LATEST SOUTHERN TELEGRAMS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 267, 16 August 1872, Page 3

LATEST SOUTHERN TELEGRAMS.

Ter New Zetland Press Association. ■" ■ --0- - PARLIAMENTARY. WEDNESDAY NIGHT’S PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE. WELLINGTON. Mr Curtis moved his resolution, and said that he did so from the firm conviction that a large system bf Public Works could not be economically or effectually carried out from one centre/ but that such a course must prove a lisasitrous failure, unless aided by local administration and supervision. He disclaimed all desire to increase the powers of the Provinces, and said that 'his motion was simply intended to restore the powers taken away by the Act of 1870. He said that the resolution was not a party one, but one that was necessary to the Welfare of the Colony.

Mr Fox characterised the motion as A complete reversal of the fnndamental principles of the public works policy, and as impracticable alike in theory as in practice, for *the Government could not devolve its powers, and still retain its responsibility. If the motion were carried, the Government would lesign. To accept the motion would be to break pledges mad® to the country, and would also be opposed to public feeling. Mr Gillies warmly supported the motion as the only means of securing the country from ruin. The Superintendents, he said, were only endeavouring to recover those colonising powers conferred on them by the Constitution, but taken away by the legislation of 1870. The public works scheme had been grossly mal-administered by the Generi’.l G verument, and the only chance of avoiding ruin was to entrust the administration of affairs to local authorities. He (Mr Gillies) gave a long account of the mal-adminißtrat.ion of the Public Works and Immigration Scheme in Auckland by the General Government, and contrasted it with what the Province had done. Mr Webster opposed the motion, saying that the colony had already too many Governments, and he was glad to see the Government taking a firm stand against any dreaded Provincial monster. Mr Harrison opposed the motion on principle, and as having been made by a Superintendent whose administration had been a most unmitigated failure.

Mr Collins defended Mr Curtis and his administration, saying that Mr Harrison’s absurdly incorrect statements were not shared by the people of the province. He opposed the resolution, however, as he thought the whole responsibility of the administration should rest with the General Government. If the present Ministers administered badly, he hoped that they would not always re tain office, and their successors would probably do better. Mr Bathgate supported the motion, urging that the policy of 1870 having been found wrong, should be reversed, and advantage taken of local experience and knowledge in administering public works. He strongly conndemned the action of the Government regarding the Otago immigration and railways. Mr O’Rorke moved the adjournment of the debate, which was carried. THURSDAY’S PROCEEDINGS. •Mr Brown, of Canterbury, gave notice that he would move a bill to disqualify Superintendents and members of Provincial Executives from sitting in parliament. Mr Fitzherbert resumed the debate on Mr Curtis’s motion. He denied that it was in any way a party motion, but simply the natural expression of sentiments which had spontaneously and simultaneously, though without concert, founi expression in the speeches of the various Superintendents to their Councils. The proposal to give a definite form to these proceedings emanated from Macandrew. The Government, by making the question a Ministerial one, raised a false issue, to which the supporters of the motion could not assent, as by so doing they would swallow up principle in the waters of party strife. They had, therefore, resolved to move. the previous question. After a two-hours’ speech by Mr Fitzherbert, in support of .the principle that Mr Curtis’s motion be moved as the previous question, Mr Fox said that the Government had had very little time to decide, but that, as the amendment proceeded from the supporters of the motion, the Government wonld accept it. He, however, reaffirmed the statement that the Government would admit of no divided responsibility in the control of the'public works, although they would still be, as they always had been, willing to avail themselves of any provincial assistance where it was possible, and to work cordially with the provincial authorities. Mr Macandrew seconded the previous question, which was carried on the voices. . 3 The House then adjourned.