GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume VI, Issue 526, 29 July 1881, Page 2

GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

In the Council on Tuesday, on the Hon F. Whitaker's motion, the committal of the Licensing Bill was postponed for a week, until the question of confidence had been disposed of. On the same day, in tho House of Representatives, Mr Murray moved for leave to introduce a Bill to regulate the duration of Parliament, to come into force after the dissolution of the present Parliament. Mr Barron objected, contending that a Bill of this nature should not be introduced during the last session of Parliament. The House divided—ages, 38 ; noes, 34. The Bill was introduced and read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time on Wednesday week, Mr Barron moved as an amendment that it be read a second time that day six months. He said it was quite certain that the measure would not pass, and euch being the case, he thought it better to crush it at once. Mr Brown spoke in favor of the Bill, adding that it would be better for the country if eleotions were for life, with a proviso that on a petition signed by a certain number of electors, members should be forced to resign. A plan of that kind would bring about a unity in Parliament that could not otherwise be obtained. The Uon J. Hall said that Government had no intention of interfering with triennial parliaments, and when the proper time came they would be found objecting to any interference on that score. Still that was no reason why they should object to the Bill being brought before the House. Mr Gisborne thought that the duration of Parliament should not be lesa than four years. Mr Speight supported triennial Parliaments. Mr Macandrew, whilo questioning thy policy of tho measure establishing , triennial Parliaments, would not be ciiaposeci j to interfere with it now. j Mr liowen esprosnod similar sentiments. Mr Lwvin had hewi returned to support triennial Parliaments, and ho would support them, at all events until ha bad gons back to his constituents, and got their views on the pointj •

Mr George would support triennial Parliaments, aa it had only been passed during the present Parliament, but should the question nome forward during next Parliament, and he be in the House, he would be found voting against them, as he thought it would be found that they were a mistake. The question was put that the Bill be read a second time on Wednesday week. Ayes, 37 ; Noee, 34. Mr Montgomery in each division voted with the minority, that is, against triennial Parliaments being interfered with. In committoe of supply, The Hon. Major Atkinson moved for authority to issue deficiency bills to the rftnountoi £200,000. Mr Brown asked tho Government to state when the Otago Central, Canterbury Interior, and Wellington and West Coast Railway Bills and tho new Representation Bill would be introduced. The Hon. Major Atkidson said that these Bills were in a very forward state, and would be introduced so soon as the noconfidence motion was disposed of. Mr Moas brought up the question of the West Coast Native affairs, and the connection of Major Parria with the West Coast Commission. Tho Hon. W. Eolleston said that he held himself directly responsible for the administration of these affairs. He severely censured the previous speaker for what lie termed his ecandalous attack on Major Parris. Mr Sheehan admitted the importance of the King's visit to the Waikato. It was merely the result of a gradual movement, and the present Government had merely succeeded in putting the keystone upon that movement. He could not allow party prejudice to prevent him admitting the success of what had been clone. At the evening sitting

Mr Montgomery resumed the debate on the no-confidence motion. He declined lo recognise anything as before the House but the proposals of the Government and the amendment by Mr Ormond. Hβ objected to the House being called on to decide between the proposals of the Government and those of Sir G. Grey. He was opposed to both. Whatever the result of present debate, beheld that the redistribution of seats must take place this session. He objected to the proposed method of rating Crown lands, and to the constitution of the Public Workq Board, which would really place eleven Ministers in the House. He also strongly condemned the method of distributing local aid. Bad as it was there was the further objection that no guarantee existed that it would exist for more than a year. Local and general finance should be entirely separated. Ho contended that funds should be assured to local bodies without reference to any central body, and that they should be enabled to perform their functions without any interference from Wellington. The honorable member went on to refer to a plan which had been approved by the Canterbury Provincial Council in 1869, whereby South Canterbury was constituted a separate district. He thought that if Canterbury was now divided into two districts on such a system, it would work satisfactorily. Tlio local bodies should also have the land fund given them, but not necessary the land fund arising within the district. The Counties could then be done away with, but on no consideration would he dispense with the Eoad Boards. Ihe Government had done well as administrators, but had failed miserably as legislators, and even now they had not put a policy before the House. The Treasurer's finance he regarded as thoroughly unsound in proposing to add to the public debt by means of a local loan. For these reasons he should vote for tho :>mendinent. He despaired of getting good measures from the present Minisry. Their prestige was gone, and whether defeated on this motion or not, their days were unnibered.

Mr Bowen was inclined to think that if they could get rid of this system of party government, a great improvement would be brought about. The election by the House of a committee of administration would he thought perhaps be preferable. He counselled them to bring the debate to a conclusion at once, pass the estimates and the Bill, and then go somewhere else to address their constituents.

Mr Ballance said that they had been discussing a groat question of public policy, and they had been doing so at the invitation of the Government. They had been told that a motion of this kind should have been brought forward by an organised party, The motion had be3n brought forward by ono of the best organised parties that could be concoived of. It was one of the strongest Oppositions this Government ever had to contend with. Under these circumstances ho would like to know what the previous speaker desirod. If they were not to have party Government, what were they to do ? Were they each to act upon the dictates of their own sweet will ? After criticising the Government proposals at considerable length, the hon gentleman concluded by saying that he supported the amendment, on the ground that the proposals were objectionable, and that the Government had failed to show that they possessed administrative capacity equal to the occasion.

Mr Pitt remarked as curious that none of the previous speakers had given then a Bcbemo of local government finance such as they would wish to see introduced. Ho trusted that the amendment would be negatived, as it would entail a result which would not be for the good of the country at the present time. The Government had rendered good service to tho country, and they could not well spare them from the Treasury benches just now.

Mr Andrews did not think that the House -would ever think of passing , the Government 13111b as they stood. He was astonished that they should make these Bills Government questions, seeing that it had been openly stated that what they desired was to make them acceptable to tho country. Referring to the members of the Government individually, he had the highest opinion of them, but collectively they failed to lead the House. The members who had condemned the meaMiiv*-. and yet professed their intention of voting against tho amendment, were β-cting , in a manner he could not reconcile Even if tlivj motion v/ero carried, thoro was no real necessity for |& dissolution. Thdy would go to tho country in v few Months, and that ought to obviate fuiy necessity for a (liaiiolniion now. He vvns fully persuaded that the Government had. hot the ccmlidenea of tlio Hou:io or iL-r country.

Mr Levin contended Unit their firet duty ■,vaa to conoimr oonHf;aut"'i:cc3. lie did not entirely approve ci : nil tin , uoven.me ;r ;t measures, but sti.il the Goveiriuiotit iip.d

not lost liH confidence, and would have to commit far greater sins bo fore he would vote to turn them out. He would have preferred something more bold than the scheme of finance proposed ; still, hie opinion on that soore was not by any means weak enough to induce him to reject it altogether. The country at large had continued confidence in their administration.

Mr Reeves moved the adjournment of the debate, and the House rose at 11.15. On Wednesday, the business transacted in the Council was unimportant. In the House of Representatives, Replying to Mr Pitt, The Hon J. Hall said Government considered that the law allowing a landlord to distrain for rent in arrears should be altered, but it would depend upon the despatch of public business as to whether a Bill for its abolition was introduced this session or , ■. Replying to MrWeston, The Hon J. Hall said that the report published of the prosecution against one Ehrenfried, at the Thames, was not correctly stated. The fact waa that the proceedings had been instituted under a wrong section of the Act. That was the cause of its failure. Tho no confidence debate was resumed by Mr Reeves. He commented on the conduct of members who condemned the Government and the Bills brought down, and yet refused to vote for the amendment. In carrying out the policy of retrenchment he charged the Government with practising the grossest possible favoritism. He instanced the case of a magistrate at Wanganui, who had been plucked six times in his examination as a barrister, and yet that man had been hoisted over the shoulders of old and tried servants of the colony. He described the Roads Construction Bill as the quintessence cf corruption. He blamed Government for having unnecessarily protracted the debate, refused pairs, and otherwise obstructed and delayed the progress of business. He concludod by announcing hia intention of voting for the amendment.

Mr McDonald announced that he would vote ior the amendment.

Mr Hutchison said the question was, Is or is not this proposal satisfactory ? There could be no doubt but that the reply had been in the negative. The only really sensible thing that had been said on behalf of Government was that the mover of the motion had not been true to his allegience. He could not understand the gravamen ot the offence ; if Government did not choose to take warning from the speech made by Mr Ormond last session the Government could not possible expect to command hie allegiance. They had been told by speakers on the other side that they had a good Government, and they seemed to arguo that because they had a good Government they, as a House, were to accept bad Bills. Their economy had been greatly extolled, but he questioned if it had been a wise economy. Great men like Dr Pollen got the uttermost farthing, while the poorer man had to stand aside and submit to a more rigid class of economy. The Treasurer gave a most dejected picture of the state of the Colony a few months ago. That was a most crnel proceeding ; it had caused trade to languish and thrown hundreds of men out of emplytnent. What they had to do was to vote to this point irrespective altogether of the more remote consequence. Major Harris said he would fill up the time for a few miirites to enable the Colonial Treasurer to reconsider his apparent determination not to reply. He criticised the position of parties blaming Government for having accepted the amendment as an ndverao motion.

The Hon E Richardson considered the amendment was hasty and inconsiderate. He gave it as his .opinion that the in first instance there slxruld have been fewer Counties, and that it should have been compulsory on them all to bring the Act into operation. That was the direction in which he should still go rather than that additional Eoards of Works should be constituted.

Mr Shepbard said that wide-spread dissatisfaction existed throughout the country with the existing state of local government. He did not believe that there was any general desire for a return to Provincialism ; wnat was wanted was an amendment of the present system. Mr Bryce was not satisfied with the Bill before the House, and he questioned if there was a member in the House satisfied. In the nature of things it was not reasonable to expect that a generally satisfactory scheme could be put forward. The time had come when the local bodies would have to look to themselves and not to the Government. He did not believe the country wanted the present system of local government essentially altered, but just improved in such a way rs to make it work more freely. He defended the Government in the opinion that the amendment must be regarded as a vote of want of confidence, which he would vote against. A motion for the adjournment of the debate was opposed by the Government on toe ground that the mover (Mr Brown) had wrongly represented that the adjournment was for the convenience of the Government. Explanations having been made that the adjournment was for the mutual convenience of both sides, it was agreed to, and the House rose at 10.45 p.m.