Wellington Gossip.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7744, 16 May 1887, Page 2

Wellington Gossip.

(FROM OUli SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT); (BY TELEGRAPH.) ' Wellington, Saturday. •"' STONEWALLING. - The proceeding -}, of th e : House! last - n. lg ht fully juatihed the preaictiori t tiiade of the Representswn Bill the bil having been e&ctiwlly \ I'lockcd (or several Jrturs by some of'tW - 7

celebrated stonewallers of IBSI, notably • the loquacious Mr Seddon and his friend Mr Levestam, ably assisted by Mr John Kerr, the factious member for WaimcA. Mr Seddon, of course, repeatedly disclaimed any desire of blocking the bill,, but Mr Kerr, with most refreshing innocence, let the cat out of the bag by saying that as some leading members of tho Opposition stonewalled ■ the Nelson Foreshore Bill "on Thursday afternoon, Messrs Seddon and Cowan were now adopting the same tactics by way of retaliation. The House was immensely amused at the frank admission of' .the member for Waimea, although nobody was in doubt as to the nature of the opposition offered by Mr Seddon and his associates. The debate gradually assumed a bitter and acrimonious character towards the small hours of the morning, and the Premier had some smart passages at arms with .Mr Bryce, Mr Fergus, and Mr Heslop. The Premier eventually moved to report progress on the bill in order to arrange some compromise before Tuesday next.' Mr Bryce endeavored to extract a promise from the Premier that the bill should be the first business taken on Tuesday, as otherwise it would be lost. Sir Robert Stout was excessively angry at this suggestion, upon which Mr Bryce formally moved and took a division on it. The question then was to all intents and purposes one of no-confidence, and the division was taken in that light. The result was that Ministers won by one vote only — 32 against 31 — but the Opposition could easily have reversed the decision had they chosen to bring the matter to a direct issue, as Messrs Pearson and Allwright, both of whom are now strong Oppositionists, were in the lobby at the time of the division and would no doubt have voted against Ministets if the whips had required their assistance. It was ,-_- felt, however, that if the Government were t defeated on the question the Representation Bill would be quietly dropped, which would not have suited the tactics of the Opposition as a party. , Notwithstanding this the opinion is now pretty general that the bill is virtually killed by the Premier's action last night. Sir Robert Stout still expresses himself desirous of seeing it passed, and says lie is confident that a compromise will be arrived at before Tuesday, but it is pointed out with some force that if he had the least sincerity about passing the bill he would never have snbmitted, not only to his whips, but also to his colleagues, voting and lobbying against it. ■ THE IMPENDING DISSOLUTION. It is now generally expected that the House will reject the budget proposals and an early dissolution, with a second session about August next, are regarded as almost a certainty, and I have good reason for stating that if the Government are beaten on their financial policy they will at once apply for a dissolution. But the- Ministerial supporters profess to believe the tariff will be carried in the House, though by a small majority. THE LEADER OF TUB OPPOSITION. Owing to the turn which events have taken over the Representation Bill, Major Atkinson has been summoned from Nelson, and is expected in Wellington tomorrow. VACANCIES IN THE COUNCIL. I understand the Government have no intention of filling up the present vacancies in the Ltrds if they are defeated on their financial proposals. Ministers justify all their recent appointments on the ground that if they had not called a certain, number of their friends to the Council it wonld frequently be a difficnlt matter to secure a quorum in that chamber. THE BARMAID QUESTION. 1 recently informed your readers that petitions had been forwarded from Napier and other places against the employment of females in hotel bars and licensed houses. The Public Petitions Committee, to whom the petitions were referred, have reported that there has been no evidence in support of the allegations made for the abolition of barmaids, and they have therefore no recommendation to make to the House on the subject,