PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4535, 2 October 1875, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

LEGISLATIVE COUV^' . _.Oi.Li, _ xu day, October 1. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at two o’clock. AN EXPLANATION. The Hon. Mr. HART said he wished tomake a remark upon a statement made yesterday, on the motion of the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse, which affected the Native Minister. The report in that morning’s paper conveyed a very fair account of what took place, aud that report he would read. [Report read.] From that a very indefinite impression was left upon the mind with reference to the action of the Native Minister. He (Mr. Hart) was simply authorised to state that since entering the Ministry or at any other time the Native Minister had never either directly or indirectly trafficed with native land, except under Crown grant. He might further state that the Native Minister had endeavored to prevent persons dealing with the natives in land. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE said the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse had called forth the statement made by him (the speaker). The Hon. Mr. Waterhouse having said that he believed the Government were not privately concerned in any of these transactions, he (Colonel Whitmore) had stated that from bis own knowledge the Government did possess certain lands ; and upon being asked by the Premier to give particulars, he had stated that the Native Minister had acquired land since his accession to office. He had strictly confined himself to the truth, and had made no charge upon the Native Minister of having impeded the settlement of the country. He thought that was the wrong place for the hon. gentleman to make such a defence. If the hon. gentleman’s feelings were hurt, he should have replied at the time the offending remarks were made. The Hon. Mr. HART said what he complained of was that any one reading the report in that morning’s paper, and hearing the remarks made thereon, must conceive a very different idea of the circumstances of the case than from what the hon. gentleman had just stated. The Hon. the SPEAKER said he had listened very attentively to the debate of the day before on the Land question, and failed to see that any of the remarks made had pointed to any individual member of the Government, until the hon. the Premier had asked Colonel Whitmore to name some one. He thought that there were really no offensive personal remarks in the case. PAPERS. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN laid on the table a number of papers. NOTICES OF MOTION. Notices of motion were given by the Hon. Dr. Pollen aud the Hon. Mr. Bussell. WESTPORT RESERVE BILL. On the motion of the Hon. Mr. Edwards, the Westport Municipal Reserves Bill was read a first time. . . A NATIVE PETITION. The Hon. Mr. NAGTATA moved that the Council agree with the recommendation of the Public Petitions Committee with respect to the petition of Matiaha Mokai, and request that the Government might take the necessary steps to carry out the recommendation. The petition was read, and the recommendation of the committee was agreed to. MR. BUSSELL AND THE PIAKO LANDS. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE moved that a select committee be appointed to examine into, and report upon, the circumstances under which a certificate of title was issued to Mr. Thomas Russell, for lands at the Piako. The committee to consist of the Hons. Dr. Pollen, Messrs. Buckley, Holmes, Acland, Stokes, Hart, and the mover. The motion was agreed to, being first amended in the third line by inserting “ now held by Mr. Thomas Russell” after the word Piako, and by omitting all the words between “issued” and “ for” in the same line. WELLINGTON RIVERS BILL. In moving the second reading of this Bill, the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse stated that the River Waiohine having encroached on the township of Greytown, immediate steps to secure the property of the inhabitants were necessary, and this Bill had that object in view. A copy of the Bill had been sent to those more immediately interested, and no doubt amendments would be suggested, as the Bill being in most respects a transcript of the Canterbury Rivers Bill, some of the provisions might appear arbitrary. But he hoped the Council would not consider it necessary to wait until any suggestions for alteration should reach them, inasmuch as the matter was one of pressing necessity. The Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed presently. MARINE ACT AMENDMENT BILL. In moving the second reading of the Marine Act Amendment Bill, the Hon. Dr. Pollen stated that it had frequently been found necessary to enlarge the limits of a port, and the present Bill gave power to define the limits of any ports. The second object of the Bill was to provide for the removal of obstructions caused by sunken vessels. The other amendment would he found in the 6th clause of the Bill, giving harbor boards of the smaller ports power to impose rates on goods exported and i mported. The Hon. Mr. HOLMES objected to the power of levying rates being entrusted to the harbor boards, as they would be liable to use their power to the prejudice of the shipping interest. Ho held that the dues imposed should he only sufficient to cover the outlay. He hoped the Council would never be a party to a tariff calculated to prevent the free interchange of commodities, and the developement of trade. Mr. Holmes also drew attention to the manner of stowing powder in ships from Great Britain, and read a letter which appeared in the Otago

Daily Times, with reference to the careless mode of stowing powder. He recommended that, as well as the first subject he had touched upon, to the earnest consideration of his hon. friend the Premier. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE thought the Bill went in the direction of over legislation, especially as it applied to castaway vessels which obstructed the sea road. By making HaV’e the person who had by an unfortunate circumstance lost his vessel, the effect ■would be to deter people from speculating in shipping. He also looked upon the 6th clause as objectionable, and trusted the Premier would not hurry the Bill through, in order that the great importance of the proposed alterations might be fully considered. ... The Hon. Dr. POLLEN said he agreed with Mr Holmes that the smallest possible restrictions should be placed on trade, but freedom of trade and convenience of trade were terms nearly allied, and persons in the shipping trade were quite -willing to pay for the accommodation they received in consideration of port charges. As to Mr. Waterhouse’s objection to the provision of castaway vessels, he considered it would be most unreasonable to suppose that the Government of the country should be responsible for the consequences of the carelessness of shipowners or their officers. With reference to the question to which Mr. Holmes had drawn attention, namely, the stowage of gunpowder, he regretted that great carelessness prevailedinthisrespect; andapaper on the subject was now before the Lower House. The second reading of the Bill was then carried, and on the motion of Mr. Holmes, it was referred to a select commu-tee. HIGHWAY BOARDS EMPOWERING ACT. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN moved the second reading of the Highway Boards Empowering Act Amendment Bill. The first clause of the Bill provided for increasing the rating power; and the last for raising money for certain special purposes, such as gas lighting, a power which at the present time was not held by highway boards. After some discussion, the Bill was read a second time. WELLINGTON TOLLGATES BILL. On the second reading of this Bill called on, • ' j.ne Hon, ifr. WATERHOUSE stated that the petition with reference to it being still under the consideration of the Public Petitions Committee, it would be advisable to postpone the order of the day until Tuesday next, when the committee would have reported. This was agreed to, and the Bill was postponed accordingly. CLYDE WATERWORKS BILL. This Bill was read a second time, on the motion of the Hon. Mr. Holmes, MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL. The Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill was read a second time. OTAGO WASTE LANDS BILL. On the motion that the Otago Waste Lands Bill be read a third time, The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE said he could not permit the Bill to pass without referring to a statement made in the public press that this Council had, by the Bth clause, given facilities for the acquisition of land by capitalists. A most extraordinary delusion had got abroad that the principle of selection referred to in clause 8 was some new provision ntrodnced into the Otago Waste Lands Act. It was, however, no such thing. A principle of free selection existed in Otago at the present time, and the proposal of the Bill was that capitalists should not be enabled to purchase the land at £1 per acre, as they could now, but at £2 per acre. In fact, the action of the Council had been exactly contrary to that which had been alleged in the Press. The Hon. Mr. HOLMES concurred in the remarks of the last speaker. The course sued by the Council with reference to the waste lands of Otago was in strict conformity with the wishes of all those who had the interest of the province of Otago at heart. The Hon. Mr. MILLER was glad to see that Mr. Waterhouse had called the attention of the Council to an important matter, and . proceeded to remark upon the question already discussed on the second reading and in committee. There could be no doubt that the increase in the price of the land would prove to be of considerable advantage to the poorer classes, or those who immigrated to the colony. The Hon. Colonel KENNY rose to a point of" order. He thought it a most unusual course for hon. members to enter into a discussion of details considered in committee, and with reference to what had fallen from Mr. Waterhouse, opined that it was a most unwise proceeding to take notice of anything that might appear in the public press. He deprecated such a proceeding. H that were permitted, the Council might be converted into an arena for debating any question which the editor of a newspaper might choose to raise. The Hon. Mr. MILLER would point out to the hon. gentleman that one of the greatest privileges of Parliament was freedom of discussion, and he was therefore quite out of order n endeavoring to stop discussion. The Hon. Mr. MENZIES rather rejoiced that the preceding discussion had given him an opportunity of saying a few words. As the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse received more attention at the hands of the Press than those of any other member, perhaps it was natural that he should desire to set himself right in the eyes of the public ; but he quite disagreed with him as to the effect which the Bill would have upon settlement. Mr. Menzies then went into the question at some length. The Bill was read a third time, and passed.

IS COMMITTEE. The Hon. the SPEAKER left the chair, and the Council went into committee on the ■various Bills read a second time during the day’s sitting. The Hon. the SPEAKER having resumed his seat, the Wellington Rivers Bill was reported with amendment. The Highway Board Empowering Act Amendment Bill was reported with amendment, and the third reading made an order of the day for Tuesday. The Municipal Corporations Bill was reported with amendment, and the third reading made an order of the day for Tuesday. The Christchurch Drainage, Bill was reported, and the third reading made an order of the day for Tuesday. GOLDFIELDS AMENDMENT BILL. Order of the day No. 10.—Adjourned debate on the consideration of message from the House of Representatives re the amendments in Goldfields Act proposed by the Council. The debate was adjourned till Tuesday next. The Council adjourned at 9 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Friday, October 1. The Speaker took the chair at half-past two o’clock. PETITION. Sir GEORGE GREY presented a petition frcm the proprietors of the Auckland Evening Star newspaper, asking that the telegraph wire might be available to them on the same terms as it is to morning papers. The SPEAKER ruled that as the petition was on a printed form it could not be received. The petition was laid upon the table. NEW BILLS. Bills were introduced as follows : —By the Hon. Mr. Reynolds, the Outram Telegraph Station Bill ; by Mr. Fyke, a Bill to enable the Corporation of the City of Dunedin to Amend its Form of Security for the Repayment of Moneys raised on Loan, and to further Extend the Borrowing Powers of the Corporation ; by the Hon. Mr. Bowen, New Zealand University Reserves Bill; by the Hon. Mr. Richardson, a Bill to Amend the Wellington Reclaimed Land Act, 1871; by Mr. Wakefield, Lodgers Enfranchisement Bill. NEGLECTED CHILDREN BILL. The object of this Bill is to slightly amend the Neglected Children’s Act, 1873. It was passed through committee, read a third time, and passed.FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was passed.

EVIDENCE FURTHER AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill was considered in committee. Mr. CURTIS moved a new clause, enabling the presiding Judge at a trial to ask questions (under restrictions) of a prisoner on his trial. He did not desire to place a prisoner at the mercy of a cross-examining counsel, but merely to allow a Judge to ask a question if he thought proper. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN, while fully sympathising with the object of the hon. member, said the Government could not undertake the responsibility of introducing so radical a change in the law of evidence without further consideration. Mr. SHEEHAN trusted no such change would be made till the matter had been fully considered, and the Judges had expressed an opinion on the subject. Mr. CURTIS withdrew his motion, and the Bill was passed, the hon. Mr. Bowen undertaking to introduce another Bill to deal with the subject of affidavits taken in places out of the colony. SECOND READING. The Riddle Land Grant Bill, and the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Bill, were read a second time. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS BILL. Mr. HUNTER resumed the debate, and trusted that the Bill would be allowed to go into committee, for although it might not be a perfect Bill, any step in the direction of a change of the present law was desirable, and the measure might be improved. Mr. CURTIS was opposed to the loading principles of the Bill, and having criticised the provisions of the measure at s une length, announced his intention of opposing the second reading. Mr. SWANSON supported the Bill, particularly the clause that rendered property gained after insolvency liable to former debts. Mr. WAKEFIELD opposed the second reading, on the ground that the measure was a creditors’ Bill, instead of a debtor and creditor’s Bill. It was a harsh measure, and would treat the honest and fraudulent debtor alike. 1

Mr. SHEEHAN should vote ' cond read'"~ ' •• lor se " out trusted the Government would not go further with the Bill this session. Some of the proposals he did not agree with—that with respect to after liability he thought one of the most monstrous proposals ever made ; it was reverting to the condition of affairs of 150 years ago. Debtors would be made very Shy locks, who would insist upon the “pound of flesh.” The laws of Draco had been said to have been written in blood, and this measure was a Draconian measure, and would be a disgrace to the Statute book if these clauses were retained. Most of the insolvencies in the colony were honest insolvencies, and to punish innocent men for the sake of the rascality of a few would be unjust. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN said the Bill had been much misapprehended, and although it might require amendment, yet he thought it would be an acceptable measure to the country generally. He did not mean to say that it was perfection ; it was impossible to change the principle of a law without some little hitch occurring ; but a change must be made in the present law, which was based upon an entirely wrong principle. He defended the proposition that court work should be done away with as much as possible, and more left to be settled as between man and man. He defended the clauses relative to after liability, but said if the House were averse to them he would consent to strike them out in committee. The Government would press the Bill on, and if it were thrown out the House must bear the responsibility, and not the Government. However, he hoped the House would not reject it. On a division, the second reading was carried by 33 to 24. Mr. PYKE moved an amendment to the second clause, that the Bill come into operation in the year 1975, and called for a division, which resulted in the amendment being negatived by 28 to 13. Twenty clauses were passed with slight amendments, and the committee then reported progress. The Bills of Sale Bill and Stamp Duties Bill passed through committee. Clauses relating to the payment of stamp duty on appointments to and grants of office or employment were struck out; also, at the suggestion of Mr. Stafford, clause 89, respecting mortgages.—A discussion took place as to the advisableness of retaining the stamp duty upon sea insurance policies.—Mr. Pearce and Mr. Hunter contended that the effect of the tax was to drive business out of the country.—Mr. Sheehan said it was desirable to foster the shipping and shipbuilding interest; but that would not be done by retaining an oppressive tax upon owners of vessels, for after all the tax came not from the insurance companies, but from the owners.—■ Mr. Bowen said all stamp duties were undesirable, and if possible the Government would get rid of them. However, with reference to this particular tax, he did not think it more unjust or oppressive than others. If the Government could discover that the revenue derived from it was small and that it had a harassing and oppressive effect upon a certain class of the community, they would strike it out, but they had not discovered such to be the case, and therefore hoped the committee would retain it.—The clause was agreed to; but a clause relating to a stamp on reinsurance policies was postponed in order to allow the Government time to consider the matter. —Clause 100, providing that policies should not be stamped after being made, was carried -with amendment after a short discussion on a suggestion made by Mr. Pearce, who pointed out that it might have a prejudicial effect on the system of open policies. —On reaching clause 107 the committee agreed to report progress. The Bills of Sale Bill was then reported, read a third time, and passed. REPRESENTATION BILL. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN moved the second reading of the Bill, and after a few preliminary observations, said the Government had had under its consideration for some time past the redistribution of electorates, but after mature consideration had come to the conclusion, not to attempt to do it at the present juncture. The reasons which had induced them to arrive at that conclusion were obvious, and he would explain them presently. They, however, recognised the necessity for such a change as soon as possible. Returns had been obtained from the Crown Lands and Immigration departments, in addition to the returns which had been obtained at the last census, in order that full information might be before them; and after considering these returns, they had determined to recommend to the House that wherever the increased population warranted an increase in the number of representatives of a district or the creation of additional electorates, such increased representation should be given, in order to remedy the grave irregularities which existed, without attempting at the present time to redistribute the electorates. That proposition involved additions to the number of representatives in that House, and in connection with that question he had heard it stated in many jdaces that it was not advisable to increase the number of members, but it would rather be advantageous to diminish the number. (Hear, hear.) Now, he did not hold with that view at all. On the contrary, he thought that the larger the representation could be conveniently made, the better would the representation be. He did not think at all that the question of the number of representatives in the House ought to be looked at from the mere point of the number of the inhabitants of a country, and the representation ought to be small or great according to the large or small extent of population. The only limit to the representative body in the State should be the limit imposed on the ground of the expense of the increase, or insufficient facilities afforded for the meeting of members— that was the size of the Assembly room in which they were compelled to meet. A reference to the origin of representative government confirmed his view of the matter. The real origin was government by the freeholders of the land. At first all freemen assembled to use their voices in the malting of laws for the people, but subsequently, when the freemen became too numerous for such assembling of all, then as many as was found convenient met. Thus numbers were reduced

as convenience dictated, but the principle remained the same, and out of this grew up present representative institutions, and it became necessary to select men who were to form the representative body. If there was a community where there were only one hundred men of a suitable age to make laws for the people, then he presumed that the best form of Government for that community would be for the whole of the hundred men to assemble. But that could not be done in this country—all could not assemble; then the next best thing would be to call together as many as possible, and it seemed to him that this principle should be particularly cherished now that Provincial Councils were to meet no longer —(no, no) —and it became still more important than ever that representation should be increased to the fullest possible extent, the Government recognising that, proposed to add to the number of the representatives. This course would not materially add to the expense, for all covdd meet within that room at ijo extraordinary cost. He took it that these limits were the only limits which should be imposed on the number of the representatives of the people. He was in favor of larger assemblies, further, because under such a system there was less prospect of undue influence being brought to bear upon any matter, and there would be a better opportunity of measures being considered purely upon their merits than was the case in small assemblies. The proposal of the Government was merely for the present, and was intended to continue only until they had had an opportunity of making a thorough division of the electorates. The Government recognised that it was their duty for administrative electoral purposes to remedy great injustices where such existed ; and he thought it would be admitted that where the additions were proposed to be made very great injustices and inequalities did exist. They did not propose to give a member to any district which had a less population than 8000 people, for they recognised that population was the great basis upon which they must proceed, In one CAse, however--th?.t Of Napier a member was given because that was the capital j K ' rt; —S, considerable provincial district. All other chief towns had representation, and it was thought but fair to give it to this one. Those were- the proposed additions, but if in committee any member could point out where another member could be given to a particular district with great advantage, the Government would be quite ready to entertain such a suggestion, so long as the hon. gentleman gave notice of his intention, and it was before the Government a reasonable time for consideration. The reasons why the Government had not proposed a general redistribution of seats were first, that the change would have driven off the general election to a very late date ; and secondly, so radical a change should have some consideration at the hands of the people. The next Parliament would be in a far better position to deal with the matter, because, as all would admit, it would not be wise to interfere with districts when they might soon require further altertion. He referred to the alterations which had been made in the electorates of Christchurch and Auckland, and said as the town of Dunedin had been previously so treated, with the consent and great satisfaction of the people of that town, it was thought desirable to make these towns similar, for thus it was believed better representation was to be obtained. The Government did not think it desirable to divide the country into very small electorates, or to make representation too local. It was far better to have two or three members representing one district. He was aware that whatever scheme was brought forward it would not meet with unanimous approval, but trusted that the proposal of the Government, which was intended to remedy existing inequalities, and to give a fair amount of representation to largely populated districts at present inadequately represented, would receive the support of the House. If there was a wish for the adjournment of the debate, the Government were prepared to accede to the desire.

Sir GEORGE GREY said the House had just heard an admirable specimen of a speaker’s power to express ideas totally at variance with those in his mind at the time he was speaking. The hon. gentleman had described as existing in the Bill everything which was not to be found in it, while he had not mentioned a single particular that the Bill really contained. In a speech of the most Radical kind ever heard of he had advocated a Bill containing the most absolute Tory principles which perhaps had ever been established in any part of the world. He had commenced by telling the House that representation should be in proportion to the population of the country, while the very principle of the measure*’was this, that representation, instead of being in proportion to the population, should be so distributed as to meet the views of those who supported the Government. (Cheers.) Let any member look at the return which had been placed in the hands of hon. members, and say whether the object of the Bill was to distribute representation in proportion to the population. Clearly, it was not the object of the Bill. Well then, the House had heard of the most astounding doctrine he had ever known to be maintained in his life, viz., that increased representation meant increased benefits to the people; but there must be a limit to representation, and what was the limit ? Really a wonderful limit. First, that you might increase the members so long as you did not increase the expense—the first limit was expense, and next the capacity of the room in which they were to be seated. . That had been seriously stated. Hon. members might laugh ; but that was the argument seriously used. Because there was room in that chamber to seat a few more, therefore the number of members must be increased ; but when the room was full the limit was reached. The population might increase, but if there was no more room to seat people, the representation could not be increased. (Mr. Bowen : Oh, no.) That was the argument. The extent of representation was to be decided by the size of the room. Then they were told that representation arose in this way : First of all freeholders in the community met to deli 1 erate upon every question ; and so long as the number of freeholders was limited to one hundred, it would be desirable to build a room to accomodate them, but the moment the number passed one hundred, a room was not to be built to accommodate two hundred. No ; one hundred was the limit laid down in philosophical language. Passing on to discuss the Bill, Sir George said representation in this colony was not representation of the people, but representation of property, and the provisions of this measure were merely framed to perpetuate the system. The House had hoped for an entire Bill, drawn with a reference to the population, but nothing of the kind had been done. When he looked into the Bill and saw the representation proposed to be given to the small population of Timaru, ho thought of what: had taken place recently here, and felt sure that after-times would say that there were giants in those days, who ventured upon great tasks, who raised up great burdens which they did not scruple to throw on the backs of the people ; and at last they attempted to roll the great log of Timaru. The hon. gentleman had then gone on to say what he was sorry to hear. He told them that Provincial Councils were no more to meet, and that therefore it was necessary to provide for greater representation here ; and he went on further to say that in a short time—he forgot the precise term used—districts of a peculiar character were to be created, to take the place of those assemblies which were no more to meet. Now, he would tell that hon. gentleman that a new Parliament was to meet, and it was quite possible thatotherpersons than the hon. gentlemen now sitting on the Government benches would have tho control of the country; and they could, therefore, have little power to tell what would be done and what would then take place. Then, coming to the utter fallacy of the language used, they were told repeatedly in the hon, gentleman’s speech that the one great thing contemplated by this Bill, and which it would carry out, was to remedy tho great injustices which now existed with reference to tho question of representation. He (Sir George) had no hesitation in saying that it remedied no injustice, and relieved none of the

inequalities under which certain communities now labored ; but, on the contrary, it imposed other injustices. Why, he would ask, if the object of the Bill was to remedy injustices was not the province of Taranaki thrown into one electoral district ? Bimply becauss Taranaki was very strongly represented in the Government. Why, if the object was to remedy injustice, were three members given to the small district of Napier, which was neither in population nor in any other circumstances entitled to that number, while other parts of the colony were so poorly represented. The Thames district had a population of 11,000, Napier 9000. To the Thames two representatives were given ; and why, he would ask, were three members given to the 9000 people of Napier ? The Hon Major AT KINS ON said there were 13,000 people in Napier. Sir GEORGE GREY : According to the last census the population of Napier was 9031. Of course the hon. gentleman could make what estimates he pleased. Sir George Grey was proceeding on a further comparison of the two districts, when an hon. member interpolated that the Thames, according to the last census, had only 12,000 inhabitants. Well, assuming such to be the case, and that the two districts were populated as stated, what reason was there for giving to the 9000 people three members, and to the 12,000 two members ? Was that to remedy a great injustice ? No ; the reason for this anomaly was that Taranaki was strongly represented in the Government; two of the members from there might be said to be a part of the Government. Therefore, additional representation was given them; and this was also the case with Timai’u. There was no justification whatever for giving an additional member to Napier - . It had been pointedly stated that the reason for doing so was because it was a great provincial district. He denied that Napier was a great provincial district, and the hon. member had no right to say so. He firmly believed that the new Parliament would sweep away provisions of that kind • and to attempt to legislate tipoa a sup* puoxilon was a mistake. Without following the arguments further m detail, Ire might say he was satisfied that the proposed re-distribu-tion of seats, or the division of seats which this Bill proposes to make, was not fair. Many places were left out that were entitled to new members, and some places were to receive additional representation where there were no circumstances entitling them to it. If it were the intention of the Government to relieve great causes of injustive, let that be done properly. He was perfectly certain the Government would not succeed in carrying the proposals which this Bill contained. He might in addition say, that if it were the intention of the Government to try and remedy cases of great injustice ; if they would take from those districts which had more members than they ought to have, one or two members, as the case might be, and place them in a fair position with reference to population; if they would in other cases make a just increase in proportion to the population, then he had no doubt that this House would unanimously assist them in a work of that kind. But to carry out the unjust proposals which this BUI contained he did not believe the House would ever consent to. They would be perpetuating wrongs that already existed, and adding new wrongs to those of which they had already too much reason to complain. Mr. OUTHBERTSON moved the adjournment of the debate till Monday, which was carried on the voices. RESOLUTIONS PHOM COMMITTEE OP SUPPLY. Resolutions were reported from the Committee of Supply, after which, and on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, Mr. O'CONOR proposed that the House adjourn, on the ground that members had been very hard worked of late, aad that they were not in a position to give important matters a proper consideration. .. - Messrs. Gibbs, Reid’ and others opposed the adjournment, and it was decided to proceed. COMMITTEE OP SUPPLY., The House went into committee of supply, for the further consideration of the Estimates. Considerable discussion took place regarding the vote of £24,206 for salaries to European and native officers. Mr. MURRAY proposed that this item be struck off the Estimates. After a lengthy debate, Mr. MURRAY withdrew his amendment, and the item was passed. The remaining items under the head Native (Class 5) were passed :—Native schools, £IO,OOO ; Native Bands Court, £1175 ; Bands Frauds Prevention Act, 1870, £450 ; Wairarapa Five Per Cent. Band Purchase Account, £3OO. Sir GEORGE GREY drew attention to the hour. The majority being'in favor of adjournment, progress was reported. The House adjourned at 12.25.