PARLIAMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4508, 1 September 1875, Page 2

PARLIAMENT

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Tuesday, August 31. The Speaker took the chair at two o’clock. PETITIONS. The Hon Colonel BRETT presented a petition for the extension of the Marlborough railway. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Napier Swamp Nuisance was discharged from the order paper, it being unnecessary to place it before committee. - The second reading of the Auckland Improvement Bill was moved by the Hon. Dr. Pollen. The SPEAKER drew attention to an informality in the Bill, the words “ local” and “ personal” not having been inserted, and the Hon. the Premier’s name appearing on the face of the Bill, which was an unusual circumstance, and hoped greater attention would in future be paid to parliamentary custom. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE objected to the provision in the Bill giving increased powers to commissioners. The Hon. Mr. Hart pointed oht that included in the land vested in the commissioners was a reserve set apart for recreation and public amusement, and the 3rd clause gave power to sell every inch of land held under the Act at present in force. A considerable amount of discussion ensued, and the Hon. Dr. Pollen having replied, the Bill was read a second time. ART UNIONS AND LOTTERIES. The Hon. Mr. BONAR moved, that in the opinion of this Council it is desirable that the law relating to the conduct of art unions, lotteries, and similar undertakings throughout the colony, be taken into consideration by the Government, with a view to the preparations of a Bill regulating the same. They should either say that lotteries and games of chance should be allowed under certain restrictions, or forbid them altogether. At present, the custom had obtained of disposing of all manner of articles, in art unions, lotteries, &c. He had taken the trouble to look up the law on the subject, and found that the only law touching upon the subject was one introduced during the reign of William IV., by which all games of chance were prohibited under a penalty of £2OO, or six months’ imprisonment. No doubt there was some legitimate kinds of venture. In England, for instance, the law had been modified, so as to give encouragement to high art, but the law did not apply iu New Zealand, as the Act was passed since 1840. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE seconded the motion of the Hon. Sir. Bonar. He quite agreed with that hon. gentleman that lotteries at the present time were used as a cloak under which all manner of articles were disposed of. Even religious people seemed to be affected with the mania for gambling, and clergymen sanctioned lotteries, the proceeds of which went towards church support. The system was an erroneous one, and it was their duty to put it down. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN said the Government fully recognised the importance of the subject contained in the motion of Mr. Bonar, but owing to the press of other business it would be quite impossible to give it the attention it required this session. BILLS. The Napier Municipal Empowering and Waterworks Loan Bill passed its second reading, and ordered to be committed presently. The Auckland Institute Bill- was read a third time and passed. The Campbelltown Athenseum Incorporation Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed presently. The House then went into committee on the Napier Municipal Empowering and Waterworks Loan Bill, and the Campbelltown Athenseum Bill, both being amended. The Council then adjourned on the motion of Dr. Pollen. HOUSE- OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, August 31. The Speaktk took the chair at 2.30 p.m. PETITIONS. A number of petitions were received. NOTICES. Mr. MACANDBEW gave notice to move; while in committee on Abolition of Provinces Bill, that the following words be added to section 18 :—Provided that the residue of the laud fund arising within the Otago provincial district, after defraying the charges as set forth in section 16 of this Act, shall be paid monthly to the account of the Board of Works of the said provincial district to be constituted by an Act of the General Assembly (or in manner hereinafter provided), and such residue of the land fund shall be subject to appropriation by the said Board of Works for the construction and maintenance of public works within the said provincial district. Provided always, that until an Act of the General Assembly has been passed to constitute a Board of Works as aforesaid, the members of the General Assembly representing the several electoral districts, shall be, and they are hereby constituted a Board of Works for the said provincial district, and all powers, duties, and functions which immediately before the date of abolition hereunder of the said province of Otago, were under, or by virtue of any Act or Ordinance vested in the Superintendent of the said province (excepting those referring to education), shall on the day of the date of the abolition of the said province vest in and be exercised by the chairman of the Board of Works of the said provincial district. Mr. MACANDREW also gave notice to move, while in committee on Abolition of Provinces Bill, that the following words be added at the end of section 9 :—Provided always, all duties and functions which immediately before the date of abolition hereunder of the province of Otago, were under or by virtue of the Otago Education Ordinance vested in or to be exercised or performed by the Superintendent of the said province, shall on the day of the date of the abolition of the said province, vest in and be exercised and performed by the chairman of the Otago Board of Education, and all property vested in the Superintendent in trust for, and all reserves and endowments set apart for educational purposes in the said province of Otago shall be, and the same are hereby vested in the Otago Board of Education, and the persons at present members of such Board shall be and continue to be the Board of Education of the said province, anything in this Act contained to the contrary notwithstanding, until an Act has been passed providing for the constitution of a new Education Board for Otago. QUESTIONS. In answer to Mr. McGillivrat, who asked whether .the Government will carry out the improvements in the harbor of Riverton, recommended in the report of the Engineer-iu-Chief, The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said he thought that after the report of the engineer that the Harbor Board would have undertaken the work. In answer to Mr. MacaNDREW, who asked the Minister for Immigration what steps, if any, it is proposed to take in reference to the claims of immigrants who have paid their passage to the colony, under the impression that they would be placed in possession of land to the value of £2O each, but who have inadvertently failed to obtain the certificate of the Agent-General, as provided by the Immigrants Land Act, 1873. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the question was surrounded with difficulties, hut in a few days he would make a statement* which would give full information on the subject. OAMABU AND TOWN HALL BILL. This Bill was read a first time. QUESTIONS OP PRIVILEGE. Mr. O’CONOR, pursuant to notice, drew the attention of the House to the alleged breach of privilege on Friday evening. He related the circumstances of the case at some length, and said he considered all members of the House were upon the same footing, and distinctions should not be made by the Speaker. If his premises were wrong, then he should like to see the House classify the members, so that in the future each member

would know exactly what was his position. He then complained of the manner in which the Speaker had qualified the conduct of himself (Mr. O’Conor) and the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Murray). The Speaker had told them they should not address him in such a manner again, and had made other remarks of a nature calculated to reflect very seriously upon the honor of members of that House. For himself, he would say he had acted under the conviction that he was doing what was right; but if he had acted wrongly he was very sorry for it. He did not propose to take any further steps, leaving the matter in the hands of the House. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON said he had reason to believe that the Hon. the Speaker had not heard the request for an adjournment, which it afterwards turned out had been made by the hon. member for Tuapeka. He (Mr. Richardson) was in conversation with the Speaker, and when the hon. member stopped the Speaker had asked him (Mr. Richardson) the cause of the stoppage, to which he had replied, “ Lthink he has lost his notes.” He was quite satisfied that the Speaker had not heard the request for an adjournment. rThe SPEAKER said he was placed in a very undesirable position. The fact was, he had not heard the request for an adjournment come from the hon. member, but, hearing a cry in the House for adjournment, had in accordance with usual practice declined to accede to it, saying the hon. member must finish his speech first. He had been accused of favoritism because he had raised the question of distinction. Before going any further, he would say that, although in an assembly like that members stood in an equal position, it must be conceded that prominent members such as Ministers, or leading member of her Majesty’s Opposition, such as the hon. member for the Hutt undoubtedly was, were always allowed considerable latitude and indulgence ; but putting this aside, and passing on to the merits of the cases, it would be remembered that the hon. member for the Hutt had commenced to speak at 7.30 and had continued till after ten, when he sent the hon. member for Wairafapa to request an adjournment—a request that was at once acceded to. In the other case the hon. member had commenced to speak at twenty-five minutes past nine, and continued till half-past ten (oh, oh) although some hon. members had made it after eleven—and no request ’ for an adjournment had been sent. Therefore,, the cases were widely different. The Speaker then referred to the desirableness of members being careful how they imputed partiality to a Speaker. Ho doubt every member had a right to question or challenge a ruling, but it was their duty at all times to construe the conduct of the Speaker as favorably as possible, instead of upon the slightest pretence imputing partiality, because such a charge, if true, at once showed him to be unfitted for the position. Sir DONALD McLEAN defended the Speaker. The hon. member for Tupeka (Mr. Brown) asserted it was after 11 when he asked for an adjournment. Mr. Murray supported Mr. O’Connor and Mr. Brown, after which the matter dropped. Mr. ORMOND said he had since Friday obtained proof-slips of his speech, as reported by Hansard staff, and found that he had not applied the word “rotten” to the people of Auckland, but merely to the system by which they were governed. As the hon. member for Auckland City West, who was not present during the delivery of the speech, had made an incorrect charge against him, and was responsible for the injury done him by the publication of a charge of having used words which had never fallen from him, it rested with the hon. member for Auckland Citv West to make reparation by expressing re fret for having been guilty of misrepresentation.

There being no movement on the part of Sir George Grey, ill-. BOLLESTON then raised another question of privilege as to whether the Government should not place upon the table of the House the opinion given, by the SolicitorGeneral as to the liability o'/the hon. member for Franklin to forfeit-his-aeat under the provisions of the Disqualification Act, because of his connection with the land transactions in Auckland. He said he did not raise the question so much because of this individual case, but because there were several members of both branches of the Legislature who were similarly mixed up in these transactions. The House was then addressed by Sir Donald McLean (who said that the SolicitorGeneral had not yet given his opinion decidedly, because he had not had the whole of the facts before him, in consequence of the non-arrival from Auckland of the papers, and that even supposing they had the Government had not thought it desirable to place the opinion on the table) ; Mr. Sheehan (who thought the House had a right to demand the opinion) ; the Hon. Mr. Bowen (who said English precedent justified the Government in merely giving the substance of the opinion and refusing to place the opinion itself on the table, because of the inconvenience, and because the law of officers reported not for the House but for the advice of the Government, which advice the Government acted upon, and for which action they were responsible to the House) ; Sir George Grey (who supported the proposition) ; The Hon. Major Atkinson (who considered the Government really had nothing to do with the matter, because it was not their affair to see what member should sit or who should not sit), a contention which the Speaker agreed with ; Mr. Stout (who pointed out that if the House had to deal with the matter it should have the opinion before it), and the matter then dropped. the abolition bill. Order of the day Ho. 1 was then called on. “ A committee of the whole House to consider the Governor’s message No. 2, and the appropriation clauses of the Abolition of Provinces Bill.” The House having gone into committee. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said he had reason to believe that a feeling prevailed in the House that this matter ought to be treated that day simply as a formal question, giving members a little time before actual discussion on the merits of the Bill should be taken. The Government were quite willing to agree to this. He them moved a formal motion on the understanding that no discussion on the details of the measure would be taken. Mr. BEID had not been aware of the intention of the Government, but was glad to get time. He took the opportunity of regrettin" that a return promised had not been furnished to members, although it had been published in the newspaper, and he hoped they would get it early, because it was necessary to have this information before they proceeded to the discussion. The other evening a statement of the Hon. the Treasurer had caused some little merriment in the House, and he must himself confess to some little exhilaration at the prospect held out of the large sum which the provinces were to gain by abolition. The Hon. the Treasurer had challenged any one to say his figures were not correct, and he (Mr. Keid) utilising the limited time at his disposal had gone through the figures. But as they were placed in the return they could not be proved or disproved. It appeared that there was an enormous sum of money which the Government were prepared to distribute if the provinces were abolished, but really he could not understand it, for the Colonial Treasurer had not shown from where these large sums were to be derived. Glancing at the return as it appeared in the paper, it seemed the Colonial Treasurer estimated that in Otago, under the present system, there was available for public works a sum of -£163,861 ; but on reference to the estimates of the Otago Provincial Government he found that there was an estimated expenditure for public works, including various grants to road boards, harbor boards, &c., which carried out local public works of £274,450, and there were other discrepancies of a similar nature. He could scarcely believe that the Government would wilfully mislead; yet, when he found it asserted, as was done by this list of figures, that simply by the abolition of provinces, by altering a system, there was to be a sum of £298,302 available for distribution amongst the various provinces, which had not hitherto been available, he could not help thinking that a wrong impression was being

created throughout the colony,_ especially amoni» persons not conversant with its finances. Certainly he thought it was wrong to allow such figures to go forth to public meetings to influence the results of them. He did not believe any increased revenue could arise from the abolition of provinces ; then where could the money come from, or by what juggling could this amount be raised? Had the Government hitherto had an unknown source of revenue ? If so, was it creditable that they should have allowed a province like Auckland to become a public scandal, simply for the want of a little assistance. With regard to the proposed change as it affected Otago, that province would be a considerable loser, for taking into account the fact that only £218,588 was to be available for public works under the new system, while £274,150 now appeared in the provincial estimates to be expended on public works this year, it would be seen that the province would be a loser to the extent of about £33,000. He then referred to the fallacy of borrowing money on exchequer bills while the country was in a prosperous condition. Mr. WOOD said the Opposition were not in a fair position to debate the appropriation clauses, for they were not yet in possession of full information on the financial aspect of the question. After alluding to the effect the proposal would have upon Otago, he proceeded to refer to Auckland. The Treasurer had estimated that if the present system were continued there would be a deficit of £20,000, while under the proposed system there would be an available balance of £60,000, or a gross saving of about £BO,OOO. Now, he ■would like to know how such a thing could be done. Was it possible that the mere fact of abolishing one form of government and setting up a more expensive one could do this ? From whence had the Hon. the Treasurer got his estimate of £45,000. If the hon. member looked at the provincial accounts he would see that there had not been £BOO derived from the land during the past year, and during the past three years, but £2OOO had been received. The Treasurer might as well have estimated £IOO,OOO, or a million. He (Mr. Wood) had endeavored to get at the bottom of the matter, but confessed that although he had spent hours in the endeavor he could not see where this revenue was to come from. He trusted the Treasurer would give fuller information, and show where the money was to come from. The Hon. Major ATKINSON said the Government had at all times been ready to give the fullest information, and were desirous of the fullest discussion. Therefore he should have great pleasure in answering the speeches they had just heard ; for although a certain amount of unnecessary warmth had been imported into the matter, the demands for further information were quite reasonable. The Government had never pretended to have an unknown mine of wealth in the country, or that they had any secret source of revenue, as hon. gentlemen on the opposite side appeared to think ; but the real pith of the Government pretensions was, as he had said in his financial statement, “ that the revenues of the colony are amply sufficient to meet all its liabilities, and provide efficient Government. Yet the experience of the last twenty years has shown that with the present provincial Constitution it has been practically impossible for the General Assembly to distribute the revenue equitably so as to meet the requirements of the people.” That was the whole groundwork of the proposal of the Government. They did not depend upon the mere savings from the abolition of the provincial executive and legislative offices. As to whether there would be saving or not differences of opinion existed. His friend the Superintendent of Nelson believed there would be no saving ; but although the Government thought there would be, they did not depend upon that. The revenues of the colony were quite sufficient to do all that was required, and had been sufficient in the past, if properly distributed ; but that was just where they had failed. A proper division had not been made, and there could never be proper Government of the country while these provincial institutions existed, and the achievement of a proper system of Government was all the Ministry claimed for their proposal. The revenue would not be actually increased but it would be better distributed ; and if the hon. member for Taieri and the hon. member for Parnell would condescend to look into the matter they would see that such was the case. With reference to the remarks of the formergentleman as to discrepancies between his (Major Atkinson’s) figures and those contained in the provincial estimates of Otago, he could only say the figures used had been carefully copied from the Otago Appropriation Acts. From these it appeared that the provincial revenue was estimated at £540,042, in which sum was included £60,000 which the Provincial Government proposed to borrow from the General Assembly; also £24,000 to repay a loan falling due in October, which it was proposed to borrow on Treasury bills ; so that the hon. member could scarcely complain of the Government issuing Treasury bills to enable the province to cany on, when the Otao-o Provincial Government in a single year were going to borrow £84,000. In addition to this £549,000 there was the capitation allowance, £77,568, bringing up the total revenue to £626,610. The figures come from the Appropriation Act, and must, or ought to be, correct. The expenditure seemed to be made up as follows : —Provincial departments and services, £112,895 ; education, £59,526 ; land surveys and reclamation, £90,671 ; working expenses of railways, £71,145. Mr. REID : We have beard about these figures. They are all wrong. The Hon. Major ATKINSON ; They came from the Otago Council Appropriation Act. Mr. REID : They are incorrect. The Hon. Major ATKINSON : Then we will say subject to correction. Interest on provincial loans, £90,109 ; interest on railways, £38,401 ; total expenditure, £462,746. The revenue was £626,610, leaving a balance and fie would particularly call the attention of the House to the fact—of £163,864. The figures were susceptible of proof or disproof, but according to the estimates of the Provincial Council there was but this sum available for public works. Under the proposed system there was a total estimated revenue of £535,042 after a sum of £14,000 taken ever by the colony. From the Consolidated Revenue would be paid £138,492, giving a total revenue of £673,534, and as the expenditure for ordinary services, interest on loans, &c., was placed at £464,946, there would be an available balance of £218,885. This showed there would be a great gain to Otago ; but even if there was not, that was scarcely an argument against the measure, as all the figures ought to be looked at, to see if, on the whole, abolition would not be best for the colony. The hon. member had said that now the colony was prosperous it was a very bad thing to go on borrowing. Well, there was much to be said on both sides. Hitherto it had been the policy of the Parliament to borrow while prosperous, in order to become more prosperous. That might have been a wise policy, or it might not, but the question was what was to be done with such provinces as Auckland and Westland. The House might be told it should give a special allowance to such provinces; but they knew that such a system would not work well—it would be impracticable, because it was a noticeable fact in Parliamentary Government that if one district got anything, other districts would immediately call out for something as well. The Government had, therefore, felt it desirable to change the system altogether, and instead of doling out irregular sums, fix a yearly amount, and thus remedy the faulty system of distribution which had hitherto obtained. With reference to Auckland, the hon. member for Parnell would see that the land revenue was proposed to be derived from confiscated lands, and there could be no doubt whatever that the sura of £45,000 would be very easily obtained, for Auckland would shortly have a very fanland fund. The estimate had been made by officers of the Government in connection with the confiscated lands, quite irrespective of the question of abolition, for these gentlemen knew nothing about the nature of the Government proposals of th t date. There had been no jugglisg in the matter at all, and the Government estimate of £48,000 would bo found to be perfectly

correct. With regard to the objection against Treasury bills, bn behalf of the Government he would say that if hon. gentleman opposite had any better scheme, the Government would be vary glad to receive suggestions ; and members making such suggestions might rest assured that they would receive the most careful consideration. But, so far as they knew, it seemed to the Government that the proposition was perfectly reasonable, and that the land funds of various provinces should be equalised year after year by the issue of Treasury bills, because, in time to come, no doubt the province so assisted would take up the bills. But looking at the matter in another light, he still thought the proposal justifiable. Supposing . the provinces never repaid the amounts, there would be but little difference in the end. It would be admitted on all sides that provision must be made for Auckland ; and surely it was better to do so upon some distinct system than in an irregular and unsystematic manner. He was willing to give every information, and would place additional details upon the table. Mr. STOUT asked for details of the proposed grants in Otago. Mr. WOOD asked for details of the estimate of £45,000 land revenue to be ceived, which the Colonial Treasurer promised to give. Sir GEORGE GREY asked that the officers reports upon which the estimate had been based might be placed upon the table, and proceeded to make remarks reflecting upon the skill of officers who had been engaged in valuing lands, and expressed doubts as to whether the estimate could be realised. Mr. GEORGE McLEAN said the hon. member was continually making rash statements which it would be exceeding difficult to justify, and which sometimes showed that the hon. gentleman allowed himself to be led astray by the warmth of the moment. The hon. member said the land was not worth much, and would not yield a revenue of £48,000. But a short time since in a pamphlet he had said almost every acre might be so improved as to support a large number of sheep, perhaps two or three to the acre. (Cheers.) In opening the Provincial Council on May 10 of this year he had said there were not more than 2696 acres of agricultural land in the province, though according a previous statement there was a large quantity of land capable of being made to carry two or three sheep per acre. Sir F. D. BELL expressed himself as opposed to the dealing with the financial part of the Bill this session. It might be very well to agree to the abolition of the provinces but it would be best to go no further, for he believed firmly and had always believed that when a change in the Constitution came there must be a revision of the taxation of the country, so that the burdens on the necessaries of life should give way to a certain extent for the imposition of burdens upon the property of the country (cheers) and there must also be some arrangement, made by which the land fund of the colony would be secured to local bodies and placed beyond the interference of the General Assembly, (Cheers.) This idea had been impressed upon his mind ever since the inauguration of the public works scheme, of which he had been a supporter from the first, for he had seen that with the progression of that policy difficulties would arise and the land fund would be looked to. With theincidence of taxation a new Parliament must deal, and also with the conservation of the land fund, and under such circumstances it would, in his opinion, be unwise to meddle with finances this session. When they came to deal with details, it would be found that the House would be taken into such a wide discussion that the financial proposals would have to give way. He had indicated his views at the first opportunity. The resolution was then agreed to, and the House resumed, and adjourned at 5.30.; At the evening sitting, It was decided to resume the consideration of the Abolition Bill in committee of the whole House on Thursday next at half-past seven o’clock. BILLS. The Timaru Corporation Waterworks Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed on Wednesday next. The second reading of the Highway Boards Empowering Act Amendment Bill was made an order of the day for Wednesday next. The House went into committee on the Nelson City Loan Bill which was considered, reported, read a third time and passed. Leave was given to bring in a Bill to provide for compensation in land to certain tramway owners in the province of Westland. Mr. MACANDEEW moved the second reading of the Highway Boards Empowering Act 1871 Amendment Bill. The Hawke’s Bay Volunteer Bill and Anatomy Bill—one to be committed, and the other to be read a second time —were made orders of the day for that day week. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON moved the second reading of the Municipal Corporation Act Amendment Bill, for the simplification of the working of municipal bodies. After some discussion, in which Messrs. Harrison, Sheppard, Sheehan, Stout, and Andrew took part, the Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow (this day) week. BRANCH RAILWAYS BILL. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON moved the second reading of the Private Companies Branch Railways Bill. Mr. MACANDREW said he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, as it was a Government measure, and to do so would be too much like insanely beating the air ; but he could not refrain from expressing the opinion that the Bill would, if passed, have the effect of putting a stop to the construction of railways by private companies. In his opinion the title of the Bill should have been to discourage private companies from railway enterprise. It was an instance more of that class of legislation which had for its object the placing of increased power in the hands of the Governor, or in other words, in the hands of Ministers. Mr. SHEPHARD did not agree with the hon. member for Port Chalmers, and thought that the Bill was, if anything, too liberal. Mr. SHEEHAN would support the Bill in so far as he approved of the principle of encouraging private enterprise ; but he objected to it being patched up with Imperial law. He also objected to the clause giving power to appropriate reserve ground. Public reserves should be placed on the same footing as private property. Mr. FITZHERBERT opposed the Bill, which he said meddled too much with the practical working. He specially referred to clause 13, giving power to the Governor from time to time to alter and revoke regulations. Mr. J. E. BROWN supported the Bill. ' Mr. BRADSHAW was of opinion that the Bill was calculated to discourage enterprise. Mr. PYKE looked upon the Bill as conferring a boon, and spoke at some length in supporting it. Mr. STOUT apprehended that the Bill empowered the Government of the day to give a monopoly how and where they pleased, which he contended was a very dangerous power to place in the hands of any Ministry. Mr. DONALD REID concurred in the remarks of the hon member for Caversham. The Bill placed too much power in the hands of the Minister for Railways, and it was thought eminently probable that the present Minister would shortly be replaced by another. They might have Ministers there with very strong prejudices. He should oppose the Bill. Mr. KELLY did not apprehend any disastrous effects from the exercise of the powers vested in Ministers. Mr. PEARCE approved of the controlling power of the Bill, but with regard to its general terms was of opinion that it might bo largely improved in committee. Mr. Bcckland and Mr. Harris supported the Bill. The Hon. Mr. RICHARDSON was gratified at the support the Bill had received, having expected a larger opposition. He then referred to the objections raised, and said as to clause 13, that he should be quite willing to have a maximim rate fixed for tolls and charges. On the question being put and declared ' carried on the voices,

Mr. STOUT demanded a division. The second reading was carried by 43 to 12. ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH BILL. Mr. REYNOLDS moved the second reading of the Electric Telegraph Bill, a bill to consolidate previous Acts. It- was read a second time. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS BILL. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN moved the second reading of the Debtors and Creditors Bill, and o-ave a brief outline of its provisions. The main object of any law of this sort was to divide as speedily and fairly as possible the estate of the insolvent debtor among his creditors, and that a majority of creditors should determine how far the court should interfere between creditors and debtor. Then in the proposed law a distinction was made between the honest and dishonest creditor. Provision was also made for liability of afteracquired property. Notwithstanding the order of discharge, after-acquired property of the debtor shall remain liable in respect of debts, claims, and demands provable under the liqui- ' datiou. He felt that if the second reading were passed and the Bill went into committee, there were many hon. members who would be able to render valuable assistance in considering the Bill. Mr. SHEEHAN moved the adjournment of the debate, on the ground that hon. members had not a sufficient acquaintance with its provisions to permit of them coming sion as to its merits. “ The Hon. Mr. BOWEN agreed to this course. Mr. STOUT suggested that the Bill should be referred to a small committee of mercantile gentlemen. He might say that the Bill appeared to be carefully drawn ; but there was one point in it with which he disagreed, viz., regarding the summoning of meetings of creditors, which was always a source of delay. He maintained that when a man was unable to pay his debts, his estate should be at once vested in some trustee, who should have power to step in and take possession. Mr. LUCKIE differed from the hon. member for Caversham. He thought one of the defects of the Bill was the calling into existof legal machinery. Mr. HUNTER could see no necessity for delaying the consideration of the Bill, since it was generally admitted that a change in the law was necessary. After some further discussion the debate was adjourned. FRAUDULENT DFJ3TORS BILL. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN would consent to the postponement of this Bill, which was supplementary to the Bill proceeding. Mr. PYKE would suggest that whenever the Bill should be considered, the Minister of Justice should consent to the Bill being made to operate in the same way as the ordinary criminal law of the country, that was that the onus of proof should be on the accuser, and not on the accused. The consideration of the Bill was then postponed. ANN HOOD GRANT BILL. The above Bill passed through committee in all its stages. The House then adjourned at 12 o'clock.