PARLIAMENTARY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2606, 28 July 1881, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wellington, July 27. THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION. The no confidence debate was resumed by Mr Reeves. He commented on the conduct of members condemming the Government and the Bills brought down, and yet refusing to vote for the amendment. He blamed Government for having unnecessarily protracted the debate, refused pairs, and otherwise obstructed and delayed the progress of the business. He announced his intention of voting for the amendment. Mr McDonald announced ho would vote for the amendment. He condemned the counties system, and otherwise took exception to the present mode of local administration. Major Harris criticised the position of parties, blaming Government for haring accepted the amendment as an adverse motion. Mr Richardson considered the amendment was hasty and inconsiderate. He thought the Eating Bill might .he put into sucli a shape as would make it u useful measure. The Road Constructions Bill was, he thought, hopelessly bad, and be would vote against that mt asurc ; a( (lie same lime ho intended to vote against the amendment, as he thought it would be a great misfortune

to have two elections in a short time without redistribution

Mr Shephard said that widespread dissatisfaction existed throughout the colony with the existing form of local government. He did not believe that there was any general desire for a return to Provincialism. What was wanted was an amendment of the present system. Sir George Grey’s Bill he stigmatised as a mere matter of speculation. It was unreal and unsatisfactory. Mr Sheehan’s proposal for the restoration of the provinces could not bo seriously considered. Mr Saunders’ proposal could only be designated provincialism. What was wanted was not provincialism, but the powers and extension under which provincialism operated. Mr Hutchison said at the outset they were told by Government that the country was not asking for local government, and yet at a later stage they bring down this local government scheme, What was required was a scheme based on compromise—take a little here and get a little there, until they had accumulated a sum total in the shape of a workable scheme. He did not think it would be such a difficult achievement. Some half-dozen of temperate-minded men, brought together for half an hour, would he imagined, be equal to the occasion. They had been told by speakers on the other side that they had a good Government, and they seemed to argue 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 poorer men had to stand aside and submit to a more rigid class of economy, They had been menaced with a dissolution. He had no doubt but that, if defeated, Government would endeavor to get a dissolution, but he questioned if it would be given. Be that as it may, what they had to do was, vote on this point irrespective altogether of more remote consequences. Mi Bryce was not satisfied with tlie Bill before the House, and bo questioned if there was a member in the House satisfied. The great dissatisfaction that existed amongst local bodies was the want of money. He would not blame Mr Ormond to the full extent he had been blamed in connection with this amendment, still he thought that it was his duty to have given Government more specific notice of his intention to bring forward the amendment before so doing. The speech made by Mr Ormond last year could not have led them to anticipate his present action. What he then complained of .was the propertytax. In these circumstances it would have been much fairer had ho raised a direct issue upon the repeal of that tax. lie defended the Government in the opinion that the amendment must be regarded as a vote of want of confidence, which he would vote against.

Mr Brown moved the adjournment of the debate, saying he understood arrangements had been come to for the convenience of Government that if the debate was now adjourned the division would take place to-morrow. Major Atkinson said Government had agreed to take the division tomorrow, but not for their convenience. As the matter was put on that ground they would resist the adjournment. The House divided on the motion of the adjournment of the debate —Ayes, 18 ; Noes, 1.2. Mr Sheehan said that an arrangement had been made with the consent of all parties to an adjournment. It was for the convenience of all parties—not that of the Government or any of its members.

Major Atkinson thanked Mr Sheehan for his explanation, in which he entirely concurred. He had felt bound to oppose the motion in" consequence of the offensive terms in which Mr Erown had proposed it. Mr Erown said he had been asked to move the adjournment, and thought it was because of the Pi’emier’s ball.

The adjournment was then agreed to, and the House rose at 10.55 p.m.