The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1876.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XL, Issue 194, 7 August 1876, Page 2

The Nelson Evening Mail. MONDAY, AUGUST 7, 1876.

If reliance is to be placed upon our Parliamentary telegrams — and we must say that as a rule they supply us with a very faithful, though necessarily brief, abstract of what is said in the House — the debate on Sir G. Grey's separation resolutions has taken quite a different turn to fcbat which might hare been reasonably expected considering the theme upon which the members were invited to dilate. The question now appears to be. not so much whether it is desirable that a financial separation of the two islauds should be brought about, and each be left to administer its own local affairs, as whether the Colonial Government, as at present constituted, is fit to retain office. It is not a debate on separation, bufc just such an one as might be looked for upon a motion of want of confidence, and, as such, it is exceedingly disappointing to those who were desirous of hearing the arguments for and against so grave a constitutional change as that proposed by the leader of the Opposition. Sir G. Grey himself does not appear to have gone into thafc question at all in his opening speech, and so far as we can judge once again we must repeat that our remarks are founded on the telegraphic summary of the speeches— he richly deserved the taunt of the Premier that his resolutions were of the baldest description, and 'in themselves almost unintelligible, and that in opening his case he had not supplied the information and arguments necessary to their comprehension. Nor has his fidus Achates, Mr llees, thrown any light on the subject. He has been liberal in invective and profuse in his accusations against the gentlemen who compose the Ministry, but nothing more. He boldly states thafc newspapers — without specifying any particular journal — have been bought up by the Government, thafc a wholesale system of bribery and corruption is carried on, and he cannot allow even the hospitalities of the Premier to pass unnoticed, bufc in the coarsest and most indecent manner asserts thafc they have been prompted by a desire to purchase support, thereby offering an insult not only to the host of a private party, but to each individual guest who was bidden. Mr Wason (a Canterbury member) followed, and was the first to give anythiog like a reason for supporting the resolutions. He had been a firm supporter of abolition, but when he became acquainted with the details of what it was proposed to substitute for Provincial Governments, he could not see that his district was to benefit thereby, and consequently was iv favor of any other card that might turn up. Separation turned up first, and so he should support it. This, perhaps, was not the best of reasons, but still it is a reason and so we can understand Mr Wason's fealty to Sir George Grey. Mr Lusk

(from Auckland) disapproved of the . administration of the present Government, which was giving rise to discontent and apprehension, therefore, he thought that, nofc the personnel of the Ministry, but the constitution should be changed. Mr Fitzroy (Canterbury) opposed the resolutions on the very sensible ground that no reason whatever had been adduced for their adoption. Mr Thomson (Otago), after denouncing the' Government and all their works, announced his intention of supporting the resolutions as affording the colony the only way of getting out of its present difficulties, but it seems clear that his vote is to be given as against the Government rather than in favor of the new scheme. These are all who have spoken, and it does seem to us that the supporters of Sir George Grey have up to the present time taken up their position on an entirely false and indefensible basis. Because they disapprove of the administration of the existing Ministry they desire to see the whole form of Government changed. Surely the more straightforward course to adopt would have been to come boldly down with a no-confidence motion, and to turn out the preseut holders of office if the majority of the House was with the Opposition. What —to compare great things with small —would be said of the Liberals at Home if they were to attempt the upsetting of the English constitution on the sole ground that Disraeli and his colleagues were unacceptable to them? But such would be a course very similar to that which finds its advocates among the Greys and the Eecs 1 and the Thomsons of New Zealand. They have raised a false issue altogether. What they really want; is to get rid of the Yogel Ministry, but they are not sufficiently plucky or they are too knowing to say so. They dare nofc travel in a straight direc- " tion towards the goal at which they aim, but prefer to attempt to reach it by a roundabout and circuitous course. To those who are desirous of hearing the pros and the cons on the great question of separation, the present debate will, if it continues as it has commenced, be productive of nothing but disappointment. The weak points of the Ministry will be exposed, but the reasons why the two islands should separate will remain in the outer darkness in which they are still eaveloped, notwithstanding that Sir G. Grey and Mr Eees have spoken.