THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1875.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2172, 20 December 1875, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. MONDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1875.

It may be remembered that in a leading article written a few days ago we criticised a speech spoken by the Superintendent of Ot«jj|p. and a pamphlet written by him on the great advantages of Provincialism. We found fault both with the pamphlet and speech as enunciating a selfish policy, and one at variance with all the real interests of the colony, and because Mr Macandrew was quite prepared—or seemed quite prepared—to sacrifice all the remaining welfare of New Zealand if his one Province of Otago was but allowed to hold her own land fund and govern herself. In other words it seemed as if Mr Macandrew was quite satisfied if New Zealand went to the dogs, provided the interests of Otago were not endangered, or, as we then said, according to the ideas entertained by Mr Macandrew, Otago was to him New Zealand if not the world. Now, however well satisfied any one may be of the truth of his own statements or the accuracy of his own deductions, it is ..always more satisfactory when he finds those statements confirmed and those deductions endorsed by others, and if these others —or that other —be men of mark the satisfaction, of course, is rendered doubly satisfactory. We were therefore glad to see that a letter appeared in the Auckland morning papers, on the morning following our own writing, from Mr J. 0. Firth, from which letter it is apparent that the writer takes precisely similar views to ourselves of the narrow-mindedness of the policy prepared by Mr Macandrew, which according to him may be summed up in o*o word, and that word selfishness. Mr J. C. Firth's letter is an able one, and if not thoroughly exhaustive of the policy he condemns is at least sufficiently so to make its refutation a task of considerable difficulty to Provincialists. Mr Firth points oufc how that breaking up the colony, as some Provincialists propose, into a number of petty provinces is like to the breaking up of a noble ship into " a few provincial privateers which before long may be expected to turn their guns against each other." This no doubt might happen if Mr Macandrew's ideas were carried I into effect. Mr Macandrew does not indeed go so far as to say let each province be in the position of an independent state, but he says let Otago be independent, and the j other provinces join themselves together, or remain independent, just as they wish. It is not likely if out of the limited area of New Zealand four provinces with divided interests were formed—much less if the number were increased to nine— that any considerable time could elapse before some ground of dispute, however slight, would arise between some two of them. Disputes, even though slight, are not, unfortunately, always happily settled, often not peaceably ; and if some one of these disputes, which we repeat will be sure to arise, does not culminate in a disastrous inter-provincial war, or as Mr Firth puts it, one privateer province turning its guns against another privateer province, there will at least be left feelings of ill-will and jealousies which will be very inimical to the interest of the colony; and to that rise among the nations of the world which it is so fondly hoped New Zealand will one day be enabled to make. It must be remembered that amongst these provincialist leaders there

are others just as conservative of what they believe to be the " rights'' of their province as is Mr Macandrew of Otago. Sir George Grey's speeches during the progress of the Abolition debate, and the violent figures of speech he indulged in when denouncing others whoso views of expediency differed from his own, show that Mr Firth's prognostications may be do ideal picture of wars and rumors of wars, but that these things, sooner or later, would, if Mr Macandrow had his way, be more than likely to happen. As Mr Firth expresses it at the end of his letter, the one plain issue in the coming struggle ought to be " One colony, one revenue." This it must be if New Zealand would rise, and it is expedient, moreover, on the ground of justice as weJl as interest. It is unjust that two provinces should appropriate and grow rich out of the funds which should be for the benefit of all; and under a deliberate system of injustice it is not likely, or desirable that any province, or federation of provinces should flourish. One colony means one body of men bent on advancing the interests of the whole country, not by the spasmodic efforts of a few at a time advancing one part a little and another part a little, just as they may be able, but by the combined energy of the whole, acting in concert and pushing on by sure, even if slow degrees, the well being of the whole of its inhabitants. One revenue means the devotion of the whole resources of the colony towards one common end, the colony's good» not the pressiDg forward one district rather than another in undue proportion, but the steady progress of the whole in the desired direction. Surely, unless Mr Macandrew's judgement was warped by undue regard for Otago, whose welfare he regards as paramount to any other consideration, he would see that bis proposed Separation Scheme is as short-sighted as it is selfish —as much to be avoided as it is to be despised. The desired end and aim, we take it, of every colonist is to raise New Zealand to the rank and power of a great nation. Can tins be done by any Separation Scheme ? Or is it likely that out of New Zealand we can form nine, or four, or even two such countries as we would wish to see our adopted land become ? Why, then, should we take means to effectually prevent the colony becoming that which we would have her, because in Mr Macandrew's opinion the land fund which Otago unfairly (even by his own acknowledgment) possesses is required for its proper uses P