The Evening Star THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1870.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2224, 23 June 1870, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1870.

Notwithstanding the details which encumber Mr Reynolds’s Separation proposition, it is too important to allow it to pass out of notice. It is a pity that it should have involved two questions which have no necessary connection —the separation of the two islands and the abolition of Provincial Governments. The evil- of connecting two such questions together is, that the supporters of one proposition might prove opponents to the other. Experience has shown that wherever reforms are required, they are the more readily achieved by narrowing the ground to one single issue. Every reform that has marked the progress of Great Britain during the last fifty years has been attained by that process. It seems a slow one, but it is the only sure way. The repeal of the laws against the Catholics would not have been carried had it been mixed up with reform of the representation j and the revision of the tariff had to he dealt with separately from the abolition of the Corn Raws, intimately as the two questions were connected. In like manner, although repeated attempts were made by political agitators to tack on to the anti-Corn Law resolutions the six points of the Charter, the League invariably rejected the proposals on the ground that while men of all shades of opinion on other subjects could conscientiously support the abolition of protective duties on grain, they would have been united in their opposition to any measure embodying so great a variety of debafceable subjects as would then have been presented to them for consideration. Thus it is with Mr Reynolds’s propositions, It is quite within the range of probability that there may be many members who would support the abolition of Provincialism, who are totally opposed to the separation of the two islands j while there are many others who are so much in favor of the retention of our present Provincial institutions as to oppose any proposition for their abolition. With regard to the separation of the two islands, every reason that existed for it a few years ago reimrins in lull force to this day. Notwithstanding the altered condition of the North Island, so far as the Maoris are concerned, there is no identity of interest. And even with regard to the Natives themselves, their advantage in the perpetuation of peace have not become so paramount, as to destroy that tendency to war that renders them so troublesome. It is very evident from every tiling we hear from the North, that their present quietude arises from the confidence they have in the personnel of the present Executive, and it is not desirable that the interests of any country should lie dependent upon the capricious likes or dislikes of a race of barbarians. Should Mr M‘Lean through any cause he removed, or should Native grasping go beyond what the present Government can concede, either of which contingencies is within the range of possibility, there is no security against another troublesome war. And besides that, even with our present peaceful prpspects, there is no likelihood of Otago’s revenue, less federal charges, being spent in the Province. The crying grievance has been, that the taxes upon the industry and commerce of Otago have been exhausted upon the North Island, instead of having been devoted to reproductive work ° The different Governments have held that the outlay was necessary for the interests of the Colony. It is evident that in this assumption lies the fallacy. It is assumed that what is the interest of the North Island is equally that of the Middle Island. It was this pinning together things which were different, that caused the terrible Civil war in America. The Northern States had interests altogether adverse to the South, and no amount of logic could prove them identical ; but as usual the dominant party carried by force what could not be defended by reason. There is no danger of that ia New Zealand, but by some means pr

other the North has hitherto had the advantage of' statesmanship. The Middle Island has been divided against itself, while the North, whenever money was the theme, has been united. No special pleading can show that the North Island has any claim upon Middle Island revenues. They have nothing to bestow in return for expenditure in constructing roads and defensive works. If in the North there is rich land for grazing or agriculture, it is not vastly superior to that of the Middle Island ; so that the outlay cannot cheapen access to any product required here. There is no large population in the North Island anxious to receive the products of Otago or the Middle Island, to render the heavy burden upon our population a profitable investment. In fact, it may be truly said that every penny taken from our people for expenditure in the North, is so much laid out for the purpose of shutting out a market for ourselves ] as it enables them to produce iu security what otherwise we might have had to supply them with. There should be Separation in some form or other, so that expenditure may be localised.