PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4544, 13 October 1875, Page 3

PARLIAMENT.

legislative council. Tuesday, October 12. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. PAPERS. The Hen. Dr. POLLEN presented reports of officers in native districts. NOTICES. Several members gave notices of motions. THE MAIL CONTRACT. The Hon. Mr, WATERHOUSE asked the Hon. Dr. Pollen whether it was tho intoit on of the Government to introduce into the House of Representatives a Bill to B™^*^ nostal contract entered into by air. lliomas on behalf of the Governmen and certain’other parties in England, or 1 was his (Dr. Pollen’s) intention to bring in a measure there, in order that the Council might stated that so far as he could answer on so short a notice, he understood it was not necessaryAo bring m a Bill to legalise the contract. Ihe voting of ttie money and ratification of the contract by the other House was quite sufficient authority to carry out the contract.

KATIVE LAUD PURCHASES. The Hon. Mr. MANTELL moved that, in the opinion of this Council, the purchase of native lands by the Government should, in due regard for the best interests of the colony, be conducted with the most scrupulous integrity and honor; and that, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Government to exercise the greatest care in the selection of agents for that imporDr. POLLEN expressed himself in favor of the principle contained in the above The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE spoke at some length on the subject of native land purchases in the North Island, and he cited a case within his own experience, in which a man of improper character, and who had been discharged by him in his official capacity on the East Coast, had been employed again by the Native Minister. In conclusion, he suggested that the Government should either throw open the lands again to general purchase, or carry out the system thoroughly, by making it penal to interfere with lauds which the Government were desirous of acquiring. The Hons. Messrs. Waterhouse and Johnson having addressed the Council, Mr. MANTELL replied, and in the course of his remarks dwelt with sorrow on what he had discovered to be the nature of John Bull When he, on behalf of the Government, had held out promises to the natives in order to the acquirement of land, he anticipated that ‘ they would be fulfilled ; but he had discovered the collective John Bull, much to his regret, to be a most unprincipled rascal The motion was carried.

DISQUALIFICATION'. The Hon. Dr. MENZIES moved that, in the opinion of this Council, it was expedient that " the Government should bring in a Bill this ses-ion to amend the Disqualification Act, formity with the spirit of the Act.—Carried. The Hon. Dr. MENZIES moved that as some doubts existed as to what might be the le"al interpretation of various provisions of the Disqualification Act, 1870, it was expedient that any Bill proposing to amend the same " 7 should bar the recovery of any penalties under ’ the Act in any way other than the Amendment Act may direct After some little discussion, The Hon. Dr. BOEBEN stated that a Bill wasmow before the other branch of the Legislature, and when it arrived there (in the Council), members would have an opportunity of discussing the question introduced by the ■ motion of Dr. Menzies. - LEAVE OP ABSENCE. The Hon. Mr. STOKES moved that leave of absence bo granted to the Hon. Mr. Acland for the remainder of the session, on urgent private affairs. —Carried, ' yn t.vh fTAND THE GOVERNMENT. The Hon. Colonel KENNY moved that with a view to the settlement of the matters - t he subject of the Biako Band Exchange Bill (No 1), it was expedient, in the opinion of the Council, that that Bill should be withdrawn by the Government, and that the Government ! should afford Mr. Whitaker every facility and assistance in arranging with the natives for the survey of the land for which he had been awarded a Crown grant by the Land Claims Commissioner, or in otherwise effecting an * equitable arrangement with the natives. The hon. gentleman asked for permission to add the words “in accordance with the existing law ” because he thought it might be possible to act outside of the law. Bermission being granted, he continued to explain his object in moving the resolution, which was to effect a settlement with Mr. Whitaker, and to acquire the large block of land spoken of by the Government, without there being any exchange - 0 f land between Mr. Whitaker and the GoTenunent. . The Hon. Colonel BEETT objected to the motion as a member of the committee to which the Bill had been referred for consideration. The investigation had been most satisfactory. The inquiry into the merits of Mr. Whitaker’s claim had been most searching, and he had heard nothing in the remarks of the Hon. Colonel Kenny to induce him, as one of the committee, to alter the opinion generally expressed in the report submitted to the Council. y The Hon. Mr. MANTELL would oppose the motion unless all the words after “ Government” were struck out. He read a telegram from Mr. Heale, asking him to request the Council not to pass the Bill until other claims had been heard. The Hon, Mr. HOLMES referred to the Act of 1856 to show that Mr. Whitaker could not obtain redress through the Government. No grant could be made until a proper survey of the land had been made and deposited with the commissioner. He had no objection to Mr. Whitaker getting the land, if he could obtain a secure title in the ordinary way, but he objected to his implicating the Government in his transactions. That Council had nothing to do with the matter, and he should oppose the Biako Exchange Bill at every stage. The Hon. Mr. BOBINSON opposed Colonel Kenny’s resolution. He did not see Mr. Whitaker had any claim upon the Government 2,t all. He should go back to the people from • whom he bought. This resolution however not only provided that the Government should put Mr. Whitaker in possession of a Crown grant, but asked that the Bill should be withdrawn by which the Government proposed to secure a large area of land for settlement pur-

Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE said there appeared to be confusion “in the multitude of Councillors.” They seemed to be getting more involved as they proceeded. At first he had expressed himself unfavorably regarding the Bill, but since then he had obtained i greater information on the subject (previously having known little of the merits), and he had come to the conclusion that the Bill was one which, in the interest of the public, it was highly desirable should pass. The Hon. Mr. BUCKLEY said the majority of the Council were opposed to the Bill. The Hon. Dr. MENZIES said the opposition of the Council arose from a disinclination to authorise the Government to effect an exchange with Mr. Whitaker. He ought to be compensated in money; but in the face of the telegram read by the Hon. Mr. Mantel! from Mr Heale, he thought the Council should 1 proceed with still greater caution; and should not, until they received further information pass a Bill which should vest the property entirely in Mr. Whitaker. Hon. Dr. BOLDEN said, with reference to the telegram, that in his opinion Mr. Heale thought it was proposed to give compensation for loss arising out of connection with the piece of land which was locked up. But this, as he (Dr. Pollen) had previously explained, was not the object of the Bill. Its object was simply to facilitate the acquisition of a large piece of land from the natives, but to do which it was necessary to sacrifice a piece of land to which Mr. Whitaker had a just claim ; and it was proposed, therefore, to give him in exchange part of the land to be acquired.

The Hon. Colonel KENNY replied, and the motion was then put, and negatived on the voices.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES AMENDMENT BILL. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN moved the second readin" of this Bill, received from the House of Representatives, with a message requesting the Council to use all expedition in passing it through its various stages. , The Hon. Colonel BRETT hoped the Council would pause before passing the Bill. He thought it would be monstrous to give Mr. Bridges the power to villify anyone with impunity. The Hon. Mr. HART said the last speaker had evidently mistaken the principle of the BiU. It was simply to give to witnesses giving evidence before committees the same indemnity they would have in a Court of Justice, and by so doing to take away from them any reason for excuse, in refusing to answer questions put to them because of consequences to follow. The Bill had been rendered immediately necessary in consequence of a witness having refused to answer questions put to him by the Public; Accounts Committee, and who had asserted as his reason for so refusing, that he might render himself liable to an action at law.

The Hon. Dr. POLLEN did not reply, as the Hon. Mr. Hart had explained exactly what he should have expressed. The Speaker then left the chair, and the various clauses of the Bill having been passed in committee, the Chairman reported to the Council, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. The Council adjourned till half-past seven. On resuming, the orders of the day were proceeded with.. DEBTORS AND CREDITORS BILL.

The Hon. Dr. POLLEN moved the second reading. The Bill had been fully discussed in the House of Representatives, and amended in some particulars. The previous Acts were very voluminous, and it would he impossible for him to epitomise them in reasonable space. The existing law had not been found satisfactory, evidence of which might be found in the incessant attempts which had been made to amend it. The present Bill imposed upon creditors the necessity of looking after their own affairs in bankruptcy. That was the main principle of it. It provided that when a debtor was in embarrassed circumstances he should first call a meeting of his creditors, before doing so filing a complete schedule of his affairs. The first meeting having taken place, trustees could be appointed. The estate being wound up by the trustees, a general meeting was called, and at that meeting it was competent for the creditors to arrange for the debtor’s discharge ; and if the discharge be refused, it would be competent for the debtor to appeal to the Supreme Court. The question for discussion was whether it was not advisable that a change in the bankruptcy laws should be made, in order to simplify such cases, and reduce the enormous expenditure sometimes entailed. He moved that the Bill be read a second time. The Hon. Mr. HART wished to say a few words before the second reading was decided upon. Of all complaints of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the changes in the bankruptcy law was the cause of the most frequent complaints. The expense of ascertaining the interpretation of the law incurred large coat, and he saw nothing in the present BUI to suggest that the cost would be less when it was brought into force. This was a shorter act, but without a much more clear explanation of the effect and operation of it, he should be indisposed to assist in passing it through the Council. A former Act (which did not pass the Lower House) contained one of the desirable provisions in the present BUI, whUe it was in other respects more satisfactory, and might he dovetailed into the existing law, and lessen the expense of bankruptcy proceedings. The Hon. Mr. HOLMES agreed that the Act alluded to by the Hon. Mr. Hart was a superior one, but as he took it, the question was, should they adopt this Bill or permit the law to stand as it was. He suggested they should prove the BUI in the working. The Hon. Mr. BUCKLEY objected to several points in the Bill. It appeared that unless the creditors appointed a trustee in the estate of a bankrupt, there was no provision whatever made for winding it up. He thought a provision should be made giving the Court power to take action where the creditors failed to do so. He also objected to Clause 12, by which the debtor might be constantly appealing against the action of creditors regarding the treatment of the estate. He thought the BUI, if passed in its present state, would be found to be very unworkable. After further discussion, and the Hon. Dr. Pollen’s reply. The question was put, and a division taken. The ayes were 13, noes 6. CANTERBURY FENCING BILL. The Hon. Hr. BUCKLEY moved the second reading of the Canterbury Eencing BUI, which provided for dividing fences, cost of erection, and, where disputes arose, to refer the decision to the nearest court. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN said it would be inconvenient to take up the functions of the Provincial Government of Canterbury, in view of the general legislation, which would take place next year. After several members had spoken, The Hon. Mr. BUCKLEY pointed out, in reply, that delay would result in serious inconvenience and annoyance ; on this ground he thought it unwise to have determined that the CouncUa should not again meet. The BUI was read a second time, and ordered to be committed presently. BILLS COMMITTED. The Council went into committee. The Debtors and Creditors BUI passed through committee without amendment, and on the Speaker resuming the chair, was read a third time and passed. The Outram Telegraph Stations BUI was reported without amendment, read a third time, and passed. The Canterbury Fencing BUI (in committee) was thrown out, on the motion of the hon. Mr. Robinson to report progress. NAPIER HARBOR BOARD BILL.

The second reading of the above Bill was moved by Colonel Whitmoiie. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN said there was a similar Bill on the order paper of the Lower House.

The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE stated that the Superintendent of the province had withdrawn that Bill, and had asked him to introduce one in the Council. His object was to facilitate its passage through the Legislature, there being so much business before the other House that there was little chance of its meeting with consideration. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE objected that the Bill interfered with the public revenue.

The Hon. Dr. POLLEN thought the mover would not secure any greater expedition in pressing the Bill there, because it dealt with the public revenue, and would probably be returned by the other branch of the Legislature. The other Bill stood on the order paper of the House of Representatives to be committed, and would shortly come on for consideration. The Hon. Colonel KENNY wished for the Hon. the Speaker’s ruling as to whether two similar Bills could be on the order papers of both Houses at the same time.

The Hon. the SPEAKER was of opinion that they must place implicit reliance on Colonel Whitmore’s statement. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE, after saying that the Superintendent of Napier had that evening told him the other Bill was withdrawn, stated that he would not withdraw the Bill on a- frivolous technicality such as that raised by the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse. He thought it would be hard upon the province of Hawke’s Bay not to be allowed the collateral security ; but he would prefer to give up that clause, rather than have the Bill thrown out, and have the harbor of Napier hemmed in ,by shingle. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed next day. BILLS READ A THIRD TIME. The Municipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The Oamaru Town Hall and Gasworks Bill was read a third time and passed. The Evidence Further Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed.

EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES BILL. The Hon. Mr. MILLER moved the second reading of the above Bill. He thought it a most reasonable request on the part of persons interested in factories to ask that their machinery should not be kept idle sixteen hours out of the twenty-four. The only argument he had heard against the BUI was that on the system of relays being introduced, means would be taken to evade the law by operatives working more than the eight hours on one shift; but in this colony, where the factory .vorkers were so few, that argument had no force. There had been a great deal of of tall talk about the BiU, and that it had been framed in a spirit of cruelty and greed. But there had been too much said about the Bill : they might almost call it pseudo-philanthropy. He would not he found a supporter of it did he believe for one moment that it would have any of the baleful effects stated, and he firmly believed the hon. gentleman who had introduced it in the other House held the same opinion. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE was of opinion that they should assimilate their law as much as possible to that of England, and in so far as legislation of this class had been found necessary at Home, it would be found necessary to introduce it here before long. But they must recollect in considering the question that it was not how they should employ their females, but how they were to get females to employ. There were in the colony altogether only 147,000 females as against 194,349 males. It was not therefore desirable to legislate so as to stimulate the creation of factory labor. He did not believe that the employment of women and children in factories was calculated to advance the moral welfare of the people. But it was highly desirable that every provision should be made for their protection and education, and he thought that they should introduce some of the prolusions of the English legislation of last session, many of the clauses of which might be adopted with advantage, such as those limiting the age at which children might be employed, and providing for their education. He suggested, in conclusion, that the Bill should be referred to a select committee, with the object of carrying out the idea expressed above.

The Hon. Dr. POLLEN alluded to the Victorian law, and said he would prefer to have had power placed in the hands of the Governor to relax the provisions in particular cases. The particular advantage of this would be, that if any abuse should creep in under the existing law, the Governor would have the power to take such steps at once as would prevent its continuance.

The Hon. Mr. MENZIES supported the Bill, and saw nothing in the relay system at variance with the broad principle that females should not be allowed to work more than eight hours. He objected to the discretionary power suggested by the Premier. The Hon. Mr. MILLER, in reply, expressed his entire concurrence in the views expressed by the Hon. Mr. Waterhouse and the Hon. the Premier, and moved that the Bill be referred to a select committee, to report on Thursday. The Bill was then read a second time, and referred to a select committee. ORDERS POSTPONED. The Bankruptcy Laws Amendment Bill (second reading) was made an order of the day for next day. The Stamp Pees Bill (second reading) was also postponed for one day. The Council adjourned at twelve o’clock. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Tuesday, October 12. The Speaker took the chair at 7.30 p.m. Several notices of motion were given. committees’ reports. Mr. REEVES brought up a report from the Immigration and Public Works Committee. questions. Mr. LUCKIE, who had given notice of his intention to ask the Commissioner of Telegraphs whether he would relax the rules respecting Press telegrams, so as to permit the transmission during the day of five hundred words at evening rates, said he understood that the matter was in the hands of the hon. member for Auckland City West, therefore he desired to withdraw the notice he had given.—Leave was given. In reply to Mr. Von Der Heyde, The Hon. Mr. REYNOLDS said the delay in the publication of the table of statistics arose from a press of work at the printing office, but most of the information was before the House in various forms. Mr. VON DER HEYDE remarked that many questions would be rendered unnecessary if these statistics were laid before the House at the commencement of the session.

NEW BILLS. The Vincent Land Purchase Bill, (introduced by the Hon. Major Atkinson), and the Religious, Charitable, and Educational Trusts Act Amendment Bill (introduced by Mr. Ward), were advanced a stage. DAVIDES SUCCESSION BILL. This Bill was read a third time, and passed. OTAGO HABBOR BOARD EMPOWERING BILL. This Bill was considered in committee, aijd reported with amendments. CLDTHA RIVER CONSERVATORS BILL. Passed through committee. REPRESENTATION BILL. As soon as the House went into committee, Mr. O’CONOR moved that progress be reported, in order to allow of his giving notice that Hansard reporters be instructed to report the discussion. Mr. MURRAY also desired that the debate should be reported in Hansard. Motion negatived. Mr. MURRAY moved that clause 2, fixing the number of members at eighty-six, be postponed. Mr. GEORGE McLEAN supported the postponement, because it was clear if it were not postponed there would be a regular jumble. Mr. O’CONOK asked for a Ministerial statement as to how they viewed the amendments proposed by members. He complained that no copies of the Bill were to be had. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN said the Government would not oppose alterations in boundaries, but in some cases they could not consent to the proposals for additional members. Sir E. D. BELL complained of a want of principle in the Bill, and considered it would be unfair and mischievous for the House to attempt to deal with representation in the manner proposed. He pointed out that Mataura had more right to another member than many of the proposed now electorates, and referred to other inconsistencies. He hoped the House would report progress. Mr. ORMOND considered Hawke s Bay had less representation than any part of the colony except Westland—whether as regarded population, extent of country, products, exports, or contribution to the revenue. All these things should be considered. With regard to population, he found that according to the present population Auckland had sixteen members, or a member for every 4770 people ; Taranaki had a member for every 2295 ; Hawke’s Bay, a member for every 0372 ; Wellington, a member for every 4218 ; Nelson, a member for every 2325 ; Marlborough, a member for every 3041 ; Canterbury, a member for every 5387 ; Westland, a member for every 7998 ; and Otago, a member for every 5367. Thus it would be seen that after the extreme case of Westland came Hawke’s Bay, and he thought there was no objection on that score. Then again, looking at the imports, he found that Napier, with two members, paid duty last year to the amount of £214,182, while Nelson, with its nine members, (A Member: Seven members). Well, with its seven members, paid £384,000, and Auckland, with its sixteen members, paid £674,000. Surely these were reasons why the objections urged against Hawke’s Bay having another member were urged without reason. Mr. O’CONOR referred to inequalities, and said unless the Government would permit amendments in the Bill he should try to have it thrown out.

Mr. MERVYN supported the measure as it stood.

Mr. REID supported the Bill as it stood, with the exception of the proposal to add a member to Napier, because he did not consider

the addition justified by the facts, notwithstanding the statements of the hon. member for Clive (Mr. Ormond). Mr. SHEEHAN looked upon the Bill as a miserable attempt at what was called an amendment of the representation. He asserted there was no principle in the Bill, and said if a member were added to the Thames and one to Dunedin, and one taken from Taranaki and given to Hawke’s Bay, and the rest of the Bill let go, he would support it. He did not consider the province of Westland so badly represented considering all things. Mr. WAKEFIELD generally supported the measure ; and The Hon. Mr. STAFFORD considered many of the amendments placed upon the supplementary order paper worthy of attention at the hands of the Government; but as for the proposal to refer the matter to a select committee, he had never heard of such a course being pursued before it was done in 1870, and then against the will of himself and other members. A select committee could not dictate to the House on a matter like this.

Mr. TAIAEOA intended to propose that another native member be appointed. Clause 2 was postponed, and clauses 3 and 4 were agreed to. On clause 5,

Mr. O’NEILL proposed that two additional members be given to the Thames. The hon. member quoted figures to support the claim of the Thames.

Mr. MURRAY, recognising that there was not time to make up a thoroughly good Bill, thought it would be best to give two members to the Thames and one to Dunedin, and thus let the Bill pass. If this were done, there was no reason why Parliament should not be prorogued during the middle of next week. Mr. WHITE wanted another member for Westland.

Mr. THOMSON supported the amendment.

Mr. McGILLIVRAY considered the Bill a good attempt to rectify glaring inequalities, and should support it in its entirety.

Messrs. Harrison and Wales favored the amendment.

Mr. MONTGOMERY thought all the committee would be able to do would not be much in the way of amendment, and it would be best to take the Bill as it was. He should like to see a member struck off Taranaki and none allowed to Napier. Mr. HUNTER hoped the discussion of all these amendments would not take place, for it would after all be a fight by each member for his own district. He might bring forward a claim on behalf of Wellington, and perhaps could well support it, but he did not desire to do that. He wished to see substantial justice done, and it would be only just to add one member to the Thames and one to the city of Dunedin, and allow the other proposals of the Government to go to the wall. Mr. SHEEHAN supported the amendment, and referred to some of the claims which the Thames possessed. Sir GEORGE GREY hoped a compromise would be come to by which two members would be given to the Thames and one to the city of Dunedin, with the understanding that a perfect measure would be brought down next session. The Hon. Mr. BOWEN said that the Bill only proposed to remedy palpable inconsistencies, and next session it would be equally impossible for any Government to bring down a perfect Bill. To give three members to the Thames would, taking population as the basis of representation, disturb the representation of the whole of the colony. Booking at the circumstances, he considered two members would be quite sufficient, and coming from Grahamstown, the representative town of the goldmininf interest, two members would represent it better than three coming from different parts of a wide area of country. Mi-. BRYCE compared the claims of Wanganui for a member with those of Napier, and said in the former case the claims were much stronger. He expressed general dissatisfaction with the Bill, for ho thought there were already too many members in the House. They could not go on increasing, there must be a stop; then where were the Government going to stop? In Victoria there was one member for every 9000 persons ; in New South Wales a member for every 7000 ; in South Australia one for every 5000; in New Zealand one for every 4000; and now it was proposed to increase that number. He favored the proposal of confining the increase to the two members proposed. Sir GEORGE GREY said the Minister of Justice had made a mistake in supposing Grahamstown constituted the Thames. Coromandel should have a member. The goldmining interest was not the only interest. There was the timber interest, and the agricultural interest, and various other interests. If a third member were not allowed, he should endeavor to get the proposed increase of members to other districts disallowed. The Hon. Mi'. STAFFORD favored the increase to the Thames in preference to an increase in representation for Dunedin, because in considering the representation of cities he could not accept merely a population basis. The population of a city was in a different position to the population of a country district, because they had opportunities of expressing opinion in public meetings, and had other modes of making their voice felt in the councils of the country, which the people of a country district had not. Mr. JACKSON considered the claims of Waikato stronger than those of Timaru and other places. He supported the amendment, but should like to see a portion of the Waikato tacked on to the Thames, so that the former might be better represented. Messrs. Bdckiand and Meuvyn having addressed the House, Sir GEORGE GREY said he should talk all night and next day till he got from the Government a promise that they would grant a third member to the Thames. As to the suggestion from the hon. member for Waikato about taking a piece off the Waikato, and putting it on to the Thames, he believed that it had emanated from the Government; there had been a consultation between them. (Mr. Jackson : There has -been no consultation.) Well that was extraordinary ; but the similarity of views might have arisen from the hon. member and the Government sitting together through the session. He reiterated his intention of talking throughout the night till the Government promised to assent to a second member being added.

Mr. MONTGOMERY said the measure was not perfect, but to increase the number of members would make it more imperfect. Sir DONALD McLEAN hoped the committee would support the Government in passing the measure in the shape in which it now appeared. Mr. LUCKIEsaid talking against time had been tried the previous evening unsuccessfully, and he felt sure if it were again attempted to force the majority to bow to the will of a tyrannical minority, the committee would again do its duty and sit it out. ■ Mr. REID said if the hon. member for the Thames persisted, he might find himself unable to get even one additional member. He asserted there had been no talking against time the previous night. In the discussion which ensued, Sir George Grey, the Hon. Mr. Bowen, Messrs. Von Der Hoyde, Bunny, White, Dignan and May took part. A division was taken on Mi’. O'Neill's amendment, when there appeared for it 21, against 37. Mr. SHEEHAN proposed an amendment for giving Coromandel one member. Sir GEORGE GREY supported the amendment.

Mr. PEARCE supported the proposition, that the increase of representation should bo confined to one member for the Thames and one for Dunedin. He commended the selfdenial with which the Wellington members had refrained from asking for another member, though they were fairly entitled to it.

On a division, the amendment was lost by 30 to 23.

Mr. W. Kelly proposed an amendment for creating a new electoral, district in the East Coast. The Hon. Mr. Bowen and Sir Donald McLean supported the amendment, which was opposed by Messrs. Reid, Harrison, and Macandrew. A discussion ensued, after which

Mr. Sheehan moved that progress should be reported, which was agreed to, and the House resumed and adjourned at 2.25 a.m. until this day, when the orders of the day will precede the notices of motion, and there will be no evening sitting.