NOTES OF THE SESSION.

Southland Times, Issue 1626, 30 August 1872, Page 3

NOTES OF THE SESSION.

Taking up the thread of events where we left off last week, we find that on .Wednesday, 14th August, Mr Reynolds made a sad complaint about the way in which the immigration to Otago had been mismanaged, so that the Province had been obliged to take the matter into its own hands again, and authorise the expenditure of £18,000 from the Provincial revenues for this purpose. He moved that the Immigration and Public Works Committee should be instructed to look into the matter. Mr Reeves said that he thought Canterbury should be included \in the enquiry, and generally denied I many of Mr Reynolds's statements. Mr Reid said that things wore quite as bad as jMr Reynolds had said. Mr Gillies, Superintendent of Auckland, said that his Province had also been neglected, and moved that the enquiry should be extended to the working of the immigration system in the Colony generally, which was agreed to. In the evening Mr Curtis brought on his motion for handing over the administration of the Public Works and Immigration scheme to the Provinces. After his speech Mr Fox declared that the motion proposed to reverse the policy adopted by the Assembly in 1870, that there should be no intermediate authority to break or divide the responsibility of the Ministry to the Parliament, and that the whole control should rest with the General Government. If the resolution were carried, the Ministry would resign. Mr Gillies was surprised that the Ministry should misrepresent the motion. The duties, not the powers, of the Resident Ministers, were proposed to be given to the Provincial authorities. It was unfair and unjust to make people believe, he said, that the object was to enable the Provinces to dispense the plunder raised by the General Government. This ingenious reasoning, however, failed to convince the House, and by the time the debate was adjourned late in the evening, it was pretty clear that the motion had no chance of passing, as Mr Stafford and his friends kept resolutely aloof. On Thursday, 15th August, accordingly, on the resumption of the debate, Mr Fitzherbert moved " the previous question," a Parliamentary technicality, as most of our readers are aware, for ! dropping the whole subject, and saying no more about it in the meantime. The motion had been brought forward in a most friendly spirit to the Government, but as they had made it a party question, and assumed a hostile attitude, he thought it best to adopt this course. Mr Macandrew said that the object of the motion was to strengthen the hands of the Government, but as they unaccountably did not seem to see it in that light, he thought the subject Bbould be dropped. Mr Fox said that as it was the proposers of the motion who had come to that conclusion, they might do so if they chose, but that the Ministry intended to abide by the legislation of 1870-1, and permit no intervention between themselves and Parliament. The previous question was then carried without a division, and so ended this episode. Next day, Friday, 10th August, Mr Stafford gave notice of the motion, intended as a direct vote of censure, which he has since moved, and the debate on which is now proceeding. The new electoral bills were read a second time. They consolidate the present law, and extend the franchise to all employes with a salary of £100 a year, lodgers paying £40 a year for board and lodging, or £10 for lodging alone, and all ratepayers in municipalities or road districts. They also provide for the trial of election petitions by judges of the Supreme Court. The House then adjourned, as usual on Fridays, till the following Tuesday. On Tuesday, 20th August, the Minister of Public Works and the Colonial Treasurer made their financial statements. The telegraphic summary of both speeches has appeared in our columns, and no more detailed information regarding them has yet come to hand. Mr Yogel explained the unusual course pursued by the Ministry, of making the Financial Statement in the face of a want-of-confidence motion, by saying that he had promised to deliver it on that day, before Mr Stafford gave notice of hia motion, and because, since he had done so, the Government supporters had expressed a desire to have all the information in the possession of the Government before them when discussing Mr Stafford's motion. If his statement proved useful to the Opposition during the debate, they were welcome to it, but he did not think the contingency of its being useful to successors of the Government was likely to arise. At the conclusion of the statement, Mr Yogel moved the reduction of the stamp duty on receipts to one penny, which was agreed to, and the House "adjourned till the following day. On Wednesday, 21st August, Mr Stafford moved his want-of-confidence resolution, the debate on which is still proceeding. Telegraphic summaries of the speeches up to date have appeared in our columns. By a very stupid mistake, it does not appear whether on the part of the reporter at Wellington or the telegraphic operator, Mr M'Gillivray ia credited with a most inconsistent speech in last Friday's issue, being made to support the Ministry at the commencement, and to declare his intention of voting against them at the close of his remarks. The truth is that the first nine lines only are Mr M'Gillivray's, and the rest Mr Bunny's. Mr M'Gillivray opposed the resolution on the very intelligible ground that though the Government had not done all that he would have desired, he would like to see a more certain prospect of their being succeeded by better men [ before voting for the resolution. The [ remarks that follow, on the other side, were uttered by Mr Bunny.