SEPARATION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 186, 20 June 1862, Page 5

SEPARATION.

TIIK EUROPEAN KING MOVEMENT. (From the Canterbury Press, June 7.)

Separation has built its nest in Otago, and has hatched its first brood among the 'unfinished housetops ofDunedin. 'She Daily Times, which has thrown itself mto 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 fora 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 iact what it is—" The Otago Kina; movement"—and before thfs image the Daily Times plays the saekbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, with all the energy, if not all the success, of the Chaldaean band 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 objects of the two movements)—" Are you going-to'fores other tribes to join you ? Because, if not, there is. uo harm in, your movement. You Maories 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, though,—if it benota contradiction in teinis, an anticipated disappointment,—the speeches delivered atthe public meeting Held in Dunedin on the subject of Separation. We might possibly have met witti a new argument, or have dropped upon an original idea. Nothing of the kind. We are sorry we had not space to print the report of tin's meeting in full, but our readers must kike 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 pervading all the speeches, implied, though not actnally expressed in words: namely, th.it tln>. Middle Island is another word for Otago. II uw iioes it of.herwi.-5e come to pass that all the speakers neglect to notice the fact that the seat of (government is nearer Nelson when at Auckland, than it would beat Mimsdin, or even at Ohristchurch t The same neglect of obvious fact appears in all the arguments of the Daily Times. We are accused of selfishness in wishing to have the scat of government ,at Christehurcb, and of " slyly1' suggesting to Kelson and MarlboroUgh that Christcliurcli is nearer to tliem. than Dunediu. Now, if we are to argue-this question at all, whatever we do let us discard Itumbu;;. I^et us recognize that wo have each o! us bat one rule to go by our own interests. It U plain folly to suppose thnt there is any principle involved in the mere locality of the metropolis. It is a simple question of the greatest conveniunce for all, a question of selfinterest, in which no other principle of any sort whatever is involved. And our view phiuly U, that, a General G.-jvorument at Dtuiedin would be a calamity for tlio rest of the Middle Island. And our Otago friends must lot us speak out plainly and 6<iy, we should object to a General Government at Dunedin, not only on account of its distance from the greatest part of the colony, but on account of it* political atmosphere. We slfould dread beyond measure th« increase of influence on thi! part of a community which even conceives the idi-a of making a-McAndrew Superintendent, and actually submits patisntly to the presence of a McGlashan in the Executive Council. . When the Otago people have stoned their Achans to political death, tliey may expect 10 be treated with on terms of equality with the other provinces; but whilst they are lyiug under the cloud of admitting such men to the management of their public affairs, they muot expect tv be regarded with suspicion by all their neighbors. Apart from this, hovvever, Otago must understand . that no voice will bs raised in favor ot' separation on ' the score of increasing the convenience of communicating with the seat of Government, unless is bo a part of the measure to place the metropolis in or about the centre of thu Middle Island: iv other words, ab Christchureh. And she must understand also that, when this argument derived from the want of local government is considered, it must ba considered not alone —not as opposed only to the idea of maintaining the seat of Government at Auckland, but also as opposed to tho 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 ior immunity from the costs of native government. Let us examine this doctrine. The separationists seem to think that when they have stated as a fact that the Middle Island is free from native difficulties, the conclusion follows as a matter of course : therefore we ought to have a separate Government. But is this conclusion ad- " nutted as a political maxim in the world at largo 1 Are the interests between the two islands more distinct than those between Englaud and Ireland, or between England and Scotland 1 Docs not one half of European history tell us of the union under ono Government of countries, and sections,of countries and provinces, whose interests are widely different one from, the other 3 Have we not learued to comprehend how states have been held together in imperial unit}' by recognizing the municipal independence of their parts 1 New Zealand, as a whole, has far more in common than is usually admitted. It wat 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 straits than Marlborough and Canterbury by the Kaikoras. Suppose that the Middle Island had been first peopled by the English, and'that no settlements had been planted in the Northern Island. Suppose that we had peopled tho Middle Island to a certain density of population. Should we have rested there 1 Would not the settlers have crossed the straits and carried on the work of colonisation into the Northern Island ? 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 1 No one would be so base as to advocate such a policy; and yet the interests of the two islands would have been as different then as now. Well then, does 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 than a diversity of interests, and have they proved anything more 1 But can we not go further than this ? Can we not say that, brought as we have been, no matter how, into close juxta position and into social relations with these natives, a duty is imposed on us of cultivating that relationship and improving that position, which we can only ncclect at our peril ? It often occurs to us, looking at the subject matter of the questions with which colonial governments have to deal, that one main difference between an independent nation and a colony is, the want in the latter of a foreign policy. It is this want which stamp, with egotism, with selfishness,, with littleness, all the political tone of the community. It has not the ever present sense of forming one of the citizenships of states, of being actuated by the public opinion of nations. How large a part of the policy of all European States is the foreign policy! How tho necessity of dealing with other countries reacts upon Btatesmen, widening their perceptions and extending their views of political questions. Is it too much to say 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 politicians for a more extended, philanthropy, than ordinary colonial politics arcaccustomed to elicit ? Has not this great necessity of our.time already evoked a higher statesmanship than colonies usually exhibit 1 Have we not been called from wrangling over ledgers, and scrambling after revenues, and discussing road-making, and bargaining with steam packet companies—have we not been called to consider these conditions of our com- , mon humanity by which man may be bound to man under varying types and changing phases of society— called on to give reality to the idea of- a common brotherhood and a common Christianity, to elicit from out the depths of the heart of a race that cap <«aty for civilization -which lurks in the mist degraded type of human nature ? ..

To us, andjto our children, it seems not too much to say, this native problem has been given as a solemn trust; and tn.it, not* for the benefit of the native race only, but for our own. For, sure -we are, that the faithful and earnest attention- to the solution of this problem will react upon ourselves, whether it be through peace, or even whether it bo through war ; lifting our national mind out of the petty incidents connected with our own race, and educating va 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 oar shore of this duty, and to reject our share of this ' discipline? And for what? A few thousand-pounds, and those not contriouted out of our own pockets.' •