Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1881.

SECOND EDITION

The Representation Bill is now safe. The firm stand taken by the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees has had the desired effect. The boldest of the 11 stonewallers ” tremble before the authority of “ Mr Speaker. 1 ' The sense that they arc in the wrong unmans them. On Saturday afternoon the Nelson members threw up the sponge, and made their dying speech, as some of them said. The less that is remembered of the late disgraceful scenes in Parliament the batter. Let the curtain be drawn charitably over the actions of the obstructionists. “ Stonewalling ” the Representation Bill has not formed a dangerous precedent. It ended in an inglorious failure. The most remarkable and at the same time the weakest argument against the Bill was that it would lead to a separation of the two Islands. By a certain section of politicians that is regarded on all occasions as a very handy bugbear. How the passage of the Representation Bill will tend to bring about separation is to us perfectly inexplicable. The measure provides for a. fair distribution of power ; that no part of the colony shall be under-represented. In fact, the whole object of the Bill is to remove very substantial grievances. The most natural and reasonable idea is that such a measure of justice would cement the various parts. It is obvious that the present state of things by which a Nelson settler has three times the political power of a Canterbury settler could not continue without giving rise to very disturbing sentiments. There Was never an occasion when the Separation cry was raised with less reason. It is, we believe, the first time that the members of the Nelson district ever recognised the possibility of the disruption of the co'ony. The Cook Strait settlers have hitherto been to a man in favor of the unity of the colony. In former years, separation would have meant a preponderance of power to Otago, as that was by far the most populous province. As far as population is concerned, Canterbury now treads close upon the heels of Otago. Ndr

some cause or other, IJelsoii and Marlborough entertained an intense dread of being placed under, the rule of Otago. Wellington had the same feelings regarding Auckland. The settlers of Canterbury never favored separation in any degree. The fact of the matter is, insular separation was never more than the chaotic idea of Mr Macandrew and a few politicians of the extreme Provincialist party. Otago and Auckland were looked upon as the strongholds of the separation's, but really there was never a respectable minority in the two Provinces named who were in favor of insular separation. People who hint at separation have little patriotism and less common sense. In our telegraphic summary of the proceedings of Parliament, it will be seen that Mr Ballance said that separation could not be brought about in the face of the great financial responsibilities of the colony. That is only one reason of many against separation. The stability of the unity of the colony rests upon a deeper foundation than the mere matter of national indebtedness. If it were merely a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, separation might easily be arranged. The settlers of both Islands are from a common stock. Nothing has occurred since the foundaof the colony to create an ill-feeling between the North anil South Island settlers. In periods of great trouble in the North, the people of Canterbury and Otago contributed mainly to the war expenditure. In a time of dire distress, they proved that they were of the same kith and kin, and there was never a word uttered in the South that its settlers should shirk the responsibility of a full partnership in suppressing native risings. In those days the material interests of the two Islands were widely apart, yet nobody was cowardly enough to hint at separation and leave the North to fight the Maoris unaided. To-day the interests of both Islands are identical. The cry for separation is only the inane drivel of paltry politicians.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SCANT18810905.2.7

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2639, 5 September 1881, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
686

South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1881. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2639, 5 September 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1881. South Canterbury Times, Issue 2639, 5 September 1881, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert