(From our own Correspondent.)

My budget this week must commence with a reply to a letter which appeared in your issue of the 6th instant regarding my remarks about Mr Dick and the Bill alleged to have been brought in by him in reference to theatrical performances, and which, without the slightest shadow of truth, he affirmed to a deputation, was treated more as a "joke " and "laughed out of the House." To begin : It was with feelings of amusement, tinged with a little pity, that I read the lame defence — for it was nothing but a defence — made by " ex-M.H.H."in extenuation of the inconsistent action of the Hon. Mr Dick in reference to Sunday theatrical repre sentations. "Ex-M.H.R." begins his letter by saying that your correspondent " is altogether wrong in affirming that Mr Dick did not introduce a Bill purporting to deal with public entertainments," and then goes on to state that a reference to " Hansard" of 1880 would show that such a measure had been submitted to the House and read a " first time." We will now go into the subject and see how far the statement of " ex-M.H.8." is upheld about my being "altogether wrong." The subject is a very interesting one, and we will therefore trace the matter from its commencement — that is, so far as Mr Dick is concerned— and show what that gentleman did in regard to putting a stop to indecent and Sunday performances, and the amount of credit due for hi 3 "very excellent services." To begin : When Mr Dick entered Parliament in 1879, among the first things he did was to give notice of a question which he put the following day to the then Government. The question ran thus : — (( If they had been requested to take any action to prevent theatrical representations of an immoral tendency in,th«- city of

MR. CONNELL'S AMENDED LAND BILL.
