PARLIAMENTARY.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4813, 12 June 1884, Page 2

PARLIAMENTARY.

(Peb Pbbsb Association.)

Wellington, Yesterday.

The Legislative Council met at 2 30, and on Mr Oliver's motion at once adjourned, pending the result of the no-confidence debate in the House of Bepresentatives.

HOUSE OF BEPBESENTATIVES.

Wellington, Yesterday.

Want of Confidence.

The debate was resumed.

Mr Shrimski charged Government with having no policy to disclose, and with having passed the Roads and Bridges Construction Act well knowing they could not raise the money provided for under it. They had favored the Bank of ITew Zealand, by giving it a large sum on fixed deposit out of the insurance fund at 5 per cent., and they charged the local bodies 6 per cent, on money required for permanent works.—Mr Ivess contended that the reduction proposed to be made this year could have been made last year. Government had frustrated an attempt of that kind on the part of the Opposition.—Mr J. W. Thomson twitted Government with its seeming determination not to say a word in reply to the grave charges preferred against them, and blamed them for not making any proposal for remedying the depression which they recognised to exist. —Mr Smith said it was the so-called financial abilities of the Treasurer that got the Government into office, but now they had awakened to the fact that these abilities were a mere delusion.

Mr Hursthouse denied that any suffU cient indictment bad been made out against the Government. The Speech was an exceptionally good one. Before turning them out they should know who were to take their places; he would not trust either Olago or Canterbury. If the Opposition would sink private differences they could form a Ministry. Grey and Montgomery appeared afraid of each other. Ele opposed a separation, and objected to the expense of a double session this year; a dissolution now was not likely to alter or affect the position "of parties. There were many things the present Government had done with which he did not agree.—Mr. Moss objected to such a motion being brought forward by a member like Mr Steward. It deprived consistent Oppositionists like himself of any flag to fight under. The present was a melancholy exhibition. Such a dissolution would be a palpable abuse, involving as it would a double honorarium. The honoriarium should be made annual, not sessional, before any dissolution took place. The raising of the Canterbury railway rates was really at the bottom of the present combination against Ministers. JNo more righteous increase was ever made.—Mr Conolly had never known a motion of want of confidence introduced in so extraordinary a manner as the present one. He blamed Mr Montgomery for putting Mr Steward forward to do what he was afraid to do himself. If it had not been for the Canterbury Bail way Tariff question the Opposition would have had no

chance of carrying such a motion. The same selfish and cowardly constituents who howled down the Premier in Christ church might also drive their members to vote against the Government on this question, but these members would ere long regret their desertion of their party. There were other members who, like rats, showed a readiness to desert what was supposed to be a sinking ship. Be defended the Ministry from a number of accusations made against them. If the Government was turned out it would be because they had not yielded to the selfish demands of one section of the community; not because they had failed to do their duty to the colony.

Mr \V"akefield complimented Dr Newman on moving the reply to the Speech, which was one of the worst Governor's Speeches he had ever known. It was a complete record of what was not intended to be done during the session. He emphatically condemned the perpetual leasing system. He eulogised Mr Bryce's Native Administration, but opposed the Ministry j on the question of Federation. He entered at length into the history of the Federation movement. He condemned the original lowering of the Canterbury railway rates, and still more strongly the subsequent raisin?, —the farmers had just cause to complain. He had found that Government did not command a majority of the House, and had accordingly done his best to bring the various sections of the Opposition together. He considered Mr Steward's action in bringing forward the amendment quite justifiable, and he in no way deserved -the contempt shown by Ministers. Mr Steward was really the only successful leader which had appeared iri the House for two years, and he would lead them to success. Mr Steward's speech compared most favourably with Mr Connolly's, for instance, in tact, temper, and ability. He would vote with Mr Steward to abolish the sham of a Ministry, without a policy or a following, and an Opposition divided into widelydivided sections. The question of the wisdom of doing this was not worth considering,—it would be nothing to the cost of keeping the present Government in office Major Atkinson's desire for a united. Opposition was now he hoped, gratified, and the Opposition would perform their Constitual duty of turning the GovernI ment out. He altogether deprecated any idea of separation as the dry bones of a dead piece of humbug. If Montgomery advocated any such policy he hoped that hon. gentleman would not vote for the amendment; they could spare him. In like manner he did not agree with certain protection views advanced by some of those with whom he was acting ; he was a thorough freetrader. He accused Mr Connolly of reckless ignorance in his offensive allusions to the Canterbury electors. He regretted the vota which his duty to the- public compelled him to give against the Ministry, but he did it on constitutional principle.

Col. Trimble opposed the motion, which, however, he admitted was perfectly legitimate. Major Atkinson moved the adjournment of the debate.,

Messrs Macandrew and Seddon opposed, urging an immediate division. On division the motion for adjournment was lost by 37 to 33. The House then divided on Major Steward's amendment, which was carried by 41 to 32. The following is the DIVISION LIST. Ayes, 41. Noes, 32. Barron, J. ' Allwrighfc, H. Batbgate, J. Atkinson, H. A. Brown, J. 0. Beetham, G. Bracken, T. Brown, J. E. Buchanan, J. Bryce, J. Cadman, A. J. Buchanan, W. 0. Danielß, T. Connolly, E. T. Dargaville, J. M, Diet, T. De Lautour, 0. A. Dodson, H. Duncan, T. Y. Fitzgerald, G. G. Feldwick, H. Fulton, J.^ Fish, H. 8. Green, J. ' Grey, Sir George Green, M. W. Harris, — Harris, — Holmes, G. Hurst, W. J. ! Hutchison, W. . Hursthouee, K. I Ivess, J. JohnetoD, 0. Levestam, A. H. Johnston, W. W. Macandrew, J. Kelly, T. McKenzie, J. Mason, T. McMillan, D. Mollwraith, H. Montgomery, W. Mitchelson, E. Morris, G. B. Newman, W. O'Callaghan, P. Peacock, T. Pearson, W. F. Postlethwaite, A. Petrie, J. Rolleston, W. Richardson, E. Shaw, E. Seddon, B. J. Butter, J. H. Sheehan, J. Swanaon, W. Shepherd, J. Thompson, H. Sbrimslu, S. E, Trimble, R. Smith, W.O. Watt, W. H. Steward, W. J. Sutton, F. Tawhai Thompson, J. W. Tole, J. A. Tomoana Turnbull, R. . Wakefield, E. Whitaker, F. A. Mr Sutton then moved a further amendment, asking the Governor to dissolve the House. Mr Whitaker seconded. Mr Bolleston questioned whether such a motion was constitutional, and after some discussion the debate was adjourned to 7.30 this evening.