The Globe. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1875.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 380, 31 August 1875, Page 2

The Globe. TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1875.

The Colonial Treasurer in his speech in reply, on Friday night, summed up the arguments against abolition as follows: that the provincial institutions must be maintained as safeguards of the liberties of the people, or at any rate, that no alteration should be atattempted till after the elections ; next, that the proposals of the Government were intended to cancel a deficit, by seizing the provincial revenues, especially the land fund; then, that under the proposed Bill, the land fund is not to be localised, and the endowments not secured ; and lastly, that the Government proposals were a sham, and should therefore be rejected. It is not our intention to go over again the ground which has been so often travelled of late, and repeat the various arguments in favor of abolition, but as the Colonial Treasurer's summary of the arguments appears to us complete, we are anxious that our readers should have before them all that is to be said in favor of provincialism. It will then be seen how little can be said in its favor, and how much it has to depend upon association and self-interest for its maintenance. The leader of the Opposition, Sir G. Grey, has more largely than any other speaker, dwelt upon the first of these arguments. He has again and again, in fervid language, called upon the House to pause before it committed itself to a course of legislation which would sweep away the liberties of the people, and deprive them of one of their most sacred privileges. He and Mr Fitzherbert have even hinted at the possibility of a resort to physical force in defence of provincialism—of an appeal to arms against the despotism of the Central Government. We cannot help thinking that no more convincing argument against a continuance of a system could be produced, than to find that it can so warp the judgment of two such clear headed statesmen as Sir G. Grey and Mr Fitzherbert. But perhaps we give them credit for too much honesty. It is difficult to believe that a man of Mr Fitzherbert's cool and calculating

character could be so carried away as to give utterance to the bombast with which he is credited at a recent public meeting at the ITutt. "We seek in vain throughout the speeches of the Opposition for the smallest indication of how the liberties of the people are to be affected by the proposed change. There is no such thing contemplated, and they know it. They know that the functions of Provincial Councils are of the most limited character, and that even, on the few subjects on which they can legislate, their acts are subject to the veto of the G-overnor — that is, the Ministry of the day. It is to the Q-eneral Assembly that we have to look for all laws affecting individual liberty. An examination of the list of Acts passed by the Provincial Council of any province for one session will amply prove the huge absurdity of the language used. Take. for instance the list of Bills passed by the Provincial Council of Canterbury during Session 40, 1873-1874. (We have not the list of last session's work before us.) It consists of twelve Ordinances, as follows: —The Christchurch Stage Coach Ordinance ; the Imprest Supply Ordinance, 1873-74; Diversion of Soads Special Ordinance, No 3, 1873 ; do, No 4.; the Stage Carriage Amendment Ordinance, 1874 ; the Classical Schools Keserves Ordinance, 1874; Township of Greraldine Ordinance, 1874; Diversion of Roads Special Ordinance, No 5, 1874; do, No 6; Superintendent's Salary Ordinance, 1870, Amendment Ordinance, 1874; Canterbury Sheep Ordinance, 1872, Amendment Ordinance, 1874; the Appropriation Ordinance, 1873-74. Pancy Sir G-eorge G-rey and Mr Pitzherbert taking to the field in the cause of freedom, because the General Assembly has deprived the provinces of the right of increasing the Superintendent's salary, or of diverting a road. The only people whose liberties will be curtailed, will be members of the Provincial Councils ; they will no longer be able to vote themselves free passes on the railways, on the pretence of looking after the affairs of the province. When private business calls them from home, they will have to pay, like their less fortunate neighbours, for the use of the people's railways. We reserve for another article our consideration of the other three reasons which have been advanced in favour of provincialism.