SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 August 1860)

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
having moved to postpone the order for the second reading of the Bill till Monday next,

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
(who had presented, a petition from New Zealand against the Bill) implored the Government to consider the doubtful propriety of proceeding with the Bill at that advanced period of the Session. Without going into the merits of the measure, he might say that it proposed serious changes in the constitution of one of the most thriving and prosperous of our Colonies. He thought that the Bill itself was open to the gravest objections; but admitting for the sake of argument that it might be desirable to pass it, still the petition which he had presented showed that there were serious differences as regarded it, and for that reason he thought it ought not to be proceeded with at that period of the Session. Another objection to proceeding with it was that the Duke of Newcastle, the Colonial Secretary, was absent from England; and though his Grace had proposed the Bill in the House of Lords, who could tell that the petition which he (Sir John Pakington) had read might not have a great effect on him, since there was no man more ready to listen to fair representations than the Duke of Newcastle. The Bill was opposed to the views of the existing ministry and legislature of New Zealand, and was brought forward behind the backs of the people whom it concerned in the most interesting points. He earnestly hoped that the noble Lord would give full weight to the representations of a deputation of gentlemen interested in New Zealand, who, coming from all parts of England and even from Scotland, waited on the noble Lord yesterday to express their strong objections to the measure, and that the noble Lord would give them an assurance of his intention to withdraw it.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
said, that he 1318 thought he should be consulting the wishes of the right hon. Baronet when, in answer to his question, he stated the Bill would not be taken that night. On Monday those who had charge of it would state the arguments for proceeding with it, and it would be highly inconvenient to enter upon a discussion at 1 o'clock in the morning, when it was not proposed to read the Bill a second time to-night.