Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1886. The Defeat of the “No Confidence Motion.”

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XIX, Issue 1841, 7 June 1886, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1886. The Defeat of the “No Confidence Motion.”

The debate on Mr Montgomery’! amendment (to the motion for going into Committee of Supply,) “That in the opinion of this Honsr, the Government should reduce the Estimates by a sum of not less than £75,000,” came to a sadden and unexpected end on Thursday night. Mr Montgomery’s amend, ment was regarded by the Government as being in reality a motion of “ No Confidence,’’ and in that light it was referred to throughout the debate. By Thursday night the real interest of the debate was only beginning to be thoroughly felt. The powerful attacks previously made by Major Atkinson and Mr Montgomery on the Financial proposals of the Government bad stirred np the blood of Hon members, and every appearance existed of a long and exhaustive debate haviug fairly set in, which would probably last for a week to come. And on Thursday afternoon and night the debate was carried on with great spirit, ability, and vigor. Mr Bryce made a logical and telling speech against the Government, to the arguments of which the Minister for lands found it hard to reply. Mr Maoarthur strongly supported Mr Montgomery’s amendment, but told the Govern, ment that if it were carried, they need not resign, but should simply at once begin the task of catting down the Estimates to the extent of the £75,000 required. So the debate went on, and hon members fully expected that somewhere about midnight it would be adjourned to the next day, and so continue into the ensuing week. Bat this was not to be. Tbelast speaker on Thursday night was Mr Levestam, and when he had finished nobody rose to follow him. The time was 11.30 p.m., and at that hour the Speaker put the question and a division was taken, the result being that Mr Montgomery’s amendment was rejected by 44 to 28 votes, giving the Goveinment the victory by 16 votes. A number of hon members were absent, having “ paired ” for the division on the question. If these " pahs” are include! the number of votes in the division would be—Ministerial, 54 ; Opposition, 38, giving the Government the same majority of 16 votes as already stated. This result c>me upon the Government as a compete surprise, Up to a short time before the close'of the debate it was thought that the Government, at best, would only, when a division was taken, have a slight majority. How then is the result of so large a majority as that of sixteen votes to be accounted for ? We believe that the result was partly brought about through the absence of any agreement for combined action on the part of those sections of the House which are, more or less, opposed to the Government. In point of fact, no compact and organised Opposition Party at present exists in Parliament. Then a good many lion members were disgusted in mind as to wbat would follow in the event of Mr Montgomery’s amendment being carried. Had that result been achieved and the Government defeated, there would either have been « dissolution with the Redistribution of Representation question still unsettled ; or a resignation of the Government, and all sorts of attempts to form a new Ministry. In the present state of parties, the Opposition—were the opportunity afforded them—would find it difficult to form a new Ministry possessing strength and stability. As the case now stands the Government have scored a victory, but they have also learned that while a majority in Parliament does not desire, : at present, to drive them from office, *y e * they are expected to adopt voluntarily a general scheme of retrenchment as the condition of their retaining place and power.