THE SEPARATION DEBATE.

Evening Star, Issue 4200, 12 August 1876, Page 3

THE SEPARATION DEBATE.

Upon the House resuming at 7.30, Mr Stevens took up the debate, saying it was not brought forward so completely aft by Mr Whitaker in 1866. At one time he favored Separation, but of a different kind to that shadowed forth in the present, resolutions. He strongly reprobated the practice of saying that Parliament was not a representative body—it represented the Colony very well in whatever way they liked to look at it. While prepared to deal with the general policy or the finance of the Government from an independent point of view he could not look upon the resolutions as in any way connected with the conduct of Ministers. The hon. gentleman then pro* ceeded to consider the scheme embodied in the resolution from a financial point of view and went on to show that the scheme proposed by Sir George Grey would be most injurious to the credit of the Colony. Touching upon the land revenue he would not agree to see that interfered with, but while he maintained the right of Canterbury to that which she had enjoyed for twenty years he was Colonial enough in his feelings to vote for enabling Auckland to maintain an effective Government if she was unable to do so herself. He submitted to the House an imaginary financial statement as to the cost of governing the South Island in case Sir G. Grey’s resolutions were carried, and though he professed to nave taken the Provincial estimates these calculations showed, that the Government machinery of the Islands could not be maintained in good working order under a million and a half per annum, which would compel them to make a common stock of the land fund or impose additional taxa tion. The people of Canterbury were quite prepared to give up what they had, but they were not going to give anything to galvanise into life the corpse of Provincialism. He must oppose Separation, whether he looked at it from a selfish or sentimental point of view.

Mr Donald Reid supported the resolutions in a long speech, in the course of ■which he criticised unfavorably many details of the Government policy and argued to show that according to his estimates (which were much more moderate than those of Mr Stevens) he would be prepared to show that the Government of the two Islands—including the Federal Go-vernment-could be carried on a great deal cheaper than the overgrown system in Wellington. He denied that the resolutions meant a vote of want of confidence. The Ministry were probably as good administrators as an* - set of men in the House, and it waS not them he objected to so much as to their system. Any other Ministry under the same regimen would be as objectionable, and if the resolutions were not carried he would not assist to turn them out of office. But he warned them that they must not hope to force their proposals upon the people without creating feelings of discontent that would not be easily allayed. The honorable gentleman went at considerable length into the proposals of the Government to show that they wore not only undeaired by the people at large, but were utterly unsuited to the wishes and requirements of the people, and that under them it would be impossible to localise the land fund.

Mr Moorhouae opposed the resolutions, and defended the Government from the accusations of incompetency and extravagance made against them—especially the Premier and the Native Minister - and maintained that from his experience of the liberal and imposing style with which Provincial Government was carried on in Otago and Canterbury, it would be quite impossible, to carry on the three Governments proposed "as economically and efficiently as their present Legislature was. To him the only object appeared to be to harass the Government.

Mr Larnach supported the resolutions ou the grounds that the work of the Government at present was unnecessarily extravagant, and that substantial economy could be attained under Sir George Grey’s proposals ; though he did not blame the Government so much for that as too House. Ho denied that the change would necessarily injure the credit of the Colony.

Mr Bussell opposed, the res'oiuti’OUG and deprecated the extraordinary personal rancour displayed against individual members of the Ministry in the debate by certain members of the Opposition. Mr Wakefield moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House adjourned at 12.45.

ABOUT THE LOBBIES.

[From our Special Correspondent.) Wkllilnoton, August 12. Mr stout will ask the Government if they interd calling ou Mr Tl.oiu.-ou to resign the Chief C-nnraissioiici-ship of Crown Lands. Sir Julius Voge), in replying to Mr Mee? said the House wou’d recognise that it was impossible for the Government to consider the appointment of an Agent-General while resolutions involving the position of the Government were under consideration.

La»t night Mr Stevens, who had been kept the whole afternoon waiting, spoke under high nervous excitement. Mr Reid was very logical, showing how the proposals affected Otago, and he made the best speech daring the debate. Sir George Grey’s party are busy stirring up public meetings, and he himself communicated by telegraph with the King Natives inviting their condemnation of the Natilve policy. He hopes to be able to use their answers when replying. It is very improbable that the debate will close earlier than Wednesday. Mr Reid's and Mr Stoat’s declaration, that if the present move is not successful they wpuld not assist te turn out the Government, is significant. The former went further, saying he could not find a better administrative government in the House than the present.

Mr Larnach’s speech was mainly a condemnation of the Colonial undertakings. He said the railways in Otago were so imperfectly constructed that they will have to be remade in six years time.