THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1881.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6163, 18 August 1881, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. THURSDAY, AUGUST 18, 1881.

It has been attempted iri tho House of Representatives to get rid of the objections to the increased preponderating political influence which the Representation Bill would confer upon the South, by stating that the conflicting influences which are in operation there would be destructive of union for southern purposes. In this there is just as. much truth as would be likely to mislead those who are not at. the trouble to investigate the matter., It ■

is-only■ a half truth, and we are sur-. { prised that soacute. a..man as Mr. Reader Wood should have allowed himself to be caught by it. The same antagonism exists in the North, and if it be true.that in the South it.preyents union for southern purposes, it is equally true of the North for northern purposes. ..Hence, the one-would neutralise the other, and the only constant quantity -would be the southern preponderance of representation. _ The argument might have some value if the North was always united, and was thus advantaged by southern disunion,; or if it could be shown that this alleged want of union in the South had been effective to enable the North to secure justice. It is very easy to fling down a general remark such as that used by Mr. Wood, but if it is to possess any value it inusb be subtantiated by results. A general proposition ia worthless if.it is rebutted by the particular, and the particular in this instance consists in the fact that ,the North has been robbed for the benefit of the South, and that the general, the alleged disunion has not enabled the North to prevent it. One fact is worth an: infinitude of theory. If it be said that disunion in the North has been the cause, that is only another reason why keeping in view this source of weakness there should be a still more strenuous effort to readjust the comparative representative strength of the two Islands. A disunion, the effect of which is only felt locally, is of no use to the North. Internal jealousy in the South which, say, injures Nelson does not lessen the effect of southern jealousy with regard to the North. There has never been any disunion in the South which prevented the carry:ing of anything of importance. It jmay be said that the South is not united with regard to the Representation Bill, and this would doubtless be urged with an air of But there could not be a more felicitous illustration of our remark that there is no such disunion as impairs the political preponderance of the South. Notwithstanding this dissension, there remains sufficient strength to enable the Government to consider the Bill secure, with respect to which they may shortly be disillusionised. What is the value of a disunion which is of no use to the North and still leaves to the South a power adequate for the achievement of its purposes ? The argument about disunion is of the flimsiest, and collapses immediately it is submitted to the test of experience. If there were one thing with regard to which the North was entitled to be confident, it was that the increase of representation which it is proposed to give to Otago and Canterbury would so alarm other portions of the South that they would oppose it, and, influenced by a feeling of interests imperilled, support the North in its hostility to that increase. Although there is actually an identity of interest there is no combination to serve a common purpose. Mr. Reader Wood would reply that the disunion exists. No doubt; but as it is not worth a rush, and never has been worth a rush, never prevented the North being wronged, what can be more puerile than to cite it as a reason why the North Island should put aside its alarms, and consent to a large increase of the already too large representation of the South, If we seek for an explanation of why this alleged disunion has never impaired the political power of the Southern Island, the answer is obvious. Virtually, Otago and Canterbury are the South. So large is their representation, that the few additional votes they require they can always obtain. If a solid northern vote were aided by the votes of disaffected southern votes, Otago and Canterbury would still defeat it with very trifling assistance. That is the position at the present time; it is the position with respect to the Representation Bill itself, and it is proved by the disgraceful disproportionate material advantages which Otago and Canterbury have always secured. But let it be observed how supremely ridiculous is that figment of a contention Avith regard to disunion in connection with the Representation Bill. If that be carried, Otago and Canterbury, having forty-five votes, need only secure two more to have a majority of the whole House. The whole of the South might be antagonistic to the objects of those electorates—we may presume a disunion greater that is ever likely to occur, or has occurred—and the solid North and the disaffected South wouldbo impotent to influencethe i-esult of the division. Under the Bill, if Otago and Canterbury were united for a common object, or even agreed each to support the other for objects which each had in view—and this has often occurred—on the principle of giving a sprat to catch a mackerel they would have only to placate two votes and their end would be attained. Is it not rubbish to talk of the divergent interests of the South as certain to be ameliorative of the application of the principle of numerical representation, when the Bill lays the foundation for a union strong enough to accomplish anything and defeat anything,— a union of 45 votes out of 91 1 It may be said that there may never be such an union and to that the past gives a sufficient answer. But it may fui , - ther be said that Otago and Canterbury hare had, have, and must have common objects, and' objects with regard to which it would be the interest of each to give and take—to roll the log as they have rolled it many a time and oft. They might combine to regain the twenty per cent, of the

.land-fund. Statesmerudo ■-not,..take account of what, may . not happen, ■■ but-of - what 1 may, and n0... statesman- worthy of the name would give to neighbouring localities a representation so .extensive, having many interests in common as, if' '.united, Would give' them the; absolute control of ■ Parliament. He would do anything but that'; he would determine that a 'danger of this kind must be avoided; he would be conscious that. such a proposal must create, and -would justify alarm, and resistance carried to any length... He would sinile at the notion of disunion,-when combination, directed by interest, would give supreme power. He would not run the risk, of that union and that supremacy, but, like a prudent man, would so balance his scheme of representation as to render such a combination impossible. ; ,