PARLIAMENTARY.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2623, 17 August 1881, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

LEG ISL ATI'V E CO UNCI L. Wellington, Aug, 16. The Council met at 2.30 p.m. EIItST HEADING. The Eaugitata Trallic .Bridge iiill (Mr Peter) was read a first time.

LIC JAN'S IX U I! ILL. The Licensing Bill was then recommitted, and several further amendments made, none of importance. Mr Miller again moved the rejection of the elective system, but it was reaffirmed by 1C to 13. The Bill was then ordered for the third reading for Thursday. Notice has been given for a further committal.

HOUSE OF lIE BE ES ENT ATI V ES. RAXGITATA Tlt A.I'J.-M C L’ltlDGH. Mr Wakefield asked Government (1) whether they have any reports from the Engineers, condemning the iron pile design for the repairs of the Bangitata bridge as unsuitable and impracticable, and if so, what is the tenor of those reports ; (2) whether they arc aware that the Ashburton County Council,to whom they have handed over the control of the work, are persisting in that condemned design ; (3) whether they are aware that out of 8 piles alrcad)' attempted to bo driven 5 have broken, and that the machinery has broken in the attempt to withdraw the broken piles ; ■(4) whether they contemplated taking aiiy r steps to put a stop to this waste of public money. Mr Hall replied by reading a lengthened report on the subject, and concluded by stating that he saw no reason whatever for interfering with the progress of the work. IKI ’UKBKNTATION IULU. The debate on the Representation Bill was resumed by‘Mr LevosUm,wbo spoke in pppo-ition to the Bill Mr Hutchison denied that the Bill fulfilled the conditions of representation on a population basis. lie pointed out that to Wanganui, with a population of 4000, 'vie proposed to give an equal representation with any one of the subdivisions of Wellins'ton cr Christchurch with a population of 7000. •Again, places like Tiimrn were treated on the town population basis, and the Thames, with a much larger population resident in tiie borough, was treated on the country population basis. Mr Bussell contended that the Bill did not affirm any of the true principles of representation. He argued that Parliament was more a Board of Works than a legislative bod)’, and as such, they wore bound to take into account the trade of the different districts, as well as population, in Hawke’s Bay and Westland they exported at the rate of 622 8s 3d per bead, which was greatly in excess of those of any other district. Sueli being the case, he moved they had a right to have special consideration in the matter of representation. The pro posal, as it stood, only gave them at the rate of one sixteenth of the the entire (imposed representation, while they had a fifth of the exports. Mr Bunny said that the Wellington members had been threatened with the removal of the seat of Government. He was hot at all afraid of the preponderance of representatives proposed for Canterbury and Otago, lie would rather trust to the sympathy of Canterbury than the tender mercies of Auckland. The seat of Government was brought here for the convenience of the country, and so long as that convenience existed the seat of Government would remain in Wellington.

Mr 13all;incc contended that population was the only fair basis of represen tation. If they took the electorates then it might appear unfair, but if they took the provincial districts they would find that the proposal was pretty equitable as a whole. The preponderance in favor of the South created no real alarm in his mind, as they never found these districts united upon any one subject.

Mr Seddon denounced the Bill as a most vicious measure, and argued that it was based on Conservative principles. Mr Bastings protested against the Bill inasmuch as it. wiped out Waikaia, the district he represented. It had increased rapidly in population, and was now one of the most important agricultural districts in Otago. Mr Ileeves insisted that the mining centres ought to have more consideration than than proposed by the Bill. Mr Shrimski also complained that the Bill would do an injustice to his district but in Committee he would endeavor to have it amended. He would vote for the second reading. ' Mr Brown also complained of the injustice proposed to his district, and asked Government to revert to its previous proposals. lie would vote for the second reading, believing that the Bill as a whole was one which reflected great credit on Government. . Mr Andrews considered the Bill was an improvement on the system at present in operation. Mr Hall said that while objections had been stated to the population basis, no one bad ventured to say what should have been accepted as their guiding star.

The House divided on the question of the second reading—Ayes, 49 ; Koes, 16. AVES. Allwright Mason Andrews MeCaughan Bain McDonald Ballance McLean Bastings Montgomery Beetham Murray Bowen Oliver Brandon Ormond Brown Pyke Bryce Richardson Bunny Rolleston Colbcck Saunders DeLautour Seymour Dick Shanks Fisher, J. B. Shnmski Fisher, J, T. Stevens Fulton Studholme Grey Sutton Hall Swanson Hirst, H. Thomson Hutchison Trimble Johnston Whitaker Kelly Wood Levin Wright Macandrew NOES. Collins London George Moss Gibbs Pitt (teller) Gisborne (teller) Reeves Harris Seddon Hmst, W.J.,(City Sheehan of Auckland W.) Shephard Hursthouse W eston Levestam PaxesAYES NOES. Atkinson Hamlin Brandon Reid Fox Russell Finn Taiaroa Jones Speight Kenny Te Wheoro Moorhouse Tomoano Turnbull Tole Wakefield Wallis The Bill was ordered to be committed to-morrow.