PARLIAMENTARY.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 199, 26 August 1874, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

Wellington, August 15. Feeling in Auckland is literally unanimous against Vogel’s scheme of constitutional amendment. There is great excitement, and nothing else is talked of. All three papers are writing in strong terms against it. No man is so popular in Auckland as O’Rorke, and if he returned now he would receive an ovation.

It is rumored here that a condition of the Centralists in voting for Vogel, is that. Reynolds retires from the Ministry. Mr. Stafford has not yet come. People wonder at his absence, and hint at collusion, while one canard says he will be resident minister in Auckland or something’analogous to a Deputy-Governor. Speaking of consolidation the Post says—■ For Mr. Vogel himself his destiny is evident, and has been accomplished. He has betrayed his party and abandoned his principles. The rumours regarding the probable retirement of Mr. Reynolds the Commissioner of Customs are still rife, and have some foundation. His position is almost intolerable in the Cabinet, now that Mr. O’Rorke has left. He does not approve of the policy, and all his old friends are urging him to resign, but Mr. Vogel’s influence is so strong that he does not know what to do.

The Honorarium Committee will report in favor of making payment of £l5O per annum to members of the House of Representatives. There was a great difference of opinion in Committee, and the compromise was arrived at by Mr. Vogel’s casting vote as Chairman. Mr. John Williamson is excessively indignant at Mr. Vogel offering to provide for him for life.

In the House of Representatives, before the commencement of the debate, Mr. O’Rorke said he understood the Premier stated that he had not given any notice to the Cabinet of his intention to resign if the abolition resolutions were pressed. He could assure the whole House he did distinctly state that he would resign if the motion was gone on with. He regretted that the Premier was not present *, there were, however, three members of the Cabinet present, and it was for them to say who spoke the truth, he or the Premier. If he thought the House disbelieved him, he would leave the House that instant.

Mr. Vogel, who then came in, said that whatever might have been the difference between Mr. O’Rorke and his late colleagues, he did not think the latter pursued the usual course sanctioned by parliamentary usage and custom, and instanced the case of Lord John Russell and several other English statesmen, to show that his action was quite contrary to alt precedent. The resolution, when submitted to the Cabinet, was approved by the majority, and though the hon member opposed the resolution, they had no reason to suppose he would have adopted such a pecuculiar and disloyal course to his colleagues. Though the Cabinet did not know of his intention to resign, it appeared hon. members outside the Cabinet did, and even the newspapers had information that evening. It was not an unusual thing for members of a Cabinet to retire, but it was customary to leave in a friendly spirit, and to scrupulously abstain from communicating with the Opposition. It was the manner of the hon. gentleman’s retirement which he disapproved of, not his resignation.

Messrs. Reynolds and M'Lean said the hon. gentleman had signified in the Cabinet that the resolutions were very repugnant to him, but they had no idea he intended to resign. Sir D. M‘Lean said he was surprised that a gentleman with such a knowledge of parliamentary practice should have acted in so unusual a manner.

Mr. Richardson • corroborated what his colleagues had said. He knew Mr. O’Rorke did not acquiesce, but he did not know he intended to resign when he did. He said “ Mr. Vogel, you cannot expect me to agree to any such resolution.” August 17. Mr. Murray moved the addition of the followingwords to Mr. Vogel’s resolution: “ and should ascertain for the guidance of Parliament what local machinery exists or can be substituted for the institutions which this resolution proposes to abolish; but that no measure which will tend to centralization of administrative functions, or which will fail to provide for local self-government and localization of revenue will deserve the approval of this House.”

Mr. Reeves spoke at some length, condemning the measure as being un-considered, and brought in during a fit of spleen. He stated tha' the South Island would resist the passing of the measure, and that if it were passed, it would be a source of discord throughout New Zealand.

Mr. Curtis believed the General Governm nt expenditure would be more profuse than that, of the provinces. The wool revenues would neither increase nor be better administered by the General Government—the reso - lutions were an attempt to destroy without the slightest attempt to construct. He would not vote for the abolition of provincial institutions till he knew what was to replace them. Mr. Thompson opposed the resolutions. He objected to the Government holding the threat of dissolution over the House. He thought the impecunious condition of the

northern Provinces was in reality due to Mr. Vogel himself, in depriving them of all share of the Customs revenue.

The Government were beaten by a majority of four on the Rangatikei-Manawatu award. They put forth all their strength, and were beaten by a combination of the ministerialists. The recommendations of the committee appointed to report on the subject of distillation are to give the company in Dunedin £20,000, and allow the Auckland firm £7,500.

The Premier announced that pobably the Government would not proceed this session with the Polynesian Trade Bill in consequence of the debate upon the abolition of the Provinces in the North Island.