PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 312, 12 June 1875, Page 2

PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Friday, June 11. [The following is the full report of the debate which took place upon the Hon. G Buckley moving the recommittal of the Education Ordinance.] THE EDUCATION BILL. The Hon G. Buckley moved the re-com-mittal of the Education Bill for the purpose of proposing amendments to various clauses, more particularly in the 40th clause. Mr Wynn Williams rose to oppose the re-committal of this Bill, and more particularly the amendment proposed in the 40th clause by the hon member for Waimate (Hon G. Buckley). He did not intend to detain the Council very long, because he had already told the House what he thought on the proposition to raise the contribution of districts and the rate per child. The opinion he held was that this idea was introduced into the Bill while the Government were in a state of financial panic. For some time his conviction was that they were pursuing a wrong course in respect to the proposed increase, and though the Provincial Secretary had denied that he (Mr Williams) had done so, he had over and over again remonstrated with the Goverment, and finally when he found that no notice was taken, had written a letter to the Superintendent, which he would read presently to the House. He (Mr Williams) contended that notwithstanding what the Provincial Secretary had said about the state of the finances of the province, that provision could have easily,been made for this important matter of education as it had been for others of less magnitude. Now, as regarded what had been stated by the hon Provincial Secretary to the House on Friday last, he might say that there was his (Mr Williams’) word against that of the hon member, and he contended that his word was quite as good as that of the Provincial Secretary. •[“ Hear, hear,” from Mr Maskell). He could hardly understand the hon gentleman saying “ Hear, hear,” when on a previous occasion he had made statements and used language respecting him (Mr Williams) which outside that House would have meant “ You’re a liar.” Now he again asserted, and that most positively, that day after day he had called the attention of the Provincial Secretary to the fact that he could have the comparatively small sum required for the purpose of enabling the contribution to remain as before, out of other estimates ; that he had over and over again pointed out to the Provincial Secretary that the amount could be saved out of the estimates of Mr Warner, the Railway Engineer, He challenged the hon Provincial Secretary to deny this, and yet he stood up and said, that not one word had been said by him (Mr Williams) upon the subject. Another hon member—the hon member for the Rakaia (Mr Jebson) —had accused him (Mr Williams) of inconsistency in opposing the Bill that he himself had brought inj and was conducting through the House; but when (hat hon. gentleman heard the letter read to which reference had been made, which he should do presently, he would acknowledge that he had been wrong. That letter would prove that he (Mr Williams) had objected consistently throughout to the increase of contributions and fees proposed by the other members of the Executive. There also appeared to be an impression abroad that he (Mr Williams) had not told the Government that he was opposed to the increase until the night he resigned. This had got abroad from the statements made by the hon Provincial Secretary, which he (Mr Williams) could not at that time refute, because he was not in possession of the necessary papers. Again it was said that because the Bill was unpopular outside, and to curry favor with the public, he had at a moment’s notice thrown over the Government. This he denied most emphatically, as the letter would show that it was after repeated -remonstrances with the Government that he sent in his resignation The hon Provincial Secretary, in his statement on Friday, had said that he (Mr Williams; had told the Government that if this increased contribution were insisted on, the East Chiistchurch district ; would be placed in a very awkward position, and that was the reason why the Government assented to his proposition. Now the fact was, that when the matter was discussed the East Christchurch district was mentioned as an illustration of what would take place in the districts were the increase carried out, and was not mentioned as had been stated by the Provincial Secretary. The letter written by him (Mr Williams) would prove this, and besides that, the other members of the Government were present and heard it. Yet the Provincial Secretary sai 1 that he had made a point about East Christchurch only. He had quoted a part of it, but had stopped short in his speech, leaving the impression that East Christchurch had been mentioi e! in the way he stated. He did not suppose for one moment but that the Bill would be carried. The fact was that the Government, weie supported through thick and thin by a party from another part of the province, who would see the Bill through. Their own organ said that not only did the southern members control the Government, but also the destinies of that Council. [Laughter.] Tf hon members would bear with him he would read what that distinguished organ said, It was as follows:—“ Private business

is uo excuse, unless of Mie most urgent and unforeseen nature, for members had no right to seek election who were not prepared to afford the necessary leisure to perform their legislative duties thoroughly. It is manifestly unjust that the welfare of a whole district should be prejudiced, merely because two or three gentlemen are too busy with their own affairs, too comfortable in their own homes, or too disgusted with the boredom of Christchurch, to care to attend the Council regularly.” [Laughter.] But this was not all; he called hou members attention to the words which followed, viz:—“ This is a very critical period, when every southern vote is required to keep the Council in the path of rectitude; and the electors look to every southern member to be in his place until all the serious business of the session is completed.” [Renewed laughter.] That was to say, when they had got all they could for the south they might go. [Dr Rayxeb—“Nonsense.”] The hon member might say “Nonsense,” but he (Mr Williams) was quoting from the organ of the southern members, and taere could be no mistake as to what it meant. However this might be, he felt that in one respect the hon member would act, as any hou member would under the circumstances, and that was that they would do him simple justice. In this respect he appealed to them with great confidence. Now he could show that the Provincial Secretary had made a statement to that Council which he knew most positively, and without doubt, was not true. He—

The Speaker— The hon member must withdraw that expression. It is beyond the limits of debate.

Mr Williams would of course bow to the decision of the Speaker, but he felt that the House would take his statement supported by facts as it was. He would read what the hon Provincial Secretary was reported to have said. It was as follows:—“ I have always been at one with every other member of the Governmeht in this matter, and I believe they are entirely unanimous thft this one-half ought to remain in the Bill, and they have never changed that opinion ; and when the hon member, who knew from his position as chairman of the Bast Christchurch school committee, that the circumstances connected with that district shewed to the Government that it was going too far to make districts pay one-half this year, I was the first member of this Government to agree with that hon member ; and I think it was without any difficulty at all that the Government allowed that, for the present year, one-half should not be insisted on.” The hon member had stopped there, but he (Mr Williams) asserted that he had again and again drawn his attention and that of the Government to the one-half question. Had the Provincial Secretary stated what had actually taken place the members of the House would entertain a different opinion on the subject of his leaving the Government to what they did now. Being placed in the position he was it was only right that he should state what were the facts of the case, and he should now do so. Before the second reading of the Education Bill came on, he (Mr Williams) wrote a letter to the Superintendent, asking him to bring it under the notice of the other members of the Executive immediately, which had been done. That letter he would read to the House, as it would shew, not only that upon this letter the Government changed their minds, and gave way to him at last; but also, that he had frequently brought the matter of the increase of contributions before the Executive, which had been denied by the Provincial Secretary. A portion of this letter had, as hon members would see when it was read, been quoted by the Provincial Secretary, but not all. That letter was as follows:—“To his Honor the Superintendent. “Sir, —I have felt great anxiety since drafting the Education Ordinance, as to the policy of so suddenly cutting down the contributions towards the building of schools, the purchase of sites, &c. I have always held that the sites and the buildings should be paid for out of the land revenues, or out of money borrowed on the security of that source of revenue. In drafting the Bill, I proposed that power should be given to the Superintendent to aid school districts up to the five-sixths, again providing the proposition was carried equally through all districts. The result of the present proposal is to make the continuance of the erection of schools, &c, prohibitory, as it will be impossible to raise by a one shilling rate sufficient to meet one-half the cost of extension and completion of school buildings, &c. Even if we reduce the estimates, which are said to be extravagant, say of East Christchurch as an example, and take one-fourth of the proposed expenditure, the case would be thus—£7soo would be actually required. To obtain this sum the district would have to raise by rate £3750, I need hardly say it would simply be impossible. But supposing it is reduced..to one.-half .the original estimate, say £5000 ; we should then have to raise £2500 against the Government £2500. So that through the inability of the district to raise the larger amount, the sum of £2500 would remain in the Government chest unexpended. But I must go further, and say again that I consider we have been too hasty in coming to a conclusion as to the necessity of raising half cost of buildings, &c, by rates. Why should we pay for the building by rates at all ? What more legitimate purpose can the land revenue be expended upon than in the school buildings of the province? I consider it would be more politic on our part even to borrow for such purposes. In our present financial statement we propose expending hundreds of thousands of pounds upon public works ; but education, which is as important surely, if not far more so, is left almost to take care of itself. In Queensland educat on is absolutely free. If there was no disposable fund of any kind, and schools had to be built, I, of course, could not raise any objection ; but 1 am satisfied that it is wrong, as a policy, to call upon the ratepayers of the country to contribute to the erection of buildings and purchase of sites, unless it is an absolute necessity. I can see no reason why the totrl sum asked for by the Board of Education should be voted if the Government is to have the control of the expenditure. As this, I am afraid, would not be consented to, I think that sufficient should be placed on the estimates to enable the Government to reduce the contributions to the one sixth, providing it is done with all districts alike. I regret exceedingly that I did not press my views on this point at the time it was considered in Executive a second time, it having been agreed to on the first occasion. My conviction is so strong on this point that I cannot undertake to move the second reading of the Educational Bill until the question is settled. A proposal

has been made to postpone the operation of the Act in this respect until January Ist next, or to state that all districts in which the schools are not completed, should be considered in the category of new schools. The latter proposition would involve great difficulties I think, as it would be difficult to say when they are to be considered finished. Now a school building may be completed with the grounds left unfenced and totally unfit for occupation ; and jet the Government might hold that the district must come under the class of old districts. It seems to me that we must revert to the old system for the present financial year, giving power, as proposed by the Board of Education, to levy a rate in aid of maintenance, which would undoubtedly be a legitimate charge on rates. I again repeat that I regret the question has not been settled before, as I am bound to consider it as it affects the position of the Government. However, I am not I hope so blind to my faults as not to be aware that the Government could fill my place more efficiently, and therefore I trust you will understand that I am giving no light or hasty expression to my feelings when I say, I must resign my office, in preference to upholding a system of taxation, which I think will not only create great dissatisfaction throughout the country, but what is of greater importance, will call for heavy payments from a large number of persons who can ill afford it, for the purpose of erecting buildings for others to reap the advantage of. I am not aware whether I am acting constitutionally or not, in communicating directly with your Honor; but what I desire is, that this matter should be brought before your Honor’s Government without delay, as I have made up my mind fully upon it. —I have the honor to be, Sir, your obedient servant, H. Wynn WILLIAMS ” He would appeal to hon members now, if it was true that he had thrown the Government over, because the Bill was unpopular. The hon Provincial Secretary had said that he (Mr Williams) had never spoken about this subject, but the direct contrary was proved by this letter, which shewed that he was discussing the matter with the Government. He must say that, in justice to him (,Mr Williams) the Provincial Secretary should have read the whole of the letter, and thus removed the opinion that had obtained, that he (Mr Williams) had thrown up the Bill to bring the Government into distress. Hon members would see that he said in his letter “ I again repeat that I regret that the question has not been settled before, as I am bound to consider it as it affects the position of the Government.” That shewed conclusively that the matter had been previously brought before the Government by him. He appealed to any one of common sense to say whether, after that letter, it could for one moment be said that he had said nothingto the Government on the question, or that he had left the Government at a moment’s notice, without reason. Of course hon members without reading the letter might be led to think that he had done so ; but if the Provincial Secretary had acted towards him as he ought to have done, he would have read further than .the extract regarding Bast Christchurch. It would then have been seen that he (Mr Williams) had considered this matter most carefully and calmly, and that, finding the Government would not give way, he had forwarded his resignation. There was the document, which would show that his statement was true, viz, that he had brought the matter under the notice of the Government repeatedly, and that finding he could not persuade the Government, had forwarded his resignation to the Executive. He should ■oppose the motion now before the Council, because he thought that it would be a blow to the best interests of the present scheme of education. This opinion, he thought, was shared by the public, for the other day while in a shop, speaking to the shopkeeper on the subject of the Bill, a prominent clergyman of the Church of England in Christchurch —and one who had been here for twenty-five years, said —“ I am delighted you have got those men on the benches, because the destruction of the present system of education must follow the passing of the* Bill. It’s the devil’s work.” [Hear, hear. - ] The last sentence referred to the Bill before the House, but the hon members on the Government benches, who cried “ hear, hear,” hardly seemed to see that the remark applied in this way. Returning to the question of his conduct, he (Mr Williams) said that he was the oldest member of the Council, having sat for thirteen consecutive years, and during the whole of that time he contended that he had acted fairly and honorably during the whole time, Holding the opinions he did on the question of the increase of contributions and fees, opinions which he had made known to the Government again and again, he could not consistently have stuck to the Bill, as proposed by the Government. The only course open to him under the circumstances was to do what he had done, namely, send the letter he had read to the Government, telling them fairly and honorably that he must resign his office as Provincial Solicitor unless they agreed to the alteration as proposed by him. He should oppose the recommittal of the Bill at every stage. The Provincial Secretary said that, after what had fallen from the hon member for Papanui (Mr Williams) the House would of course expect some reply from him. He would endeavor in the few remarks he should make to do so with moderation, and avoiding as far as possible any reference to the personal matters which the hon member had introduced pretty freely during his remarks. So far as the statement of the hon member as to what had taken place in the Executive was concerned, that was perfectly correct, and the Government found no fault with him for that. As regarded the personal portion of his remarks he (Mr Maskell) thought the hon member ought to give him credit for possessing equal honesty of purpose at any rate. Though travelling perhaps somewhat outside the true question at issue, it would be necessary for him to refer to the financial part of the question, that having been raised by the hon member ; therefore he proposed first to offer a few remarks upon the financial portion, and then refer to the general question of the retirement of the hon. member for Papanui from the Executive. First, then, let him say that it appeared to him that there had been very great misapprehension on the matter of the financial statement of the Government as to the condition of the province financially. Hon members in that House were in the habit of getting up and making statements as to the Government having said that the province was bankrupt, and out side that House a certain body had taken upon itself to say that it knew more of the financial [resources of the province than the Government, and to reiterate the statement that the Government had said the

province was bankrupt. Now he desired to repeat what he had already said time after time in that House, viz., that the Government had never said anything of the kind. He repeated that the Government had never made use of any such words as to say that the province was bankrupt, because such would not have been the fact. What the Government did say was, that the revenue was short of the expenditure by some £200,000 or £300,000, and that therefore it was necessary that they should draw in their horns somewhat in the matter of expenditure. The Government had not said one word about bankruptcy, and he desired that this disclaimer should go forth to the country. Now as regarded the hon member’s assertion about the difficulty made by the Government in finding funds for the contribution to remain as before, the Government had never said that there was any difficulty in finding funds, but that there was a disposition evinced by committees and others towards extravagance in school building, which would require to be checked by the Government, The hon member had also said that the financial statement had not been borne out, but he would desire to point out that no increase had been received to the estimated revenue, while the expenditure was some £200,000 over it. He would now proceed briefly to place before the House the facts attendant upon the resignation of the hon member for Papanui. It was perfectly true that the hon member did press upon the Government the necessity of reducing the contribution, and that the letter bore out the opinions of the hon member on the subject. The Government did not deny one word of this. The letter was fully consideredin Executive, and the Government gave way to the view of the hon member, and he drafted the clause which had appeared amongst the supplementary notices. The Government did not find fault with the hon member for that. But what the Government did find fault with him was, that after moving the second reading, and conducting the Bill up to the 40th clause, he had accepted an amendment of an hon member of that House changing the rate of contribution without discussion, or without any expression of opinion on the part of the House. This was what the Government were surprised at. They were prepared to accept the clause as drafted by the hon member for Papanui, but they did not think it right that he should have accepted an amendment like this without the concurrence of the majority of his colleagues, especially when it was understood that he would carry on the Bill through. They were therefore surprised to find him giving way to an amendment of such a radical character as this without the expression of opinion on the part of the House. [Hear, hear.] They did not accuse the hon membt r for Papanui of political dishonesty; no one intended that for one moment; but they said that the conduct of the hon member on the 40th clause was not right. What was the fact? Why that the hon member, after the Government had given way to him and accepted his views, and believed that he would carry out the Bill, had turned round upon them. He must again deprecate the practice of members of that House using words or phrases which referred to the finances of the province which the Government never used or intended to be implied. Sir Cracropt Wilson said that bis colleague had explained the matter thoroughly, but he would point out that the letter read by the hon member had no date, and he could not say when it was sent to the Superintendent. (Mr Williams—' 1 Oh !”) He repeated that there was no date or docket on it because so little was thought of it after the agreement was come to that the five-sixths should continue till the end of the financial year, but it was understood that the matter was concluded because he had got all he wanted. So thoroughly was the Executive surprised, that he (Sir C, Wilson) being left on the benches when the 40th clause was under discussion, got up and disclaimed all connection with it, and would have called for a division, only that it would have looked to be unseemly for a member of the Government to do this. An Executive Council was held, and he (Sir C. Wilson) was deputed to tell the hon member for Papanui either that the clause must be restored and the supplementary notice restored, or the hon member must leave the Government. He was requested to see the hon member in the morning, but failed to see him until nearly three o’clock, when he met the hon member in the library, and asked him to come into his room. He would read a letter which he (Sir Oracrofi) had written to the hon member which was as follow—“ June 2nd, 1875. My dear Mr Williams, I have received your note of this day’s date, and I have shown it to all the Executive save Rolleston, who is perhaps aware of its contents. Personally I bitterly regret that you would not comply with my earnest wish that we should meet in my room. Common courtesy, I think, demanded that after the occurrence of last night you should not have avoided an interview. Buckley, Peacock, and self unanimously think that the remarks made in your note with reference to Maskell are entirely unjustifiable. But a truce to this—lf you will send me a letter of resignation which I can lay before his Honor I will submit it to him. lam grieved to learn that the work has brought on palpitation of the heart. I have this consolation, that I have personally abstained from troubling you even when I was most anxious for your assistance.—Yours truly, Cracropt Wilson.” Mr Wynn Williams wished to point out that this was in answer to his letter resigning.

Sir Cbacropt Wilson— Yes ; that letter bears date June 2nd. These letters are all dated. I have a letter from the hon member dated June 2nd, which I hardly like to read without the hon member gives me permission—[Mr Williams : “ Bead it,’ 1 ] That letter was as follows Christchurch, June 2nd, 1875. Dear Sir Cracroft Wilson, —After what has occurred this afternoon it is impossible for me to take any other course than to resign. I cannot consent to act with any one who shows such a determined intention of, as it appears to me, impairing the system of education, as Mr Mask ell does. I could not trust myself hereafter, as I should not be able to attend the Executive meetings with sufficient regularity to give my voice on the expenditure proposed, &c. The alteration of the words one-half to one-sixth is what I pointed out to Mr Maskell several times during the day would have to be done, and that it was not worth while fighting it, the matter having been conceded for the present financial year ; that the next financial year would have to be altered according to circumstances, and therefore it was perfectly immaterial whether they

remained in or not. As I was left almost entirely to myself, and exercised my discretion, I allowed the words to be altered, when you got up and emphatically stated that you differed entirely IVmn me. Again Mr Maskell this morning told me that (at least that was the purpo i of what he said) I had betrayed the Government. Why Mr Maskell should be so pertinacious about so trifling a matter I cannot conceive, unless it is that he is determined to do what he can not to further the interest of education. I must confess I am now laboring under that opinion, and that being the case I cannot of course continue to hold office. I must beg, therefore, that you will make arrangements at once to fill the office at present held. I am so unwell and knocked up by the work that it has brought on a severe attack of palpitation of the heart, and 1 therefore am going home at once. I cannot therefore be in my place to-night My only regret now is that I consented at all to join the Government, and that I afterwards consented to agree to such an alteration as that to the onehalf in the Education Act. But it is never too late to mend.—l have the honor to be yours obediently, W. H. Williams.” The hon member had avoided him during the day; and also he desired further to state that nothing had ever been said to him or the Executive about the change intended to be accepted by the hon member for Papanui. The motion was agreed to.

In committee, Mr Buckley moved an amendment in clause 20, to insert after figures 1875 ” the words “ Hist March, 1876.” The motion was agreed to. Mr Buckley moved, in clause 21, an amendment, providing for accounts being audited by the Provincial Auditor in manner hereafter provided. The amendment was agreed to. Mr Buckley moved, in clause 40, to strike out the words “five-sixths,” to insert the words “ one-half,” thus restoring the Bill to what it was formerly. Mr W. B. Tosswill said that at an early period of the session he did understand from the Government benches th it their finances were in such a state that it was desirable to make the alteration proposed, but finding that the finances were in an exceedingly good position, he would ask the Government whether they would not accede to onefourth. He asked the Government to do this, because he feared if “ one-half” were asked for that it would give a serious check to the progress of education. Hon G. Buckley inquired whether the hon member meant the “one-fourth” to apply to new schools as well as old. Mr W. B. Tosswill would ask the hon member to go back to “one-fourth.” Hon G, Buckley said that the proposal of the Government was to increase the payments to be made by the parents of the children, and also those on property. Mr J. N. Tosswill pointed out that it would be extremely difficult to distinguish the expenditure in old and new buildings. Hitherto they had had but one rate, but under the system now proposed there would be great difficulty in distinguishing where the old expenditure ended, and where the new began.

Mr Jebson said that he trusted the Government would adhere to their policy, and retain the half as being in accordance with the principle upon which the Ordinance was based. He considered it necessary to put a check on what might be called the somewhat liberal expenditure for the erection of schools. He did not wish to curtail useful expenditure, but that for ornamental purposes. Mr Montgomery said that the Provincial Secretary said that “the Government were ready to accept one-sixth instead of onehalf if, after discussion, the House wished it.” The Provincial Secretary—l meant that the Government were prepared to accept a beating.

Mr Montgomery trusted that the Government wonld not insist on the “ onehalf,” but would consent to leave the clause as it now stood, especially after the late Provincial Solicitor, who had charge of the Bill, had on the part of the Government consented to accept the amendment for onesixth, Mr Brown said that after the admission made by the hon the Provincial Secretary that the Government were prepared to accept a beating, after a free discussion, he considered that every one was at liberty to vote on this question for one-half or onesixth, as was thought best.

The Provincial Secretary said this was not a Government question, or one on which they would retire if it were decided by a majority of the House that the amount should be one-sixth instead of one-half. Mr Wynn Williams said that after what had been said, he was relived from all responsibility of having betrayed the Government—[“ No, no,” from Sir C, Wilson] —as the Provincial Secretary had said that the Government were perfectly prepared to accept the decision of the House as to whether it should be one-sixth or one-half. Hon G. Buckley denied that this had been made a Government question. Mr Walker approved of the amendment, as it would be better to accustom the people to the burdens which they must eventually bear, whether the resources of the province were sufficient or not. The committee decided on the question that the words “ five-sixths” be struck out for the purpose of inserting the words “ onehalf.” Ayes 20 Noes 11 Majority for striking out the words ... 9 Ayes, 20—Messrs Bluett, Buchanan, Buckley, Gray, Harper, Hay, Jebson, Knight, Maskell, Peacock, Pilliett, Potts, Rayner, Teschemaker, Tosswill, W. 8., Turnbull, R., Walker, Westenra, White, W,, Wilson, J. 0. Noes, 10—Messrs Andrews, Dixon, Fisher, Jollie, Joynt, Brown, Montgomery. Tancred, Tosswill. J. N., Wynn Williams, Wilson, I. The words “ one-half ” were then inserted. Hon G. Buckley moved the following addition to the clause:—‘‘That notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary the Superintendent shall for the financial period ending on the 31st March 1876 grant to any district school committee or commissioner appointed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance a sum not exceeding five-sixths of the estimated cost of the buildings fittings and apparatus required and the land required for a site or sites for the establishment of a school or schools in any district or the estimated cost of repairing or adding to any buildings that may exist on the school site or the cost of increasing the area of the school site or for

any other necessary work connected with the school and the contribution to be paid by any school district during tie like period for the purposes aforesaid shall be one-sixth of such estimated cost as aforesaid.”

The motion was agreed to. Mr Montgomery moved the following addition ;—“ Provided also that should any school district contribute an amount equal to a rate of one shilling in the £ on the annual value of the rateable property in the district, the necessary school buildings may be erected though the rate of one shilling in the £ may not be equal to one-sixth or onehalf as the case may be of the cost of the buildings, fittings, apparatus, and site.” The motion was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, passed. Hon G. Buckley moved an amendment in clause 44, to the effect of giving power to the Superintendent to order the collection of the rate and children’s fees in quarterly or halfyearly payments if deemed necessary. The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, passed. Hon G. Buckley moved an amendment in clause 45, to the effect that all moneys collected, viz, the household rate, the children’s rate, and the building rate, be paid into the Treasury instead of to the school committees, as at present. The amendment was agreed to, and the clause as amended passed. The chairman then reported the Bill as amended, EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ORDINANCE. The .Provincial Secretary by leave brought in a Bill entitled the Executive Council Ordinance, 1864, Amendment Ordinance, 1875, and explained that its object was to set at rest any doubts which might exist as to the power of the Government to appoint a Provincial Solicitor outside the House. The Bill was read a first time, ordered to be printed, and to be read a second time on Monday next. TRUSTEES OP SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE. The House then went into committee to consider the following resolution—“ That the Council proceed to the election of trustees of the School of Agriculture, in accordance with the provisions of a resolution passed on the 19th of December, 1872.” The Provincial Secretary moved an addition to the effect that the election, be by ballot. The amendment was agreed to. After some discussion, Mr Tancred moved—” That the trustees be selected from the names of those gentlemen which may have been handed in to the Provincial Secretary by 8 p.m. on Monday the 14th instant.” The resolution was agreed to. The Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again on Tuesday, at 8 p.m. Notices of motion having been given, the House adjourned until Monday, at 5 p.m.