The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1873

Evening Star, Issue 3129, 28 February 1873, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1873

If there are any who expected to hear anything fresh from Sir David Monro at Waikouaiti, they must be grievously disappointed. To read his speech, and that of Mr Stafford at Timaru, it might have been imagined that on the main points of argument they had agreed upon what to say. There is the same way of viewing the financial position of the Colony; they express similar apprehensions about taxation, and forbode the same disasters through the prosecution of public works. They differ on one or two points, however, for Sir David Monro a separationist, while Mr Stafford opposes the division of the Colony into two Provinces; Sir David Monro is decidedly opposed to Maori representation, while Mr Stafford would extend Maori influence by the introduction of a greater number into both Houses. Sir David’s advocacy of separation is based upon the idea that the interests of the North and Middle Islands arc so diverse, as .to reader different legislative measures necessary. Although he did not say in broad terms that he disapproved of the policy that has been followed by Mr M'Lean and the present Government with regard to Native affairs, and which has proved so signally suecessful, he evidently retains those notions of Colonial superiority and want of consideration for difference of habit, of thought, and national customs, that led to the wars of the past. He seems to regard the whole of the Native policy of the past three years as a system oi bribery, instead of .conciliation, and coudemod in no measured terms that leniency towards the rebels which strong Governments alone can afford to shew to political offenders. Sir David, and politicians of his class, fail to see the difference in the relative position of the Maoris and colonists, which has taken place during the last four years. They express the same apprehensions as before a strong ami well-organised armed constabulary was instituted, before the colonists had proved their superiority over the Maoris in the field, and before the opening up of the country, through the formation of roads and military tracks, had deprived them of the advantage _ of retiring into fastnesses after committing aome savage raid upon an isolated station or hamlet. Instead of an exhibition of strength, they .see a sign of weakness in this policy of mercy, jp-ud, with the nervousness of timidity, imagine the Maoris will interpret it in the same way- There was a time when such might have been the case; but Maoris seem to learn more rapidly than their white neighbors, and have erjdently come to the conclusion that peace is ft better and more profitable game than war. His objection to Maori representation is based upon the alleged ignorance and cupidity, and the consequent liability to being bribed, of Maori chieftains. Sir David forgets that such a disposition may be made use of on either sloe, .and that one cause of the defeat of the Fox Ministry was the firm front they presented against that Provincial bribery, .which has formed so prominent a feature in Mr Stafford’s tactics, and the propensity to which he most .certainly showed m bidding for Maori votes. It is hardly fair, then, to charge upon political opponents a practise that has been most industriously practised by the party to which Sir David is attached. With regard to the financial position of the Colony, he was very eloquent, but mainly deplored it because he looks forward to additional taxation in the shape of a land tax. Like all territorial magnates, he considers that they should have the decision in their hands of works to be undertaken, as if no other class than themselves were interested hj the matter. His views are founded upon the theory that the land is mortgaged .#s security for the public debt, and that it is up-bur to t#x the land without tlm.conscpt.pt the JapjLpwners. There is Always a class ot persons of this sort --men who can only view a fact in one light, ; and who forget that there are other points of view from which it may be regarded. Granted that in the event of uijwjp not BHwdwtety lb«,

interest on the loans, who receive the greatest benefit from their construction ? Those who occasionally use them for travelling or transit of goods, or the territorial proprietors whose properity is multiplied many times in value through being brought into immediate communication with markets at cheaper rates than by less eligible conveyances. Not only are they willing to purchase land for a mere trifle, but they seek every advantage to be conferred upon them a. no cost to themselves. No doubt the error has its origin in mistaken notions respecting land tenure. But let oir David say which of two farms would realise the highest rent, other circumstances being equal-one fifty miles from a shipping port, with only a bush track or macadamised road, or one connected with it by a railroad? The question is answered by the compensation asked by landowners, if a strip is wanted for railwav construction. We do not anticipate any increase of taxation will be necessary; but if there is, those surely should be ready to contribute a portion of their extra profits without murmuring. The landlords of Great Britain used just the same language, and raised the same class of objections, but in cases where railway communication seemed likely to he denied them, they were ready enough to contribute more than was asked for the boon. It is but justice to Sir David to say that he advocated a land tax in preference to other methods of increased taxation. As a political programme, the speech was not brilliant. There was little in it that was new, and nothing characteristic of the statesman,