SEPARATION.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1739, 11 July 1862, Page 2

SEPARATION.

OR THE OTAGO IUNG MOVEMENT, {From the Canterbury Press, 7 June, 1862.) Separation has built its nest in Otago, and has hatched its first brood amongst the unfinished housetops of Dunedin. The ' Daily Times, which has thrown itself into the cry— a cry by the way is the soul of a newspaper — has offered £50 for the best essay on Separation — (why not a poem, and give Thatcher a chance ?) A committee sits daily to discuss the progress of the agitation, and has advertised for a Secretary, who is to have a salary of £400 a-year. In fine, the affair has assumed the dimensions of a King Movement*. That is in fact what it is — The Otago King movement — and before this image the ' Daily Times' plays tho sack!>u f , psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, with all the energy, if not all the success, of the Chaldseau baud of old. Now we feel inclined to say to the Otago King party, as Sir George Grey said to the Maori King party, (there is no difference after all in the object of the two movements). " Are you going to force other tribes to join you ? Because, if not, there is no harm in your movement. You Maoiies are right in wishing for a union amongst the tribes for purposes of better government. You Otago folk are right in wishing a great extension of local provincial authority.

We have read with disappointment, 1 though if it be not a contradiction in terms, an anticipated disappointment, the speeches delivered at the public meeting held in Dunedin on the subject of separation. We might possibly have mot with a new argument, or have dropped upon an original idea. Nothing of the kind. We are sorry we bad not space to print the report of this meeting in full ; but our readers must take our word for it, that the only two ideas on which all the speakers relied were — first the fact that the Middle Island has nothing to do with native policy ; and secondly that there are great disadvantages arising from the distance of the seat of government.

There is also another idea prevading 1 all tbe speeches, implied though not actually expressed in words- namely, that the Middle Island is another word for Oiajjo. How does it other wise come to pass that all the speakers neglect to notice tbe fact that the seat of government is nearer Nelson when at Auckland, than it would be at Dunedin, or even at Christchurch ? The same neglect of obvious ftict appears in all the arguments of the * Daily Times.' We are accused of selfishness in wishing to have the seat of government at Christchurch, and of ' slyly' suggesting to Nelson aud Marlborough that Cluisichuich is nearer to them than Dunedin. Now if are to argue this question, at all, what ever we do lei us discard humbug. Let us recognise that we hove each of us but one rule to go by — own own interests. It is plain folly lo suppose that there is any principle involved in the mere locality of the metropolis. It is a simple question of the greatest convenience for all, a question of self interest, in which no other principle of any soil whatever is involved. And our view plainly is, that a General Government at Dunediu would be a calamity for tbe rest of the Middle Island. And our Otago friends must let us speak out plainly and say, we should object to a General Government at Duuedin, not only on account of its distance from the greatest pait of the colony, but on accounlofits political atmosphere. We should dread beyond measure the increase of influence on the part of a community which even conceives the idea of making a McAndrew Superintendent, and actually submits patiently to the presence of a McGlashan in the Executive Council. When the Otago people have stoned their Acbacs to political death, they may expect to be treated with on terms of equality with the other provinces; but whilst they are lying under the cloud of admitting sucb men to the management of their public affairs, they must expect Jo be regarded with suspicion by all their neighbours. Apart from this however, Otago must understand that do voice will be raised in favor of separation on the scow of increasing the convenience of communicating with the seat ofGovernraent, unless it be a part of the measure to place the metropolis iv or about the centre of the Middle Island: in other words at Christchurch. Aud she must understand also that, when this argument derived from the want of local government is considered, it must be considered not alone — not as opposed only to the idea of maintaining the seat of Government at Auckland, nut also as opposed to the idea of placing the Government at Wellington.

But let us come now to this cry which is being raised, as to our indifference in the Middle Island to native policy, and our claim for immunity from the costs of native government. Let us examine this doctrine. Tbe separationists seem to think that when they have st ted as a fact that the Middle Island is free from native diiiiculties, the conclusion follows as a matter of course : therefore we ought to have d separate Government. But is this conclusion admitted as a political maxim in the world at large? Are tbe interests between the two Islands more distinct than those between England and Ireland, or between England and Scotland ? Does, not one half of European history tell us of the union under one Government of countries, and sections of countries and provinces, whose interests are widely different one horn, the other ? Have we not learned to comprehend how states have been held together in imperial unit) by recognizing the municipal independence of their parts ?

New Zeiiland as a whole has far more in common than is usually admitted. Ii is at all events an English colony, settled about the same time and under very similar circumstances and before many years it will be filled from end to end with a population having the same origin laws, language, institutions, and religion. The straits which divide the two Islands are less a barrier than a. highway. Nelson and Wellington are far less separated by the stmits than Marlborough and Canterbury by the Kai koras.

Suppose that the Middle Island had been first peopled by the Englis/i, and that no settle meat had been planted in the Northern Island. Suppose that we had peopled the Middle Is land to a certain density of population. Should we have rebted there? Would not the settlers have cro&sed tbe straits and carried on the work of colonization into the Northern Island P And supposing they had done so, and had pushed their enterprise as far as the Bay of Islands, should we then have said, we have nothing to do with these colonists in the Northern Island, let them get on as they can, let us cut them off from us, and let them bear alone the expense of governing those native hordes? No one would be so buse as to advocate such a policy anu yet the interests of the two islands would have been as different then as now. Well theu, dues* not this prove that, no matter how different might be the interests involved, that diversity would not imply a necessity for a separate government. The separationists then have something more to prove thap a diversity of iuterests, and have they proved anytbing moie ?

Bui can wo not go farther than this? Can we not say that, brought as we have been, no matter how, into close juxti-position and into s6cial relations with these natives, a duty is imposed on us of cultivating that relationship and improving that position, which we can only neglect at our peiil.

It often occurs to us, looking at the subject matter .of the questions with .which Colonial Governments have to deal, ti.at one main dif. ference between an independent nation and a colony is, the want in the latter of a foreign policy. It is this want which stamps with egotism, with selfishness, with littleness, all the political tone of the community. It has not the ever present sense of forming one the citizenships of states, of being actuated by the public opinion of nations. How large a part of the policy ofall European Slates is the foreign policy. How the necessity of dealing with other countries reacts upon statesman, widening their perceptions and extending their views of political questions.

Is it too much to s;\y that to New Zealand has been given something akin to a foreign policy in this native question ? That to us, of all colonies, has been given a trust, calling upon our statesmen for a deeper sagacity, and upon our politichius for a more extended philanthiophy, than ordinary colonial politics are accustomed to elicit? Has not this gieat necessity of our time already evoked a higher statesmanship than colonies usually exhibit ? Have we not been called upon from wrangling over ledgers and.- .scrambling after revenues, and discussing road-making, and bargaining with sieam packet companies, have we not been called to consider those conditions of our common humanity by which mm may be bound to man under varying types and changing phases of society — called on to give reality to the idea of a common motherhood and common Christianity, to elicit from out the depths of the heait of a race that capacity for civilization which lurks in the most degraded type of human nature ?

To us, and to our children, it seems not too much to say, this native pioblem has been given as a solemn trust; and that, not for the benefit of the native nice only, but for our own. For, sure we are, that t!ie faithful and earnest attention to the solution of this problem will react for ourselves, whether it be through peace, or even whether it be through war •, lifting our national mind out of the petty incidents connected with our own race, and educating us for that stand amongst the nations of the world which these islands must inevitably one day take. Are we of the Middle Island prepared to ignore our share of this duly, and to reject our share of this discipline. 3 And for what? A few thousand pounds, and those not contributed out of our own pockets. [jßoar tub lyttelxon times, july 5.] Our Otago correspondent informs us in his last letter that the Separation League intends to publish a clear and full manifesto of its views and objects. Better late ttiau never. So far as we have heard as yet, no one knows exactly what it aims at. Mr. Gillies, who lately paid a visit to this province as si " deputation," uses very different language to that of some of the leaders of the Otugo movement ; and it is not unlikely that these gentlemen, now that they have considered the question a little more, would be unwilling to advocate the same course of proceeding as. they al first suggested, orappeaied to suggest.

It is no doubt true that we should very strongly object to a change which would make Dunediu the seat of government for this island; for, in such a case we should only be re-establishing the evil of the present state of things in another shape, by placing the seat of government al the extremity of the country governed. Bat it is certainly not the case that the feir of this has been our principal reason for opposing the Otago movement. We need scarcely repeat that our objections to the scheme were r firstly, the intention of appealing to the Colo nial Office to effect it, without applying to the New Zealand legislature; and secondly, the determination to make a complete severance of the connexion between the two islands, now and for the future.

After the meeting in Lyttelton, ou Saturday last, we may claim to have very fairly represented the feeling of this province on the subject. Asa political demonstration the meeting w:is a complete fiasco. Mr. Gillies, the only person present wliu had apparently any wellconsidered views on the subject, either could, not or would not say definitively what was the aim of the league. It is hard to discover what the other gentlemen present were there for, except, perhaps, Mr. Buckley, who complained repeatedly of the apathy displayed. The meet ing did not appear to think they had anything tangible to propose. The speeches or rather the talk, was curiously irrelevant. One speaker wanted to build an iron clad steamer to defend the harbour; another thought Municipal Conn cil were in a mess ; another thought this a parallel case to that of Scotland " when subdued by England;" and a fouith thought that Mr. Ward had forgotten that he was member for Lyttelton. The resolutions were given in the report uf the meeting in our issue of last Wednesday. Wh;.t the committee are to o.ury out we understand about as much as we do the exact meaning of the first resolution. It must have" been drawn up iv a hurry. No wonder it was not seconded for some time. The second resolution, referring the whole question to our representatives, looks like a quiet and polite way of shelving the discussion.

Ihat no meeting was called at Christchurch during Mr. Gillies' visit, and no representative of Canterbury in the General Assembly was present at the scantily-attended meeting at Lytteltou are significant fucts. Those gentlemen who spoke most to the point at Lytle'iton appeared to hold the views generally expressed in this province — that an immediate change is needed, and that the South will insist through its representatives, on a due recognition of its claims and requirements. It may be advisable that a temporary separation of the two islands should be effected ; it is possible that ihe Government may be placed on stu-h a footing or in such a central position as to obviate the necessity of such separation. But the North must distinctly understand that the interests of this island can no longer be sacrificed to any other paitof the colony on any plan whutsover. We will cousent to such a financial arrangement as is just and liberal, but we insist on an adjustment of accounts. We cannot leave the revenue of this island at the mercy of political parties without any definite line beyond whi«h tbey may not encroach. If we mistake not, it will be found that in Olago, a great number of persons— perhaps even a majority— will he found opposed to the idea of absolute and entire separation from the North Island — and only anxious as we are for securing the share in the government of the colony which the population and contributions of this island entitle in to demand.

It would be idle to form a decided opiniou as to the best manner of meeting till the diiliculiie s of the case, before we are possessed of some iv formation which must be laid before the Geae"

ral Assembly during the present session. Have there been any ucent negotiations hetweeu the Imperial Government and that of New Zealand as to the cost of maintaining troops in this colony ? If there have been any, what is the resuk? Is the Imperial Government prepared to hand over to the colony the responsibility of managing' native affairs ? If so at what price? Is the present Government prepared to recommend the undertaking of such responsibility? What is Sir George Grey's policy with regard to the natives? What will it cost? What are the prospects of peace or war ? These are only a few of the questions which must he answered before ouv Hepiesentatives can take any steps in the question of Separation; we cannot expect or wish them to rush blindfolded upon so important a revolution.