considerable, raised harmless and inoffensive dogs, which they knew to be owned, and thus made the law a means of extorting money by way of ransom, while large, ferocious, and unclaimed dogs which it was dangerous to seize, but by which, in fact, the greatest amount of damage was done, were suffered to run at large.

Ever these considerations principally, but also from others, which your committee deem it unnecessary now to enter upon, they recommend that the Dog Nuisance Ordinance now in force should be repealed.

The next question to which your committee directed their attention was the expediency, or otherwise, of levying fines or taxes upon dogs owned by aboriginal natives. They have borne in mind, on the one hand, that the Maories are generally attended by considerable numbers of dogs, and that injury to sheep and cattle is occasionally the consequence, as well as nuisance in other ways, and that, therefore, it would be highly desirable that some means should be devised to discourage them from keeping so many. On the other hand, they have felt that the natives have always been in the habit of keeping a considerable number of dogs, and that these are in some measure necessary to them to enable them to catch their pigs, and for other purposes. They fear it might be difficult to make the natives understand the true intention of a tax upon dogs, and that its imposition might appear to them, however erroneously, as somewhat oppressive and exacting, and that it might even be almost impossible for some of the lower class of natives to pay it. Taking these different circumstances into consideration, your committee have come to the conclusion that it will be better for the present to exempt native dogs from taxation, making provision, however, at the same time, that in case of damage done by any dog, whether owned by a native or not, the remedy shall be much easier and simpler than the law has hitherto provided.

It seems unnecessary in this report to enter in detail into the reasons which have guided your committee in agreeing to the resolutions. They may briefly state that the principle which they recommend is, that of a tax upon dogs. They believe that, wherever a dog is really useful, the owner will willingly pay for him the sum required, while, at the same time, they consider that it will discourage persons from keeping in their following a number of such animals for which they have no occasion.

The only other point upon which they will comment is the 7th resolution. As the law stands at present, where sheep are worried by a dog, it is necessary that the plaintiff, before recovering damages, should be able to prove that the owner of the dog knew that it had worried sheep previously. It is evident, that even where such has been the case, it will often be extremely difficult for the plaintiff to bring satisfactory evidence, and the consequence is that an individual not unfrequently sustains serious injury, for which the law provides no remedy. This evil the 7th resolution is intended to meet, at the same time that it guards against the hardship which might be suffered by a person being mulcted in heavy damages, in consequence of serious injury done by a dog which the owner had no reason to suspect of any vicious propensity.

We are aware that the method we suggest is opposed to the law of England as it at present stands, but we suggest that it is precisely one of those cases in which the peculiar circumstances of the colony warrant such a departure.

D. MONRO,

Chairman.

Dr. Greenwood moved, seconded by Mr. Seymour, the following resolution:—

That the introduction of Exiles into this Colony would inflict upon it a serious injury; that it would be extremely prejudicial to the morals, and repugnant to the feelings, of the Native race; and that it would have a most unfavourable influence upon the character and future prosperity of the Colony, by lowering it in public estimation, and deterring honest men from choosing it as their future home. And this Council further desires to express its opinion, that the proposed system of transporting persons, who have been convicted in a foreign country, to a colony which has no control over the parent country ought not to relieve itself from the burden of its criminal population at the expense of its dependencies; nor place those who have broken the law in a better position than those who have obeyed it; and believes the facility of removing its yearly increase of crime has a powerful tendency to keep it ignorant of its real nature and extent, as well as to interfere with any earnest and well considered measures for its reformation.

On the motion of Dr. Monro, debate adjourned.

On the motion of Mr. Seymour, Council adjourned at a quarter to 6 p.m. to Tuesday next at 2 o'clock.

Tuesday, June 12th.

No members being present, Council was adjourned to Saturday the 16th day of June, at 2 o'clock.

Saturday, June 16th.

Present—

His Excellency the Lieutenant-Governor and all the members, excepting the Hon. Dillon Bell and W. C. Cautley.

The Council met pursuant to adjournment.

The minutes of the last meeting read and confirmed.

On the motion of the Attorney-General, seconded by Mr. Seymour, “A bill to confer upon the Lieutenant-Governor of New Munster, within the Province, the Ame