and be the recipients of large sums for life from the public purse. Sir, the present Premier, whom we all acknowledge to be, perhaps, the best administrator in the colony (I know tittle of him, but from the little I do know I admire him in every respect), had since I have been a member of this House to retire from his position in the Legislative Council, owing to the passing of the Disqualification Act, and go back into his quiet solitude. In the absence of Sir Julius Vogel—whom all acknowledge to be an able man—the Hon. Dr. Pollen was selected by his colleagues as the most fit to occupy the position of Premier. I do not wish it to be thought that I am speaking personally; but I believe, and the public thinks with me, that there ought to be a change. I think the Government would do well to bring down proposals by which the constitution of the Upper Mouse may be altered. We are almost on the eve of an election, and I know there are several Otago members who do not expect to be in the House next session. They know they will not be returned, however desirous they may be of coming back, but they have expectations for services rendered to the Government, and will urge their claims to be called to the upper House. It is in order to prevent anything of that kind coming to pass page 682 that I propose changes which I hope will be Acceptable. Whether the Government Accept the proposals Or not, the country wilt look upon this question with perhaps greater interest than even the question now before the House. If we are going to change our Constitution let us do something worthy of the name. In Victoria, as here, there are two legislative bodies. The Upper House is purely an elective body, and the number limited to thirty, In the Upper House in New Zealand there are at present forty-four, without any limit. I should like to see the number limited to thirty, and one-half of that number nominated as at present. The proposal I would make is not of a revolutionary character. When any vacancy occurs, it should be filled up by election, In 1869 there were forty-one members in the Upper House; at the present time the number is forty-four, and the number is going on increasing. During the last six years seventeen vacancies have occurred, and twenty members have been nominated by the Government. I think we should pass a Bill with the object of creating a Legislative Council half elected from the different provinces, say,—Otago, 4; Canterbury, 3; Nelson, 1; West Coast, 1; Wellington, 2; Hawke's Bay and Taranaki, 1; Auckland, 3. As each vacancy occurs it would be filled up by an elected member until fifteen were elected, and so formed one-half of the Legislative Council. This proposal would, I am sure, meet with the concurrence of members of the Upper House, as I know that many of them would much prefer to have a representative position, and would experience no difficulty in being elected. During tbis debate we have heard much from some honorable members about the maladministration, loose legislation, and wasteful expenditure of Provincial Governments, I would ask the House to consider by whom these charges are made. I know well the honorable gentlemen who have made these charges. I know their antecedents, and I know the positions they endeavoured to put themselves in. It appears to me that one of the reasons these charges have been made is this: that those honorable gentlemen have failed to find a constituency to return them to the Provincial Council. From my knowledge of those gentlemen, I am not surprised at their constituencies refusing to reelect them; I am not at all surprised at the action they have taken in Supporting this Bill. They took an active part in the recent Provincial Council elections in Otago, and were rejected by very large majorities. Their constituents took the first opportunity of sending those honorable gentlemen about their business. There are twelve members from Otago supporting this Bill; seven of them have been rejected by their present constituents at the late provincial elections. These members are known as the authors of Rejected Addresses. I challenge any of those honorable members to deny the statement I am now making. If any one denies the accuracy of the statement, then I will give the names of the honorable gentlemen I allude to. It is these men who have misrepresented facts. The question has been brought before this House, have the Provincial Governments faithfully fulfilled the functions they were intended to fulfil? I believe to a certain extent they have. I have the honor of being a member of the Otago Provincial Council, and have represented the same district for over ten years. I have never received any emolumente, nor would I accept any, for services given in connection with the government of that province. I am sure I speak the views generally of my constituents upon this question. I have not communicated with them in any way in reference to this question. I know their wants and requirements, and I believe the action I intend to take will be satisfactory to the great majority. I would not take up the position I do upon this question unless I felt I was fully justified. Seeing that gross misstatements have been made in regard to the expenditure in the Province of Otago. I have gone carefully into the matter. It has given me a good deal of trouble, but it was a very pleasant duty indeed, because I have been able to arrive at facts which otherwise it would have been impossible for me to have obtained. I have taken the actual and proposed votes of expenditure of the Provincial Council of Otago for six years ending March 3rd, 1876, upon roads and works, immigration, and various other public matters; and I have also collated the receipts for the same period. The result of my labours has been this, and I challenge any honorable member to question the accuracy of the figures. The result is as follows:—

Expenditure on Roads and Public Works in Electoral Districts, Otago (exclusive of Southland), during Six Years ending 31st March, 1876.

		Population, last Census.	Per Head Annually.
	£		£	s.	d.
Waitaki	160,053	7,447	3	11	6
Dunedin	97,644	18,499	0	17	7
Taieri	65,838	4,555	2	8	6
Waikouaiti	53,593	3,249	2	15	0
Clutha	52,740	3,120	2	15	6
Bruce	45,064	4,429	1	14	0
Dunstan	44,782	3,515	2	2	6
Tuapeka	40, 814	4,797	1	8	2
Wakatipu	35,881	4,687	1	5	6
Mataura	33,211	4,746	1	3	4
Waikaia	30, 200	2,571	1	19	4
Mount Ida	27,005	2,688	1	13	6
Gold Fields*	24,316
Caversham	18,023	4,400	0	14	6
Port Chalmers	10,394	3,085	0	11	3
Roslyn	7,605	4,277	0	6	2
	747,163	76,065	1	12	9

Receipts from Land Sales, Assessments, Gold Fields Revenue, &c., for Six Years ending 31st March, 1876, exclusive of Southland.

Land Sales	£418,554
Assessments	373,477
	£792,031
Gold Fields Revenue and Export Duty	211,357
	£1,003,388

page 683

Expenditure during Six Years ending 31st March, 1876, exclusive of Southland.

Roads and Public Works	£747,163
'Subsidies, Road Boards, &c	85,390
Costs of flmrpyu Department, Engineer, and Administration of Lands	119,306
Cancellation of Pastoral and other Leases	56,000
	£1,007,859
Gold Fields Department	£46,752
Immigration	42,743
Schools and Public Buildings	82,887
Education	137,778
Charitable, Benevolent, Lunatic Asylums, and Hospitals	90,244
	£400,404
Interest on Loans	207,430
	£607,834
Police and Gaols	169,047
	£776,88l

We have had charges made against the Provincial Governments that all the funds raised have been expended in the large centres of population; but I think the figures given in this return will meet those charges. With reference to the expenditure in the Taieri district, I may explain that the main road through that district is also a main road to the interior, and the expenditure upon it is therefore, to a great extent, for the benefit of up-country districts. With reference to the Tuapeka District, which I have had the honor of representing continuously for over ten years, it has been described as a pet district—a district that has received more than its fair share; but, on looking over the figures, I do not see any justification for the statement, I find that we have not received a fair share—not at all equal to our requirements, My remarks with respect to the Taieri district also apply to the Waikouaiti district, because a main road to the northern districts goes through it. The district of Port Chalmers, in addition to what is given to it as appears in those figures, has also had the advantage of a great deal of prison labour. The districts of Roslyn and Caversham have Road Boards, and consequently receive special subsidies, which make their receipts considerably larger. Of course, I am only showing the amount expended by the Provincial Government, and the proportion received by the various electoral districts. I think this return is useful in its way, and shows there has been no maladministration, and that the funds have been legitimately expended for the purposes for which they were intended. I am sorry I have not got a pamphlet which I have read, and which was published at Home, with the view of showing the advantages conferred on people who emigrated to Otago, and showing that all the money the first settlers paid in purchasing land came back to them in the shape of expenditure on roads, education, and so forth. We have expended the whole of our land revenue in Otago on public works, surveys, and departments. We have also, during the same period, expended for immigration, without any assistance from the General Government, the sum of £42,743; schools and public buildings, £82,887; education, £137,778; charitable institutions, benevolent asylums, hospitals, and lunatic asylums, £90,244. And, besides all this, we have paid a sum of £207,430 for interest on loans, and £169,047 for the maintenance of police and gaols. I simply quote these figures to show that provincial institutions, as far as Otago is concerned, have done good work. Of course I am aware that a cry has been raised against those institutions by some of the Otago members, who assert that the gold fields have not received a fair share of revenue, J think the figures I have read will dispel that illusion, and place the House and province in possession of facts which cannot be refuted. One of the Otago members, the member for Mount Ida, I think, made a strong point of the fact, or he put it forward as a fact, that a splendid piece of country in Otago, known as the Island Block, which ought to have been thrown open for settlement, had been turned into a sheep-walk, and that it remained a sheep-walk to this day. Why, Sir, the land to which the honorable member referred was put up to public auction, and every one who thought proper to bid for it had the opportunity to do so. I should not perhaps have taken much notice of the statement had it not been made by the honorable member who is familiar with the circumstances; but, Sir, the honorable member knew that he was stating what was untrue. He has gone over the ground as often as I have, and he must therefore be perfectly well aware that there has been as much as £10 an acre spent in fencing, ploughing, draining, and in otherwise improving that land. The owners of it have laid out so much money upon it that no land in Otago produces better crops; and can that be called a sheep-walk? However I did not, nor do I now, approve of the action of the then Government in disposing of this land in the manner they did. Now, Sir, we have heard a great deal about provincial legislation. We have been told that this House can make much better laws for the government of the people than the provinces can. Well, I admit that we have had a good deal of what I may term ineffective legislation in the pro- page 684 vinces, but this House has been the barrier to useful legislation becoming effective. You, Sir, have taken part in the debates in the Provincial Council of Otago, and you must he aware of the obstruction the Council met with in their desire to set aside the lands of the province for settlement. We have sat in that Council and this chamber night after night, indeed I might say morning after morning, en-deavouring to frame resolutions ami pass land laws to facilitate settlement; and what was the result? After a great struggle we got what was called a compromise. And what was that compromise? It was a compromise of this nature : that those who had possession of the lands—the pastoral tenants—should keep as much as they Could; and that the people who wished to settle on the lands should have as little as possible. Then I am told that local matters could be better attended to in this House than in the Provincial Council. That I say, is not possible, because there is a combination in this Assembly which will prevent the people obtaining their rights, in respect of the lands at least. Now, let me come to the honorable member for the Dunstam He said that it was through the inaction of the Provincial Government of Otago that the gold duty was not abolished or reduced. To that statement I now give a denial. Session after session the Provincial Council passed resolutions on the subject, asking that this House would either abolish or reduce the gold duty. And what do we find? We find that, on every occasion upon which the subject of reduction came before this House, the Government sitting on those benches—I say the present Government, because though there have been changes in its personnel it is to all intents the same Government—voted to a man against it. They had no excuse for their action. The gold duty is not colonial revenue, although it is collected by the Colonial Government. It belongs to the province, and the province was desirous to reduce it; but this House prevented its reduction. In that matter the Government acted as obstructionists—they merely desired to conciliate their supporters, the opponents of liberal measures. Yet we are asked to intrust the management of our local affairs to gentlemen who so utterly disregard local opinion. When I look back upon such action as this, I do not feel surprised that provincial legislation was ineffective and rendered inoperative, because this House ignored it, as it ignored the wishes of Otago miners and their local Legislature in regard to the gold duty. The honorable member for Wanganui also referred to provincial legislation, and said it was the laughing-stock of the colony. It is easy to make assertions, but it is sometimes difficult to prove them. Now let us see if there is any truth in the statement that the provinces neglected local requirements, and passed useless legislation. I find that during the period extending from 1853 to 1875, a range of twenty-three years, the Provincial Council of Otago passed 562 Ordinances, or an average of twenty-four a year, These Ordinances dealt with purely local matters, They refer principally to the formation of district roads, loans for District Road Boards, road diversions, compulsory land-taking, counties, bush fires, cattle trespass, &c., birds protection, cemeteries, dog and goat nuisance tax, education, schools, hospitals; endowments, charitable, social, municipal; athenæums, management of reserves, fencing, ferries, impoundings, jetties, wharves, dock trusts, licensing auctioneers, hawkers, &c., Municipal Corporation loans and Town Boards, neglected children, town and country police, scab and sheep, thistle prevention, town lands, roads and streets, turnpikes, glebes, and a variety of other Ordinances. That, I think, is what may be called purely domestic legislation and such matters of detail are scarcely likely to receive proper attention here. Then in regard to these 562 Ordinances, we find that only 43 were disallowed by the Governor, 20 were not assented to, 3 were vetoed fay the Superintendent, and in the case of 2 no action was recorded. Nearly 500 of them became law. It has been said that these Provincial Ordinances are constantly requiring amendment, but I think if we come to the legislation of this House we shall find that nearly half the Acts we pass are amended Acts. Look at the number of these Acts we pass every year. How is it possible for any member to study them, and make himself acquainted with them? Out of these 562 Ordinances passed by the Provincial Council of Otago, only 81 are amending and 6 repealing Ordinances. That is the number of Ordinances passed by the Provincial Council in 23 years. In this Assembly we passed, during the six years from 1869 to 1874 inclusive, 510 Acts, or very nearly as many as were passed in 23 years by the Provincial Council of Otago, which expends fully one-third the amount of revenue this House has charge of, and which legislates for a population that is spread all Over the province and has many different requirements, Out of these 510 Acts passed by this House in the the time I have mentioned—and about 200 more came before us, and never reached the third reading—I find that 195 were amending and 8 repealing Acts, making a total of 203. This shows, or ought to show, the hasty legislation which is carried on in this Assembly. A great deal has been said of lobbying. Year after year proposals are made by honorable members to get something for their constituents—as in the case of the reduction of the gold duty, for instance. When that question was first brought up, we failed—I may say, miserably failed—to get what we wanted. To prove that, it is only necessary to look at the division which took place on that occasion: it was on 13th September, 1871, and the numbers in favour of the reduction were 14, and those against 52, or a majority of 38. On that division every member of the Government in the House at the time voted against the reduction, although they had received from the Provincial Council of Otago resolutions in favour of the reduction. Well, Sir, when I set my mind upon any matter, I always endeavour, as far as I can, to carry it out successfully. I was determined that the duty on gold should be reduced, and in the next year, 1872, I convened a meeting of gold