THE Wellington Independent. NOTHING EXTENUATE; HOB BET DOWN AUGHT IK MALICE." SATURDAY MORNING, 30th SEPTEMBER LEGISLATION ON SEPARATION.

Wellington Independent, Volume XX, Issue 2265, 30 September 1865, Page 5

THE Wellington Independent. NOTHING EXTENUATE; HOB BET DOWN AUGHT IK MALICE." SATURDAY MORNING, 30th SEPTEMBER LEGISLATION ON SEPARATION.

The several attempts made to repeal, limit, or modify the New Provinces Act, have been so numerous that outside people who do nofc .attend Parliamentary debatos, or read the reports thereof with exemplary regularity, are puzzled to understand what is the actual state of the matter, what is wanted to be done, and why it is not done : so a little explanation may be appropriate. In the first place, then, the New Provinces Act is considered to bo objectionable because ifc enables unthinking people who are discontented without due cause, to get Separation on complying with certain conditions. Under the present law, if a certain proportion of the electors in a particular district petition the Governor for Separation, there is nothing •ia the world to prevent them getting it. Tho Separationisfcs are besides made tho judges of theirown grievances real, or fancied, and the remedy of setting up a Government on their own account, can be applied whenever they think fit. This is manifestly unfair, because there are two interests involved, only one of which is considered at all. In the Wellington Province, tho town people of Wanganui want Separation, but four-fifths of the country settlers in Turakina, Eangitikei, and Manawatu, prefer that their districts should remain part of the existing Province, and this is tbe feeling everywhere else; yet under the present law Wanganui can get Separation, and form anew Province, which, being possessed of no adequate revenue or resources, would sooner or later become bankrupt. Now, it is only just that before Separation is granted in a case like this, its opponents should be permitted to urge their objections, with the assurance that the decision of the question would be influenced thereby. The case of Wellingfcon versus Wanganui, is this :— "You have no real grievances; you have had a more than liberal share of the Provincial Eevenue, and cannot therefore demand Separation on tho plea that you have been treated unjustly. Moreover, the resources of the new Province would not afford sufficient revenue to pay the expenses of its Government, and you cannot give satisfactory security for the repayment of those debts, which, as a part of the Province, you would be held liable for." These are strong reasons against Separation, but the present law does not permit them to be entertained, so the Separationists are permitted to ruin themselves and injure other people at their own sweet will. What is the remedy for this P " Repeal the New Provinces Act," says one. " No," rejoins another, "to do that would be to leave outlying districts at the mercy of the Central Government, without the power to enforce attention being paid to their wants." Men who look at both sides of a question suggest that a middle course should be adopted, but \ even amongst them there is much difference of opinion aa to tho precise means that should be employed. The attempts made to deal with the difficulty during the present Session, illustrate this. Some weeks ago, tho Ministry brought forward a measure which proposed that in the event of Separation being asked by the settlers in any district it would be competent for the Government to show that adequate provision had been made for the wants of tho district desiring to secede, and should tho Governor in Council bo satisfied that such had- been done, then no existing Province could be dismembered. This certainly was a, measure with much to recommend it. By it the settlers in outlying districts had the means of securing by special enactment a fair share of the Provincial Revenue, or failing that, the required boon of an independent Government would be accorded. Nobody will ever exactly know why this measure was rejected, but at all events, several members who voted against it became supporters of Mr. Macandrew's Bill, which a week or two afterwards passed its first reading. As this Bill is once more before the House, we subjoin it here :•— "I. The short title of this Act shall ba * Tho New Provinces Act, 1865.' 11. From and after the passing of this Act, no new province shall be created or established within the Colony of New Zealand, unlosa by special Act of the Legislature, anything contained in ' The New Zealand Provinces Act, 1858/ to the contrary hereof notwithstanding." The existing law would have been virtually repealed by this measure. By it, tho Assembly was constituted the tribunal before which all petitions for Separation should be heard, and no New Province could be created except by a special Act. As simply preventing the further operation of a bad law, and providing that whenever Separation

was required in any particular case, nil that could be said for or against it would bo fully and fairly heard, we think this Bill was the best that could have been framed, and regret very much that feelings of party jealousy, whicli we trust are now allayed, should afc a critical moment have stopped its progress. However, after a sensation scene iv the House, Mr. Macandrew, to tho astonishment of: everybody not in the secret, left his Bill for anybody else who liked, to move its second reading, and for a time, in the pressure of more important affairs, the matter was lost sight of, till Mr. Crosbie Ward on Wednesday re-opened the discussion of the whole question by moving the following resolutions :— 1. That in the opinion of this Houso ifc is desirable that beforo anj r new Province shall be constituted under tho New Provinces Act, 1858, inquiry shall be made by the Governor as to the revenue received and the expenditure made withm the district by the Government of tho Province from which separation is required, for a period of at least twelve months preceding ; and that no such new Province shall bo constituted out of any district where such expenditure shall be proved to have amounted to an equitablo proportion of such revenue. 2. Tliat leave bo given to bring in a Bill to amend tho law relating to the constitution of new Provinces accordingly. Mr. Ward's Bill is founded on thoso resolutions It provides that after the statement 1 ofrevenue and expenditure in any district, lias been ascertained and certified by the Auditor of public accounts ; if it be found that the proportion of expenditure to net revenuo be not less than one-fourth, then the Governor may refuse to grant Separation. We decidedly prefer Mr. Macandrew's Bill to tlio present one, "because," as the hon. member for Rangitikei observed during the debate, "it affords an opportunity of examining tlie justice ofthe case." Mr. Macandrew's Bill does this, as under its provisions, when a Separation petition comes before tho Assenibby, tho rights of the existing Province and its outlying districts can be fully urged by tlieir respective advo cates. Iv the case of Wanganui, we desire nothing more than that the whole question should bo investigated before such a tribunal. Wo are comparatively indifferent whether Wanganui gets Separation or not, but wo feel tho utmost anxiety that the I statements made by the Separationists and their organ, against Wellington, should be sifted and confuted in open court. Wero Mr. Macandrew's Bill to become law, an opportunity for this would be afforded, and there is little doubt as to what decision would be arrived afc. During the debate on Wednesday Mr. Macandrew gave notice that he would shortly move the second reading of his Bill, but a3 yefc we are unaware of the result. We trust that this time nothing may occur to prevent ifc3 being carried.