RETRENCHMENT IN EDUCATION.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 156, 3 July 1888, Page 2

RETRENCHMENT IN EDUCATION.

PROPOSED REDUCTION OF SCHOOL AGE AND LIMITATION TO THE

FOURTH STANDARD,

AN ENTHUSIASTIC PUBLIC

MEETING

THE POPULAR VERDICT.

A mass meeting was hold in the Ciby Hall lasb evening tor the purpose of into consideration certain proposalß of which due notice had beer, given through the press, with the view ex recommending the Government to raise the school age to seven years and limit free education in the public schools to bhe Fourth Standard. There was a very large audience, the stalls being crowded, while there was a fair attendance, including a sprinkling of . the gentler sex, in the dress circle. His Worship the Mayor presided, and there were also on bhe platform: Sir Wm. Fox, Dr. Erson, Dr. Laishley, Dr. Wallis, Dr. McArtbur, Messrs W. Gorrie, J. M. McLachlan, R. J. Duncan, W. Duncan, Theo. Cooper, G. Peacocke, J. H. Upton, G. M. Reed, R. Farrell, E. Bell, T. B. Hill, E. W. Burton, F. G. Ewington, W. J. Speight, the Rev. J. S. Hill, and others too numerous to mention. His Worship stated that the meeting had been called for the purpose of considering the suggestion made through the papers and in Parliament that the school age ba raised bo seven years, and that free education should end with the Fourbh Standard. He impressed upon speakers the necessity of keeping bheir remarks within reasonable limits. Mr G. M. Reed rose to move the first resolution. He said bhab there was a conviction throughout bhe colony of New Zealand bhab retrenchment should be carried out to its utmost extent. This had gone as a roar round New Zealand. The Government had done a good deal towards responding bo the roar. Ib had been proposed to save a quarter of a million by the amalgamation of offices and cutting' down salaries. He thought it was a miserable retrenchment bhab was effecbed bycubbing down salaries, because officers of all kinds, whether they were employed in the public service or not, generally worked according to their pay, and if bhoy were discontented with the reductions made in their salaries bhe result would not be economy. Ib was rather our duty to look to bhe great spending services, and see if we could nob effect a reduction in the lump sum, if it could be done without in any way impairing the efficiency of the service. Amongst the great spending services bhab challenged rebrenchmenb were the railways, education, defence, and t\ greab many obhers. If they did not bring; before the meeting proposals for retrenchment, in defence, railways and other great spending services, ib should not be supposed! for a moment that this was because thej' undervalued retrenchment in these. They simply took one of these services and brought before the meeting a proposal by which education could be retrenched by £j.30,000, without the system being in the slightesb degree impaired. (Applause and dissenb.) Tho proposal was to raise tho school age to seven and to make free education end ab bhe Fourth Standard. (Uproar, and a voice: "You had better do away with it altogether.") He asked the audience to suspend judgment till he gave his reasons. He had two resolutions bo propose, and the first was—" That, in consideration pf the financial position of the colony, and the necessity for further retrenchment, the school age shodld ba raised to.seven years." (Applause and uprpar). .Mr.Reed proceeded to state how it came about that the school was. fixed ajj between five and fifteen years. The original intention wss that free education, should be given between seven years and fourteen years, fcut the Government were then in a liberal spirit, and the people hsd taken the benefit of their liberality ever since. The particular resolution that had been left to him was the raising of tiie school age to seyen years. (Appladse and disorder.) He' argued that if children were taken away from' their natural play between tho ages of five and seven years, !, no ' advantage was derived, from the rapjdity with which they wsre educated. Stiatif tics proved bhab although children entered the schools at 5 years the average age at which they passed the First Standard was 3 years. He s^sked any parent was there any ordinary child coming to school at! seven, years §nd nob able to master bhe First Standard in two years He mentioned a settlement in this colony where children had grown up to U, 12, or 13 years of age, and ha<l been able fa pass bhe Third Standard in twelve months, (Cries of *_ Where?" and uproar.) .He niaintained that it! was, hob only useless, but positively injurious, for, a child to entel- school heijwpeb, the ages of 5 and 7 ye?>rs, because its organism wpuld be deleteripUply affected by crowding in warm room's. It was the stomacb rather than bhe, brain that required developmen's between 5 and 7 years. Jhe German Government' fixed bhe age of seven years for children entering public education, and the same prevailed ia France.Ha admitted that there was mere."precocity in the children in the colonies than at Home, but he contended that precocity should not be encouraged^ ifor early precocity was a sure precursor of early decadence. The fact of the mabter was thatthe real reason they had for putting their children to school at an unnatural period was sipiply j» Z<*b ri(J of them (applause and uproari-Mbey might disguise it as they pleased—besides the unpatriotic desire to get capitation. For every tmedf those children who were being injured j the State waa paying £3 15s per head. Mr Reed then read a letter written "from a mother's point of view," asking him to convey the opinion of many fathers and mothers on the questions under npbice. Ib was asserted in this letter that ib was surely better to poison infants with carbonic acid gas rather than to coop them up in our unfortunately mixed schools and their injurious abmosphere. (Applause and disAt'this stage Mr John Bell placed on the stage a smarb-lopKiilg bdy,- *horn he described as one of Mr Worthington's five-year-olds, and suggested that,.a- doctor should examine hW» to see how much h«* hkd ' suffered 'from schooling. * The little fellow accepted the Mayor's invitation and took a. seat on tfre platform, . • ' Sir' Wm. Fox seconded the resolution. He said that he had given the subject of education very great attention for many years. What was _ the question they had to discuss? [A voice: "The poor man's'child."]" And the rich man's child too. The basis mm. which the State; education stood was what? There was no natiiral resporisibility oh the State' to educate our children. [Uproar and a voice: « We are the State*."] I-"**"«_ that common sense had • taught aU civilised nations that it was absolutely necessary for their own safety th&bthey should edueato the people of the Stpte.. , (Applause.) It.would be a very good way of solving this question by having no children for a year or two, as they did in France (laughter), but as the children did come v.-c must educate them. He would' give as'much education to the children as he pp^i,% could,;and children were iLrning jiH at Mm •*«*& years. ButfdnSatjop iM a fpbof mone^. f'/C voice: " _4«d &> < ?«". c Ministers. ] Well, Prime ''Mm_b_*& were a necessary evil A gr-atv- '«k&M fefe retrenchment had gone: up in; ;M«': Z*£m4,'■ m<_ ho believed that ifr was- save under the heading of education from £100,000 to

£110,000. The present Government had made proposals by which £30,000 would be saved, and tho present resolution would save about £80,000. He asked, where was all the money to come from ? They were going to have a tea duty, and Major Atkinson said he would put a sugar duty on top of that. (A voice: "And flour on top of that." Laughter.) Were they to go on burning the candle at both ends, or was it nob their duty to save this £80,000 or £100,000 in one department without impairing efficiency, if it could be done ? There would be fewer educated in a less time, and that was all. He now left the matter in the hands of the meeting, with the parting recommendation that we should be honest and pay our debts. (Applause and uproar.)

Mr Theo. Copper said that he desired bo pub the plain issue of this question before the meeting, for it had not been put before them yet. He meved as an amendmenb, "That all the words after the word 'that' in Mr Reed's resolution be struck oub, and bhab the following words be inserted in liou thereof : 'We should have no interference with our present State system of education (cheers), either by way of raising the school age or lessening the number of standards taught, if advisable (prolonged cheering), but that, in the opinion of this meeting, a large sum of money can, and should, be saved by a more economical administration of educational matters.'" (Cheers.) He felt some diffidence in rising to propose this amendmenb when he found such men as Sir William Fox and.Mr G. M. Reed supporting the motion, bub ho felb that a red herring had been drawn across bhe scenb. Not many monbhs ago he was himself under bhe impression that retrenchment could be carried out in a manner suggested by these gentlemen, but after having gone through a largo amounb of State papers and after having given more thought to the subject bhan previously, he came bo bhe conclusion bhab they coald not safely raise the school age (cheers), nor safely lower the standards. (Cheers). That we could retrench in educational matters he was quite satisfied, and he would point oub how ib could be done later on. On Monday night he had tried to sound a note of warning that the education system should not be touched till we had exhausted all other means of retrenchment (cheers), and he ventured to submit that the money spent in this colony for education was about the only portion of the vast expenditure throughout New Zealand that the people as a class obtained any practical benefit from. Ib was a somewhat strange thing that a tax should be made upon our educational system, and he would point oub bhp reason why. If £100,000 or £130,000 could be sbruck off one large vote, there was no necessity for Government to touch the Civil Service, the defence, or the railways. The roar for retrenchment would have passed over in twelve months and we should have lost, whether we were working men or not, one of bhe mainstays of our educational system. There was bhis furbher remark in reference to the previous speeches, They had not indicated how this money was to be saved. Before they discussed the question as to fairness, let them consider whab would be saved by bhe proposal. (A voice: "£3155.") Nothing of the kind. The highest authority on education in the oolony, the Rev. W. J. Habens, said that we cannot save more bhan 25s per head, and that was the cost of these 19,000 children under seven years of age attending the public schools. (Cheers.) They had had no figures from the opposite side, and he would give them a few. (Cheers.) There were 19,000 children between 5 and 7 years cf age attending the public schools of the colony. It did not follow that these were only five years old, and Mr Habens stated that a great many were over six. A child six years and nine months would be excluded under such a system as that proposed by Mr Reed. (Cheers.) Mr Habens found that perhaps half of the 19,000 were over tho age of 6 years, and there would be but some 8,000 or 9,000 of the tender years upon which Mr Reed had dwelt bo pathetically. (Laughter.) Mr Reed had a lady friend by the way (laughter), but he didn't give them her name. (Laughter.) She might be Mrs Aldis for all he (Mr Cooper) knew ; and Mr Reed also quoted from Hansard,- but did not give the name of the speaker. Well, supposing there were 8,000 or 9,000. children in the Schools between the ages of 5 and 6, the amount saved by excludinjg these would be a paltry £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000—it was paltry compared with the issues involved. (A voice: "Mr Fisher says £25,000.") He said Mr Fisher was wrong. (Cheers.) Now let them see how this saving was to be effeoted. Ifor one moment think about the country schools. (Hear, hear.) There were 55 country schools in this educational district, with an average attendance of 25. If this proposal of Mr Reed's were carried they would have to shut up these 55 schools or get a special grant from the House to keep fhem going, because if we took away air the children under seven years and all ovey the Fourth Standard, there Would remain a number so small that it would be impossible to carry on school work. It would reduce the average to something like 12 or 15 for each school. The welfare of every working man in this colony Was bound up in the welfare of the country settler (hear, hear), and if we took from the country settler one of the few luxuries —he should rather have said necessities—which be had a means pf supplying at present time ; if we would not educate the children, how fcould wo expect men to go into the country ?. We struck a fatal blow at the education system if we raised the school age to seven years. (Applause.) What was the necessity for it ? They were told that retrenchment was the necessity, but they had received no figures in proof. Mr Reed said it was a cruelty to compel children to go to school between the ages of 5 and 7 years ', this was a fallacy. There was no compulsion, and people were not obliged to send their children to school below seven years if they wished to keep them at home. He did not agree with Sir William Fox as to his definition of the duties of the State. (Applause.) If the experience pf mankind showed that parents could not or would not properly educate their children, it was the duty of the State to do it. (Cheers. > He understood they were going to have the opinion pf a doctor on the physiological aspect of the question, but he (Mr Copper) preferred to take the experience of the Education Department in Now Zealand to that of any doctor. (Laughter and applause.) Mr Habens gave evidence before a Committee of the .House in the month of November last. He was asked, " What do you bhink of bhe general effect of disc" Mine and beaching on these younger children (children between 5 and 7 years) ?" and he replied that, *' Considering the early age at which the children of the artisan and the labourer ordinarily leave school, it is necessary to admit such children at an early age, in ordejr thaj their course may be. of reasonable length." (Cheers.) Mr Habens had also sbated that such children derived very great benefit from the discipline and instruction they received, and were prepared for the discipline and instruction that would follow ib the more advanced classes. It was absurd to say that because a ehjld ioojf four years before he passed into the First Standard, that that time was lost. It was improving the child and training his mind to discipline, or preparing him, in fact, for superior studies later en. If the children of the artisan received their early education out of doors, moreover, it was detrimental from a moral point of view. (Ap-" plauae.) The English Government recommended the attendance of children just above three years, and every^ child above three years was entitled to grants from "the* treasury. Mr Seed had stated

that no obher civilised nation, besides New Zealand, admitted children bo the schools at five years of age. (A voice : " England is not civilised," and laughter.) In England the compulsory age commenced at five years, and here the compulsory age did nob begin till seven years. In France, the compulsory age was six years, in Belgium ib was the same, and he believed that it was also six years in Germany. Mr Habens was aEked, "Is there any undue mental sbrain involved ?" and his reply was, " In a properly organised school bhe exercise is pleasanb and healthful, and does not involve any harm to the brain." Mr Habens, in reply to another question, said that he thought that the different conditions of children ought to be considered. The children of the working man and the artisan usually left school at an earlier age, and they ought therefore to go to school earliSr than others. These, said Mr Cooper, were surely sufficient grounds for rejecting Mr Read's resolution (Cheers.) No sane man could come to the conclusion that a child of five years could get any harm in the public schools, and if they were to have retrenchment, they must have it in some other way than that now proposed. (Cheers.) He undersbood that a resolution would be moved directly limiting free education to the Fourth Standard. A more fatal mistake could nob be made. (Applause.) He admitted that if that were done they could save a large of money, bub would ib be well saved ? (" No, no.") Ib came oub of bhe pockebs of the people. £400,000 a year was spent for education, and the total revenue derived from the property tax did nob amount to much more than £350,000. Property, of course, bore its proper share of burdens, but the education of the people of necessity came out of the pockets of the greater number. (Cheers.) Ib was bhe people themselves who conbribubed to the revenue for this purpose, and they had a right to say whether or not they could afford the money. (Cheers.) By limiting free education to the Fourth Standard we would exclude from the public schools of the colony over 12,800, and he ventured to submit that a boy's education was only beginning when he passed the Fourth Standard. (Applause.) The Sixth Standard was looked upon in Englishspeaking countries as the finishing book for the education of the working classes, and the Civil Service of New Zealand was only open to boys who had passed the Sixth Standard. (Applause.) At this stage the Rev. Mr Wallis rose to a point of order, and was met by a storm of hisses. The Chairman ruled bhab Mr Cooper was in order, and he resumed amid cries of " Go on."

Mr Cooper then recommended the audience to pause before they took any step such as had been proposod by Mr Reed. He was going to show how £50,000 could be effected in educational retrenchment without preventing one child from attending the schools or lowering the standards. (Cries' of "Go on.") They had 3,000 teachers in the colony, including 185 sewing mistresses, and a very large number of pupil teachers; 570 teachers receiving salaries under £100; 100 receiving salaries from £100 to £200; 224 with salaries from £200 to £300; 52 with salaries from £300 to £400 ; and sixteen receiving over £400. They fpund in Auckland that by discharging useless teachers and limiting the staff, a saving cf £2,000 cculd be effected; while in Otago a saving cculd be made of a much larger sum. Supposing that in bhe exigencies of bhe presenb system we made reductions, baking the most off those who were getting most, and the least off those who were getting the least, they could save £37,000 without doing hurt to a single person, or interfering with the efficiency of a single school. (Cheers.) Twenty per cent, was nob a greab hardship off a ealary of over £400, for we had all bo suffer some reduction on account cf the bad times. He would take 15 per cent, from salaries of £300 ; 12_ from £200; 10 per cent, from £150; and 5 per cent, off bhe balance. Then, if bhey saved the vobe for buildings, .bhey could save anobher £25,000 or £30,000. He asked bbem nob bo be misled by false issues, lb was remarkable bhab Mr Reed, who supported the motion, was also the representative of a newspaper that supported denominational education. (Applause and dissent.) There were Certain persons in Auckland who had offered to support New Testament day schopls if they cculd get a capitation pf £1 per head, and he urged all to vote in a decisive." manner against the resolution. (Loud and prolonged applause.) Mr Farrell rose to second the amendment. There was, he said, no question on which the working classes could so well speak as upon education. He maintained that considerable retrenchment should be effected in our Civil Service and in higher education, before our present system of primary education was touched. (Applause.) They should give consent to no such proposal before every other means of retrenchment had been carried into effect. (Applause). He also stated that the. small cost cf £1 5s per head for children under seven years of age was Owing to the large number that could be taught in one class. Without the Fifth and Sixth Standards money Bpent on education would be little better than wasted.

Dr. Wallis said he was decidedly more in favour of the amendment than of the motion. Education, he said, consisted of two distinct parts, primary and higher education. Primary education was necessary to the life of the people, and higher education was a luxury which taxpayers afforded the richer portion of the population. If retrenchment were really indispensable, he would prefer that it should begin in the secondary rather than in the primary schools, and that we should reduce extravagance in conneoticn with our higher schools and university colleges rather than that we should do that which would tend to maim our present excellent system of primary education. While there was so much extravagance in every part of Government, he would prefer that retrenchment should be effected in these other 10 or 12 departments of Government rather than in the Education Department. He did nob bhink that our'educational system was without fault, bub we should beware of doing anything that would interfere with it seriously. Mr Reed's proposal seemed to go too far. He was inclined to retrench one year ab bhe beginning (dissenb), bub as the audience were so determined he would not touch it at all, rather than deal with it in the heroic manner proposed by Mr Reed. He denied the statement that children received no benefit from schooling before the ageof seven years, and also the statement that muscular development was interfered with by sending children to school at five years. The fact was that during the first three years the child's brain developed, and that very little change took plaoe after the third year. Dr. Wallace quoted Professor Bain to the effect that nothing but observation of cases would avail us in deciding at what age a child should begin schooling. The concluding sentence of the quotation was, "The necessity or expediency of protracting the age of commencing till six or seven cannot be made cut. There ought to be proof positive that in su,ch belated instances the child advances with a rapidity that carries all before it."

Mr J. M. McLachlan rose to express the views of the Financial Reform Association, and was met with some opposition. One of the audience suggested that they didn't want to hear any suggestions from the "Skinflint Association." Mr McLachlan stated that the Association which he represented was of opinion that very great retrenchment could be effected by a reduction, of salaries and office expenditure, and would hail with satisfactionany mnvement which, while not impairing efficiency, wonld bring about this resuii.

Mr Neylon said it was the opinion of the Newmarket School Committee that 5 years was too early. He thought that the school age should be from 5 to 7 years, providing pupils had passed the sth Standard, and that special concessions should, be made to country schools. (Applause. ) Mr McManus supported the amendment. He mentioned that ab Herikino the schools had been closed to Maori boys (' 'Shame"), and then went on to observe that the Financial Reform Association had been euchred that night as they had never been before. (Laughter.) Mr J. M. McLachlan rose to protest, but the meeting declined to hear him. Mr F. G. Ewington said that the decision of the public on this question would mark an epoch in the history of New Zealand. The education system was in danger, and it became them as wise men to look this difficulty in the faco, and see where they were going to. It was specially necessary at the present time that they should have a good system of education, because the English people were engaged in an industrial warfare from which there was no discharge. Although there were objections to be made against our system, he contended that it was a good system. (Applause.) But we should have a sysbem within our means, which we could pay for honestly. The present system was costing us over £509,000 a year, and expenses had none on increasing at the average of £10,250 per annum. They had spent £85,0C0 a year on public school buildings, and bhe tax was now 17s 6d per head on every man, woman, and child in New Zealand. (A voice: "And cheap ab that.") That was £3 15s for every male taxpayer. The question was, " Could we afford to pay this great sum?' We were spending at present four millions a year ; we had a deficiency last year and the previous year; and they had to be made up by increased taxation, and he asked, could we pay over half a million a year for our system of educabion ? (A voice ; " Wemusb," and uproar.) If wecouldpayfor ibhe said in the name of Heaven let us have it, but if we could not pay for it, let us look the matter full in the face and say we cannot afford it. (Applause and dissent.) If we went on exbravaganbly we would injure our credit in the Old Country. _ His only reason for rising was to gay that if we did not, like wise men, take hold of the helm, the vessel would drift on the rocks; if we didn't grapple this question till it settled itself it woidd settle us. (Applause and dissent.) Mr Cooper had pointed out that a saving of £37,000 could be effected by cutting down salaries, and Mr Neylon had made a wise suggestion in splitting the difference between 7 and 5 years, by which a saving of £25,000 might be effected. If it was found necessary to stop ab the Fourth Standard, we have the scholarships for the sons of poor parents. Ab this stage Dr. Laishley and Mr Otto faced the audience together, the latter loudly claiming his right to be heaixL The Chairman ruled in favour of Dr. Laishley, and Mr Otto retired.

Dr. Laishley said he had been asked to speak on the subject of the Fourth Standard and to move the resolution, "That in consideration of the financial position of the colony and the necessity for further retrenchment, free education should end with the Fourth Standard," and, as if the amendment were carried, he would have no opportunity to move the resolution, he would speak to the amendment. He had recommended to the Government in 1885 that free education should stop at the Fourth Standard. (Uproar, and cries of " Who told you ?") He made that recommendation for two reasons, because the finaucial interests of the colony required it, and, mainly, because he didnotthinkthat the State was in any way bound togo beyond the Fourth Standard even if they were bound to do that. (Dissent.) He regarded the duties of the Government in this matter to so educate its subjects that they might be of benefit to bhe Stabe. The Legislature of New Zealand had declared that there was- no obligation to educate beyond the Fourth Standard(hisses), and it had been placed on record in the 90th section of the Act that "Compulsory education shall cease at the Fourth Standard." (Uproar). He was unable to understand why any education in the Fifth and Sixth Standards was permitted by the State, and he denied that the Government of New Zealand had any right to expend Stabe moneys in bhese standards. (Uproar). At this stage Mr W. J. Speight advanced from bhe body of the hall and mounted the platform amidst cheering. He appealed for a hearing for Dr. Laishley, and that gentleman proceeded. He maintained that the Fourth Standard satisfied all the requirements of a State education (dissent), and there should be only one exception by which poor boys who were brilliant should receive.certain scholarships. (Laughter). Mr E. Bell here rose to move an amendment, but was ruled out of order.

Mr W. J. Speight said that it appeared as if there had been an attempt to prolong the meeting so that the audience would become tired ou'_ and not vote on the question. (Applause,) Dr. Laishley ought not to have been there at all, because he was the exponent of a set of men that did not believe in the education system at all —("We know that," and uproar)—of a set bhab were ready to pounce upon its carcase and tear it to pieces whenever they got a chance. He could not sit still and see the attempt that had been made bo deceive bhem. (Cheers). The only true leveller in this country was our Stabe system of education—it put the children of bhe rich man and bhe poor man bogether, and said " You will be educated side by side." This system was a heritage to New Zealanders, and he most devoutly gave expressien bo bhe thought that he was bhankful bo God that they carried an amendment the other night to postponecensideration of the question. (Wehave to thank you for it.) Mr Cooper's was the proper amendmenb, because bhe Bible-in-schools people and others were saying " We will do ib cheaper for you." Yes ; bhey did ib cheaper for us once, did bhey nob? (Laughter and applause.) Ib was because our denominations had made cur education to stink, because they were not doing their duty by the children, that the Stabe stepped in and said, " Stand aside, You have proved false to your trusb ; we cannob prove false bo ours." (Cheers.) There were some who ten years ago were with him on this question, but they had since fallen away. (A voice: "Reed," and laughter). No; he did not mean Reed ; Resd was a very good fellow— an excellent fellow. He would now say to the people, " Close up.; stand shoulder to shoulder (cheers), and let there be no more paltering with this thing. Either bhe educabion sysbem has to be complete or we must do without it altogether. (Cheers.) Do nob palter with any part of "the amendmenb, bub sbop here bill midnight if necessary and vote for ib." (Loud and prolonged cheering.)

The Rev. J. S. Hill said he wanted the meeting seriously to consider one question, whether they were quite just in dealing with the Roman Catholics as they were npw dealing with them on this matter pf education. (Cries cf "No," "Yes," and uproar.) There were a large number of the very poorest amongst us who conscientiously felb a difficulty in putting their chikhen under a secular system of education, and he asked was this just to them (uproar, and a voice : " What are you paid for ?") He was certainly not paid by the person interrupting. He had nob come bhere bo say anybhing aboub religion (uproar), but he said bhab if they wanted bo maintain bhe presenb system of education and keep it inbact, bhey musb be jusb to every man in the State—(Hear, hear)—and if they wanted to economise in this respect

they could do so by getting assistance from those who were willing to educate the children. (Applause and dissent.) In England to day they gave help ot this nature, but it did not exceed halt the real cost. (A voice: "We are ahead of England," and another^ voice: " You are an enemy of the system. ) -But they had to deal' with the practical difficulty. If they wanted to give the best possible education to everyone, they must go upon the most economical principle. They must do something to prevent the increasing burdens of cost upon the State, for otherwise the time must come when they must carry some such resolution as that proposed by Mf Reed. (Uproar.) The question was then submitted to the meeting. For the amendment a forest of hands-went up all over the hall, and there were only about thirty hands against it. It was, therefore, declared carried amidst cheers. Three cheers for Mr Theo. Cooper were called for and given with enthusiasm, and after passing a similar compliment to the Chairman, the meeting terminated at 11 o'clock. _____-__________„__