Latest.

Writer was extremely interested in the passage quoted the other day in the speech by Hugh Carleton from the Hon. Swainson's pamphlet on colonisation. Its existence was previously unknown to me, never having had the pleasure of seeing the tractate containing it. Is it a fact that that particular passage was penned and printed in 1859?

Not unpleasing coincidence of opinion, apparently, has long existed anent the very peculiar constitution originally awarded to New Zealand. But, as in the human countenance, with the strongest and most striking resemblance there is always, singularly, distinctive variety, so, herein, with likeness there is observable difference.

Opposition, nearly amounting at one time to clandestine puny persecution, against a persistent advocacy of the total abstraction and elimination of the legislative element from our "provincialism" has been experienced. This was unnecessary as well as uncandid. It now appears, besides, such advocacy, was no singularity. Said extract gratifies. The course of the newspapers, by line of policy once regularly marked "ultra provincialism," must not be now commented on. And not much must be now said of an individual who tried to avail himself, for the special benefit of the Bay, of the recent Act for increasing the number of provincial legislatures.

But the ex-General Government attorney, writing before the open demand for governmental Separation, assumes the unity of these two countries, and pleads for (as we do with another reference) one legislature for one country. The salient point to be now noted is, that these two large islands, with their numerous page 34 islets, are not only geographically two countries, but, being circumstantially and extremely diverse, must necessarily and shortly become politically separate. Therefore, to assume continuance of the amalgamation will give erroneous data; and these certainly conduct to a wrong conclusion. The so-called "unity" hitherto subsisting between the two governmentally amalgamated countries has been signalised by one protracted wrangle and an incessant row—a feud which threatens to be interminable or else eternal; or, rather, co-existent with the heterogenous conjunction.

The two countries must have two legislatures, as have Victoria and Tasmania—countries similarly situated; and no longer ten legislative governments as now. In short, these countries must be, and must be held to be two,—these countries physically two, must be also (for many reasons) politically two.—Main object of present brief note is to point out this difference. Yet, demand for constitutional reformation is nearly unanimous; hereanent disinterested difference is non est inventus.

Freedom for trade, or oven freedom for person, cannot well consist with our strangely numerous legislative and political institutes.

After all, and finally, it is really no great marvel that the Agriculturists here should ask whether there be not obtainable some sort of "protection" against the vulture demands of ten confederated legislative governments for a small people