PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5436, 29 August 1878, Page 2

PARLIAMENT.

, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. Wednesday, August 28. The Hon. the Speaker took the chair at the usual hour. papers, &o. A report on friendly societies was laid on the table by the Colonial Secretary. The Hon. Captain BAILLIE brought up the report of the Public Petitions Committee on the petition of three natives against* the Ellesmere and Forsyth Reclamation Bilk The report was referred to the Waste Land Committee. The Hon. Mr. MANTELL moved, —That the petition of ,Tohn Topi Patuki be printed in English and Maori.—Agreed to, ORDER OF BUSINESS. The Hon. Dr. POLLEN wished to call the attention of the Council to a matter connected with the order of business. When he left the Chamber on the previous evening there were Sve orders on the paper, and the Council was th-u engaged in a discussion on the Rabbit Bill. He left in the assurance that the Friendly Societies Bill, which was sixth on the paper, would not come on that day. He took i. peculiar interest in that Bill, and understood it would not have been called on before the evening sitting. When he came in the evening he found that the Council had, without notice, extended the time of sitting to 5.30, and that the Friendly Societies Bill, with respect to which he had expressed strong opinions, and had moved that it should be read a second time that day six months, had ieen considered in committee, read a third time, and passed. He held that there might be a great amount of inconvenience in a proceeding of that kind. Whenever the hen. gentleman who conducted the business of the Government ‘■bought a departure from the usual practice was necessary, proper notice should be given, (Hear, hear.) If such had been done on this occasion, he would not have left his place. He thought that, seeing he had expressed such strong opinions on the Bill, it would only have been a matter of courtesy on the part of the Colonial Secretary, tad what he had a right to expect from him, that he should at least have left the third reading until the following day, so that he (Dr. Pollen) might have had an opportunity of pointing out the defects in the Bill. Had he been in the hon. gentleman's place that was the coarse he would have adopted. It the Colonial Secretary desired to preserve the reject and confidence of the Council, and to >btaiu its assistance in carrying on the busi-' ness of the Government, he should take care that no action on his part should give rise to the impression that there could be anything like sharp practice in the conduct of the business of the country. The Hon. Colonel WHITMORE explained that the matter was accidental. He had asked the Council on the previous day to sit another half-hour, as, on account of the Public Works Statement in another place, he did not wish to ask the Council to have an evening sitting. The Council were with him in that. To his surprise the Literary Institutions Bill was not ready ; and he had received notice of an important amendment in the Harbor Bill, which oeoessitated its postponement. The next order was the Fraudulent Debtors Bilk which passed through without amendment. By this means the Friendly Societies BUI came up for second reading about 5 o’clock. This was pure accident. °He did not know that the hon. gentleman wished to press his objections. He (Colonel Whitmore) had been informed by several people connected 'with friendly societies that they highly approved of the BiU, and he thought it was possible that Dr. Pollen had received similar information. He presumed that as the hon. gentleman absented himself he did not intend to go any further with his objections to the BiU. He had been prepared to meet him on all these objections, and he regretted his absence. He trusted Dr. Pollen would take an opportunity of retracting his expressions with regard to sharp practice ; they had left a very disagreeable impression on his mind. He concluded by repeating that he regretted the absence of the hon. gentleman on the occasion referred to. The Hon. Mr. WATERHOUSE did not chink that Dr. Pollen’s expression could be taken as charging the Colonial Secretary with sharp practice, hut simply as calling the attention o£ that hon. gentleman to a practice which, if repeated, would justify the imputation. He regretted, for his own part, that longer notice had not been . given. It was desirable that early notice should be given of any departure from the usual course. He could believe that this conduct of the Colonial Secretary was inadvertent ; but at the same time it must be remembered that the hon. gentleman was looked to as the leader of the House, and it was his especial duty to see that no injustice or injury was done to any hon. member. He thought the hon. gentleman should postpone any measure which he knew any member of the Council to be deeply interested in, in his absence. Dr. Pollen had been always most careful in that respect. Mr. Waterhouse considered Colonel Whitmore should have frankly admitted his inadvertence, and promised to guard againats its occurring again. Several hon. members spoke shortly on the subject, and Dr. Pollen, in reply, regretted that the Colonial Secretary persisted in ascribing to him (Dr. Pollen) a desire to attack the hon. gentleman. He did not want to attack Cok Whitmore at all; he was simply deeply interested in the Bilk CANTERBURY LAND FUND. The Hon. Capt. FRASER moved,—That there be laid upon the table a return showing the amount of moneys received by Lake County, Vincent County, and Waitaki County from the Canterbury laud fund ; also, showing the amount of money expended by each of those counties within the Canterbury boundary,— Agreed to. TREATY OP WAITANGI. The Hon. Capt. FRASER moved,—That there be laid upon the table a copy of a photolithographic fac-similo of the Treaty of Waitangi, recently prepared by order of the Government.—Agreed to. PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE. The Hon, Capt. FEASEII moved, —That the name of the Hon. Mr. Nurse be discharged from the Public Petitions Committee, and that the name of the Hon. Mr. Gray be added thereto.—Agreed to. NEW BILLS. The Hon. Mr. HART moved, —Fqc leave to introduce a Bill intituled an Act to amend the

Municipal Corporations Act, 1376.—Agreed to ; to be read a second time that day fortnight. The Hon. Capt. BAILLTR moved,—Bor leave to introduce a Bill intituled the Land . Drainage Act.—Agreed to. HARBOR BILL. This measure was further considered in committee. The 25th clause was reached. Discussion outhe 26th clausa was interrupted by the adjournment hour. The Council adjourned at 5 p.m. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Wednesday, August 28. The Speaker took the chair at the usual hour, PETITIONS AND NOTICES. A petition was presented by Mr. Richmond from Dr. Bailer. In doing so ho explained that in publishing the evidence given last year. Dr. Duller, if he had committed a breach of privilege, had done so unwittingly, and he regretted it. Petitions were also presented by Mr. Hursthouse , Mr. Rowe, Mr. Bastings, and Mr. Tawiti, and a number of notices of motion were given by various members. REPORTS. Reports were brought up from the Native Affairs Committee by Mr. Bbtoe, and from the Waste Lands Committee by Mr. Curtis. CAPS EG3IONT LIGHTHOUSE. In reply to Mr. Carrington, — The Hon. Mr, SHEEHAN said the difficulty in the way of. erecting a lighthouse on Cape Egmont was that the laud was in the possession.; of natives. The land no doubt would soon be acquired, and the work would then proceed. LAND TRANSFER. In reply to Mr. Wakefield, — The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN said no formal complaint had been receivedastotheconductof business in the Land Transfer Department in Christchurch, but in consequence of newspaper reports enquiry was being made on the subject. SUPREME COURT SITTINGS. Mr. WAKEFIELD asked the Government, —l. Whether they are aware that, under existing arrangements, prisoners awaiting trial at the Supreme Court at Timaru are liable to lie in gaol for any period not exceeding six months? 2. Whether they will*accede to the oft-repeated prayer of the inhabitants of Timaru, and of the presentments of the Grand Jury there, that the Supreme Court should sit quarterly instead of half-yearly ? The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN admitted at once that the present arrangements were defective, but thought if the proposals of the Government in reference to the jurisdiction of the District Court were adopted the inconveniences at present existing would disappear. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE, TIMARU. In reference to a question by Mr. Saunders as to the antecedents of Mr. Campbell, Resident Magistrate at Timaru, The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN said he could not reply as he could wish without introducing debateable matter, and subjecting himself to be called to order. He thought the better course for the ton, gentleman would be to bring the matter up when the Estimates were under consideration. It could then bo debated, LAND REVENUE RECEIPTS. 1 In reply to Mr. McLean, The Hon. Mr. BALLANOE said the Government had no objection to obtain by telegraph from the different receivers of land revenue throughout the colony, returns showing the amount of land revenue received during the months of July and August, 1878, in the various provincial districts,. in order that the House might be informed of the result at its first sitting in September. NEW BILLS. The following new Bills were introduced, read a first time, and second readings fixed : Bill to vest the Tuakitoto and Kaitaugata Lakes in the County Council of Bruce, in trust; Timaru Harbor Boar I Bill ; Riverton Harbor Land Endowment Bill; Bill to amend the Wyndham Recreation Reserve Act, 1877 ; Wyndham Cemetery Management Bill; Judicial Commission Bill ; Mount Ida Public Works Trust Bill; Mount Cook Reserve Sale Bill: Tokomairiro Atbenseum Bill; Bill for the further endowment of the Mauukau Harbor; Bill to endow the Harbor of Tauranga ; Bill to endow the Harbor of Waikato. THE TRIP SOUTH. Mr. BASTINGS moved, —That the House sit on Monday next, and that the House adjourn on Wednesday at 5.30 till the following , Tuesday. Mr. BARFF objected. If there was to be a holiday let it be at the end of the session. He understood that about 590 applications had been received for passages by the Hinemoa, including those from seventy pairs of twins. The motion was agreed to, the day to be devoted to Government business only. SALARIES OP OFFICERS OF GAOLS. Mr. MURRAY-ANSLEY moved,—That it is expedient that this House should be informed why the Government has not carried out the promise made by the Minister of Justice on the 23rd November last, to equalise the salaries of the officers of the several gaols throughout the colony. A definite promise had been given last year, but he observed the same plan was followed on thi* year’s Estimates as had been adopted in previous years. In Auckland the gaoler got £3OO a year, the chief warder £IBO ; in Wellington the gaoler£3so; chief warder £182; Napier (only a small gaol) the gaoler £3OO, chief warder £l7O ; in Lyttelton, the figures were £3OO forth© gaoler, and the chief warder £l6O ; in Dunedin the gaoler got £SOO, and the warders from £164 to £237. Why should there be such a disparity between the salaries? It was quite impossible to expect men to be contented when they found that althongh working under the same Government they were being treated so differently. Mr. TURNBULL pointed out that the gaoler at Timaru, who had a great deal to do, had received no increase of salary for six years, and was now paid less than a warder at Lytelton or Dunedin. Mr.BARTONsaid therewere eleven warders in the Wellington gaol, and their pay was lower than that given to warders in any other principal gaol, and they received no allowance for long service, as m Dunedin. He did not object to the management of the Dunedin gaol, which no doubt was good, but he objected to other public servants being treated woise than those stationed in Dunedin. The Wellington men had asked for an enquiry iuto their condition last October, but had been told the matter was under consideration, since which they had beard nothing. They could compete with any gaol officials in point of long service. The first warder had been in the service eighteen years, the next twelve years, the next twelve years, the two next ten years, and the others for shorter periods. He hoped the Minister of Justice would look into the matter. The Hon. Mr, SHEEHAN said the Government had not lost sight of the matter, and should have asked the House to consider the question had Lot the hon. member for Kaiapoi obtained a committee to enquire into the gaol system. That committee was now sitting, and hon. gentlemen who had spoken should tender their evidences that the committee might be seized of full information, and be able to suggest, on a complete knowledge of the fact-*, what , should be done. He wished he were a private member that he might take up the cudgels on behalf of the Auckland officials. In dealing with the question care would have to be exercised, because arrangements had been made with men which could not be broken without injustice being down. He regretted the inequalities which had grown up under the provincial system, and hoped they would be remedied a< soon as possible. Mr. MURRAY-AYN3LEY expressed his satisfaction at what had been said, and withdrew his motion. x REPAYMENT TO ROAD BOARDS. Mr, ORMOND moved,—That this House will, to-morrow, resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider of a respectful address to be presented to his Excellency the Governor, requesting that provision may be made for the payment to road boards of one-third of all moneys that have accrued or may accrue on account of the sale of land on deferred payment within any road board district since the passing of the Land Act, 1877, whether such lands were pm chased prior to the passing of the Act of 1877 or not. He pointed out that under the Waste Lands Act of last session it was provided that one-third of the receipts under the deferred payment system should be handed over to the local bodies, to enable them to assist in the work of settling the country, a work of unexceptional difficulty in many districts. That was the intention of the Home, and he believed be had the sympathy of a large number of hon. gentlemen in his resolution. If it were just and reasonable that persona who were now purchasing should gain this advantage in the interests of settlement, it was equally just and reasonable that the principle should be applied in cases where persons wore still paying, though the purchases might have been effected prior to the Act of 1877. Ho claimed special consideration for the small farm settlements in Hawke’s Bay and other provincial districts, and mentioned that, most unfairly as he thought, a aum which

he, as Superintendent of Hawke s Bay, had set apart for the assistance of these settlements, had been swallowed up on account of back surveys, though he apprehended there were not more arrears in Hawke 8 Bay than in any other province. Dr. HODGKINSON quite approved of the motion, and proceeded to state that he did not believe in the present deferred payment system. The price charged for land was too high. He would prefer to see the land sold much cheaper, say at a pound per acre. Under the present system people gambled for land, gave too much for it, and were glad to get rid of it at a lower price than they paid, the result being the aggregationof large estates. He would prefer to see a low price fixed, and the land allocated by lottery instead of by auction.

Mr. GIBBS supported the motion. Mr. BASTINGS defended the deferred payment system, but admitted too high a price hadbeen paid for land, to the detriment ofsettlement. Auction sales were exciting, and people gave too much for land. He hoped the House would always recognise tlio principle that part of the proceeds of the land should be returned to t.he land, and he would support the motion if the word “counties” were inserted after the words “ road boards.” The Hon. Mr. STOUT said there was not sufficient data before the Government to enable them to express a decided view just then, but in a few days full information would be placed before the House it to come to a conclusion. He remarked that under the last Act the land sold on deferred payment had brought £l6 and £lB, much more than was realised previously ; and as to auction sales, he said it was the only mode of settling who was to have the laud.

Hr. WOOD thought the price of land should be fixed lower, to encourage settlement. Sir ROBERT DOUGLAS could not support the motion, because he looked upon it as antagonistic to the principle of the localisation of the Land Fund. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE for that reason would support the resolution, and would like to see the motion made to apply to the proceeds of all land. Mr. MOSS said if this was to bo the thin end of the wedge for reversing the legislation of last session, he and other members from the North must oppose it most further remarks he referred to the great difference between the revenues of certain counties in the colony. Each county last year had levied rates upon itself to the amount of £967, and had received aids to the amount of £3251 ; Hokianga had levied rates to the amount of £7B, and had received aid to the amount of £232 ; Hawke’s Bay, £1867 and £3593. Now, it was different in the South. Take the case of Geraldine : It commenced with a balance of £27,000 to its credit; it levied rates to the amount of £3906, and had received aid to the amount of £173,265. It had now £151,967 to its credit, and was prosecuting a claim to a further sum which it thought the Treasurer was wrongfully holding back. After some further discussion, The Hon, Mr. SHEEHAN hoped the matter would nob be further talked of. The whole question must come uo again and be discussed in full, as it was of great importance. Mr. ORMOND was surprised to hear that remark, because he bad just learned privately from the Minister of Lands that the proposal would be agreed to by the Government if the amount involved were not so large as to embarrass the Government. He had thanked the hon. member'for that, and he certainly hoped the Native Minister would not use his influence to thwart that arrangement. He only wished to see the legislation of last year given effect to. The motion was agreed to, having been so amended that the House should not go into committee for a fortnight, in order to allow of information being obtained in the meantime. PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS. Mr. KELLY moved, —That a return be laid before this House showing, in detail, all expenditure incurred during the financial year ending 30th June, 1878, for repairs, alterations, or other purposes in connection with the Assembly Buildings, or for the convenience of members of the Assembly, showing the authority on which such expenditure was made, and the vote out of which such expenditure was paid.—Aureed to. DUNEDIN, OCEAN EEACH, AND PENINSULA RAILWAY. Mr. SEATON moved, —That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the whole question as to the engagements entered into between the Dunedin, Ocean. Beach, and Peninsula Railway Company ; with power to call for persons, papers, and reports. Five to he a quorum ;to report in three weeks. All witnesses to be examined upon oath, as provided for in the Privileges Act, 1865. The committee to consist of Hon. Mr. Macaudrew, Hon. Mr. Richardson, Mr. Ormond, Mr. Mo«*s, Mr, Gotten, Mr. Oliver, Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Turnbull, Air. J. E. Brown, and the mover. Agreed to. RAILWAY BETWEEN OTAGO AND WESTLAND.

Mr. MANDERS moved,—(l) That, with a view to opening up the outlying district between Lake Wakatipu and the West Coast of the Middle Island, and of providing for the beneficial occupation and settlement thereof, it is desirable that a line of railway should be constructed between the said Lake Wakatipu and to the head of Lake Hollyford, on the West Coast, Martin’s Bay being the port thereof on the West Coast. (2) That such Hue should be what is known as “ a light line of railway that it should be made via the Greenstone Valley; and, farther, that it should be constructed out of the proceeds of the land sales of the country through ■ which it passes. (3) That, as such lands would be greatly enhanced by the construction of the line of railway referred to, It is desirable that a survey of the route of such line should be made at an early date, and a sufficient area of land in the said district surveyed, and set apart for settlement and sale, so as to cover the cost of constructing it, (4) That, as such a line will (a) pass through a large and valuable area of country not yet alienated from the Crown, (6) open up a

country fall of auriferous and mineral indications, (c) enable the immense timber resources of this part of the colony to be utilized, (d) attract a stream of visitors and settlers from the Australian colonies (Martin’s Bay being in an almost straight line with Dunedin, on the East Coast of the Middle Island), and (e) increase materially the general revenue of the colony, it is desirable that this proposal should receive from the Government favorable consideration. (5) That a respectful address be presented to his Excellency the Governor, requesting that he may be pleased to give effect to the foregoing resolutions. The Hon. Mr. MAOANDREW said there was no objection to the motion, as the Government proposed to make the survey. He believed the line must be made. CANCELLATION OP INTERPRETED* LICENSES.

The Hon. Mr. FOX moved,—For the production of all correspondence, reports, or other documents relating to the suspension of the licenses of Messrs, O. O. Davis and J. Grindell. The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN said there was no correspondence, but he had acted on his own knowledge, derived from telegrams in reference to native land purchases, and from what he had learned on bis visit through the country. Ho hoped the House would acquit him of having taken action with reference to Mr. Grindell from political animus, for he had none against the gentleman. He was willing to take all the responsibility of the action. As to Mr. Davis, the case was different. He was guilty of the most gross intrigues against the Government, and the Government could not have purchased an acre in the Bay of Plenty if they had kept Mr. Davis on. He would lay telegrams on the tabie, which might be perused, but could not on account of other matters contained in them be published. , , _ „ . ~ Mr. SUTTON complained generally of the conduct of the Government in reference to purchasing native lands, large amounts of money having been wasted in negotiations. As to the question of the suspension of certificates, the persons losing their certificates should have seen furnished with the reasons therefor, which lie understood had not been done. Mr. BARTON took the opportunity when speaking to the motion to suggest that the Government should resume the right or preeruption, and prevent any private persons dealing with the natives for the land. The Judges had refused-to recognise private transactions with aboriginals, and why should any man in New Zealand bo allowed to purchase from the natives land for four or five shillings an acre when they could not purchase Government land for less than £2. Again, it was good policy for the Government to deal generously with the natives, and this could bo done if transactions other than those with the Government were forbidden. Mr. ORMOND thought the explanation of the Native Miniatorwas unsatisfactory,because ho could not admit that persons should bo liable to bo deprived of their livelihood if the Government happened to think their acts improper. The Government might err. At any rate, full reasons should be given to the House, and the particular offences stated, which bad not been done in the case of Mr,

Grindell, who, ho believed, had not been engaged in land purchase transactions. Mr. MURK AY said if the persons concerned were aggrieved they could appeal to the House by petition. The time of the House should not he wasted in this matner. Sir GEORGE GREY said in the case o' Mr, Grindell, he obtained his appointment from a Minister who knew nothing of native affairs, and the Government did nob object to any inquiry as to the reason of his removal. The hon. member had better move for a committee. He held papers in his possession which showed that Mr, Grindell was not a fi* person to be an interpreter. The Hon. Mr. GISBORNE hopid the hon. gentleman would take the advice of the Premier.

The Hon. Mr. FOX repudiated the doctrine laid down by the hon. member for Bmce. No one had wasted more time than the hon. member for Bruce. He had not been instigated to this motion by either of the parties concerne I, but because of the strangeness of the summary dismissal of two officers who had for years served the colony. He objected to secresy, and did not wont to return to a svstem of Government alien to the old system of secret despatches. It was his own curiosity that had led him to make the motion. As to the explanation, it was quite possible that the circumstances referred to by the Native Minister might be capable of being cleared up by Mr. Davis. As to Mr. Grindell’s case, there had been no-trial, and no man should be dismisssd without a trial, notwithstanding that the Premier held documents detrimental to Ins character in the pa-'fc. He had no personal interest in either gentleman, but he 6bjecfced to officers of the Government being rendered liable to be dismissed by the Native Department without any trial. He should certainly ask foria committee. As to the hon. member for Wellington, he had been talking on a subject of which he knew nothing. LOCAL BODIES CONFERENCES. Mr, MANDERS moved,—That,considering the extent of the amendments proposed to be made in the Municipal and Counties Acts by the recent conferences sitting in Wellington, this House is of opinion that it would be unwise to give effect to the bulk of them until members have had, during the recess, an opportunity of examining the recommendations made; but this resolution not to refer to any technical amendments of either Act urgently required. The discussion was proceeding when the House rose for refreshment. The House re-assembled at 7.30 p.m. SOUTH DUNEDIN RESERVES BILL. Mr. SEATON, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that the hon. the Speaker’s predecessor in that chair had been induced to sign his name to a map purporting to represent this particular foreshore, but it n«/ more represented it than it did the harbor of Wellington. Unless this Bill became law, tblocality would become a hotbed of disease, no f only to the South Dunedin municipality, but also to the adjoining municipalities. Mr, McLEAN said the laud with which the Bill proposed to deal was Crown-granted to the Dunedin Harbor Board, and by them leased to the public as a part of their endowment. He did not think, therefore, that the House would be a party to the taking away from one body land that had been Crown-granted, for the purpose of giving it to another body. He begged to move, as an an amendment, that the Bill be referred to the Waste Lands Committee.

Mr. WHITAKER pointed out that as this was not Crown land the Bill could not he referred to the Waste Lands'Committee, There seemed to be a dispute between the Harbor Board and the South Dunedin municipality, and the matter ought perhaps to be inquired into, but the Bill could not be referred to the Waste Lands Committee, as the Bill did not refer to Crown lands.

The Hon. Mr. MAC ANDREW said he thought the Bill ought to be allowed to go to the Waste Bands Committee, because if this was pot now Crown land it once was Crown land. (“Oh, oh,” and laughter.) He considered that this land justly belonged to the municipality in all fairness, and in saying this he supposed it was putting another nail in his coffin so far as the Dunedin Harbor Board was concerned. The land had been cleverly jockeyed out of the hands of the municipalitv. He trusted the House would allow the Bill to go to the Waste Lands Committee. Mr. MURRAY considered that the bon. member who who had just sat down ought not to have tried to prejudice the case before it was inquired into. He held different views to those expressed by the Hon. the Minister for Public Works. Money had been raised by the Harbor Board on the security of its endowments (of which the land in question formed a part); and if this land were taken away from the Harbor Board, they would not be keeping faith with the debenture holders. If they took their assets they ought also to take over their debts. A fter some further discussion, the Bill was read a second time. The SPEAKER said he was informed by the Hon. the Attorney-General that this was not Crown land, and the Bill could not therefore be referred to the Waste Lands Committee. The proper course for the hon. member to pursue was to fix on a day for the committal of the Bill, and then it would be competent for any hon. member to move, as an amendment, that the Bill be referred to a select committee. Mr. SEATON moved that the Bill be committed that day fortnight. The motion was agreed to. DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER MARRIAGE BILL. Dr. HODGKINSON, on rising to move his sessional motion for the second reading .of this Bill, was loudly cheered. The hon. member said-he did not intend te detain the House at any length, as the subject had already been most exhaustively discussed both in the British House of Commons and that House, and the debates would be found fully recorded in the Hansard. It might be argued against the Bill that there was no necessity for it, inasmuch as there was no necessity for such a measure on the part of the public. But he would point out that it was not a subject that could be very largely discussed outside, inasmuch as comparatively few of the population were affected by it, and this few suffered a great hardship from the existing state of the law. This was essentially a poor man’s question, because, while the poor man had no outlet or escape from the present law, the rich man could go to other countries where these marriages were legal, and carry out his intentions, and return to the country. This was not a compulsory measure, and ho did not wish to thrust his opinions on anybody who did not think as ho did. A similar Bill had been passed several times in the House of Commons and in the New Zealand House of Representatives. Mr. BARFF said it was not desirable that the time of the House should be wasted in the discussion of this most iniquitous Bill. He therefore begged to move, as an amendment, that the Bill bo read that day six months. , Mr. BOWEN said that this was a subject which ought not to be passed by with little notice, as it affected the state of society so closely. It seemed to him that the matter was looked upon rather as a huge joke, (Cries of “No, no.”) A subject of this kind ought not to be considered lightly. Prior to 1835, marriages contracted with a deceased wife s sister were voidable at law, but not void, and required the action of the Ecclesiastical Courts to make them void. For several years past attempts had been made by a clique to get a similar Bill passed by the British Parliament, but these attempts had not been successful. He (Mr. Bowen) was strongly opposed to such a Bill, because its tendency would be to upset the proper social relations that ought to exist. In America and in the Continental States, where marriage was legalised with a deceased wife’s sister, the tone of society had suffered very materially, and divorce was quite as common an occurrence as marriage, and men had been known to marry their own nieces. Where the law bad been relaxed in Germany, it had been found that six married their nieces in proportion to every four who married their deceased wife’s sister. He hoped hon. members would give this Bill more consideration than seemed to have been given to it in former sessions, and that before they consented to pass such a Bill they would think of the social ties and relations that such a measure would upset. The Hon. Mr. STOUT spoke strongly iu support of the Bill. The hon. member for Kaiapoi had quoted authorities with a view to show that such a Bill as this would tend to immorality ; but he (Mr. Stout) would refer that hon. member to what was said of these marriages by the greatest Churchman in England —Archbishop Tait. What did Archbishop Tait say ? That whether these marriages were regarded in a religious, moral, or social point of view, they were unobjectionable, and contributed to happiness, and amongst the poor had a tendency to prevent immorality. He would also refer the hon. member for Kaiapoi to the opinions of .John Wesley, Dr. Vaughan, Archbishop Wha ely, Bishop Thirwcll, Mr. Gladstone, and a hundred other quite as eminent people. The hon. member for Kaiapoi had cited the case of America ; but what did Judge Storey say about these marriages ?

That in point of moral tendency these marriages were the best sort of marriages, and he never knew any objection to them either on a moral or domestic consideration. He (Mr. Stout) hoped the Bill would be passed this session. A similar Bill had been passed several times before, but wan always thrown out by the other branch of the Legislature ; and the remark made last year by the Hon. Mr. Hall was that the only two bodies who were opposim' a Bill of this kind were the House of Cinnamons in England and the Legislative Council in New Zealand. (Laughter.) As the law n>w stood, a man could goto Australia and marry his deceased wife s sister there, and return to New Zealand, and it was a_ most unsatisfactory state of things that while such a Tnfirrifige was in a neighboring colony it was illegal in New Zealand. Mr. BARTON supported the Bill, considering that there was a great deal less objection in’a man mat tying his deceased wife s sister than in marrying his children’s governess or his housemaid (Loud cries of “ Question. ) Mr. WAKEFIELD intimated ids intention of opposing the Bill at every stage, as he considered legislation on the subject should come first from ’the Imperial Legislature. In England an agitation was got up, as the lion, member for Kaiapoi remarked, by a clique, who went in for marriage reform, and lie had received several communications from people belonging to that clique,_ asking him to use his influence as a journalist and as a member of that House. (“Question.”) Mr. REE?, referring to the assertions of the hon. member for Kaiapoi and the hon member for Geraldine, contended that all reforms were due to cliques, and all honor, therefore, to them. He considered that the weight of reasoning was in favor of a Bdi of this kind, and he hoped it would yet he nlmed on the Statute-book. (Cries of “Question.”) Mr. MOSS would support the Bill, because he did not think that such disabilities should he imposed on those who desired to marry deceased wives’ sisters as were imposed by the present state of the marriage law. (Cries of “ Question.”) Dr. HODGKTNSON having replied, Mr. Barffs amendment for the second reading of the Bill that day six months was rejected on division. For, 23; against, 47. The Bill was read a second time on the voices, and ordered to be committed that day fortnight. EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENT BILE. Mr. CURTIS, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that under the existing state of the law a large portion of the population was practically debarred from making use of the State schools, more particularly the Roman Catholics. One of the objects of this Bill was to remove the disadvantages under which so large a section of the copulation labored at tho present time, and he trusted the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill, as its operation would in no way tend to interfere with the system of secular education that had been established throughout the country, because no religious instruction would be allowed during the ordinary school hours.

Mr. THO'TSON moved, as an amendment that tlie Bill be read a second time that day six months.

■ Mr. REEVES supported the Bill, and hoped the House would see the fairness of passim; it. Theßoman Catholics were not the only people who wished to see a modification made in the existing law, but there was a very large number of Episcopalians who also desired to see the law altered.

Mr. MANDERS supported tbe Bill. Mr. WO'MjCOCK opposed that part of the Bill which would have the effect of establishing a large number of small schools, ill-paid teachers, and an inefficient system of education. He would vote for the second reading of the Bill, reserving to himself the right, should the Bill go into committee, of proposing that its operation should be restricted to the large centres of population only. Mr. SAUNDERS expressed a hope that no return would be made to a denominational system of education. The Hou. Mr. GISBORNE would support the Bill, and he appealed to the bon. the Premier and the other hon. members on tbe Government benches not to oppose this Bill. It would remedy defects in the existing law, inasmuch as it allowed the people of any denomination who had conscientious scruples against sending their children to the State schools, to obtain a return of the money they contributed in some shape or other, and apply it to the education of their own children. The Hon. Mr. SHEEHAN said the hon. member who had just sat down appealed to the members of the Government to support the Bill. He would say at once emphatically that he would oppose the Bill. He might bo called a bad Catholic for doing so, but he declined to be bound in respect to his vote in that House by the dictum of any priest or religious body. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He contended that the interest of every Catholic lay in promoting strictly secular education in the colony. If this Bill were allowed to pass the result would be a return to the denominational system of education, which he strongly objected to. It would establish a barrier between two large sections of population, and engender a bitter party spirit. He was sorry that elements of this kind had already grown up in the colony through the establishment of Orangeism and Hiberniauism. Tbe population of New Zealand ought not ‘to be disturbed by elements such as these. There should b© no party or national distinctions, but all who came into the country should consider themselves New Zealanders, and forget those dissentions that conduced to such evil results at home. Religion or nationality should not obtrude itself to that extent ns to prevent the whole population of New Zealand living on terms of peace and goodwill with one another as colonists. (Hear, hear.) He would oppose the second reading of the Bill. (Cheers.) Mr. BARFE warmly supported the motion for second reading, and hoped the motionwould be assented to. When the Bill went into committee, any hon. member who was opposed to the Bill in its present shape could move any amendment ho thought necessary, but he trusted this would not prevent the second reading being agreed to. Sir ROBERT DOUGLAS considered that as a matter of expediency the House might very well grant the small concession proposed in the Bill to the Roman Catholic portion of the population, and he would therefore vote for the second reading of the Bill. Mr, SEYMOUR considered that the Bill would bo particularly advantageous to the provincial district in which he resided, as it would enable schools to be established in the Sounds and other places where the establishment of schools was impossible under the existing law. Ho would vote for the second reading. Mr. SUTTON could sympathise with those who held consoentious scruples with reference to the subject of education. He would be opposed to a return to denominationalism, but he did not think this Bill would have any such result, and ha would therefore vote for the second reading. Mr, MONTGOMERY trusted the House would set its face against allowing any return to the denominational system of education, and would reject the motion for second reading by an overwhelming majority. Mr. MURRAY-AYNSLEY said he would support the motion for second reading, as he did not see how the Bill would lead to the introduction of dsnominatioaaliam into the present system of education. Mr. BOWEN said that he did not know what this Bill was if it was not a denominational Bill. He hoped that without good cause being shown hon. members would not consent so quickly to a return to the system that had been done away with in the previous session. He would vote against the second reading. Mr. MOSS considered that this Bill meant denominationaiism, and that it proposed a reversal of the system which had been established iu the previous session. He would oppose the second reading of the Bill. Dr. HODGKINSUN would oppose the second reading, because it was denominationaiism very thinly disguised. Mr. GIBBS supported the motion for the second reading. • Dr. HENRY moved the adjournment of the debate, which was negatived on division by 33 to 27. Another motion for adjournment was carried by 31 to 30, and the House adjourned.