The New-Zealander. AUCKLAND, WEDNESDAY, DEC. 30, 1857. SEPARATION:-HOW AND FOR WHAT TO SEPARATE.

New Zealander, Volume XIII, Issue 1221, 30 December 1857, Page 2

The New-Zealander.

AUCKLAND, WEDNESDAY, DEC. 30, 1857. SEPARATION:-HOW AND FOR WHAT TO SEPARATE.

Be just and fear not; Let all the ends thou aim'st at. be thv tThy Goo's, and Truth's. * Um^\

The word "Separation" is an ugly worr j use iit the close of a year. But we are not about to write of the Separation of the Bay of Islands from the Province of Auckland mooted by Mr. Bedggood, because the Provincial Council demuwed to voting £SOOO for the erection of new barracks, just for the benefit of one or two contractors. Neither do we intend to discuss the probability of a future movement soon thereafter originating, f or the separation of Mongonui or Hokianga from the Province of the Bay of islands, and the release of both of those districts from the thraldom of Governor Busby. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. Jt will be quite soon enough to dncuss the possibility of such a dissolution of partnership, when "the Bay," or Mongonui or Hokianga, shall think that its interests will' be benefitted by asking f or "separation" from Auckland, in any other way than by being erected into Counties or Municipalities, or Local Boards of Management. At present we do not believe that any one of those districts is disposed to raise the cry for Self-government in any other sense than that which we have surmised ; _ and we have every reason to believe, judging from the antecedents and present action of the now dominant Provincial party that our Provincial Government will anticipate' instead of waiting to he driven into compliance with so legitimate and rational a cry as would be the demand for full powers of Local Self-government. Our immediate object therefore is briefly to contrast the movement for "Separation" recently initiated in different portions of this colony, with that, for instance, which has resulted in the separation of Moreton Bay from New South Wales, and its erection into a distfict colony, with a distinct Legislature and til the paraphernalia of a colonial government

We shil not pretend to pass any positive opinion upn the merits of the controversy between Ner South Wales and Moreton Bay, m to their nlative proportions of the debt due from the ately integral colony. But at the outset wdare struck with the feet that there is a debt fr which tiie entire colony so lately dismembred was responsible—that the Imperial Legjlature seems to have thought the mode of redemption of this debt, a matter of no momat. —and that, now, the New South Wales Legislature "can make no law affecting Moretonpay" (as regards this debt) "which may nojbe repealed by Moretoa Bay without our consnt." We 3e here quoting from the Herald, which is writing- with reference to the Moreton Bay Del Bill, and with what view the following- pragraphs will shew:—

If, thej, our Parliament, to facilitate the vie nr, perhaps tie bargains, of certain members of tho Assemtf, assent to tiiis bill, it will rob the public creditopnd the colony. The public creditor measures the valf of a debenture by the interest it bears, and still moe by its market price. The debentures of .New South falcs after tins bill shall pass, will drop to the level I the very lowest securities. The ultimate prospft of repayment will be darkened ; and every year fll bring that peril more forcibly into view. We havebdoubt that two-thirds of the colony have just as good right to object to bear the burden of the public debus Moreton Bay. The claim set up to treat that distil as a separate state, not only in the future, but for me past, is equally valid in every nook of the coiiry. If then these successive attempts to shirk tho debate successful, we shall see the security for the parent of the public creditor reduced to the limits of thcounry of Cumberland. To say that by assenting tobis reduction we do justice to the public creditor, wdd go directly in the teeth of the opinion of the ]$ officers of the Crown. They have said that the plic creditor lias, by the terms of his debentures, a Bit over the entire colony, "The Imperial treatment of the New Zeafnd loan of £500,000,” is cited as “a case in oint;” and just upon the same ground that.

s our readers will remember, we more than a. •ear ago objected to the several Provincial ■lovernments raising- distinct loans for the importation of immigrants, &c., otherwise than through the instrumentality of the General Government —because, otherwise, as we then argued in effect, such loans would stand in the light of second and even third mortgages, and hare to he negotiated 'at proportionally higher rates of interest. The Herald takes similar gmind, and cites the melancholy experience of Auckland in support of its argument, —making however, two amusing mistakes: the first by fretting the loan as being raised for “the instead of “the Province of Auckland,” aid next, by reducing the rate of interest from iei\ to eight per cent. However, the Herald

prpeeds:— lie New Zealand Government was desirous of ohfihung £500,000 ; about the same time thetownff) of-lackland was anxious to borrow for some purpose puffy local ; eight per cent, was given by the toum(!); thciTcneral Government was able to obtain a loan at 0 jjr cent. but by ilic guarantee of the Imperial Gofennnert at 4 per cent. The difference between thus rates confirmed the different values of the securities When the bill to guarantee this loan passed tholinperial Parliament, the organ of the British -Milstry used these memorable words, referring to the diviou of the New Zealand territory into provinces yetunited under one central Government —“The r'gi lion, gentleman (Sir J. Graham) seemed to think it disadvantage that the Customs duties which were thtnain security for the loan were collected by the corral Government. Now, on the contrary, he (the Chncellor of Tin: Exchequer) deemed it an adlnlage. If there, were any probability that the CAtral Government would be. subverted , and that the'■ i\nncial Governments would obtain the control of button and revenue, he might entertain some aJjieuensiov as to the security for the LOAN. □ course, this subdivision of liability attenuates it; ifccomes at last a set of flimsy threads, which may bbrokeu through by a bee’s wing. We cannot itiginc any more decisive method to destroy security tin that of changing, in a violent way, the conditions Owhich it is granted, and the persons by whom it is fbc enforced. lln New Soutli Wales, then, we now have joof of tire soundness of the warning' we jised against the course pursued hy the late rovincial rulers of Auckland and Wellington, -pledging the Provincial revenues for a rate f interest double that which the General GoIrnment would be able to effect a colonial San for. And when wo revert to the question f Separation of Colonies or Provinces, we lid that we New Zealanders can again give useful word of advice to our “big brothers’ i Australia.

At the present moment, there are at least three distinct movements for "Separation" in the colony —in Ahuriri and the Ilawke's Bay i district, for separation from the Province of Wellington; in the Wairau, for separation from the Province of Nelson, and at the Bluff, for separation from the Province of Otago. But in all these cases—and especially in Ahuriri—the cry is not for erection into distinct Provinces, [with Superintendents and Executives and Law [Officers and Councils, but into well-defined and [workable Municipalities or Local Boards, so as Ito carry out the great constitutional principle \of Self-government and progressive local improvement on the most practicable and econo« ; niical scale possible. This, there can bo no doubt, is the true principle upon which the gradual subdivision of a Colony, as it increases in produce and population, must be carried out—not by the creation ■of new Provinces or minor Colonies, but by Ithe parcelling out of the existing provincial divisions into counties, hundreds, and municipalities, care at the same time being taken to preclude the several Local Boards from interfering with the legislative functions of the Provincial Councils—just as those Councils should be confined to their legitimate spheres of action (in which they will find plenty to occupy their time) and be precluded from poaching upon the manor of the General Assembly.