Lords Sitting of 25 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Metropolitan Burials; General Board of Health (No. 2).
2a Excise Summary Proceedings; Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues; Valuation (Ireland); Metropolitan Sewers; Nisi Prius Officers; Friendly Societies (No. 2); Crime and Outrage (Ireland); Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Distressed Unions (Ireland); Public Health Act (1848) Amendment; Holloway House of Correction.
Reported.—Turnpike Acts Continuance; Poor Law Board Continuance; Inland Revenue Office; Savings Banks (Ireland).
3a Pharmacy.

LEGAL EDUCATION IN THE INNS OF COURT.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he wished to put a question to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice. He wished to know from his noble and learned Friend whether, as visitor to the Inns of Court, he was satisfied with the scheme of legal education which had been adopted by the Benchers of the different Inns?
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he wished his noble and learned Friend had given him notice of the question he had just addressed to him. He had the honour to be visitor of
1278
the Inns of Court, and he rejoiced that the Benchers had at last been taking a step in the right direction. He had been labouring for the last twenty years to induce them to do so. He had always thought that the state of legal education in this country was disgracefully bad; he was very eager to see it amended, and he rejoiced that something had at last been done which might lead to amendment. He thought more might be done; but he thought it highly satisfactory that the Benchers had at last done so much. He did not feel that the Judges would be at all justified in interfering, when so good a disposition had been shown on the part of the Benchers of the Inns of Court in the commencement of this good work. He hoped the Benchers would still go on, that there might be the same opportunity of acquiring legal education in this country as in the other civilised countries of the world.
LORD LYNDHURSThoped that the system of education now to be adopted should not he left voluntary, but that there should be a compulsory examination of students before they were called to the bar.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, as a Bencher, he was confident there was every disposition on the part of his brethren of the Bench, of at least one Inn of Court—Lincoln'sinn—to carry a good deal further than they had yet done the important measures which they had commenced for the improvement of legal education. But he entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend, that if degrees were conferred as the result of studies in the different Inns, or in a University composed of the four Inns (which he thought would be the sounder system), that those degrees should only be conferred after compulsory examination; that was to say, that examination should be necessary for admission to the degree of a barrister, and that this degree should not he conferred except as the result of education in the Inns.

SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH FRANCE) BILL—QUESTION.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDErose to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given notice. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government intended to communicate to Government any Correspondence with Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, or the French Ambas-

1279
sador in London, concerning the law lately enacted in France, which occasioned the withdrawal of the Surrender of Criminals (Convention with France) Bill, presented to this House. It was most desirable that two such neighbouring countries should be on such a footing with each other that criminals should be delivered up to the respective authorities claiming them; but at the same time it was impossible that this country could yield up the safeguards which protected the liberties of those who were subject to its laws. A convention had been entered into with France for the mutual extradition of criminals, and a Bill had been introduced by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of authorising that convention; but that Bill had been suddenly withdrawn, without any sufficient explanation being afforded to the House. It appeared that the Government had been induced to adopt this extraordinary course in consequence of the French Legislature having given its sanction to an internal law regulating their criminal jurisdiction; but the noble Earl had not afforded to the House any information as to what that law was—in fact, it was evident that the noble Earl was himself unaware of it. The facts were, that no such law as that alluded to, as a reason for the withdrawal of the Bill, had been passed in France. It was true that the body charged with framing legislative measures in that country had a projet de loi submitted to it for the re-enactment of the law of 1808—a most objectionable law. But if the House recollected what was the state of France with respect to England and the rest of Europe at the time that law was passed, they would at once understand why that law had been then passed, and they would also see how perfectly impossible, considering the relations at present existing between the countries, it would be to re-enact it. It was absurd to imagine that the French Government would lend itself to favour such a proposition. What did this law do? It enacted that if a man, no matter in what country, should act in a manner contrary to French law, or in hostility to the French Government, he should be amenable to the French tribunals—
The EARL of MALMESBURY: That was not the law to which reference was made.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEwas only speaking upon the supposition that this was the law referred to. How-
1280
ever, there must have been some communication with the French Government upon the subject. He thought they were entitled to know how the matter really stood. They ought to see that the dignity and consistency of the Sovereign had been properly maintained. He did not think that proper deference had been shown to the House, or that proper courtesy had been exercised towards France, with which it was most important that this country should be on terms of perfect amity, by the sudden withdrawal of the Bill.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: In answer to the question of the noble Marquess, I at once say, that I have no communication which I can lay before your Lordships in the shape of correspondence upon this subject. But I am glad to state to the House that the French Government, from the moment that Her Majesty's present Government acceded to office, have always acted in the most friendly and frank manner. Upon the introduction of the measure to which the noble Marquess adverts, there was an impression adverse to it manifested by the House; and the French Government no sooner perceived that this was directed against the projet de loi then under consideration, than they gave me an assurance that the projet de loi would not be persevered in: so much in answer to the question of the noble Marquess. But I cannot sit down without expressing myself as to the feeling shown by the noble Marquess on the very first two nights the question of the French Convention, and the Act of Parliament which was to give it life, was under discussion. I do not hesitate to say that, Her Majesty's Government knowing that they are in a minority in the other House of Parliament, I trusted and believed that in questions in which party spirit ought not to intervene, that we should have had the full and entire assistance of Her Majesty's late Government in carrying out an Act of Parliament which they themselves had prepared, which was drawn up by their own officers according to their own instructions, and which I in no way altered either in the sense or in the text. Two clauses I did add; one positively defining the offences for which surrender was to be made, and enacting that it should be only for such offences as were in this country deemed felonious—that clause was therefore framed in no spirit which deserved the reproof with which I have been met by the noble Marquess. The second clause gave additional

1281
security to political offenders, by preventing them from being again tried for the same offence if they had been once surrendered under the Convention. This was done after the Bill had been drawn up under the late Government; and Her Majesty's Government had reason to expect that a great party like that which sat opposite would for a moment have forgotten all political difference, and would have assisted in passing a measure which they themselves deemed necessary for this country, and which it was due to France should be passed, inasmuch as noble Lords opposite know very well that the Convention at present in force was unfair to that country. The noble Marquess, therefore, when he pretended to show himself anxious to preserve our friendly relations with France, should either have supported his own Bill, or afforded me that information upon French law, of which he says that I am not possessed. If I understand the drift of the noble Marquess's observation it is this—he finds fault with me for not having paid due deference to the Crown and to this House. Why, my Lords, it was in deference to the House that I did not press the Bill. The noble Marquess has given me a lesson in the law; but upon the occasion of the discussion on the Bill several Peers most learned in the law expressed opinions against it. It would have been presumptuous for me to have persevered in the Bill in contradiction to these opinions. I saw the impression made upon your Lordships, and in deference to that impression I withdrew the Bill. I do not deserve, therefore, the accusation of failing in respect towards your Lordships; but least of all do I deserve the censure which the noble Marquess has cast upon me for having signed a Convention which I did not make, which was drawn up by the noble Earl opposite, my predecessor in office (Earl Granville), and for having attempted to carry out that Convention by an Act of Parliament, described by the noble Marquess as trenching on the liberty of the subject, when, in fact, I had added two clauses that strengthened that liberty. It was not just or fair, therefore, of the noble Marquess to say that I paid any disrespect to this House in withdrawing the Bill, or that I neglected to secure the liberty of the subject by consenting to narrow his constitutional rights in this instance. But at the same time, my Lords, I am bound to say, that I have not altered my opinion as to the immense importance
1282
of some Convention on the subject before the House. The French Government have determined—and I cannot say they are wrong—to renounce the present Convention as unfair and useless to them; and if that comes to pass, you will not be able to claim our criminals in France, any more than France will be able to claim her criminals in England. The criminals of both countries who can contrive to escape will consequently find impunity; and England as well as France will once again become a mutual and a safe asylum for the malefactors of each nation.
EARL GRANVILLEwas quite prepared to accept any responsibility which rested with him for the share he took in drawing up the Convention. It was quite clear they could not get the French Government to go on with the Convention unless we devised some moans by which Franco would be enabled to claim her criminals here as effectually as British criminals were claimed in France. He, for one, would willingly give all the assistance in his power. He must entirely protest against the general impression which the statement of the noble Earl seemed calculated to convey. Legal objections had been stated by noble and learned Lords of high legal authority, and they particularly guarded themselves against the notion that they were making a party attack. It was in deference to these opinions that the House had given the measure an unfavourable reception; for it was quite clear that the Government could not go on with the present Convention.
LORD CAMPBELLwas understood to say, that he was willing to have done all in his power to assist the noble Earl; but as the Bill stood it could not be carried into effect, as the Convention could not be changed. It was exceedingly to be desired that some arrangement should be come to on the subject, and he trusted that the noble Earl would assiduously devote himself to the consideration of some plan calculated to remove the existing difficulties.
The MARQUESS of NORMANBYcould fully confirm what had been stated by his noble Friend opposite, that the French Government had just cause of complaint with respect to the existing state of the treaty between the two countries. His intimate acquaintance with France during the last few years enabled him to testify that great service had been done by the practical operation of the existing

1283
treaty to the interests of this country. Under it great service had been done especially to the commercial interests of this country, in enabling parties to obtain possession of the persons of those who otherwise, from the neighbouring country being so contiguous, would have profited by the opportunity thereby afforded them to set the law of this country at defiance, and enjoy impunity. He felt convinced that if the French Government were to attempt the course which the noble Earl had intimated as possible that it would do, the commercial interests of England would suffer very considerably. He was anxious that the noble Earl should therefore turn his attention to some practical remedy of the difficulties which appeared at present to stand in the way of a satisfactory arrangement of the subject. He could not sit down without stating, that during the whole period which he had laboured in endeavouring to maintain amicable relations between the two countries, he had seldom listened to any statement with greater pleasure than that of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) with regard to the manner in which the French Government have acted with respect to the withdrawal of the projet de loi referred to.
LORD BROUGHAM, in referring to the Convention which it was the object of the proposed Bill to carry into effect, and to the law recently made in France, stated that the circumstances under which it was proposed to proceed against offences committed out of France differed very materially from those which existed at the date of the Code from which this new law was in great part taken, namely, 1808; and it was natural, in consequence, to look upon it with far greater jealousy, not to mention that it carried the law of 1808 much further. After the opinion expressed by very eminent lawyers in that House, as to the legal difficulties in the way of passing the Bill, it appeared to him that sufficient grounds existed for suggesting its postponement until its provisions were more fully and maturely considered; and he strongly recommended this course to the Government. At the same time he deeply regretted that some arrangement had not been come to which would have placed the question in a satisfactory position, as they could not expect that the French Government would continue to give this country the benefit of the existing Treaty if no corresponding benefit were given them in return. With respect to the position of
1284
the French Government, it was at present occupied in attempts to solve an impossible problem—impossible because the data were inconsistent and repugnant—of forming a constitution which should vest absolute power in the Executive, and legislative power in a representative and elected body. That was a problem which, in his opinion, never could be solved, and he only trusted that the difficulty would be got over without any shock to the tranquillity of France, or the permanent peace of Europe.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEdenied that this had been made a party question; it was not attempted to defeat the Billon the second reading. [The Earl of DERBY (we believe): Your own Bill.] He took upon himself, as a Member of the late Government, to say that he not only never saw the Bill which the noble Earl had stated had been prepared by the late Government, but that his noble Friend near him (Earl Granville) also had never seen it, The Bill was merely prepared by the Crown lawyers for further revision and consideration. His object in bringing forward the subject was to obtain information and an explanation which would be satisfactory to the people of this country, not less than to the French Government, as regarded the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the matter. But if the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) wished him to make a charge against him, he would do so—his charge was that he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had very hastily thought that he was competent in a month or six weeks to take upon himself to produce a Bill which the noble Earl near him (Earl Granville) had had under his consideration, and upon which the noble Viscount who had preceded him in the Foreign Office had also for a long time bestowed considerable attention. It was a most difficult and delicate subject to deal with, one upon which he was as anxious as the noble Earl himself that there should be some satisfactory legislation, and whenever Her Majesty's Government should bring forward any measure upon it, he promised them that he would consider it—as he had done the recent Bill—without the slightest jot or iota of feeling of party spirit.

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read; House in Committee accordingly.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, that as he had expressed very strong objections

1285
to one or two of the provisions of this Bill in the debate on the second reading, though he agreed with the general purport of the measure, it was not necessary that he should now repeat any of the arguments which he had then endeavoured to adduce. It was now his intention to propose certain Amendments, which he thought necessary and desirable. First of all, the clauses from 33 to 39 inclusive were those which constituted the Upper Chamber of the Legislature of New Zealand. He stated fully on the former occasion, when the Bill was read a second time, the great objections he had to the Upper Chamber being composed of nominees of the Government. He would not now repeat the objections which he had urged on this point on that occasion; but he would simply remind the noble Earl at the head of the Government of the practical experience we had had of the working of the system of nominee chambers, and how uniformly that experience proved the unfitness of the system for carrying on the functions of legislation. The disturbances which took place in Canada in reference to that question went strongly to prove the mischievous operation of the system. He thought, too, he could assign an additional reason against a nominee Chamber in New Zealand when he reminded their Lordships that they were now establishing a free government at the Cape of Good Hope, where the English settlers were comparatively few, but where nevertheless they were giving a far more liberal constitution in this particular respect than they now proposed to confer on New Zealand by this Bill. He did not think he need go over the grounds he stated the other night. He might just remark, generally, how utterly unlike their Lordships' House that nominee Chamber would be, and how impossible it was to plant in our distant Colonies institutions exactly such as we had in the mother country. He was confident their Lordships would obtain a better class of men by an elective system, properly restrained, both as regarded qualification and the mode of election; and with that conviction on his mind, and apprehending also the serious alarm to which the imposition of a nominee system on New Zealand would give rise in the minds of the Colonists—for that was a point on which the inhabitants of all the Colonies felt most anxious—placing, as it would, their Governor in the position in which so many previous Governors had found themselves, of being;
1286
either obliged to give way to the inevitable difficulties of the system, or to resort to the expedient of overruling the opinions and voices of the old members by the addition of new ones.—and entertaining those objections most strongly, he felt it his duty to move the omission of the 33rd Clause from the Bill—and if he should succeed in that, all the subsequent clauses down to the 39th inclusive—for the purpose of inserting the clause of the noble Earl lately at the head of the Colonial Department (Earl Grey), to which reference was made on the last occasion when the Bill was before their Lordships, and which provided that in constituting the Upper Chamber the members should be elected by the local Legislatures of the six Districts to be constituted under the provisions of this Bill.
The EARL of DESARTregretted that on the part of the Government he could not assent to the proposition of the noble Duke. It might be quite true that inconvenience had occasionally arisen from differences of opinion between the Upper and Lower Chambers; but, without seeking to compare a Legislative Council to a House of Lords, he might remark that the same inconveniences had arisen from the House of Lords and House of Commons being of different opinions, and yet nobody denied that the system worked well in the end, notwithstanding the inconvenience which occasionally accrued. What the Government wished to see in the colony of New Zealand, was not a system similar to the House of Lords—for that was impossible, and he might add Utopian—but they aimed at creating something analogous to the House of Lords; for he considered the great benefit they derived from that institution was, that they had a legislative body with certain powers, which were not liable to be affected by the influence of popular feeling. He thought they could constitute a body in the colonies, which, not being elective, would not be subject to be influenced by popular feeling, which might be transitory. It was for those reasons that he thought this clause a very valuable one, and therefore he regretted be could not accede to the proposition of his noble Friend.
The EARL of HARROWBYsupported the Amendment, contending that experience had proved that a nominee Chamber had no weight in the colonies, and that it was only regarded there as an instrument of the Government. His wish was

1287
that there should he two Chambers, one representing property and the other population, but that both should be elective—a system analogous to that which had been adopted in the United States with so much success.
The EARL of DERBYthought their Lordships would agree that there ought to be some check on a purely democratic constitution. He confessed, however great had been the admiration expressed from time to time of the American Republic, he was not desirous of framing the constitution of our Colonies upon republican models. He would rather frame them on the British than the American—rather on the monarchical than the republican principle of Government. He quite agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) that it was important to have property represented as well as population; and that was precisely what would be done in New Zealand under this Bill—for the Governor of New Zealand would depart from his duty to the State if he did not take care that the members who were nominated to the Upper Chamber were men of large property and of respectability and standing, and who had a large stake in the colony of New Zealand. He confessed he did not expect to see in the Colonics in their day, nor in their sons' or grandsons' day, anything resembling the constitution of the mother country; yet he did hope that in New Zealand, which was a most important and promising colony, there would arise in time a class of men possessing large property, out of whom might be taken those who would represent the aristocratic element in the colony; and he thought, looking forward to that period, it was important that the Crown should have the power of nominating, not a body of men who would be the mere representatives of the Government of the day, but men who, being chosen personally, retained their full rights of legislation, wholly independent of the Government, for their lives, and who should not be capable of being dismissed, and who would in consequence exercise a great deal of influence both on the popular will on the one hand, and on the will of the Governor on the other; and that influence would go on extending and increasing as the aristocratic element developed itself, until it might ultimately approximate to the principles of the British Constitution. Thinking, then, that a body of men, holding their seats for life, possessed of property, and holding a stake in
1288
the colony, were a valuable check on the democratic principle, he was of opinion that it was exceedingly important that that element should not be lost sight of, and that the exercise of that valuable check should be retained in the hands of an influential body of men, such as he had described.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, seeing that there were at that moment only three or four Members on the Opposition side of the House, and few independent Members on the other, he should not think of troubling their Lordships to divide on his Motion.
Motion negatived.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE, in reference to the 58th Clause, which gave to Her Majesty the power of vetoing any Bill passed by the colonial Legislature, within two years after its receipt at the Colonial Office, said he had called the attention of their Lordships, on the second reading, to the fact that whilst the Governor's power of veto was limited to three months, that of the Colonial Office at home was fixed at two years. He thought that the same restrictions might with great safety be introduced into the power of veto of the Colonial Secretary. He believed there was a great practical inconvenience in allowing the Colonial Secretary to exercise his veto over a Bill of the colonial Legislature for so long a period as two years after its receipt by him in this country. He would move as an Amendment to Clause 58, that the power of veto proposed to be confided in the Secretary of State at home should be limited to three months, instead of two years, after his receipt of Bills from the colonial Legislature presented for Her Majesty's assent.
Amendment negatived.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEthen suggested that the clauses for giving compensation to the New Zealand Company should be postponed, with a view to legislation in the next Session, and in order to admit of inquiry in the meantime into the allegations which had been made against the conduct and fair dealing of the Company. He would not go into the details of the subject, having so recently adverted to them when the Bill was last before the House, but would simply sum up his observations under three heads. First, there were certain charges brought against the New Zealand Company; and, without expressing any opinion as to whether those charges were just or not, there was, at any rate, a primâ

1289
facie case, which did absolutely require a full investigation; and, in the meanwhile, it was not desirable to place that Company, against which those charges were brought, in a more favourable position than it stood at present, which this Bill did, for the Company would receive 5s. for every acre of waste land sold or alienated in the colony after the passing of the measure, until their debt was paid. A second point was this—that, induced by the representations made by the New Zealand Company, the Legislature, in 1847, passed an Act, by the 19th Clause of which the Government in this country became responsible for all the claims which might be substantiated against the New Zealand Company by that class of colonists called the Nelson settlers. That Company was bound to indemnify those settlers, if any case should be made out against it, by land instead of money; and the Government would, therefore, find themselves in this most anomalous position—that if these Nelson settlers should hereafter establish their case, and it should be found that the Government had parted with the whole of the land in the colony, the Government would be obliged to repurchase of the colonial Legislature a sufficient quantity of land to indemnify those settlers. Those were two of his points—the first had reference to the general principle of justice; the second was connected with the interests of the Empire. His third point was this: He thought that unless stronger reasons could be shown than had been shown in the other House of Parliament—and none had been shown in their Lordships' House, for it had not been discussed there—it was not right towards the settlers of New Zealand that the first charge of a heavy mortgage of 268,000 l odd should be imposed upon them. It was a most fearful liability to throw on them. Looking to the probability that for the present the great tide of emigration would set in towards the Australian Colonies rather than in the direction of New Zealand, they would have the interest of that mortgage perpetually increasing, and it would be in all probability the ground of future applications to the British Legislature to pay that accruing debt. He repeated, it was not expedient or fair towards the colonists to impose such a burden upon them. In doing so they made it the interest of the colonists to endeavour by every means however questionable to defeat the intentions of the Legislature by their own arrangements in reference to the sale of
1290
the lauds in question. For these three reasons he thought it was most desirable that this arrangement with the New Zealand Company should not be made, believing it would not be fair to hand over the management of the lands to the colonists, placing the New Zealand Company in a better position than that in which it at present stood, and that to impose this heavy burden upon an infant colony is neither politic nor just. Being desirous, therefore, that strict justice should be done to all parties concerned, he would now move that the clause handing over the management of the lands to the colonists should be postponed, with the view of its being considered in the next Session of Parliament.
The EARL of DESARTregretted again that he must refuse his assent, on the part of the Government, to the proposition which had been made by his noble Friend. He (the Earl of Desart) would not go into the question whether the New Zealand Company were justly liable to the charges which had been brought against them or not. He did not think that their Lordships' House was the proper place to investigate such matters; and he believed his noble Friend was of a similar opinion on that head, his object being, as he understood it, merely to prevent the New Zealand Company being placed in a better position than they now were until an inquiry had taken place. But he (the Earl of Desart) maintained that this clause would not place them in a better position than that in which they formerly stood. The New Zealand Company were willing to accept the certainty of one-fourth of the produce of the waste lands for the uncertainty which they at present possessed; and he believed that, if anything, their position in a pecuniary sense would be less profitable than hitherto. The latest accounts from the colony afforded the pleasing evidence of the speedy settlement of the land claims. The Government had made themselves liable to certain claims in 1847; and the claimants were perfectly satisfied with the operation of the different arrangements that had been carried into effect. In twelve months more Her Majesty would have the control of the waste lands; and by this Act the Government would not put himself in a worse position than it had occupied since 1847. As to the charge of fraud, he thought it would be unfair to prejudge the case. They were bound to place the New Zealand Company in such a position that they

1291
could not accuse them of having prejudged the case against them.
Motion negatived.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

THE CANTERBURY SETTLEMENT, NEW ZEALAND.
LORD LYTTELTONbegged, pursuant to notice, to present a petition from the inhabitants of the Canterbury Settlement, New Zealand, complaining of a public attack made by the Governor of New Zealand on the principles upon which that settlement was founded, and praying for the adoption of measures granting to the Colony a constitutional Parliament, elected by the inhabitants of the Colony, in place of the nominated Council at present existing. Feeling deeply interested in the prosperity of that Settlement, he availed himself of, possibly, the only opportunity that might be afforded to him this Session, of presenting this petition to their Lordships. It had just reached him, and he would venture, however unwillingly, to request the particular attention of their Lordships to its contents. The noble Lord read the petition, which, after referring to the establishment of the Settlement, set forth that fourteen ships with emigrants had arrived there in the course of nine months. He begged here to remark, that the petition had been framed about seven or eight months ago, and that since that period the thirteen or fourteen ships had increased to twenty-two or twenty-three ships. The petition stated in the next place, that the population amounted to 3,000 souls; but if the statement were now made, the population should be estimated at 4,000 or 5,000. The petition further stated, that surveys had been made—a considerable extent of land had been enclosed—the amount of land in cultivation was increasing—means were afforded for the worship of God—schools were established, and a plan for the establishment of a university was already commenced. The petitioners then stated that they had learned from a source that could be relied upon, that Her Majesty's Representative in the colony of New Zealand had, on several occasions, at meetings of the Legislative Council of the colony expressed strong objections to the principles and proceedings on which the Association was founded, and that he had forwarded to Her Majesty statements professing to convey the sentiments of the people of the Islands which were hostile to the Settlements, and praying that Her Majesty
1292
would cause all the land in the colony to be sold at the same uniform price. The petitioners declared that the memorials so forwarded by the Governor contained un-unfounded statements. The petitioners deeply regretted that they were obliged to point out the inaccuracies and misstatements conveyed to Her Majesty, and the more particularly so as the document containing them had received the sanction of the highest authority in the colony. But the petitioners declared that it did not speak the sentiments of the people of New Zealand. The petitioners further stated that they saw cause for great alarm in the attack that had been made upon them; they feared that it might inflict the deepest injury upon them, and that the public in England thinking Her Majesty's sanction was withdrawn, the sale of the lands would be stopped. They concluded with a prayer for a representative constitution, which, after the proceedings of that evening, was quite superfluous—a Bill having nearly passed through both Houses of Parliament on the subject to which it had reference. He had been anxious to read this petition to their Lordships, for the purpose of giving publicity to the statements contained in it, confirming as they did an observation he had made the other night, in reply to a remark of the noble Earl the late Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Grey) with respect to the Canterbury Settlement. That settlement had already arrived at a great state of advancement, and on no point had the hopes of the emigrants to that colony been disappointed, for they had either been realised, or were in the course of realisation. It was not true, for instance, with regard to the Canterbury Settlement, or any other Settlement in the Colony, that any serious loss had been inflicted upon them by any withdrawal of their population consequent upon the discovery of gold in Australia. Some of the newspapers, for purposes best known to themselves, had given currency to vague rumours that had reached this country some time ago, that some settlements in New Zealand were almost deserted; but that statement was without a shadow of foundation. Statements had reached this country, later than the rumours so promulgated, to the effect that, although the minds of the people of New Zealand had been unsettled by the accounts of the gold discoveries—just in the same way as the minds of various people throughout Europe had been agitated by the same

1293
cause—scarcely any persons had loft the settlements to go to the gold fields, and that there was every reason to hope that they would follow the advice of their judicious friends, and remain in the colony, for, in all probability, owing to the gold discoveries, an abundant market would be opened for their produce, which must tend greatly to their advantage. The case with respect to the Governor of New Zealand was this—This Canterbury colony was actually founded in the year 1848. The project had been ventilated and discussed in this country for a considerable time before that, but it then received the sanction of a Royal Charter, and the deliberate approval of Her Majesty's Government and of Parliament. Recommended in that way, the scheme was transmitted by the late Government to the Governor of New Zealand, and it was enjoined upon him to give that under taking every support in his power. The Governor(Sir George Grey) professed to do so—he spoke of it favourably—and for a time he appeared to support it in action; and now, three years after its establishment, in the autumn of 1851, the Governor thought fit, on a most public occasion, at a meeting of the Legislative Council of that colony, to make a deliberate attack, not upon anything the Association or the colonists had done—for if they had left themselves open to animadversion, no person would have a right to complain—on the contrary, he admitted that, in every respect, what had been engaged for had been successfully carried on; but he made a sweeping attack upon the whole of the essential and fundamental principle upon which that colony was founded. The principle was as simple as possible—it was to plant a colony whose general character should be of the Church of England, and that 1l. out of the 3l. per acre that was to be paid for land should be applied to the purposes of the Church of England in the colony. That was the whole of the machinery intended for that purpose, and it was against that principle, and that principle alone, that the Governor contended; because he said it would not be acting fairly towards other denominations to have the land dealt with in that way. The Governor also urged that there were economical objections to the variation of the price of land in the Canterbury Settlement, and in the rest of the colony. These were objections to the fundamental principles of the plan, and it was grossly inconsistent with the duty of any Governor,
1294
after three years' existence of this system, against which he had never remonstrated, to protest now against the whole principle of a measure that had received the sanction of all the authorities to whom he was bound to defer. His noble Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies had been misinformed as to what the Governor had said; and in his (Lord Lyttelton's) opinion it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, in taking cognisance of what the Governor had done, to reprove him for making so improper an attack. Whether Her Majesty's Government had done so, or were likely to do so, he did not know, but he was glad to have that opportunity of publicly protesting against his conduct.
House adjourned till To-morrow.