The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1876.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 668, 10 August 1876, Page 2

The Globe. THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 1876.

The position which the members from Cantorburyjhave taken up|on the Separation question has occasioned serious irritation, both in Auckland and Otago. In the former place excitement seems to run high, and in the event of Sir George Grey’s resolutions being rejected, extreme steps are talked of. It is proposed that the Auckland members should withdraw from the House altogether. And it is stated that a public meeting will be called for the purpose of requesting their representatives to take this course; and that an appeal would then be made to the Imperial Authorities on the subject. Now, we do not for a moment suppose that the great bulk of the people of Auckland have any sympathy whatever with such an outrageous proceeding. They do not require to be taught the first principle s of representative government. A few misguided individuals iu the City of Auckland are no doubt prepared to take any step, however extreme, to bring back the seat of Government there. But a moment’s reflection must convince even the most unreasoning of them, that their position would be utterly indefensible. If the City of Auckland, apart from the rest of the colony, is to have the right of choosing her form of government, so has each district in that province. How then about the Thames, Sir George Grey’s constituency, which has just, through its local governing bodies, declared in favor of the unity of the colony and the county system ? Is Taranaki, Hawke’s Buy, and Wellington to be forced to adopt the form of government Auckland chooses, without being in any way consulted ? Those districts are opposed to Separation, and are they to have no voice in the question of whether they shall become partners with Auckland and be governed from that city ? Were the pretensions of the Auckland agitators once recognised, we would have the colony divided into a number of petty states, each with a separate form of government. Bub the question is not worthy of serious consideration. We have only drawn attention to it to show to what extremes a few political loafers in Auckland are prepared to go to secure their own petty ends. We regret, however, to notice that some of the Auckland journals have so far forgotten what is due to them as leaders of public opinion as to give way to the era pty threats of the character we have been noticing. Iu Otago the disappointment of the people, assumes a different shape. Her people are endowed with too much common sense to dream of taking any such extreme measures as those talked of in Auckland. Politics with them are but the means towards a selfish end, and so they think to win the Canterbury votes by holding out threats of reprisals. If Canterbury will not make common cause with Otago, her members will suffer for it next session. Auckland, and the other landless Northern provinces will be banded with Otago to despoil her of her runs; and, therefore, Canterbury must lose more by maintaining the unity of the colony than by Separation, Now there is some sense in an argument of this kind. Every man has his price, some say, and the price of the Canterbury members, according to the Otago Daily Times is the secure tenure of their runs. But we think our contemporary has for once mistaken the character of the representatives from this province. Were they not above such paltry motives, which we believe them to be, they are not likely to sacrifice the interests of this part of the colony by uniting her resources with those of Otago, Westland, Nelson, and Marlborough, and in addition, having to pay the North a large sum per annum for this high privilege.