PARLIAMENTARY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 993, 12 July 1883, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, July 11. The Council met at 2.30. LICENSING COMMITTEES On the motion of the Hon Mr Nurse, a return was ordered of the expense of e'ecting all the licensing Committees, also of how many Committees had to be nominated by the Government. PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDI I'URB.

On the motion of Sir G. S. Whitmore, a return was ordered of all Public Works expenditure in the different counties in the colony since 1880, also showing the population and taxation paid by the several counties. PRISONS BILL. The Prisons Bill was passed through Committee. The Council rose at 5 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wkdnesday, July 11. The House met at 2 vjo. sx. John’s college. The St John’s College Removal Bill was introduced and read the first time. NEW ZEALAND LAND COMPANY’S BILL. The joint Committee on Bills reported that the New Zealand Land Company Empowering Bill was a private Bill. PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHTS. The Hon Mr Rolleston asked leave to lay on the table a list of the pre-emptive rights in Canterbury, and in doing so called attention to the fact that it had been alleged that information re these rights had been improperly withheld, whereas the list had been laid on the table as far back as 1879. QUESTIONS. Replying to questions, Ministers said that it was intended to bring down an

amended Counties Act, in which provision would be made for keeping public roads cle irof gorae.—That the samples of paper produced at Mataura mills sl owed very great improvement on the sample submitted previously. If the price was fair, the Government would buy.—That a Bill or taxing property increased in value by the construction of public works would shortly be brought down for the consideration of Parliament. That the Leeston R.M. Court had been discontinued, as another Court situated within four miles was sufficient for the work of the locality.—That the Government had no power in law to prevent Carey and other Phoenix Park informers from coming to New Zealand if they thought fit.— That steps wo .rid bo taken to see that the provisions of the law were enforced in reference to the publication of the annual statements of mining companies in the Gazette. —That a Bill to provide for the arrest of husbands deserting their wives would be brought down. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT. Mr Hutchison moved for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Contagious Diseases Act, 1863. He argued that under the law as it existed a woman might, on the certificate of a gaol surgeon, be detained in prison for a period of three months, without the chance of being heard in her own defence. After a long debate leave was refused on a division by 19 to 42. ' COMPANIES BILL. On the mo:ion of Mr Shaw the Companies Act, 1882, Amendment Bill was introduced and read a first time. DECENTRALISATION. Mr Levestam resumed the debate, and in the course of his speech accused the Government of having entered into a compact with the Canterbury members about the West Coast • railway. The Public Works Statement and the compact in question differed widely, and the latter was a departure from the spirit of the former. The Hon Major Atkinson interrupted the hon member to declare moat emphatically that the Government would not under any circumstances consent to the LIBO.OOO being diverted in any part from the purpose to which it had been appropriated and for which it was raised. Mr Levestam concluded by saying that he had always been in favor of provincialism, and had seen no cause ,to change his mind. Mr J. W. Thomson argued that the subsidies under abolition had been so far paid out of loan. The country generally was dissatisfied with >he central administration, and he argued that the discontent was well founded, it was not, however, at all likely to assume a direct shape in public estimation so long as the Government was in a position to’contract loans. Mr Fish twitted the Government for allowing the debate to go on without, either them or any of their party saying anything. The subject was one of great importance, and as such it was deserving of more consideration, even although it might be expending courtesy to their opponents. The proceedings were interrupted by 1 the 5.30 adjournment.

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7-30.

The debate was continued by Mr Fish. Before the resolutions were tabled they were shown to Government, and it. was then fully understood t at it was not to be regarded as a Ministerial question. He asked them now to say whether or not they regarded it as a vote of confidence. The whole thing was a melancholy example of a breach of faith, for which he held Major Atkinson responsible, and was not surprised at it on his part. Treating i his as a confidence motion prevented them from having the question discus ed on its own merits. Ha had been a supporter of abolition, but he had seen cause to change his views in consequence of the unredeemed pledges upon which abolition had been carried. The present state of finance was reviewed, and denounced as most reckless and unconstitutional. Iha t was another of the baneful results of centralisation. The Treasurer had stated that when Mr Macandrew held office he proposed to expend L 2,000,000 out of land revenue. That was not correct. What was actually proposed was to appropriate a sum of L 2,000,000 from the land fund to be expended over a period of five years. Could a more demoralising instance of Central Government be given than was to be found in the fact that sixteen or seventeen members of Canterbury went the other day to the Government and threatened to vote against them on this motion unless a written compliance was given to their demands? Mr Mtjnko said that there was a hesitancy about the resolutions as submitted, which went far to excite suspicion in his mind as to the real purpose. Something more emphatic ought to have been brought down. The actual question broached by the resolution was, had the county system proved itself a failure ? He denied that that system had been a failure. He considered the county system as against provincialism had been fully discussed, and the opinion was unanimously in favor of the counties. It was felt that the county Government was the only one under which a community of interest could be provided for. Mr Holmes said that he had been a supporter of the abolition, but since he had an opportunity of looking more closely into the operations of the system,, he ha'd seen cause to change his mind. He criticised adversely the present mode of managing railways, but he stated that if these resolutions were to be treated as a vote of want of confidence he would not vote at all, as he was not prepared to revert to provincialism as it formerly existed.

The Hon Mr Conolly said matters had been introduced into the debate so clearly affecting the Government that he felt he was bound to say a few words. He would say but little on the resolutions, as the first resolution had been already fully answered. Abolition had not perhaps fulfilled every sanguine expectation, but it had done a very great deal for the good of the colony, tie believed the divisions proposed by Mr Montgomery much worse than separation between the two islands, and he did not agree with the motion that any benefit would arise in departing from exist ng arrangements. The facts in regard to the so-called Canterbury compact had been grossly misrepresented, both as regarded facts and figures. The letter given by the Government simply undertook to survey ihe West Goast lines. The whole thing was done in the full light of day, and nothing whatever was attempted to bo done, or promised to be done, to the prejudice of what had been arranged for the continuance of the main trunk line.

Captain Mackenzie looked o ■ these resolutions as a vote of want of confidence, and therefore whatever sympathy he might have with them, he could not support them. He was not going to rake up ths wretched past of provincialism. Mr Pykb moved the adjournment of the debate. The House rose at 12.