The Southland Times. MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1866.

Southland Times, Volume VII, Issue 539, 13 August 1866, Page 2

The Southland Times. MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 1866.

The newspapers received from the North. bring reports of the Parliamentary debates upon the question of Separation, and the decision arrived at ; it is determinedly against the disunion of the colony. No other result could have been expected. The Northern separationists had only one creed, and that was selfinterest ; while the Southern members were divided amongst themselves as to the character that Separation should assume, while the representatives of the Middle Provinces were united in their opposition to a change. The debate which lasted five days has resulted in nothing further than a large expenditure to the country, and a shelving, for the present session, of a question that will have again to be faced whenever the House re-assembles. Still, the battle is not yet over, and if we can read the signs of the times aright, the estimates will not be passed without great changes in the conduct of tli 3 General Government being secured. But the main question of Separation or no Separation has been decided. The resolutions of Mr. Whitakee and the amendments of Mr. Thomas Dick have both been rejected by so large a majority that, from all we can learn (our information is meagre), the further resolutions, it was understood would be proposed, have been abandoned ; and the united New Zealand party consider the Separation question settled. There are indications, however, that the matter will not be allowed to drop — that the question will re-appear in many forms before the session has ended. On Thursday, the 2nd August, Mr. Yogel moved— "That it is desirable a -Bill should be passed during the session to secure permanently to the Provinces, for appropriation by the Provincial Councils, three-eighths of the Customs Kevenue." In doing so he stated that he did not wish to embarrass the Government, but desired to obtain an expression of opinion from the House, as the matter ought to be decided, and he was very strongly of opinion that the three-eighths should be permanently given to the Provinces, the Governments of which voted away money on the strength of receiving them. The Provincial Councils met generally before the meeting of that House, and voted away money in anticipation of receiving the three-eighths, and unlass they received them they must necessarily be very much embarrassed. In fact, they -were reduced to the position of mere beggars, feeding on the crumbs that might be thrown to them, and the opinions that had been given utterance to in a late debate showed that the members of the House did not wish them to be reduced to such a position. He would not say further now, beyond stating that he would, if the Government desired, defer the matter until after the financial statement was made. -Mr. Stafford said that, the hon. member could scarcely be aware of the position in which he put himself by moving such a resolution at this period of the session. He did not complain of any hon. gentleman who was actuated by hostile motives towards Government, but the morer of this motion must be ignorant of Parliamentary practice when he said he was not hostile to the Government, and yet brought such a motion forward. He need only repeat that which he had said on a previous occasion, that the Government would accept no hint or no guidance on the financial policy of

the country, and would stand or fall by their own measures. The Government would oppose the motion." This opens up a large question, which will, no doubt, be warmly debated, but until the Treasurer's statement is made, it would be premature to speculate upon the intentions of the Government upon tbis po*nt. This appears the sum total of the actual work that has yet been done. ' Several minor measures have been brought forward, and sent to committee, but none have been presented for the third reading. The late hour at which we received our files, precludes our going more fully into the subject. "We subjoin the division on the Separation question. The New Zealand Advertiser, 3rd August, says : —" We have made the following analysis on the vote 3 given on Mr. Whitakes's resolulutions on Tuesday evening, believing that it will be interesting, as showing how very small a portion of the colony can be considered desirous of Separation : — Aves.— Auckland, 12 ; Canterbury, 1 ; Otago, 5 ; Total— lß. Noes. —Auckland, 1 ; Taranaki, 2 ; Wellington, 9 ; Hawk's Bay, 9 ; Nelson, 6 ; Marlborough, 2 ; Canterbury, 9 ; Otago, 9 ; Southland, 3. Total— 44. The 'no votes' were Mr. Cableton, ' who, as Chairman of the Committee, could not vote, and Mr. Hendebsok, of Auckland ; Sir David Moore, Speaker of the House ; and Mr. Abmstboistg, absent on leave, of Canterbury ; and Mr. Wood, of Southland, who left the House and declined to vote. A majority in' one Province only, and a Bmall minority in two others voted for the resolutions ; while six Provinces ' plumped' against them ; and two were in a majority,- and one in a minority. Out of sixty-nine members, sixty-two voted on the question ; one could not vote from his position, another, no doubt, was prevented from the same cause ; two paired, and only three were absent. So that if Separationists do not take this division as a final blow to their efforts, we can only say they must be very sanguine.' "