NEW ZEALAND AND FEDERATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIII, Issue 12243, 2 July 1900, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND AND FEDERATION.

The great interest that is being taken in the question of Australian Federation at Home just now has induced our London correspondent to gather the opinions of representative colonial gentlemen who are at present in the Mother Country. It is of some importance to us to know how our attitude towards the Commonwealth is interpreted by our friends, and 1 the notes on the subject which we publish this morning are of undoubted value. On the whole, our correspondent succeeded in obtaining a very fair summary of New Zealand public opinion, but the conclusion he draws is quite unwarranted. One apparently well-informed business man professed to be ignorant of the fact that the Commonwealth Bill was about to be considered by the British Parliament, and our correspondent accepts this as the most striking " proof of the utter indifference with which the mass of New Zealanders have up to the present regarded or perhaps disregarded the question.” That is absolutely unjust to the colony. It is equally unfair to back up such a sweeping assertion by quoting a gentleman like Mr Justice Denniston, who is in no sense representative of New Zealand public opinion. Men like Sir Walter Bullcr and Mr Charles Pharazyn, who have given attention to colonial politics, express not merely their own opinions bat those of many colonists also, and the real attitude of the colony is represented in the remarks of Sir Westby Perceval and the Hon Richard Oliver. The average New Zealander probably knows as much of Federation principles as the average Australian, though he may nob be as well versed in the miner issues. Even the framers of the Federal Constitution could not- tell us how New Zealand would be affected by .its fiaancgal-.qlauses . for. instance, ,and the

eJectcuß of the colony accepted the gui-canoo 1 of our own public men, who advised caution before all thmgs. Mr Pharazyn prrii the nosition in a nutshell when he said that it would be wiser to wait and watch the practical working of the measure. We have already discovered one defect, in the appeal clause, which might have been overlobked. Situated as we are at so great a distance from Australia, our interests cannot possibly be identical with those of Victoria and West Australia, and we will probably PSako mo serious mc-ve towards joining the Federation until we have watched its effects on the continent. Professor Brown’s remarks are naturally of great interest, for they represent the purely academic view of the situation. His theory is at least plausible, but as movements in history sometimes take centuries to reach their consummation, New Zealand may have many decades of separate existence before it.