To the Editor of the DAILY TIMES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 161, 22 May 1862, Page 5

To the Editor of the DAILY TIMES.

Sir, —I cannot but think that the question of separation has been insufficiently made intelligible to that part of the community teimed "the people;" and that, in tiie absence of a thorough elucidation of its principles, a great proportion of those who listened to the various speeches at the late meeting failed to acquire a proper estimate of the question itself. This agitation for •jepai-atiou Ims this essential difference from popular movements in England having for their object the removal of grievances or the attainment of concessions conferring immediate benefits upon the community. In the one case, the grievance or grievances complained of are plainly and intelligibly set forth, not more by the promotei-3 of the movement than by the actual experience of the people themselves. The facts are clearly before them ; the interest of every individual member is felt to bj involved intimately with the principles set forth ; and this feeling it is which has given such triumphant success to many of the movements actuated and accomplished by the expression of popular, opinion. This success has singularly accorded with the degree of individual interests involved in the questions at issue. Where it has not been actually felt that the personal interests of the people .are concerned—where the convictions of the community have not been based upon actual experience of the ill effects of the wrongs complained of—alj the abstruse reasonings of political philosophers have been iv vain. The declamations of the most eloquent speakers have at best but caused an evanescent excitement, and all the machinery of popular agitation has broken down, or has only produced a sort of confused idea on the part of the people that they have been grievously wronged somehow, but where they do not exactly know. Village politicians and pot-house orators may take up the cry, and harangue over their cups in indiguant outbursts of vulgar eloquence, but meanwhile Dick the Blacksmith, or Tom the Carpenter, eats his cheap loaf, drinks his economical pint of beer, and goes home to bed, undisturbed by any of the grim phantasmagoria of wrongs and injustice that had been dinned in his ears. But just lay your hands upon that loaf, increase the cost of that glass of beer; so order that Dick's or Tom's 20s. per week shall only go so far as 15s. did before, and it will need not the vehement language of demagogues to arouse him to opposition. Thus, with the most gigantic and popular movement of modern ■days—The Anti Corn-Law League. There the subject in hand was clearly comprehended by every man, woman, and child ; every class of society was more or less affected by it, and it, in its va ioua bearings, was associated with the greatest interests of the whole commercial welfare of the Kingdom. It then only needed the genius of master minds to fashion properly aud use with effect the material found to their hands, and mould them into a gigantic engine capable of shaking the throno itself. On the other hand, take the lleforin movement. The most accomplished statesmen may elaborate the most magnificent plan of national enfranchisement—ths mo.-sfc gifted of modern orators may thunder forth his philippics, aud like Peter the Hermit preach a new crusade against the power and encroachments of the arislocracy. He may depict in the mobt eloquent language—the social injustice that the new state of things is to remove, and what is tho result 1 After years of constant efforts, with all the machinery of public agitation, with unlimited command of funds, and the complctest exposition of the matter in hand, I hesitate not. to say that there never was a greater amount of indifference felt by the public mind of England than is now existing upon the subject of lieform. Compare this with other popular movements —where tho subject has not been, hampered by abtruse speculations, and tho deduction is plain. So with this question of Separation. It is not for the promoters of the movement to come to the people aud tell.them to cry outf.>r Separation, without pointing out why. That there exists in a striking manner, interests involving the public and individual welfare of the community, I m.rntain is indisputable. Your own able pen has elucidated many of them, aud even the-material you yourself had furnished to their hands, the speakers at the late meeting utterly failed to make sufficient use of. If this question was an abstract one -simply, agitation will not make it more practical, but when I see that the comfort, convenience, prosperity and progress, not only of the commuliity itself, but of every individual member of it, is at stake, fliat the movement is identical with the best interests of society,—then I say that it is for the promoters of Separation to cause the question to cc clearly comprehended by the intelligence of the people. Should you deem this letter worthy of insertion, I may in a future communication make an attempt to show the how and the wherefore of this desired Separation.—l am Sir, yours respectfully. H.