MAJOR RICHARDSON'S SPEECH ON SEPARATION.

Southland Times, Issue 666, 6 May 1867, Page 2

MAJOR RICHARDSON'S SPEECH ON SEPARATION.

(TO THB EDITOB O? THE BOTJTHLAND TIMHB.) g IBj — I find that a Bpeech delivered by Major Richardson, twb 01 three months a<»o, in. the Otago Provincial Council, on the subject of Separation, is being circulated in ,this Province. As the production of one of the Stafford Ministry, I need hardly say it is unfavorable to the movement. Now, it must be remembered that, however great the intrinsic merit of a speech, much of its importance is conferred on it extrinsically by the position and character of the speaker, and this one must not be classed among ordinary Provincial Council orations. It is a full and deliberate expression of opinion on the great question of the day, by one of the foremost of New Zealand statesmen, and moreover by the Minister chosen to accompany His Excellency on his Southern tour, and who was by far the most popular of the visitors on that occasion. The "three cheers for the Governor" were tarne v and weak compared wilu i/iio vucirtJiv/u- «« -tt>«aaol»oArs for the Major" which followed. We all admired him as emphatically a soldier and gentleman ; we were pleased with his genial honhomie, and we respected his straightforward manliness of character. Had there been any political vacancy he would, no doubt, have been elected on the spot. It behoves us, however, most carefully to weigh the expressed opinions of this popular politician, and I fear we can only see in them additional evidence of the unchanged determination of the present Ministry to sacrifice the South to the North. "While on the subject of His Excellency's visit, it may not be out of place to glance for a moment at the objects, real and ostensible, of that expedition. Among. the latter the two following stood prominent —" to give the Southern colonists an opportunity of displaying their loyalty to Her Majesty, and to show Sir Gteorge Grey the wealth and importance of this portion of the colony under his rule." As, however, both the Southern loyalty and the Governor's curiosity had peacefully slumbered for ten years, we can scarcely recognise in them adequate objects for the undertaking. Major Eichardson, with his customary frankness, supplied a clue to the real motive when he telegraphed, " Ministers have decided that the Governor shall visit Southland ! " This amply explains the difficulty. In other words, His Excellency's visit was simply a political move on the part of his advisers, who saw in the Southern loyalty a highly available capital against the Separation movement. " Now," they will loudly cry, " you see the real feeling in the South. No one wishes to be ' soparated ' from such a delightful Governor, such a popular Ministry. No ! Separation is merely a cry raised by a few unscrupulous agitators, covetous of loaves and fishes." Such will be the interpretation put on the warm welcome given to the Governor. Otago very cleverly spoiled the effect by the Separation petition presented on his arrival. It is easy to condemn the " bad taste " of this petition — more difficult to show as effectual a method ot counteracting the able move of the Anti-Separation Ministry. It is to be regretted that Southland, as usual, failed to improve the occasion. Let us now examine the speech itself. It was delivered in reply to a very clever one from the Otago Provincial Treasurer, Mr Yogel, the able and persevering supporter of Separation, who introduced a series of resolutions in its favor, justly inferring that " the provinces were being sacrificed for the colony, and that taxation of the Middle Island was increased merely to lavish money freely in the North Island." "What is Major Eichardson's answer to this ?. I can find none in his speech. He quotes largely from constitution Acts, Native Acts, &c, and asserts that " the iatroduetion of the principle that the Middle should no longer interfere in Native matters would be vicious in the extreme," but he does not adduce a single argument in defence of this position. He°says, " It is opposed to every principle of justice that one of the partners in a firm should say to the other— you are in trouble ; we will leave you alone ; we will take our rich landed estate, and leave you | to get out of your difficulties as best you can." Again. — " The North Island cannot defend itself unaided by the Middle Island," " and prays the South to pause ere it denies to the North that assistance it has a right-^to claim," — in fact, uses largely the " pathetio objections " described in ray letter of August 16fch, but wholly fails to prove the case so impressively opened. As to the " right " of the North to " claim our assistance," I deny it in toto. The position stands thus : — The Maori rebellion must either be a foreign war or a local disturbance. If the former, England is bound to defend us ; if the latter, the North Island is bound to defend itself. In England the expenses of a riot are always charged on the country in which it occurs. Apply this rule to the North Island. But some say, "We agree it is a foreign war, but England has shirked her duty, and meanly cast us on our own resources." Major Eichardson appears to adopt this view, for he says : " Great Britain" has* ignored her duties, because they were too expensive, and we, in a moment of misplaced confidence, have assumed the burthen which was two heavy for Imperial shoulders; but having done so, I utterly deny that the Middle Island can divest itself of its responsibilities." Surely, if " Great Britain found it two expensive," a foreign war is rather an extravagant amusement for a province like Southland — a province perpetually reviled as bankrupt by her more favoured (by Government; neighbors. But now we come to the question. Why did England

relinquish the charge ? I fancy one of the arguments 1 used in my August letter answers this question. Is it not probable that the Imperial Government saw thatthe war was fostered andprotractedby the North, for the benefit of trade— for the sake of the large expenditure, both Imperial and colonial, all disbursed in the turbulant districts? England found she was paying enormously, simp A y that the North might retain a good market .for produce and imports, and She rightly refused to do so any longer. The Middle Island will be deplorably void oi spirit; if it does not follow her example. As I have said on another occasion, "there is no injustice in casting the whole burden of the war on the North Islanders 7'the gain is exclusivelytheirs — be theirs also the cost. As long. as we pay for wars, they will find us wars to pay for." Stop the supplies, and Maori wars will be unknown. I admit that the Separation cry has a painfully selfish and sordid aspect. A manlike Major Eichardson Jias an immense advantage when he appeals to the manliness, the fairness, the generosity of his audience, and other conservative feeling inherent to a greater or less extent in all of us. " New Zealand a great united relation " is a grand idea, but it is possible to sacrifice many tangible advantages, and cause muuii miooij, &«.- Urn? o»ko of an intangible chimera. Napoleon I. thought it a grand scheme to bring all Europe under hia control, but he failed, and caused unexampled distress in the endeavor. We are now suffering for this visionary " relation." A most oppressive tariff, a no less oppressive Stamp Act, and other imposts render us one of the most heavily taxed communities on earth. Major Eichardson says, "he admires the Stamp Act as one of the finest specimens of financial ingenuity ever devised." No doubt to a statesman it is a " beautiful financial operation," but ■ unhappily "operations," whether financial or surgical, are seldom pleasant to the patients, however satisfactory to the performer. We all hate the dentist who expatiates on the beauty of his performance -with the forceps — our pain is aggravated by his self-complacency, but how incalculably would that pain be increased did we know that the departed " molar " had only been extracted to relieve some other person's toothache ! Still worse would it be if the operation were performed merely for the pecuniary benefit of some one we neither knew nor cared for ! Yet, this is our position with regard to the North Island settlers. Our life-blood is drained, that they may fatten on it. I must apologise for a sentence so strongly savouring of the " stump," but no other illustration would equally describe our present relations with the North. Again, Major Eichardson appeals to our sympathy with those ill-used and exemplary Christians — the Maories — "that brave and .hospitable race," &c, &c." Are we then to consider as mere fables the Wakefield massacre, ' the Volkner murder, and numberless other recorded atrocities? If not, we can hardly escape the conviction that — with a few exceptions — these oppressed darker brethren are as hypocritical, treacherous, mercenary, and bloodthirsty race of savages as ever disgraced humanity. It was preposterous to declare them "an independent people" ; it is still more preposterous to give them, the smallest consideration in a question of colonial importance. If they be " British subjects by right of treaty," they have not " the privilege of acting for themselves." No British subject has the right to act for himself, when such acts would be indirect opposition to British law. Major Eichardson may rest satisfied that it will not severely afflict us to abandon the Maories to the tender mercies of the Northern settlers, who have so long successfully used them as a means of picking our pockets. Finally, let me assure Major Eichardson that I am as anxious as he to see New Zealand a great and united nation, but I firmly believe that a temporary financial separation is the best mode of ultimately attaining that desirable consummation:. The oppressive Northern G-overnment on the one hand, and the petty Provincial jealousies on the other; cannot fail to perpetuate and increase the present divisions and dissensions, and render New Zealand a " collection of insignificant, divided, and powerless petty States." Often il faut reculer pour tnieux sauter, and on the same principle a temporary separation may pave the way to future union, and offer " our adopted country" the surest road to her destined position as " the Britain of the South'." I am, sir, your obedient servant, Chaeles Eoxrs Maeteh. Martendale, April 29th, 1867.