CONTINUATION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIII, Issue 9456, 21 July 1881, Page 2

CONTINUATION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE DEBATE.

♦ Colonel Trimble at some length defended the Government proposals, which were well calculated to advance settlement and prosperity of the country. Mr Gr. McLean thought Mr Onnond should have given the Government notice of his intention to move an amendment. He did not believe any person or Government could devise proposals which would be satisfactory to all parties. As to returning to Provincialism, had the provinces existed when the late financial crisis occurred, the colony would have had to suspend payment. As to the Government haviijg done nothing this session, the passing of the Licensing Bill was of itself a great work. The Opposition were courting popularity, and to raise money would sacrifice the public estate in large blocks. That was Mr Ormond's proposal. Mr Fulton moved the adjournment of the debate until 2.30 next day. Wednesday, Jvly 20. The debate on the no-confidence motion was resumed. Mr Lkvkstam spoke against the Government proposals. They were of a nature which could not possibly recommend them to the country. To his mind they suggested the worst form of legislation that could possibly be conceived. They appeared to have been forced on Government in pretty much the same way as retrenchment had been forced on it last session, and, like retrenchment, local government appeared to have been most clumsily devised. The secret of good local government was to set aside a fund for the use of the localities, the same to be distributed in accordance with some welldigested scheme, leaving these bodies to expend the money to the best advantage. He objected to the constitution of the proposed Board. He concurred to a great extent in the scheme sketched by Mr Saunders, believing that Provincialism might be so modified as to suit all their requirements. He also objected to the proposed reduction of the Property Tax. For these and other reasons he announced his intention of voting against Government. t Mr Collets spoke in favour of the Government. The colony had, under its administration, regained its social and political strength, and if the no-cort-T fklence vote was successful it would I

mean a return to many of tl f 'WiBB which they had just escaped I *«fl be inadvisable to disturb i IBH position of affairs. He was "ft A^l as his constituency was co- !^Clu^H act as he pleased, not \ pledged in any way, and vJ^tf^H nounced that he was v*jph3H vote for the Government in the exercise of his owt fendSH on the point. Their propose<.<% i^H revolutionary. They were MQonflfl endeavour to make the instil $hatj9l had more efficient. To ask; jftg,|9H turn to Provincialism was sii jfcuffME them to disinter a fossilised a Gbnnflj feast on its carcase. After re-. dftoUMH Saunders's proposals, lie sair ntof^H Construction Bill would pro p^rt^B boon, inasmuch as it would t- wptt^B lying districts to secure a fait dSer'^B able share of expenditure. .ggf, Mr Murray spoke in f;i T Ijfeh^H Government, stating that aiy: '.'|i|l iaM which might exist against t: fgariiH of a nature which could casiT Jgee QM died in Committee. fF WM Mr Tujrnbitll spoke in '-fTOTM contending that the improve*!' an the colony was not due to ilij^ iH to its own elastic resources, fflgl *J was interrupted by the o.3i||!|PglJH