New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1876. THE DEBATE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 176, 11 August 1876, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 1876. THE DEBATE.

The debate on Separation in our House of Representatives is at least amusing. If it does not give a very high idea of the moral and intellectual qualities of those who oppose this necessary measure, it affords another illustration of the comical manoeuvres of men bent on carrying out their own ends anyhow.

The Premier finds nothing to answer in Sir Geoege Grey's speech. This is very wonderful. Sir Geoegb is a statesman of more than thirty years standing. As Governor, he has successively and successfully administered the affairs of the important colonies of South Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand in trying and dangerous times, and so highly have his statesmanship and administrative abilities been prized by several imperial governments, that in both New Zealand and South Africa, he has had the unusual honor and responsibility of two terms of office. Sir George is independent, not only in mind and'principle, but also in fortune ; and he has made New Zealand his home, not for the purpose of making money, but because he loves the country and its people. This beautiful and rich colony is his home, and his leading object is not to amass a fortune, that he may as soon as possible return to the old country to enjoy it, and in this enjoyment forget the colony and its interests. Sir George is a scholar and a gentleman, a man of culture and taste, well read, eloquent, a man of the world too and of wide experience. His views are not narrowed by prejudice, nor blinded by considerations of self interest. He is not obliged to cling to the bark of state for to-morrow's bread. Rich, independent, generous, brave, learned, eloquent, experienced in statecraft and administration of public affairs, familiar with all that concerns this colony for more than thirty years, is it possible that the speech of such a man on an all-important and solemn occasion contains nothing that calls for an answer from the ephemeral politicians who oppose his policy 1 Incredible ! Is it possible that a man, holding the position of Premier of New Zealand, is really unable to see anything in this speech to answer ? It may be so, and of course it must be so ; but so much the worse for New Zealand and the reputation of its present Premier. A country ruled by such a Premier cannot hope for a very bright future. But that which at first sight seems incredible, is proved by a perusal of the speech itself, not to be a fact. In order to see this, it is only necessary for people to read this speech, and consider its various parts in the light of their own experience and knowledge of men and things in this colony. But this puny attempt to burke discussion will deceive no one, the trick is too transparent. Nor has it succeeded even with Government supporters. These, however, are not very happy in their reasons for opposing Separation. Their appeal, for example, to the history of the dominion of Canada, and the unification of Germany, is very unfortunate. Why, the fact is, both Canada and Germany supply most cogent arguments in favor of Sir George Gret's scheme. The Canadian Dominion is a Federation, and this it is which Sir George proposes for the two islands of New Zealand. Under the Dominion of Canada there are several Provincial Legislatures and Governments, viz., of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and British Columbia, and it is precisely something similar that Separationists propose for this colony. And as to Germany, this new empire is a Federation, made up of a number of independent States, such as Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Brunswick. Baden, &c, &c. The appeal then to Canada and Germany by Centralists is unfortunate, and would be amusing were not the crisis so serious. But what must be the intellectual calibre of men, who fancy they find an argument, for doing away with Provincial Legislatures and Governments, in the history of the Dominion of Canada and the new German Empire ? We are not now surprised at hearing gentlemen say there was nothing in Si?r George Grey's speech to answer. Surely it is not wonderful} to find men unable to see an argument, or appreciate a reason,' who think they can find grounds for Provincial destruction in the history of two countries in which Provincialism flourishes, and has been recently confirmed. We are only surprised that these gentlemen did not go to Ireland and the Union of a.d. 1800 for an additional argument ; such a mode of reasoning would have been in their line. They would, no doubt, have found the Irish nation in lcve with the loss of their independence, with consequent absenteeism, the flight of their best talent to London, and of the bone and sinew of their population to America, the yearly drain of £6,000,000 of rents, and £2,000,000 of surplus "revenue, without the return of one shilling from either ! This would have been as good an argument to the point as any afforded by Canada and Germany. It would afford too, an apt illustration of the future which is being prepared for the South Island by the Centralists. The seat of government always attracts to it wealth and talent; and the history of

the world teaches that islands which lose their independence I and their own separate government, and become tacked on to other islands or the main land in which the seat of government is, soon become impoverished and discontented. Look to the history of Ireland and Sicily, for example, or Crete and Sardinia. And similar will be: the fate of this island if Centralism become an accomplished fact. But, it is said, the two islands are very near one another. True ; but then, Ireland is as near Great Britain, and Sicily is as near Naples, and, nevertheless, the loss of their own governments has led to the ruin of both. In. the presence of W this consideration, the other argument in favor of Separation, ' viz., that this measure is absolutely necessary for the preservation of our Land Fund, though in itself important, is hardly to be regarded.