PARLIAMENTARY NEWS.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 654, 25 July 1876, Page 3

PARLIAMENTARY NEWS.

{From the Press.) The following telegram which we received last evening contains important intelligence regarding the negotiations which have been going on with reference to financial separation. It will be seen that the Canterbury members do not agree with the proposals arranged between Auckland and Otago : « There was a meeting this morning of Canterbury and Otago members. All the Canterbury members were present except Eon B. Richardson and the Hon G. C. Bowen, Several members of the Legislative Council from Canterbury attended. The proposals for financial separation were laid before the meeting by the Otago members. Shortly after, it was resolved that the members from Canterbury should take the proposals, which it was stated had been assented to by the greater portion of the Auckland members, into consideration. This was done after the Otago members bad withdrawn. After full discussion it was resolved— 1 That the members from Canterbury while wishing cordially to co-operate with those from Otago to secure sound colonial finance, are unable to agree to the proposals made to them on the subject of financial separation of the two islands at the present time,’ The resolution was carried, one member dissenting, and three declining to vote. Our own Correspondent telegraphed last night:—“ Caucussing has been the order of the afternoon. The committee rooms are being given up to them. The Argus, in reportingthe principal meeting thus, is mainly correct The Otago members to-day agreed to the final form of the separation proposals to be laid before Canterbury, which were afterwards submitted to Canterbury for consideration. Thirteen from that province attended. With regard to the debt, it was proposed to apportion it between the two islands in the proportion of £190,000 for the North to £610,000 for the South. The Canterbury members objected to this division as being unfair to the South, They stated that they did not see their way to financial separation, though inclined to insular. On ft vote nine voted against the Otago proposals, one for them, and three expressed no opinion. At the same time a feeling was expressed in favor of turning out the Ministry on their financial policy, and placing in office a government which would be prepared during the recess to consider the possibility of insular separation- The fact is that there is a general division in thecamp. Firstly, MrWhitaker, finding it hopeless to carry his resolutions, has publicly announced his intention of withdrawing them in favor of the separation resolution, to which he has given in his adhesion. When the details uf the Qtago proposals were explained at the Canterbury meeting, they found little favor, the mode of dealing with the land fund being strongly objected to. Mr Wason was the only one of the Canterbury members who voted in favor of them. He expressly declared himself in favor of two Provincial Governments. Messrs Stevens, Fisher, and Brown were the non-con-tents. Since the abandonment of Mr Whitaker’s resolutions, the Auckland members them* selves are not the same happy band, many of their number, particularly those from the country, openly declaring against separation. The Opposition leaders admit that the prospect of carrying the separation resolutions is anything but hopeful now. Careful study of situation gives them thirty-seven or thirtyeight decided votes. Four are doubtful, the majority of whom are more than likely to support the Government when the issue comes on. Seventeen are'all 0:ago will furnish to the Opposition, and delay may reduce that number one or two.’ ”