THE Thames Advertiser. FRIDAY, OCT. 27, 1876.

Thames Advertiser, Volume IX, Issue 2455, 27 October 1876, Page 2

THE Thames Advertiser. FRIDAY, OCT. 27, 1876.

The second reading of the Provincial Abolition Permissive Bill has beendefeated, after a repetition of some of. thewild assertionand declamationwhich: characterised the earlier stages of the : session, and served to prolong the' sitting to its present extent. Let us! hope it was the last kick of all but defunct Provincialism. The speakers on the Opposition side of the House 1 clung to the motion like drowning men catching at straws, and the exhibition was altogether'a'.very doleful one. Sir George Grey predicted a -de-: mand for Separation as the result of rejection of his motion, and another Opposition member confidently expressed his opinion that the Act would be resisted. Messrs Tole and Rees supported Sir George Grey in suitable funeral orations, and Mr Manders, a genuine goldfields' representative, was left to combat and demolish the ridiculous nonsense uttered in support of the bill. The Premier said the arguments had already been answered over and' over again, and it was unnecessary further to reply to the remarks of the mover of the bill. The bill was then thrown out. by 26 to 23.

At the usual meeting of the Borough Council, held last evening, the question of the division of the borough • into wards, under the proclamation of his Honor the Superintendent, dated the 4th ultimo, was referred to, A letter from Dr Kilgour on the subject was kid before the Council, pointing out the necessity for some action, in recognition of the rights of those ratepayers -who had signed the memorial causing such proclamation to be issued. Councillor Butt concurred in the opinion expressed through these columns jesterday, that the proclamation was invalid because it had not been issued within the prescribed time. Councillor Butt blamed the Superintendent for "making a mess of it," after taking four months to consider what action he would take in the matter. The Mayor, lawyerlike, said he would keep his opinion to himself on this occasion, especially as he had got into " hot water" before for " taking action at the request of one of the Councillors." His Worship, however, very good-naturedly admitted so much of his own opinion gratuitously as gave the Council to understand that lie did not consider the proclamation "effective." In other , words,. Mr Macdonald has no faith in the legality of the proclamation, and we are only surprised that he has not taken.an earlier opportunity of intimating such opinion, and of doing what he informed, the Council he had done yesterday, namely, communicated with an eminent legal'authority for confirmation of that opinion, in order to lay the matter before the Councillors. There can be no doubt, as we pointed out yesterday, that so long as the Council are satisfied of the validity of such a proclamation the duty devolves upon them of rendering it effective by allocating those of their number duly qualified to the respective wards in which their qualifications exist, but if the Council were not satisfied we think steps ought to have been taken earlier to decide the matter. We perceive that the attendance at last night's meeting was very small, and it is not improbable that some of the absent members may scruple to take their places at the Council table sp long as the question of the validity of their action is undecided, or any possibility exists of an enforcement of the penal clauses of the Act. It may be that the Mayor intended to throw the onus of deciding who were qualified to retain.seats at the Council upon Ins Honor the Superintendent, the Act providing that if the Council refuse or neglect to do so the Superintendent shall have the power. However, action has now been taken by his Worship to ascertain and decide, the validity or otherwise of the Superintendent's'notification, and the matter;

will bo brought before the Council in due course.