PROPOSED MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AT DUNEDIN.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 47, 16 December 1871, Page 6

PROPOSED MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AT DUNEDIN.

[lndependent.] Surely the Government, before deciding upon the question of holding the next session of the General Assembly at Dunedin, will seriously consider what the motion carried by the House of Representatives really means. The only argument of any force whatever that was advanced in favor of the proposal was that the meeting of Parliament in Dunedin would afford members from the North Island a better knowledge of the condition and resources of the Middle Island than they could in the ordinary course of things be expected to obtain. On this ground many members voted for the motion who would not otherwise have done so. Others voted probably out of pure fun—never dreaming that practical effect would be given to it. The Government itself was not only divided in opinion, but really left the matter entirely in the hands of the House—a piece of weakness on the part of the Executive which is now slowly being recognised even by the organs of public opinion in Otago and Canterbury. Had the Government but been gifted with courage enough to tell the House plainly that the advantages proposed to be attained by the change would not be worth the cost of obtaining them in the existing state of the colonial finances, we have no hesitation in saying that the motion would have been rejected. It is impossible to avoid remarking upon the utter absurdity of the colony incurring several thousands of pounds of expense, and an infinite amount of delay and inconvenience in the prosecution of public business, at a time when above all others the utmost economy should be exercised, and the greatest facilities afforded for the administration of public affairs. Had the proposition been made at a time of rest, when everything was coleur de rose, and the colony could afford the cost of educating the ignorance of the North Island members upon the superior resources of the other division of the colony, it might have been a very proper, and possibly profitable arrangement. But that such a step should be proposed to be taken when the finances of the colony are strained to their utmost power of tension, savors of a spirit of recklessness which is anything but creditable to the majority that endorsed it. But although the House of Representatives did carry the resolution, we venture to say that few who voted for it recognised its real intent and meaning. Nominally, under the guise of being simply a political educational change of a temporary character, it was, as is now confessed by some of its supporters, the insertion of the thin end of the wedge which is expected to dissever the colony. This, or any ulterior motive was carefully kept out of sight at the time, but the truth is gradually developing itself. At a meeting held at Dunedin a few days ago upon the subject of making preparations for the accommodation of the Assembly, the Superintendent of Otago, Mr Macandrew, said openly, " I have no expectation that the Assembly will be in Dunedin permanently as yet; hit this is the first step." Now, bearing in mind the sources from which the proposition to remove the meeting place of parliament proceeded—the Auckland andOtago members—it does not require any special shrewdness to see that the change was proposed for the purpose of furthering the cause of separation. It is "the first step," as Mr Macandrew frankly says, and • we ask the Government are they prepared to subscribe to such a programme? Setting aside the enormous public inconvenience which the holding the Assembly away from the Government offices will occasion ; setting aside the enormous cost that will he unavoidably necessary, we would simply ask the Executive if they desire to play into .the hands : of those who seek the disruption; of the colony? Separation was possible, probable desirable, - and. -mights .* have been effected some nine or ten years ago, but no one knows bejtter- than the Colonial Treasurer himself that the time for carrying out" any such measure has passed away. There never was a time when the colony of New Zealand needed so much the consolidation of its interests and aims as now. The Government is entering upon a scheme of policy of a gigantic character, the success of which entirely

depends upon the nationalisation of the colony. As it is, the perfecting of the work taken in hand is hampered and endangered by provincial jealousies and petty local considerations, but what would be the condition of things if, instead of the whole colony uniting for the common and general good, it were to be thrown into the vortex of divisional disputes? TNo worse fate could befal New Zealand than for it now to be divided, against itself. It is seeking money; struggling to maintain and improve its credit; and entering upon a large scheme of public works which will require the most loyal co-operation of the various parts of the colony to carry out successfully. If the crude and speculative propositions of Mr M'Andrew, or those of Mr Reynolds, are to have the slightest coloring of support given to them by the Government, nothing is more certain than that the credit of the colony will suffer. This is no time for playing at government; the condition of the colony is altogether too serious to admit of any such amusement, and a heavy responsibility will rest upon the Government if they encourage such a course. Even the " Otago Daily Times," which has always stood up for the interests of its constituency, condemns the proposed peripatetic session. After reviewing the arguments pro and con, it sa y S —," On the whole, we are inclined to think that the weight of evidence is somewhat against the advisability of such a change." Now, this coming from a journal which would naturally be inclined to approve the distinction which the meeting of the Assembly in Dunedin would confer upon that city, is tolerably strong language. The " Lyttelton Times" condemns the change, and almost every other paper in the colony does the same. The Cabinet is known to be divided upon this question, and so were the two Houses of Parliament ; the colony cannot afford the cost and inconvenience which the change will entail, and the worst effect of it will be to distract the country from the serious consideration and discharge of the enormous responsibilities which the Railway and Public Works Acts impose upon it. The question is, has the Government the courage to take a bold stand in the matter and in the interests of the public welfare venture to postpone its acquiescence in the schemes of the Otago aud Auckland separatists ?