Commons Sitting of 12 April 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2o Annoyance Jurors (Westminster); Charitable Uses.
3o Post Office Savings Banks.

MILITIA QUARTERMASTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the scale of pay and allowances to Militia Quartermasters; and whether it is intended to place them more on a par with other Staff Officers in that branch of the Public Service?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that in consequence of the observations made on a former occasion by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he bad instituted inquiries and ascertained that the case of the Militia Quartermasters was referred to the Commission which sat on the Militia in 1859, and that the Commission considered that the pay and allowances of those Officers were sufficient. Therefore it was not intended to propose any alteration.

PERUVIAN GUANO—AMERICAN TARIFF.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Resolution was passed by the Peruvian Congress abolishing the monopoly of consignment of Guano, and offering to sell it free on board at 30 dollars per ton; and if so, why that Resolution was not carried out? He would also beg to ask whether the noble Lord has received any copy of the new American Tariff; and if so, whether he will lay it on the Table of the House?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had received a copy of the American Tariff, but it was not quite in such a shape as to be presented to Parliament. With respect to the question relating to Peruvian Guano all the explanation he could give was that the question was raised in the Peruvian Congress, but he was not aware of any decision being arrived at respecting it.

KING'S COLLEGE, ABERDEEN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. LESLIEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Estimates will include a grant for the purpose of providing certain new buildings at King's College, Aberdeen, and if so, to state the sum and the nature of the proposed additional accommodation?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that the Estimates which would contain any grant which

  507
  might be required for buildings at King's College would be distributed in the course of a few days, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would not object to wait that short time for the information he requested.

  CHRISTIANS IN TURKEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to ask, When the Consular Return with regard to the condition of the Christians in Turkey will be laid on the Table of the House?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL, in reply, said he had laid the Papers on the Table at the beginning of the Session, but the whole of them had not been printed. He believed they would be delivered to-morrow or Monday, probably to-morrow.
  Moved that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next.

  THE INDIGO PLANTERS.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that he had put a notice of two questions upon the paper, namely, to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, notwithstanding the Minute of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal upon the Report of the Indigo Commission dated 17th December last, a Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Council of India to enforce contracts for the delivery of agricultural produce; and if so, whether such measure has been introduced with the sanction of the Government of India? And whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of that Report and Minute, and of the Act XI. of 1860 of the Indian Legislature, together with the Correspondence thereon between the Governor General of India, the Lieutenant Governor; of Bengal, and the Indigo Planters' Association, and other documents and papers relating to the cultivation of Indigo in Bengal? He had, however, been requested by the right hon. Gentleman to postpone them, as he (Sir Charles Wood) was unable to be in his place through indisposition. He greatly regretted the circumstance, because, he was sorry to say, there was no other right hon. Gentleman able to give him the information he sought. The House could have no idea of the importance of the subject; it was really no exaggeration to say that there were millions of persons looking for some expression of opinion in that House; and he had given the notice so long ago as Monday last, in order that the mail which left on
  508
  the 10th might take out the information that the subject was going to he mooted in Parliament. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would be in his place on the earliest opportunity. The statement which he (Mr. Layard) should have to make would be almost without precedent, such a picture should he have to draw of lawless violence on the part, he was sorry to say, of European subjects of Her Majesty, on the one hand, and of suffering and wrongs endured by the natives on the other. His letters from India were of a most alarming character. He would only refer to a minute of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, in which he stated that he had steamed for fourteen hours down two rivers in Lower Bengal, on both banks of which, like the two sides of a street, were gathered crowds of men, women, and children, imploring justice. Mr. Grant added very significantly, that there was an organization about them which led him to apprehend that if that justice were not granted it would be taken. His (Mr. Layard's) accounts were no less alarming, for they had led him to fear that justice would be refused; and, therefore, he was glad to learn that a despatch had been sent out by the last mail to support Mr. Grant. If that were true, he could only say that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Charles Wood) should have all the humble support that he (Mr. Layard) could give him. The right hon. Gentlemen had authorized him to move for that despatch as an unopposed return on Monday next; and he (Mr. Layard) would seize the first opportunity of making his statement; if no earlier occasion presented itself, he would do so on that day week, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. KINNAIRDexpressed his regret at the unavoidable delay which had occurred with reference to his hon. Friend's Motion, because he considered the present position of the Government of India as entirely indefensible. Contrary to the pledge given to the House last Session by the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for India, that the Act passed there last year was to be only temporary in its duration; and contrary to the promises to the same effect made to the cultivators of indigo, a similar act under another name had been introduced into the Legislative Council, which might, if carried, endanger the peace of Bengal, in the face of the earnest remonstrances and warnings of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, in opposition to the spirit of Her

  509
  Majesty's Proclamation, and enacting the greatest injustice. If it were passed, he should hold the Government of India and the Government at home responsible for all the evils that might very probably be the result, and it would be a matter for the very gravest consideration what steps could be taken to prevent the re-enactment of such iniquitous laws. He trusted his hon. Friend would be allowed the earliest possible opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.

THE NELSON MONUMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he rose once more to call the attention of the House to the incomplete state of the Nelson Monument in Trafalgar Square, the answer which he had received last year to a similar complaint was, he believed, no more satisfactory to hon. Members than himself, He was sure in the mind of that great man the predominant feature was the strongest of all human desires, the yearning for immortality, and not the vulgar thirst for fame and celebrity, but the aspiration of a noble nature for memory and continuance in the minds of his countrymen after death. Monuments of granite, the material least subject to decay, and capable of perpetual renovation, most fully became such a man exempt from the wrongs of time; for statues and pillars were scarcely to be considered copies or images of the departed, because they were ever germinating and sowing seeds in the minds of others, provoking and reproducing similar actions, emulation and imitations in their successors, like a ship passing through the vast seas of time, and making distant generations partake of the greatness, the excellences, and heroism of the dead. Like the Roman of old, Augustus Cæ sar, who would upon his entrance on public life stretch forth his hand to the statue of Cæ sar in prayer, "so may I obtain the honours of my illustrious ancestor." He, therefore, earnestly entreated the completion of this monument to show that not only did we reverence the memory of Nelson, but that we had set it up to encourage activity, to quicken zeal, to kindle and enforce hope, and to show that success and honours to those who imitated him were certain. Conscious that he was speaking the sentiments of hon. Members and of the country at large, he would once more urge upon the Government how desirable it was
  510
  to complete the Nelson Monument on account of the respect we owed to his memory, and a just appreciation of our country upon the part of strangers who visited the Metropolis, and for the sake of that profession of which he was in death as in life the brightest ornament.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he felt bound to acknowledge there had been considerable delay in the completion of the monument; but it should be borne in mind that worse things than delay were to be apprehended in the case of statues placed in Trafalgar Square. The Government had, he might add, done all they could in the matter by entrusting the composition of the lions by which the monument was to be adorned into the hands of so eminent an artist as Sir Edwin Landseer, who was, he believed, at present carefully occupied in modelling those animals—a work in which be would, no doubt, be stimulated to increased exertion by the eloquent language of the hon. and gallant Member who so well represented the British lion in that House.

DENMARK AND HOLSTETN.

  QUESTIONS.
  MR. H. BAILLIE, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any objection to lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence with the Governments of Prussia and Denmark relative to the Affairs of the Duchies of Schleswig and of Holstein, said, that he and other hon. Members were gratified by the announcement which, at the commencement of the Session, had been made from the Throne to the effect that the foreign relations of this country were in a satisfactory position. He was well aware, however, that the words of that announcement must not be construed in too literal a sense, because experience proved that at the present day the most peaceful professions were not inconsistent with the most artful devices and the most active preparations. Of artful devices, however, he would say nothing, as he did not wish to give offence in any quarter, while at the same time it was quite clear warlike preparations were being carried on in every country in Europe, our own not excepted. If, under those circumstances, the representatives of the people in the House of Commons were anxious to do their duty, they must bear in mind that the expenditure incurred for naval and military purposes must entirely depend on

  511
  the manner in which the foreign affairs of the country were conducted. Now he, for one, was not among the number of those who complained of the foreign policy of the noble Lord the Member for London, who, in his opinion, had, on the whole, conducted the business of the nation, so far as it came within his department, with great judgment and discretion. But that circumstance did not, he should contend, render it the less necessary that the House should be funished with adequate information in reference to questions of great importance bearing upon the future welfare of the country. It was true that it had of late happened that the attention of the people of England had been absorbed in Italian affairs, so that other questions which awaited the decision of the statesmen of Europe, and in which it became us to take a deep interest, had not received that degree of attention to which they were entitled. In making that remark he must be understood as alluding more especially to the Eastern question, as well as that which had arisen between the Government of Denmark and the German Powers with respect to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. With regard to the former of those questions he would say nothing on the present occasion, except that it appeared to him, so far from having been settled in a satisfactory manner by the Treaty of Paris, to be now more complicated and more difficult of solution than it had been previous to the late war with Russia. It was, then, to the latter question—that which related to the disputes subsisting between Denmark and the German Powers—that he wished more particularly to advert. That was a question which did not affect those Powers alone which were more immediately concerned in its settlement. It was one in which the interests, not only of England, but of other nations, were involved. To maintain the independence and integrity of Denmark was a policy which it was not only wise and prudent for this country to adopt, but it was a duty which we were called on to perform; for it would be obviously most injurious to the public interest of Europe that a Power so situated should have its independence compromised or its strength impaired. The differences which had arisen between the German Powers and Denmark since the year 1848 in reference to the Duchies bad, he might add, been fostered and encouraged by the ambition of Prussia. There could be no doubt that Prussia was
  512
  the moving Power. Taking advantage of the German feeling which existed in Holstein, Prussia had lost no opportunity of exciting discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the inhabitants of that Duchy, thus rendering all attempts at conciliation or compromise unavailing. Even now, when the Government of Denmark had accepted the proposals made by the mediating Powers, those proposals had failed to satisfy the inhabitants of Holstein; for what they wanted was not conciliation, but separation; it was not, in short, with them a question of liberal political institutions, but one of nationality—they sought separation from Denmark and annexation to Germany. The case of Schleswig was, however, somewhat different. That Duchy did not form a portion of the Germanic Confederation, and the German Diet had no more right to interfere in the disputes which had arisen between the inhabitants of Schleswig and the Danish Government than it had to interfere between the British Government and the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands. The main object, then, sought to be attained by the German Powers with respect to Schleswig was not that which was ostensibly put forward in the case of Holstein—namely, the necessity of performing a federal act of duty in marching to the assistance of a distressed German nationality—but rather that which rose from the ambition, which lurked behind, of extending their frontiers to the shores of the Baltic. It was doubtless true that the magnificent harbour of Kiel, one of the finest in the world, was deemed to be a prize worth contending for; but the German Powers should bear in mind that there was another Power which might set a high value upon extended frontier, and that a policy which might have been wise and for the interests of Germany in 1848, became an act of madness in 1861, when the face of Europe had been changed and the balance of power completely altered. Under these circumstances he was anxious to know what had been the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We knew, indeed, that the policy of the Government had been to mediate, and that proposals had been made to both parties; but we also knew that those proposals were not likely to be successful. Under these circumstances he wished to be informed whether Her Majesty's Ministers had conveyed in terms—in terms conciliatory, no doubt, but still in terms not to be mistaken—the assurance that England would not look with indif-

  513
  ference upon an unjust aggression or upon any unnecessary and wanton violation of the peace of Europe. The present was not an occasion on which England could pursue that course which had of late been termed the policy of non-intervention, which meant no policy at all. This was a question upon which England was bound to take a decided course and to announce a decided policy; and he trusted that policy would be to maintain the independence and integrity of Denmark.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYalso wished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, on the subject to which the hon. Member for Inverness-shire had called the attention of the House. He wished the noble Lord to inform the House, Whether the war carried on by Holstein and Schleswig against Denmark was terminated in January 1851 by the armed intervention of the German Bund, the Duchies having given way on the understanding that rights equal to those of Denmark Proper should be secured to them and to Lauenburg, that each Duchy should have a Representative Assembly with a deliberative vote, that their common institutions (nun-political) should be maintained, that Schleswig should not be incorporated with Denmark, that the German language and nationality should enjoy perfect equality with the Danish; these rights to be guaranteed by a common Constitution for the general affairs of the monarchy? His object was to obtain for the House information as to the true state of the relations subsisting between the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein and the Danish Government. It was most desirable that if the voice of England were raised at all, it should be on the side of peace, and that our Government should make some friendly remonstrances to both parties which might have the effect of averting what appeared to be an imminent war. It was impossible, however, that the voice of England could be heard with effect if one of the parties in conflict felt that the English people were entirely against them, and would not listen to the statements and arguments advanced on the other side. He had heard with surprise the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baillie) that the support given by the German Powers to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein was dictated by a desire to dismember the Danish monarchy, and was, in fact, a mere intrigue, especially on the part of Prussia, to obtain possession of the
  514
  port of Kiel. Having listened to many debates upon this subject in the German Parliament, and having heard it spoken of again and again in all parts of Germany, and even in Holstein itself, he could safely say that such a proposition was entirely new to him, nor did he believe that any such intention ever animated those who advocated interference on the part of the Germanic Confederation. On the contrary, he knew it to be a fact that the members of the German Parliament who advocated interference in the question of the Duchies were precisely those who would be especially jealous of Prussia, and who would be the last to counsel any measure which would add to the power of that country. In 1850 the German Bund ordered a federal army of 50,000 men, 25,000 of whom were Prussians and 25,000 Austrians, to march into the Duchies, and compel them to lay down their arms; and it was under this threat that the Duchies, after one of the most heroic contests of modern times, ceased their resistance and submitted to Denmark. He believed that a peculiarly irritating kind of oppression had been exercised by the Danish Government over their German subjects in the Duchies; for example, the Danish Government had told the German population that they could not be confirmed until they learned the Danish language—which he could not help thinking was a remarkably stupid sort of oppression, because if anything could strengthen the dislike entertained by the Germans to the Danish language it would be an order compelling them to learn it in order to be confirmed. The actual effect had been that the young people had studied Danish with a view to confirmation, and then had hated it for the rest of their lives. He felt the importance of maintaining the power of Denmark: but the power of a country was not maintained by conduct inconsiderate and unconciliatory towards any portion of its population. The only mode by which Denmark could satisfy the just expectations of Holstein and the German inhabitants of Schleswig would be by giving them those privileges and equal rights which were possessed by the other subjects of the Danish Crown. By so doing they would make Holstein a source of strength rather than of weakness to the Danish monarchy. In 1849 the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government proposed that Schleswig should be divided, and that the southern portion, which was almost entirely German, should

  515
  be incorporated with Holstein. He sincerely hoped that the great influence of the noble Viscount and of the English Government might be exercised on the side of peace, justice, and humanity, and that Europe might be spared the horrors of war.

  AFFAIRS OF CHINA.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the undermentioned papers, published in the North China Herald, the official organ of Her Majesty's Legation at Shanghai, have been transmitted to the Foreign Office by Her Majesty's Legation at Shanghai:—

  "1. Consular Notifications, dated 18th and 29th December, 1860;

  "2. Consular Notification, dated 2nd January, 1861:

  "3. Analyses of the hook published by the Prime Minister of the Taepings, noticed by Mr. Bruce, 28th July, 1860;

  "4. Translation by Consul Meadows of the Letter of 'Le' to the Foreign Consuls, 21 s t August, 1860;

  "5. Translation by Consul Meadows of the Insurgents' Notification, dated 23rd August, and published 1s t September, 1860;

  "6. Narrative of the visit to Soochow of the Reverend Mr. Elkins, English Missionary, in August, 1860;

  "7. Narrative of the Reverend E. M. Syle and four other Missionaries to Soochow, 1s t September, 1860;

  "8. Letters of the American Missionary J. J. Roberts, dated 26th September and 8th October;

  "9. Narrative of the Reverend Griffiths Johns' visit to Nankin, November, 1860;

  "10. Exports of Tea and Silk from Shanghai from 1844-45 to 1859-1860 inclusive, published 10th November, 1860;

  "11. Letter from Reverend Messrs. T. J. Allen and William Lambuth, American Missionaries, on their visit to Hangchow, 19th December, 1860;

  "12. Letter from B. Jenkins, Interpreter to the American Legation, dated 21 s t December, 1861;

  "13. Edict for the toleration of Christianity by the Taeping King, dated 29th December, 1860:

  And, to ask whether Consul Meadows has resigned his office; and, if so, on what grounds?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I will first answer the question which has been put to me relating to the affairs of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) said very truly that this question is one of great interest to Europe; and it is certainly impossible to regard it without some apprehension. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir Harry Verney) has
  516
  stated what I believe is quite true with regard to the understanding arrived at in 1851. There was an armed intervention by Austria and Prussia; but an understanding was arrived at, though unfortunately, as in many other cases, the understanding turned out to be a misunderstanding, because from that time to this, with respect to the nature of the engagement, the terms of it, and the measures that were to be the consequence of it, there never has been an agreement between Germany and Denmark. In the first place, it has been maintained always on the German side that this understanding was a regular convention between the parties. The Danish argument always has been that it was a mere interchange of notes, not constituting an engagement, but informing Austria and Prussia and the Germanic Confederation, on the part of the King of Denmark, what he of his own free will resolved to do. With respect to the terms of the arrangement, and to take the last question of my hon. Friend (Sir Harry Verney) first, the rights to be guaranteed by a common constitution for the general affairs of the monarchy, unhappily that general constitution never was conceded. It was proposed on the part of Denmark that there should be a common constitution and a common Assembly, and that Holstein should send members to represent it there in proportion to its population. That was in itself a very fair principle; but the people of Holstein, supported by Germany, declared that such a body would not offer a sufficient security for their rights in connection with a larger population; and, therefore, they refused to assent to such a union. Other plans for effecting a reconciliation were suggested, into the details of which I need not enter; but before 1851 my noble Friend now at the head of the Government made a proposal with regard to Schleswig—namely, that it should be divided into two parts, one occupied by the German population, the other occupied by the Danish population. But the Danish Government and people were quite as much against such a separation as Germany was against a fusion between Holstein and Denmark; and, consequently, that proposition also fell to the ground. It has always been maintained on the part of the King of Denmark that he has endeavoured to carry into effect faithfully and honourably what he had promised to Austria and Prussia in 1851. It was alleged on the part of Germany that his efforts were not sincere, and

  517
  that they have failed because the just rights of Holstein were not conceded, and because Schleswig in particular had not that recognition of nationality to which she was entitled. Towards the end of last year the Danish Government applied to Her Majesty's Government, making a proposition with regard to Holstein which was to be laid before the Government of Prussia; and also saying, with respect to Schleswig, that although the King of Denmark could not negotiate with Germany on that subject, as he conceived that he had no engagements towards Germany in relation to it, he would yet be quite willing to state to the British Government the measures he proposed, and consult with them upon those measures. We did not find in the propositions of Denmark that there was enough to induce the Germanic Confederation to agree to them. At the same time we thought it would be quite fair that the Germanic Confederation should propose a counter project of her own, and thus some attempt be made towards a settlement. But the Prussian Government absolutely rejected those propositions, and that endeavour to effect a reconciliation therefore fell to the ground. The Germanic Confederation, in pursuance of their former decrees and requirements, called upon Denmark to grant to Holstein two things: first, that that part of the budget for the common expenses of the monarchy which was to be defrayed by Holstein should be submitted to the States of that Duchy; and next, that laws which were to affect Holstein should not have validity unless they had the consent of the States of Holstein. Both of these proposals are very intelligible, and, I believe, quite within the competence of the Germanic Confederation to make. But I must say there has been on both sides a great obscurity of phrase in the propositions put forward, which has has tended, with other causes, to protract this dispute and render it apparently so difficult to accommodate. The Danish Government construed the demand of the Germanic Confederation in this way—that they required that no new law should be valid unless it had the assent of the States of Holstein; and when that interpretation was placed before the Prussian Government they denied altogether that such was their intent. In that state of the question the French Government asked Her Majesty's Government to inform them of the course we had taken. I said we had no objection to give the French
  518
  Government the whole of the correspondence that had passed on the subject; and on receiving it M. Thouvenel, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, declared that the course pursued on the part of France was completely in harmony with that of Her Majesty's Government. In accordance, therefore, with the views thus entertained by the two Governments, and finding that Russia and Sweden also partook of the same opinions, we addressed to the Danish Government the advice that they should submit to the States of Holstein plainly and clearly the quota of the budget of the monarchy which appeartnined to and should be defrayed by that Duchy. The Foreign Minister of Denmark replied that his Government had already agreed to propositions of a just and reasonable kind which they were about to send to Holstein, and which would be an answer to the advice that had been given them. It afterwards appeared, when those propositions reached Holstein, that they were of a very general and complicated nature, relating, first, to a permanent constitution for the monarchy, and, secondly, to a provision called a pro-visorium, which embraced, among other things, a budget for Holstein's share of the common expenses of the monarchy. Our Minister at Copenhagen, Mr. Paget, who has acted with great ability in these transactions, asked the Danish Minister to place the last part of the proposition in a separate form, by which means he thought it would have a better chance of success with the States of Holstein. There was, however, a misunderstanding between the Danish Government and the Royal Commissary who was sent to Holstein. It was said that he had not done his duty properly in respect to laying the whole proposition before the States; and, having resigned his office, another Commissary was appointed. According to the accounts we have received in the shape of a despatch from the Danish Government to their Minister in London, and communicated to us, the proposition of the Danish Government is to the effect that the quota of the expenses of the monarchy belonging to Holstein are to be laid before the States of Duchy, and that they will have an opportunity of discussing and deciding whether each item ought to be granted, reduced, or rejected. Now, that proposition of itself seems to fulfil the demand of the Germanic Confederation. There is also, however, a fourth proposition, to the effect that in an unforeseen case, or if the decision of the

  519
  States should be at variance with the existing laws of the kingdom, then their decisions shall be submitted to the Royal sanction. This phrase appears to us somewhat obscure, and the matter as placed before the States of Holstein was, perhaps, not so clear and explicit as was desirable. Still, I think, if it stood as it was communicated to us, that there was on the part of the King of Denmark and his advisers a bonâ fide intention to ask the opinion of the States of Holstein in regard to the budget. We received yesterday or to-day information from our Consul at Hamburg that the question had been considered by the States of Holstein; that they did not believe the budget had been fairly submitted to them, and that they therefore refused to entertain it. They based their refusal on this among other reasons—that the King had not given a previous sanction to the resolutions of the Diet in regard to the items. It was replied very fairly by the Danish Minister in London, that you cannot expect the King's sanction to be given without first seeing that there is no condition attached to the votes which would be derogatory to the Royal prerogative. But, both in London and at Copenhagen, we have been assured that if the items are thought to be excessive, and reductions in them are desired by the States of Holstein, there would be no difficulty in considering those reductions favourably. I own it appears to me very unfortunate that such has been the asperity of feeling on both sides, that a sort of hesitancy and difficulty should have been shown by the Danish Government in proposing the budget fairly and simply to the Diet of Holstein; while, on the other hand, there has been a kind of predetermination on the part of the States of the Duchy not to come to an agreement, but rather to excite differences that might prevent a reconciliation. Then there is another point, that no law affecting Holstein should have any force in Holstein unless the Estates shall have consented to it. As to that question no mention has been made of it by Holstein, and I am informed by the Danish Minister that there will be no objection to come to an agreement as to all such laws. Therefore, as to the question itself, the friends of both parties might propose terms such as both Governments have already considered—the one demanding, and the other agreeing to—which would prevent any ground for further differences between Germany and Den-
  520
  mark. As far as we are acquainted with the opinions of the Governments of France and Russia, and of Sweden, all those Powers seem to take much the same view of these matters as Her Majesty's Government does; and if they should give any further advice it will he in the same sense, and ought, therefore, to have greater weight with both parties than the single opinion of one Power acting alone. We shall endeavour by our communications to bring about such an agreement. That is the present state of the question; and I am about to lay the Correspondence upon the table of the House, but it will not include all the despatches, because negotiations are still going on, pending which it is not desirable to give the papers relating to them. I must say in corroboration of what the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, that I do think there is considerable danger in delaying to bring this question to an amicable settlement. There are two especial points. It must be remembered that there is a great Danish spirit as well as a very enthusiastic German spirit upon the question. The appearance of German troops in Holstein might bring about what I should consider a precipitate resolution on the part of Denmark, who might regard it as an act of hostility, and one which would justify their Government in blockading the German ports. There is another point involving much danger. The boundaries between Schleswig and Holstein are not agreed upon between the Governments of Germany on the one hand and that of Denmark on the other. As to the harbours of Kiel and Frederickshorst—two important points—there is a difference of boundary, and if German and Danish troops came into too close proximity with each other a conflict might arise which would be very deplorable. But there is still another and the most dangerous question of all, and that is as to Schleswig. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) seems to suppose that there is no party in Germany that wishes for Schleswig to be added to Germany. But although the Governments of Prussia and of all the States of the Confederation have disclaimed any such desire, it is well known that there is a popular feeling in Germany in favour of such an annexation, and which would not be satisfied by Holstein receiving all that she demands, unless the union between Holstein and Schleswig was restored. Those who belong to the popular societies

  521
  in Germany make no scruple of saying that Schleswig ought to be united not merely with Holstein, but also with Germany. Now Schleswig is a Danish duchy, although there had existed before 1851 relations of a very complicated nature between that duchy and Holstein. Thus Holstein was connected with Denmark and also with Germany, and Schleswig was connected with Holstein, but not with Germany. It must be obvious that such relations must lead to all sorts of complications; and these were rendered still more difficult by the existence of a German as well as a Danish population in that duchy. It appeared to us that instead of restoring that complicated arrangement, the real justice of the case would consist in this, that the King of Denmark should do fully and fairly what he had promised to do—namely, to treat alike both nationalities, German and Danish, in Schleswig, in respect to confirmations and schools and divine services in churches, and that in such matters there should be complete equality between both nationalities. That would be not only fair towards the German population, but it seems to me that it is the obvious policy of the King of Denmark that his German subjects should be as well satisfied with his rule as his Danish subjects. All the information that has reached us concerning Schleswig induces me to believe that although there are many complaints of particular grievances—such as that, in order to be examined for confirmation, they must know the Danish language, and that the geography and astronomy are only taught in that tongue—although they complain of these things still, the German inhabitants of Schleswig generally do not wish to be united to Germany, but wish to remain subjects of the King of Denmark. Such being the case, it seems to me to be a question of detail to be settled by the King of Denmark according to the principles of equity and justice rather than a matter which is to be converted into a source of contention between Germany and Denmark. If that contention does take place no one can say to what consequences it may lead, and whether confusion upon the frontiers may not lead to war between the two nations. I have stated the case as impartially as I could. I believe there is great justice in the requirements of both parties, at the same time that there is considerable exaggeration and an absence of conciliatory spirit on both sides; but it would be a very
  522
  great misfortune for Europe, and would lead to other dangers if in consequence of this quarrel a conflict should arise which would tend to affect the integrity and independence of Denmark. I do not think the question is one to which this country can be indifferent. I have hitherto endeavoured to use the influence of Her Majesty's Government in favour of peace, and I trust the House will think it was the duty of the Government, as friends of Germany and Denmark so to act, and to endeavour to promote the amicable settlement of a dangerous and exciting question; and by so doing to promote the interests of peace throughout Europe.
  Some persons feel an interest with the Germans and others with the Danes, but my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) is, I think, the only person in the House who takes an interest in the Taepings. He asks for a number of papers; but if any are granted, I am afraid he must not expect to see them very soon, for the clerks in the Foreign Office and the printing department are now fully occupied in preparing papers which have been ordered by the House. With respect to the papers the hon. Member wishes for, I can tell him that some have reached us and others have not.

  OUTFALL DRAINAGE.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he had a question of some importance to the country at large to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—namely, When the promised Bill for the Amendment of Arterial Drainage and Outfalls will be introduced by the Government? The House would remember that early in the Session he took the opportunity of asking whether it was the intention of Government to introduce a Bill on the subject of arterial drainage, and he was informed that a measure of that kind was in preparation. In consequence of the immense increase in the surface drainage it was impossible that the natural outfalls of the country could carry immense quantities of rain such as had fallen last year, as they did when it percolated through the soil. The consequence was that during the autumn and winter large tracts of land were flooded, and a vast amount of property was destroyed. As many proprietors objected to allow any general system of drainage to be carried through their land, there were no other means of dealing with this question than

  523
  by a general Act; and seeing (the immense amount of public business that was in progress and in preparation, it was absolutely necessary that no time should be lost if it was intended to proceed with this Bill; and he, therefore, again asked what time it was likely to be introduced?
  MR. CLIVEsaid, that the question was a very large and important one, and was still under consideration. He had hoped to be able to lay a measure on the table on an early day after Easter; but it had been found necessary to alter the Bill considerably. He thought it would be in a condition to be laid on the table before the end of the month.

  IRISH EVICTIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, the House had had discussions on every nationality of the world—German, Danish, Hungarian, Polish, and even that of the New Zealanders and the Taepings. But there was another oppressed nationality to which he wished to call its attention, and that was the old nationality of Ireland. Though, whenever it was mentioned, the House manifested its indifference, the subject he wished to bring under its notice was of more importance than any of the nationalities that had been discussed. A case of oppression had occurred in the county of Donegal, that he contended could not be paralleled in any part of the world out of Ireland. The hon. Member then read from the Dublin Evening Press and the Londonderry Standard an account of an eviction that took place on the town-land of Derrybaugh, in Donegal, on the morning of April 8, by which forty-five families, numbering about 280 persons, were turned out of their homes, and their houses levelled to the ground. Some information ought to be given to the House by the Government respecting the scene which had taken place in this part of Her Majesty's dominions, and some means should be devised which would at least throw difficulties in the way of landlords who "did what they liked with their own" in this arbitrary way. The police had no option than to act as they did, and they were reported to have conducted themselves with urbanity and consideration towards the unhappy people evicted. Such scenes, however, were a scandal to civilization and to any form of Christianity. He should conclude by asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland has he received information
  524
  that on Monday the 8th of April instant, a resident magistrate, with a Sub-Inspector and 200 Police, assisted the Sheriff of the county of Donegal to evict forty five families, numbering about 280 persons, from the townland of Derrybaugh in that county?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that no official account had been received by the Government of the matter to which his hon. Friend had called the attention of the House, and from the recent day when the notice was given he had not had an opportunity of obtaining any information. But it appeared that the circumstances under which this gentleman acted was in the exercise of certain civil rights which were not within his (Mr. Card well's) cognizance. With regard to the charge against the officers of the police, they were supported by his hon. Friend from paragraphs which had appeared in newspapers. It appeared, however, that what had happened had occurred in the discharge of their regular duty, acting under the authority of the sheriff, who, in the exercise of his duty, was levying a civil process. These officers, it appeared, had not in any manner interfered in the exercise of that civil process; they simply attended to keep order, and they had discharged this duty, as has been admitted, in a humane manner. With regard to the exercise by this gentleman of his private rights, he would not express an opinion founded on the statements in the newspapers, and there was no official information before him. Neither he nor any hon. Member of that House, he was sure, would say a word in vindication of any indiscriminate and inconsiderate evictions. In this particular case, however, it was only right to bear in mind that the steward of this gentleman was recently murdered, the murderers not having been convicted, and that on a recent occasion, when this gentleman himself visited the district, the house in which he was staying was set on fire, and the perpetrators of the outrage again were not discovered. He should certainly refrain from expressing any opinion upon the exercise of private rights until all the facts were officially before him in a definite shape. He regarded the expression of any opinion on private rights as a delicate matter. He should be sorry that their enforcement had entailed any hardship on any class of persons, but he was not now in a position to pass an opinion upon the conduct of the gentleman referred to.

DELAY IN PAYING SEAMEN'S WAGES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to address to the Secretary of the Admiralty a question which, although it did not appear in the paper, he had given the noble Lord private notice. In The Times of Monday last this paragraph appeared—
  "A great deal of dissatisfaction is felt and expressed among the crews of Her Majesty's ships Victory, Asia, and other vessels at Portmouth at the delay which has arisen in paying the money due to them. Many of these men have only received 16 s. per month for the last nine months. A number of men belonging to vessels in home ports, such as the Victory and the Asia have wives and families, and are compelled to run up bills at the various tradesmen's shops for their support, until, by remitting the pay due to them, their wives can pay off the debts thus necessarily incurred. On board Her Majesty's ship Victory remittance lists were made out in the middle of March, but no orders have yet been received for payment, and hence the discontent of the men. The result of this dilatoriness is that the wives and families of the men are much pressed for payment of the amount they have been trusted with by the different shopkeepers, who cannot themselves afford to give long credit. The household goods in many instances go to the pawnbrokers, and often are never recovered, and, as a natural consequence of such a state of things, the seamen pays a heavy percentage for the Government having the use of his money. The one universal cry of the seamen on board the vessels quoted is, 'Pay as in the same manner that our officers are paid.'"
  He wished to ask, first, Whether this extraordinary statement was true, and whether, if not strictly and literally true, there was any foundation whatever for it; and, in the next place, if the noble Lord was not able to deny it altogether he would ask further, to what extent this practice of withholding seamen's pay had gone, what were the reasons for such a delay, to what number of ships it applied, and whether the practice prevailed at Plymouth or any other ports besides Portsmouth? Assuming that there was any truth in the statement in The Times, it gave some degree of support to a rumour which had reached him before he had heard or read anything of this kind—a rumour which he had altogether disregarded and discredited—namely, that the Government had been endeavouring to withhold the pay of several classes of the servants of the Crown to a considerable extent until after the close of the financial year, and evidently, if so, with a financial object. He could not help connecting that rumour with the most extraordinary, and, if true, most discreditable
  526
  statement in The Times. If the noble Lord could altogether deny its accuracy he would probably be thankful for the opportunity of contradicting it, or of offering some explanation on the subject.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he would premise his reply to the question of the right hon. Baronet by stating that the Admiralty had not received any complaint as to the withholding of seamen's pay, and by distinctly denying that they had in any case deferred such pay for any financial object. The mode of paying the sailors of the fleet had been somewhat altered of late, with a view to the convenience and comfort of the men themselves. They had now two means of supplying their wives and friends with a portion of their pay. They might either allot it regularly and periodically to their wives or friends, or they might remit a portion of the pay as it became due. When the Admiralty saw this statement in The Times they were extremely anxious to ascertain whether there was really any discontent, or whether the statement had any foundation. They had accordingly referred to Portsmouth, and a Report had come up to day which he had not yet seen. However, when he got his right hon. Friend's note, he sent for the Accountant General and asked him whether there had been any complaints on this head upon other occasions. The facts were these:—The men had monthly allowances paid to them at all times. In the home ports at the end of the financial year the books were made up, and any surplus amount of pay due to them after the payment of their monthly allowances, of their allotments, of their clothing, and other expenses were handed over to them by remittance note—and they were permitted to remit it to their friends. A few days before the books were made up they were asked whether they wished to remit any portion of their pay; and a great many did so. Then they wrote to their friends saying—"I have remitted you £5," or whatever the sum was, and it might be that the friends would expect to receive the money by the next post; but of course in dealing with 80,000 men it was impossible for the Accountant General to be writing letters day by day, and it often happened that men who desired to remit their pay had to wait some time until the remittance books went to the Accountant General and he gave orders for the payment of the remittances. This, no doubt, would be what had happened in

  527
  the case to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred—the men had given notice, that they wished to remit, and the remittances had not been paid so quickly as they expected. He might add that the system of remittances was now under consideration.
  LORD FERMOY, referring to the Donegal evictions, thanked the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) for bringing this matter before the House. It would be some consolation to the unfortunate persons who had been treated in this inhuman manner to know that sympathy was felt for them in that House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had alluded to the murder of Mr. Adair's steward on the property where these evictions occurred. But, however, deplorable that murder might be it was no justification for the wholesale and indiscriminate evictions that had been made. There might be one or two or even ten guilty persons among those evicted, but there was no reason why 270 innocent persons should be treated so inhumanly for the sake of arriving at the few guilty. There were on the spot on this occasion a large body of police, a stipendiary magistrate, and the sheriff; but there was one person absent whose presence was quite as indispensable—the relieving officer. Old men, women, and children were left out for the whole of the night on a bare mountain, without the smallest protection, and the relieving officer ought to have been there to provide conveyances to carry them to the shelter of the workhouse. It was time that some remedy was devised to prevent the recurrence of such a state of things. If persons would exercise what they called their rights of property in such an unchristian way, Her Majesty's Government ought to endeavour to devise some means of putting a stop to it.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

DECLARATIONS FOR OFFICES.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  MR. ADFIELD, in moving for a return of those persons who have subscribed the Declaration required by the 9 Geo. IV., c. 17, on admission to any office or employment since the year 1850, said he wanted to know the names of those who had complied with the law, and not of
  528
  those whose non-compliance had been covered by the annual Acts of Indemnity. He believed that those who alone had the power to exercise their office to the detriment of the Church of England invariably failed to make the declaration required by the Act, and that it was imposed upon the humbler class of persons who accepted corporate offices, more as an acknowledgment of the predominance of the Church of England than through fear of any aggression which Dissenters might promote against the establishment. If he was correctly informed, it was never subscribed by the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, or the Home Secretary. The opinion of the House that the test ought to be abolished had been expressed by their three times passing a Bill for the purpose, and three times the Bill had been rejected in "another place." In order to know whether he was correct in supposing that the law was trifled with, and as a guide for future proceedings, he begged to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the name of every person who, in and since the year 1850, has made and subscribed the Declaration specified and required in the Act 9 Geo. 4, c. 17, on his having been admitted into any office or employment, or who has accepted from Her Majesty any Patent, Grant, or Commission, and who, by his admittance into such office or employment or place of trust, or by his acceptance of such Patent, Grant, or Commission, or by the receipt of any pay, salary, fee, or wages by reason thereof, would, by the Laws in force immediately before the passing of said Act, have been required to take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, according to the rites or usage of the Church of England, except as in the seventh section of the said Act is mentioned, and exclusive also of the persons who are required by section two of the said Act to make and subscribe the said Declaration; and the date on which every such person made the said Declaration, and the office or employment to which he was admitted as aforesaid; and the date of the Patent, Grant, or Commission which was accepted by any such person."
  MR. LOCKE KINGseconded the Motion.
  Motion made and Question proposed.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that when the Act was passed in the year 1828 for repealing the sacramental test imposed on persons taking office by the Statute of Charles II. there was substituted by agreement between the two principal parties in the House a declaration which was embodied in that Act. His hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), had on more than one occasion brought in a Bill to

  529
  repeal that declaration, and he had voted in its favour, believing that the declaration was introduced rather for saving the honour of those who were, at the passing of the Act, opposed to the repeal of the sacramental test than for any substantial purpose, and that, as it was quite nugatory, it had better be removed from the statute-book. He gave his vote quite deliberately, and if his hon. Friend should ever again obtain leave to renew his Bill he should be prepared to repeat it. Therefore, the House would see that he was quite favourable to the repeal of the declaration. But the return moved for was of a different character. He presumed that the hon. Gentleman wished to lay ground for the repetition of his proposal in some future Session. According to the present law persons taking office under the Crown were bound to make the declaration within six months after entering on their offices; and if they failed to make that declaration their failure was remedied by an annual Act of Indemnity. The Act of Indemnity had been passed now for many years, and it indemnified persons liable to take oaths or make declarations upon the acceptance of office from penalties in the event of their neglecting to do so. His hon. Friend wished to have a Return of those who had taken the oath within the last ten years. Now, of course, if the names of any persons who had held office within that period did not appear in the Return, there was a strong inference that they had not taken the oath. Did his hon. Friend wish to learn the names of those who had omitted to take the declaration in order to lay the foundation of a criminal prosecution? He believed, however, that the Act of Indemnity would prevent that. [Mr. HADFIELD: No; it would not.] Then, if it would not, the argument he had just used was perfectly irresistible, because his hon. Friend was availing himself of the compulsory powers of the House to procure information on which a criminal prosecution might be founded. He did not think that that was a desirable exercise of the powers of the House, and he held, therefore, that the Return ought not to be granted. It was sufficient to establish a case for legislation that his hon. Friend should be able to state his belief that many persons who had held office had not taken the declaration as required by the Act. He hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to a division.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet treat the
  530
  feelings of members of the Church of England on this subject so lightly, and wished he would extend to that body the same toleration as to other denominations. The declaration was believed to be an important safeguard of the Church, and it could not be shown that it was injurious to any section of the community. He urged the hon. Member for Sheffield not to press for a Return which might be employed for a malicious purpose.
  MR. HADFIELDassured the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, that he had no intention to prosecute the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor, or any of the Cabinet Ministers which the country had had for ten years past. But since it was apprehended that such consequences might arise, he would withdraw his Motion in tender mercy to the offenders. That House had declared three times in favour of his Bill for the repeal of that declaration, and as the majority was increasing he believed in another year or two this insult to the feelings of millions of Her Majesty's subjects would be removed from the statute book.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.

POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS BILL,

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved the third reading of this Bill
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid an impression prevailed that the Bill would require a change in the rules of 600 savings banks. Each savings bank paid a fee of £1 1s. on any change in its laws, so that the Bill would, it was feared, impose a heavy charge upon these institutions.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should be surprised to find that any charge upon savings banks could grow out of this Bill. He had never heard of the matter mentioned by the hon. Baronet, and he had some difficulty in supposing that there could be any ground for his apprehension.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

AFFAIRS OF NEW ZEALAND—RESOLUTION.—ADJOURNED DEBATE.

  SECOND NIGHT.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [11th April].
  "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair; "

  531
  and which Amendment was, to leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'while this House is prepared to contribute all the aid in its power to the Executive in putting down rebellion in Her Majesty's Colony of New Zealand, yet, having regard to the Treaty of Waitangi, it would rejoice to hear that the difficult and complicated question of the title to the block of land at the Waitara is to be the subject of inquiry before a special tribunal immediately on the re-assertion of the Queen's authority,' "—instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, it appeared to him, on a very careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, that the course pursued by the Governor of New Zealand had been justified on too high a ground. The best that could be said, was that with the purest intention the Governor, acting on the advice of persons more selfish than himself, had been betrayed into a fatal error, and into a war with persons who were only maintaining those rights which the Government was bound to respect. So far back as seventeen years ago there was a desire on the part of the Government to get this land; then William King claimed a right to it. The settlers were early acquainted with the advantageous position of this land; they knew that the title to it was in dispute amongst the natives, and they did not cease constantly to endeavour to occupy it. The Treaty of Waitangi was early found to be very inconvenient, and they would find that during Lord Derby's Administration a letter was written strongly urging the Government of the colony to respect this treaty; this alone showed that even at that time there existed a de sire to evade it. They next found Mr. M'Lean admitting in the fullest way that there did exist this tribal right, and that William King asserted it in the strongest possible manner by saying that he never would give the land in question up. If the supporters of the course taken by the colonial authorities had contented themselves wite saying that the British population could have made better use of the land than the natives, he could have seen some reason in their statement, but they said that the proceedings of the Governor were entirely in the right, and those of William King entirely in the wrong. It was curious enough that the Motion of the hon. Baronet was pretty much in the same terms as the language of the Duke of Newcastle writing to Governor Browne.
  532
  The Duke said that, after examining all the papers, he could not make out clearly where the right lay. Notwithstanding this admission, the Government now claimed absolute praise for the Governor. Although he thought that much might be said in exoneration of the Governor's conduct, yet the despatch of the Colonial Secretary ought to be respected, and, therefore, as a means rather of strengthening the hands of the Government than of weakening them, he should support this Motion.
  MR. LOWE: I wish, Sir, to say a few-words upon the question, which is, in my apprehension, a very plain one, although it has been disfigured, enlarged, and inflated by party spirit to a degree which no one who is not tolerably familiar with such things in the colonies could have imagined possible. The question admits of being stated in a very few words. The colony of New Zealand is part of the dominions of Her Majesty and is inhabited by two races—the English or European, and the Native or Maori races—the English race holding one part, and the Maori race the other part of the Northern Island. By the Treaty of Waitangi, entered into with the New Zealand chiefs, the Queen has the right of extinguishing the native title to land. By that treaty, by which she confirmed to the chiefs, tribes, and individuals whatever property they had, it was stipulated that she should have the right of buying up—what we call the right of preemption—of extinguishing the native title to land; that she should, in order to prevent collisions and mischiefs of that kind, be the mediator between the settlers and the natives in matters of that kind. In the year 1859 the Government of New Zealand entered into an agreement by which a number of families who were joint owners, as joint tenants, of a large piece of land on the southern bank of the Waitara River, in the settlement of New Plymouth, agreed to sell it to the Crown. The contract was made according to the usual fashion of the natives, the chief laying a mat down before the Governor, which was emblematical of covering the land which he was to have. A chief named William King came forward, and made a claim in this exceedingly pregnant language:—He said, "The land is theirs"—that is, the persons' who were selling it to the Government—"but I will not allow them to sell it;" and the whole question upon which the civil war in New Zealand has arisen is whether

  533
  that chief was justified in making that claim. That is really the whole question which we have to consider; and I must say that when I looked at the papers it seemed to me to be one exceedingly easy of solution. The chief did not not give any reasons, did not appeal to any court, or tribunal, or authority. He merely put forward his own will and determination. He spoke like a Sovereign to a Sovereign, an equal to an equal. He is a subject of Her Majesty, but be spoke to Her Majesty's representative in a tone of absolute and unmitigated defiance. If there could be the least doubt upon this point it would be removed by a few extracts which I have culled from different declarations which be made upon the same subject. For instance, on one occasion he said, "I hold the land in my hand, and I will not let it go." Again, "Selling land causes the approach of death," meaning that there existed a Land League—a sort of riband conspiracy—in New Zealand, of which he was a recognized and important member, which would kill all those who sold land to the English. Again, speaking of the sellers, "They have floated it, but I will not let it go to sea." "What I say is the boundary for the Pak-chee (English) is Waitaha"—a place about forty miles off—"let them remain there;" thus issuing absolute orders to the colonists. Again, he wrote to the Governor, "If you hear of any one desirous to sell land within these boundaries, don't pay any attention to it; this is all." He also told Mr. Paris, the Government agent for the purchase of land, "It is enough, Paris; their bellies are full with the sight of this money you have promised them, but don't give it them; if you do, I won't let you have the land, but come and cultivate it myself." The House will observe that this chief began by saying that he had no property in the land, that the property was in the sellers, but that he would not allow them to exercise their rights, and ends by saying that he will come himself and take possession of the land to which he admits he has no right, rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the English. This is a very simple case. It really amounts to this—that this chief, strong and confident in his power, defies the English Government, and claims a right to intervene between those who wish to sell their land and the Government who wish to buy it, and to forbid the sale. He does not claim that right under any law or custom, but merely in virtue of his own will and of the power which he can exercise.
  534
  Out of that all this difficulty has arisen. The Government sent persons to measure the land; the measurement was interfered with by force; one act of violence led to another, and they have led to the lamentable struggle in which we are now engaged. I think I have said enough to show that this is no question of law or right, but merely a question of the assertion of sovereignty and of defiance of the English power. But there is more behind. At the time of which I have been speaking there was in New Zealand a league, of which William King was a principal member, called the Land League, the purpose of which was to prevent any more land being sold to the English. The natives find that as the English occupy more and more land they are hemmed within narrower and narrower limits, and are in danger of disappearing before the advancing race; and as a remedy they have entered into this league to prevent the purchase of land by Europeans. They have also set up a native king, and established a confederacy of native states under his authority. These two facts account for the conduct of William King in this matter. He spoke with confidence, because he was carrying out the policy well known to have been agreed upon in the councils of the chiefs, and because he knew that he was asserting that which he had strength to make good. It, therefore, seems to me that if this question was to be decided by the New Zealand blue-books I might stop there. I have shown that the reason why we are at war with the natives is simply and solely because a number of chiefs have combined to set up a native king against us, have intimidated, or if necessary killed, those who were willing to sell land to us, and have, by so doing, thrown of their allegiance to the Queen, their Sovereign as well as ours, and have obliged us to assert the Royal authority by force. But there is in New Zealand a party which sympathizes keenly with the natives. The members of that party think that New Zealand ought to be for the New Zealanders, look upon new colonists as encroachers and interlopers, and would gladly see them limited to their present position, or even encroached upon by the natives.
  Notice taken that Forty Members are not present. House counted, and Forty Members being found present,
  MR. LOWEresumed:—It appears to me that the conduct of William King only admits of one interpretation; but it has

  535
  been sought to give another gloss to it. It it stated that in putting this veto on the sale of land he was exercising a legal right by the custom of New Zealand. It is asserted that there is a joint ownership, sometimes in families and sometimes in the whole tribe, and that this chief, William King, was acting on behalf of the whole tribe in asserting the right, to veto the sale of any part of the property of the tribe. It may be required that such a right should be strictly proved, and the burden of proof lies on those who say that when parties are willing to contract for the sale and purchase of land a chief may come forward and forbid the contract. Upon this point it is quite wonderful the quantity of questions that must be made out, and the imperfect evidence by which they can be sustained. You must make out, in the first place, in whom the ownership of this land lies—whether in the tribe or in the families. Then you must make out clearly what the custom is; how the tribe is to signify its dissent to the purchase, whether by a majority or by unanimity; what are the powers of the chief, and whether he can act independently of the tribe, in which case the tribe would have no power; or whether he acts as the spokesman and agent for the tribe. Next, it must be as certained who is the chief; whether he is a chief, admitted to be so by the whole tribe, or only by a section, or only one of several chiefs of sections. These questions involve enormous difficulty, and, when the state of society in New Zealand is considered, the difficulty increases. How does the case stand? I might merely stand on the defensive, and say that no proof has been adduced of any such tribal right as that asserted. I might say that there is no proof that this man, William King, is the chief—it being proved, in fact, that he is not—or that any agreement had been come to by the tribe, or any part of it, to veto the purchase, or that he acted as their agent. The presumptions are all the other way. About twenty-seven of this tribe went to the south to Cook's Strait—some said on a fishing, others stated on a murdering, expedition; and, while they were away, their land was seized by another more powerful tribe, by whom the first tribe were broken up and dispersed. While they were so dispersed the New Zealand Company undertook to purchase from the tribe who expelled them this very piece of land among others. The sale was referred to the Commissioners of the Govern-
  536
  ment, who had all the powers of a court of justice in trying the question. William King was present at the trial, and made no sort of objection to the award in favour of the purchase from the conquering tribe. Then Captain FitzRoy came, and very unhappily, I think, refused to carry out the award, but at the same time he notified to the natives that he would purchase from them any of their lands which they wished to sell; thus again showing that he had no idea, after that long examination, that there was any power of veto in William King. Sir George Grey, who succeeded, acted on the same principle. Afterwards William King applied to the natives who had expelled the old tribe to be allowed to return, and he went to live on the northern side of the river; thus implying that he felt he had no jurisdiction on the south side; and when another large block of the land was sold he never said that he had a veto on the sale, but represented that he ought to have some of the purchase-money; but his claim was over-ruled, and he got no purchase-money. That is the position of the man who claims the right of forbidding any person to sell land forty miles from the place in question. Yet, under these circumstances, it is contended that this man's right is clear and manifest; that he has the undoubted right of veto, which right a great many say never existed in any one; that he was, therefore, entitled to stop the sale; that consequently we are withholding his right from him, and that this caused the war. Now, it was quite clear, even if he had the right, that he put himself in the wrong, because he ought to have appealed to some umpire or arbitrator to decide between him and the Government. It seems to me clear that he had not the right of vetoing the sale of land which the proprietors were willing to part with; and, even if he had, I think it is a right which the Government ought not to recognize, as not being consistent with the Queen's sovereignty in those islands where the Government has the right of pre-emption of these lands. Further, I can imagine nothing so impolitic as the allowance of such a right. New Zealand is a place where persons who have made money in Australia, and especially in the goldfields, go to settle. They are accustomed to the use of weapons, and if the principle should be acted on of keeping these persons out of the land, and preserving it for the natives, in a few years, or perhaps sooner, the bar-

  537
  riers within which we seek to confine them will be overthrown, and a contest of life and death will ensue between them and the natives, the horrors of which it would be difficult to describe. Then as to the desirability of establishing a tribunal to deal with these supposed rights, the case admits of no tribunal, for William King refuses to acknowledge any power except his own will. No tribunal would meet the case, for the claimant of the sovereign power and veto is one who if twenty tribunals decided against him, would concede nothing except to force. Whatever may be the origin of our quarrel with the New Zealanders, the time has long passed when we can search very narrowly into the immediate causes of the present war. To do so would be just as absurd as after the capture of Delhi and the disasters at Cawnpore to institute an inquiry as to the precise causes of the mutiny in India. The meaning of the war no one can misunderstand. It is a struggle for sovereignty and dominion. The natives hope to drive the English into the sea, while the English, on the other hand, fight for that which they possess, and with the expectation no doubt, of cowing the whole of the country. The New Zealanders have set up, as it were, a King against our Queen, and have virtually repealed the Treaty of Waitangi by endeavouring to reverse our land policy. That the House of Commons should at this moment and under these circumstances pass a Resolution evincing any doubt as to the expediency of the conduct of the Government would be as bad as if our troops were to undergo two or three serious defeats. The passing of this Resolution would in all probability be attended with most disastrous results, for if when the news reached the colony the war should still be subsisting, a protracted struggle would ensue, and much slaughter would be inflicted. I, therefore. trust that the House will not agree to the Motion under its consideration.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that no man's opinion was more entitled to respect in dealing with colonial affairs than that of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; but details of colonial matters could rarely be discussed with advantage in that House; and when a colonial question was mixed up with questions of title and native claims, which had baffled the efforts of those who had investigated the matter on the spot, discussion here became an absurdity. How little such a question
  538
  could be usefully debated in the House of Commons, was evinced by the significant occurrence which had taken place during the right hon. Gentleman's speech. How ably and fairly it was debated by those on the spot is known to all who have read the papers. War was now actually raging, and an essential preliminary to the settlement of the present dispute, and inquiring the exact effect of the Treaty of Waitangi was that the war should be brought to an end. The opposite views upon the question at issue had been most ably represented by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Selwyn), whose opinions were deserving of the utmost weight; but, he must admit that, if the censures of the latter upon the conduct of the Governor of New Zealand were justified, it would so far as be could see, be utterly impossible for the future that native lands could be sold at all. But, be that as it might, it was, he thought, quite clear that the war which was now raffing; must be brought to a close before the question would really admit of discussion. We must proceed upon the principle of castigatgue auditque, and he regretted to say that the probability of concluding the war might be rendered more doubtful if the report of the present discussion were to reach the colony before its termination. He might add that, in his opinion, the Treaty of Waitangi must be respected; the more so by ourselves, because in its negotiation we were the only party who understood what was being done; but it should be borne in mind that since it had been entered into the affairs of New Zealand had ceased to be conducted in Downing Street; that a representative Constitution had been granted to that colony; that its inhabitants were entitled and resolved to manage their own affairs; that the interests of the natives had been always carefully consulted by the Colonial Legislature; that the native interests were provided for; that they were themselves eligible and electors to the Legislature; that the Government judiciously had in this instance sided with them, and they were not unbefriended; and that no persons could be more concerned for the prosperity of the natives than the colonists themselves; for the prosperity or adversity of the natives produced an immediate and corresponding effect upon the colonists. They were the persons who were massacred, whose property was destroyed

  539
  whenever the natives broke out into discontent and turbulence. If, therefore, they could not trust to the honour of the colonists they might trust to their interests. That being so, the first thing he hoped which Parliament would do when the war was concluded would be to revise the Constitution Act of 1853. He thought the system should, as far as possible, be acted upon of leaving the colonists to manage their own affairs, instead of encouraging them to look to that House, involving the mother country in expenses and implicating Parliament in their affairs in a manner that could do them no good while it did us a great deal of harm.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had heard no answer to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge, on this question. It was useless for them to attempt to decide on the question of legality, for the Governor himself admitted that the question was a doubtful one. He regretted exceedingly the tone of the Government, and the entire want of conciliation which they had exhibited. There could be no doubt that, however it began, the war must be put down; but there was no necessity for harsh expressions such as those used by the Members of the Government who had spoken. He had hoped that some declaration would be made, giving the natives an assurance that the treaty would be adhered to, and that measures would be taken to clear up the misunderstandings that had arisen; but not a word of that kind had fallen from the Government. On the contrary, there had been expressed a determination to press forward the interests of the colonists, in contradistinction to those of the natives. Where could the natives of New Zealand look if not to the Queen and Parliament? The right hon. the Vice President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lowe) had asserted that William King had never made claim to the land in dispute; but the extracts from the blue book, read yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University, showed distinctly that he had asserted such a claim. And he thought that the Under Secretary for the Colonies was not justified in applying the expression "morbid sentimentality" to the interest which many took in the rights of the natives. He must repeat that he regretted extremely the tone taken by the Government, but he saw no use in further continuing the debate.
  MR. COLONEL DUNNEwas sure, from what he knew of Governor Browne, that he would never be guilty of injustice towards the natives, for his feelings, he could aver from his personal knowledge, were most strong in favour of that race. He hoped the House would consider the difficult circumstances in which he was placed before it passed a censure upon that officer.
  MR. DUNLOPdenied that any vote of censure was intended against the Governor. All they asked was that some tribunal should be appointed to settle the questions in dispute, instead of driving the natives to despair and following a course that must ultimately lead to their extermination.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 24: Majority 14.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—NAVY ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee; Mr. in the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £161,157 (Admiralty Office).
  MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained of the crease which had taken place in the establishment of clerks in all the departments of the Admiralty, and which involved a proportionate increase of expense. He observed that the additional salaries amounted to upwards of £8,000 per annum. Seeing that the number of men had been reduced by 7,000, he thought that the staff of clerks at the Admiralty should have undergone a corresponding reduction.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETstated, that during the last two years there had been a large increase in the number of temporary clerks. The fact was, however, that the duties of these clerks were of a permanent character, and the apparent increase in the Vote this year was due to the circumstance that a number of temporary clerks had been placed on the permanent staff. There had been a reduction of expense upon the whole.
  Vote agreed to, as were the following Votes:—
  (2.) £253,422, Coast Volunteeers and Reserve.
  (3.) £63,851, Scientific Departments.
  (4.) £172,947, Naval Establishments at Home.
  (5.) £33,640, Naval Establishments Abroad.
  (6.) £1,112,126, Wages to Artificers, &c. at Home.
  (7.) £67,828, Wages to Artificers, &c. Abroad.
  (8.) £66,000, Medicines and Medical Stores.
  (9.) £90,510, Naval Miscellaneous Services.
  (10.) £684,016 Half Pay, &c.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, this sufficiently accounted for the extravagance in the other Estimates. There were 305 Admirals, of whom 74 only were employed; 784 Captains, of whom only 132 were employed; and 1109 Commanders, of whom only 209 were employed. The French kept their list of officers down to the real wants of the service.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, it was the great complaint in the French service that the number of officers on the list were too few and not adapted for a state of war. He admitted ours was too large; but time was thinning the list, and he supposed his hon. Friend did not wish to take any violent steps to quicken the process.
  Vote agreed to, as were also the following Votes:—
  (11.) £486,431), Military Pensions and Allowances.
  (12.) £180,397, Civil Pensions and Allowances.
  (13.) £247,000, Freight of Ships, &c. House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Mo day next.
  Committee to sit again on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till Monday next.