The Globe. SATURDAY, JULY 21, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 958, 21 July 1877, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, JULY 21, 1877.

Lsr discussing the subject of the Financial Reparation of the two Islands, there are two ways in which it may be looked at —first, as it affects ourselves, and then from a wider standpoint. "We shall confine ourselves in this article chiefly to the selfish aspect of the question. When Sir George Grey brought down his Separation resolutions last session, it was proposed that there should be a Government for each Island, presided over by a Federal Government. Of the interest and sinking fund of the colonial debt, the North Island was to pay £190,000 per annum, while we, in the South, were to take over £625,000. As far as we can learn, the allocation was made on no principle, but £190,000 was fixed upon by Sir George Grey as the amount he thought the North Island could conveniently pay, and the balance was to be thrown upon our shoulders. That he regarded his proposal as a highly advantageous one for Auckland is evident. When the session was over, he went back to his constituents and told them that they had lost £200,000 per annum, in consequence of the rejection of his resolutions. If his statement is true, the South Island would, have been just that same amount worse off. But if Separation would have cast an additional burden of £200,000 upon the Middle Island, it would have fallen almost entirely upon Canterbury. This is the only provincial district in it which has a surplus land fund. That of Otago, Westland, and Nelson, is all swallowed up by the charges placed upon it. Not only would our land fund have been absorbed, but our interests in other respects would have been subordinated to those of Otago. Owing to their enormous superiority in point of numbers the power would certainly have fallen into their hands. To show how eager the advocates of Separation were to secure the Canterbury vote, it is only necessary to refer to one incident of last session. They were willing to do, what they at another time denounced as a great wrong upon the colony, if the Canterbury members would go with them. The price was to be the renewal of the pastoral leases. The reasons we have adduced above, without any appeal to higher ones, were quite suliicieut to guide our representatives last session, in dealing with Separation, and unless it comes up in a very different shape during the present session, we shall no doubt find our members take a similar course. If our land fund must be taken from us, it would be far better

to throw it into the colonial revenue :it once, and thus have the satisfaction of making a sacrifice with a high aim before us, than allow our means to be squandered in the maintenance of a petty Government whose scat would be in Dunedin. We are told that Separation would tend to economy. We are assured that expensiveness is an inherent defect of the present system of government, and the only cure is to sweep it away altogether, and establish in. its place one of a cheaper character. This we are informed is the Federal system, with Island Governments in the North and South, and if thought advisable County Councils. How the creation of two fresh legislatures, in addition to those already in existence, would tend to economy it is difficult to see. The Assembly we are told would by this means be cleared of political adventurers. It this were so it would only be because the Island Governments offered richer prizes. If the colony is filled at the present time, as we are told it is, with political adventurers and loafers, the creation of two fresh Governments, one in each island, will not drive them away. A very different remedy must be applied to such an evil. It was because of their expensiveness and unsuitability to the wants of the colony that the provinces were swept away. To revive them in a modified form, for the sake of economy, were surely the height of folly.