PARLIAMENTARY.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1271, 23 June 1886, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Tuesday, June 22

In the Council a quantity of business of an unimportant character was transacted.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Tuesday, June 22.

TJJE MIDLAND BAILWAY. The debate on the Midland Railway Bill was resumed by Mr Fisher, who said he should oppose the payment of interest during construction if the colony took OTar the line, otherwise he would offer no factious opposition Mr Wakefield spoke strongly in favor of the Bill, and quoted from a former speech to show that he h id always supported the work. Ho firmly believed it would be very profitable when once completed. Mr Moss said that the Canterbury district should not receive greater concessions in land grants thm ■ oth’r districts. If the Act passed they would "bo compelled to set aside six or seven millions of acres of land for the contractors Mr Ivess had never known Mr Moss to take a hopeful view of anything: He was glad to see Mr Rolleston and Mr Wakefield supporting the Bill. It showed perfect unanimity in Canterbury on the railway. MrJ. W. Thomson would not oppose the Bill, because the colony was now com*nutted to the construction of the railway.

Mr Pyke hoped similar concessions would be given to other districts as to Canterbury. Ho pointed out that there was nothing in the Bill or contract to compel the company to complete the railway, and this should be rectified in Committee .

Mr Seddon eupported the Bill, but said

it was expedient to prevent the company taking auriferous land on the West Coast

for the purposes of the railway. Ho entered into the subject at length, quoting from various Acts to uphold his conten tion.

The debate was interrupted by the 5.30 adjournment.

At 7.30, Mr Seddon resumed his speech. He argued tint the clause in the contract providi g for tho resumption of auriferous land was not sufficiently stringent, and would leave the way open to much legal grubbing anl hard fhip hereafter They ought also to demand from the company a pledge not to introduce colored labor. -At the conclusion of a long speech, he said lie threw on the Premier the responsibility of guard ug the miners of Westland against the laud being appropriated by the company, and begged him to reserve at once all known auriferous land. The Premier said that if this were done Westland would bo exempt from the operation of Ac*, and it would destroy the B'll altogether. Special care was taken in tho M’nes Act to meet the wants of the miners, and, moreover, all known mining districts were already exempted under the Act. He traversed Mr Seddon’s a’guments one by one, and concluded that there was no danger whatever in the direction he fancied. Mr Menteath was of opinion that it

would be found the railway was dearly b tight, but he thought the Government had done the very best they could in ! h n face of the attitude of the House. He did not agree with Mr Seddon's fears Mr Ormond expressed great surprise at the attitude of the West Coast members in obstructing the Bill in its last stages. He chimed the right to review the contract if necessary, and complained that Government bad not given them sufficient information about the Bill. Mr Hatch and Mr Downie Stewart spoke disparagingly of tho contract. Sir George Grey was opposed to the land grant. lie considered the contract should never have been framed in its present form, and ho had a right to oppose its ratification if ho chose. Mr Fergus was strongly against the construction by the company, and thought endless trouble was coining in the future Ho would vote against the Bill. Mr Turnbull, Mr Dargaville, Mr Levesfum, and Mr Kerr also spoke on the question. Mr Hursthouso traversed the arguments of the opponents of the Bill, and scouted tho idea that political pressure would be brought continually to boar on Parliament in consequence of the wrongs it would inflict on the miners. -Ho strongly urged that the route from Reefton to Belgrove should be altered, and taken da Collingwood, on account of the mineral deposits and greater population of that district.

Sir Julius Vogel condemned the action of those who now damned the bill with faint praise. He defended the action of Government in the matter, and congratu ' lated Mr Wakefisld on his repentance. The arguments now brought forward by some of the West Coast members ought to have been brought forward last year, but he did not consider they were of much weight. He entered at length into the advantages that would accrue from

the construction of the line, and said it was ungenerous to argue now that the contract was too liberal. The House had a right to consider the proposed modification, bat was la honour bound to ratify the contract Itself, after the action of members assenting to it last session. Sir George Grey called for a division on the second reading, with the following result ;—Ayes 52 Noes 14. 1 Tho following is the division list Ayes 52. Allwright, Atkinson, Ballance, Bevan. Bradshaw, Bruce, Buchanan, Connolly, Cowan, Dargaville, Dodson, Dnnca.i, Fisher, Fraser, Garrick, Gore, Guinness, Harper, Hatch, Holmes, Hursthouse, Ivess, Joyce, Kerr, Larnach, J. McMillan, Menfoath, Montgomery, O’Callaghan, Ormond, Pearson, Pratt, Reese, E. Richardson, G. F. Richardson, Rolleston, Samuel, Smith, Steward, Stout, Sutton, Taylor, Tolo, Turnbull, Vogel, Wakefield, Walker.

Noea (14 Barron, J. C. Back land, Fergus, Fulton, Grey, Hamlin, Hirst, Hialop, Lake, Mots, lloas, Rnesell, Trimble. Pairs for—levestam. O’Connor, and Macandrew j Against—Stewart, Reid, and Bryce. Mr Barron moved thfct the bill be referred to the Select Committee, on the ground that the present contrast was different to the proposals of last year. Lost by 57 to 0, The House rbse at 12 50.