WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1883.

Evening Post, Volume XXVI, Issue 75, 26 September 1883, Page 2

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1883.

AUCKLAND AND THE NEW MINISTRY. • Candidly we must admit we n^sfa'ot greatly surprised that the inclusion of no Auckland representative in tho new Ministry should have excited considerable indignation in the northern city. It is a terrible come-down from owning the Prime Minister himself— and one who was the last man to be a mere cypher in any Government— to becoming' absolutely Ministerless. True, Hawke's Bay, Nelson, and Westland, aro in the same boat ; but, from the Auckland 'viewpoint, this only renders the slight still more galling. To be apparently classed with such little twopenny-halfpenny ex-pro-vinces as those is too bitter. We confess we feel a good deal of sympathy with the mortification of Auckland at being thus excluded from the Councils of State ; and we say this in no spirit of mockery. To us it seems an unquestionable hardship that Auckland should be unrepresented in the Cabinet, just at a time, too, when several matters are in issue which are of spcordl interest and importance to that district. No doubt this view will be promptly met by Ministerial organs with the retort that "localism" is an evil which ought to be suppressed ; that Cabinets are not supposed to be representative of mere localities ; that every Minister represents the whole colony, and the most suitable men ought to be selected irrespective of localities, even should it happen that all were to be found among the members for a single province. This is very pretty in theory, but it will not stand the test of practical oxporience. The time has not yet come for local rivalries to be ignored, or for old provincial jealousies to be treated as obsolete. Nor can it bo denied that a large and important district if deprived of Ministerial representation may be placed at a disadvantage which is far from being purely sentimental or imaginary. We have ourselves felt bound on more than one occasion to press very strongly the claims of Wellington to its fair share of representation in the Cabinet, and we cannot blame Auckland for protesting loudly against being totally ignored in the recent reconstruction. Certainly it does appear unfortunate that such a serious and substantial grievance should have been put upon Auckland, unless this were absolutely unavoidable. We believe it is intended to appoint from the Legislative Council another Minister without portfolio, as there is more than one man's work in taking charge of all the Goverr-nont bills that have to go through the Council. In these circumstances it would have been as well, one would think, to have secured an Aucklandor for this position— either selecting one of tho present Auckland Legislative Councillors or else calling some suitable Auckland man to the Council for this purpose — before the names of the new Ministry were definitely announced, so that the irritation created by the absence of any Auckland member from the Cabinet might have been avoided. As it is the seeming slight has been offered, and unless the excitement now being sedulously fomented by the opponents of tho Government can bo properly allayed by the speedy redress of the grievance, it may afterward prove impracticable to smooth Auckland's ruffled feathers.