Sitting of 21 May 1846

GERMAN CUSTOMS TARIFF.
MR. WODEHOUSErose to put a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government relating to the German customs tariff, referring more particularly to the letter from the Earl of Westmorland to the Earl of Aberdeen, dated Berlin, November 8, 1842, respecting the increase of import duties on woollen and printed cotton goods, as well as other articles of manufacture, to take effect during the years 1843, 1844, and 1845. He begged to remind the right hon. Gentleman that in his letter the Earl of Westmorland had stated that this tariff would not materially affect the manufactures of this country, and that it was meant as a measure of retaliation against France. He also wished to recall to the memory of the right hon. Baronet, that in a recent discussion he had stated that he had reason to suppose that there was in Prussia an intention to alter the line of commercial policy as to freedom of trade. He wished to know, therefore, whether it were the intention of Government to lay

953
before Parliament any documents of any kind, subsequent to the date of Lord Westmorland's letter, confirmatory of the expectation that the commercial code of Prussia would be relaxed in correspondence with the relaxation in our own?
SIR R. PEELwished his hon. Friend had given him more particular notice of his question; as it was printed in the Votes, it applied simply to the letter of the Earl of Westmorland in 1842. It was not his intention to lay upon the Table any communication relating to matters connected with our present relations with Prussia as regarded the customs laws; but he had no objection to produce the customs tariff of the Zollverein, passed last year, for 1846, 1847, and 1848, that it might be compared with the tariff of 1843, 1844, and 1845.

THE BINGLEY UNION.
MR. FERRAND: I rise to put the four questions of which I have given notice relative to the Bingley union. The House will perhaps allow me in the first place to make one or two remarks. This is a personal affair, relating to myself, because I am charged with neglecting my duty as a country gentleman as well as a magistrate, and I feel that the House ought to allow me to proceed. In 1839 the old Poor Law ceased to be enforced in the town of Bingley; there were then twelve inmates in the poorhouse. The Commissioners then took the affairs of the parish into their own hands, and the poor of other townships were crowded into the building. The poor-house was never entered until the year 1842, after which the Commissioners entered into a plot for the purpose of crushing me. Sir John Walsham drew up a report which stated that there were then fifty-nine inmates in the poorhouse. I shall not quote the expressions of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department on the occasion. It will be sufficient for me to say, that from the time of that report to the present moment no Assistant Poor Law Commissioner has ever approached the building of the Bingley poorhouse. The inmates have been increased instead of decreased, and there are now no fewer than seventy inmates. My four questions are these:—'1. Whether Her Majesty's Government possess the power of rescuing from the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners seventy poor persons who are now confined by their orders in Bingley poorhouse,
954
which is a building capable of accommodating on an average twelve inmates, and was occupied by that number on the last day that the old Poor Law was in operation?—2. If Her Majesty's Government possess the power, whether they will immediately exercise it, as a fever has broken out among them?—3. Whether Her Majesty's Government possess the power of compelling the Poor Law Commissioners or their assistants to visit this poorhouse, as not one of them have done so since June, 1842, when two reports were drawn up for the purpose of crushing an independent Member of this House, and which the Secretary of State for the Home Department took steps to procure?—4. Whether the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury will now retract his unfounded charge against the ratepayers of the parish of Bingley, that they were the authors of, and answerable for the state of the poorhouse, when it contained fifty-nine inmates, instead of the present number?"
SIR R. PEEL: The House is aware that the communications between Government and the Poor Law Commissioners are not under my control, but that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department; still, as one of the hon. Member's questions, the concluding one, relates to something which passed in the House, now, I think, four years ago, and is supposed to have fallen from me, it is necessary that I should answer that question; and perhaps it will be more convenient that at the same time I should answer the others. The first is, whether Government possess the power of rescuing from the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners seventy poor persons now confined in the Bingley workhouse, a building capable of holding only twelve inmates. The answer I have to give is this: that I apprehend the Poor Law Commissioners have the power of restricting the number of persons to be admitted into a workhouse; there is, therefore, a power on the part of the Commissioners of reducing the number of persons now confined in the poorhouse of Bingley, and of bringing it below seventy persons. Immediately the hon. Member gave his notice, I felt it my duty to take care that there should be an immediate inquiry into the state of the Bingley workhouse, particularly as the hon. Member stated that fever prevailed among the paupers. I think on the evening of the day on which the hon. Member gave notice of these questions, at my suggestion,

955
and that of my right hon. Friend, a letter was addressed to Mr. Austin, the Poor Law Commissioner, directing him to proceed without delay to examine the Bingley union, to ascertain the number of inmates in the poorhouse; whether fever prevailed among them; to what extent; and whether it was desirable to make temporary provision for the removal of any of the paupers. Of course it is impossible that we should yet have received an answer to that reference from Mr. Austin; but I need hardly assure the House that if it be wished Mr. Austin's report, when transmitted, shall be communicated without delay. A special inquiry has been made by a medical officer as to the fever said to prevail in the workhouse. The second question is whether, if Government possess the power, they will exercise it, in consequence of the appearance of fever in the workhouse? I have shown the anxious disposition of Government to institute an immediate inquiry into the subject, and to direct that if it be necessary or convenient to the paupers that some arrangement for their removal should be made, Government, acting in concert with the Poor Law Cammissioners, have taken the necessary steps to meet the evil, if it be found to exist. As to the third of the hon. Member's four questions, whether Government possess the power to compel the Poor Law Commissioners, or their assistants, to visit the Bingley poorhouse, where they have not been since the year 1842, I have to remark that the poorhouse has not been recently visited. With regard to the charge that the reports were drawn up for the purpose of crushing an independent Member of this House, I can only answer, that neither my right hon. Friend nor myself have entertained the slightest intention of crushing any hon. Member, whether independent or otherwise. Upon that point I need say no more; but as to the first part of the question, I repeat that it is true that the Bingley poorhouse has not been lately visited. [Mr. FERBAND: Has it been visited since 1842?] The hon. Member will perhaps allow me to proceed, and to state that Mr. Clements was the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner of the district, until he was removed, I believe, to Ireland, and that he visited the Keighley union on the 17th of May, 1843; and again on the 8th of May, 1844; also on the 3rd of October, 1844; and he reported that there had been some discussion among the guardians about improvements
956
in the workhouse, but without any result. On the 28th of June, 1845, Mr. Clements was again there, and attention was then called to the fact. The Poor Law Commissioners have the power to fix the number to be received into the workhouse; and the attention of Mr. Clements was directed to this point. He said, "I am in communication with the guardians about the workhouse, and think the matter had better be postponed." It must be borne in mind that the restriction against outdoor relief has never been applied to the Keighley union; consequently the Poor Law guardians there have possessed an unlimited power to administer outdoor relief; therefore there was no obligation upon them to crowd the workhouse by taking too many persons within it. If they have the power of administering outdoor relief, it seems a preferable mode to give that relief in cases where it is required, than to crowd the claimants inconveniently into the workhouse. I think it is a matter to be lamented, and I state my opinion without reserve, that the visits of the Assistant Poor Law Commissioner were confined to the place where the guardians appear to have met. It is to be regretted that he did not inspect the workhouse. On this fact coming to my knowledge, I requested that immediate steps might be taken to remedy this omission, and that Mr. Austin might institute a personal examination of the workhouse. I believe that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's three first questions as fully as possible; and when Mr. Austin's report is received, it shall be laid upon the Table without delay. Every measure that it may seem to him advisable to adopt in order to restrict the number of paupers in the Bingley workhouse will also be communicated. The last question is that which relates to myself; and first, the hon. Member says that I charged him with dishonourable conduct as a magistrate. [Mr. FERRAND: With neglecting my duty as a magistrate.] When hon. Members ask for an explanation after the lapse of four years, they ought to take care that they do not impute words to others which were never uttered. I never said that the hon. Member acted dishonourably—I have not the slightest recollection of having used such words, or expressed such a feeling. [Mr. FEREAND: It was imputed to me in the report.] I thought the hon. Member said that I charged him with it. Now, as to the report, the question was virtually whether

957
the Poor Law Commissioners should be abolished or not. I said, in the year 1842, that such a step would not be advisable, because I thought that entire dependence could not be placed on the local authorities without supervision. I appealed to the experience of the past in reference to the small workhouses, in order to show that entire dependence could not be placed on the local authorities. I quoted the report of a gentleman with whom I had no acquaintance—a public officer, Sir John Walsham—as so the state of the workhouse in the Keighley union; and I said, that in my opinion, that report confirmed my impression that entire dependence could not be placed on local authorities in respect to the administration of the Poor Laws, freed from all superior control. The hon. Member said that he denied the allegations in the report—that they were altogether unfounded. [Mr. FERBAND: Not altogether.] The House will observe what passed. On the hon. Member stating that the reports were not altogether, but in the greater part unfounded, the gallant Commodore who sits opposite (Sir C. Napier) said, "I think this question ought to be made a subject of inquiry." The gallant Officer remarked that the Secretary of State challenged inquiry, and he thought that the hon. Member for Knaresborough equally demanded inquiry; he recommended, therefore, that a Select Committee should be appointed, to which should be referred the report of Sir J. Walsham, from which I have quoted a sentence. That Committee was appointed, and, having made a full inquiry, they presented their Report, and it was to this effect:—
"No attempt has been made to impugn the general accuracy, nor, with one or two trifling and immaterial exceptions, any of the details of Sir John Walsham's report. The accuracy of his report as to the Keighley poorhouse is borne out by the evidence."
That was the Report made by the Select Committee appointed at the instigation of the gallant Commodore, and when it was presented, the justice of it was disputed. A counter report, calling in question the accuracy of Sir John Walsham's Report, was proposed, but the resolution in favour of Sir John Walsh's accuracy was confirmed by the following Members:—Mr. Childers, Mr. Pakenham, Sir C. Napier, Sir J. Trollope, Mr. Bolton Clive, and Mr. Manners Sutton. Three Gentlemen, however, dissented, and they were Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Holditch, and Mr. Colville.
958
After about three years and a half have elapsed, the hon. Member for Knaresborough refers to the Report, and inquires if I am prepared to prove the unfounded charge I made against the ratepayers of the Keighley Union. I say I made no charge. I relied upon Sir J. Walsham's report. If, indeed, I had made an erroneous and injurious statement, I should have the greatest pleasure in correcting it. I have said so before, and I say so now. If I felt, in reference to these transactions, that I had done injustice to the guardians or to the ratepayers of the Keighley I should have no hesitation in admitting it; but adverting to the Report of the Committee, and recollecting the speech of the gallant Commodore, I do not feel that I said one word that was unjust towards the guardians or the ratepayers. Therefore, I am not prepared to retract what I stated in the month of June, four years ago.
MR. FERRAND: I rise in explanation. The right hon. Baronet charged the ratepayers with being the cause of the crowded state of the Bingley workhouse; but the fact is, that the Commissioners themselves have sent in the paupers, and have had the control of the workhouse for three years. Under the old law it held twelve, and under the new fifty-nine have been put into it.
SIR R. PEEL: It is inconvenient to refer to matters that passed so long ago; but did not the hon. Member say that he altogether disapproved of the New Poor Law; and that although he was chairman of the board of guardians he would not adopt any step to carry it into execution? Under the existing law, the guardians have the power of administering outdoor relief; and were not representations made to the Commissioners that the ratepayers ought to be taxed in order that they might erect a fitter building; and have they not up to this day refused to accede to that course? Where is the point, then, on which I have made an unfounded charge?
Subject at an end.

SIR CHARLES TAYLOR.
MR. C. BERKELEYwished to put some questions to the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. J. Collett). If the accusation against Sir Charles Taylor were true, the Secretary of State was bound to advise Her Majesty to dismiss Sir C. Taylor from the commission of the peace: if the charge were untrue, the Member who brought it

959
forward, unsupported by evidence, was not fit to sit in this House. The question he had to put to the hon. Member for Athlone was this—whether he had sent his affidavits against Sir C. Taylor to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order that they might be followed up by an ample inquiry?
MR. COLLETTremarked that the questions of which notice had been given were three; and he hoped, in his character of an Irish Member, to be allowed to reply to them all, though he had yet only heard one. He had put himself to considerable personal inconvenience for the purpose; but the three questions of Wednesday had dwindled down to one on Thursday. In reply to the first question, he had to state that, since Monday last, he had taken no further steps in the business. In answer to the second, whether he had lodged his affidavits in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would mention that on Tuesday morning, before the hon. Member gave his notice of questions, he (Mr. J. Collett) had employed himself in making copies of all the documents which he had sent to the right hon. Baronet, with a letter, which, perhaps, he might be allowed to read to the House. The hon. Member read the letter, to the effect that he had sent the affidavits, &c., respecting which he hoped that the earliest opportunity for inquiry would be taken, and the result be stated to the House, and that he deliberately repeated his belief in the truth of the affidavits; and that as the right hon. Baronet had asked for the affidavits, in order to found a prosecution upon them, he trusted that, if such prosecution should be instituted by Her Majesty's Government, he should be included in it. This was not meant as an idle threat, but seriously, because if the other parties deserved to be prosecuted, he was most materially involved in the charge. The last question of the hon. Member for Cheltenham was, whether he (Mr. J. Collett) intended to take further proceedings, or to allow the matter to remain where it was? To that he might reply, without pledging himself as to what further proceeding he might think proper to adopt, that he was desirous of the fullest and most searching inquiry, and that if the hon. Member would move for a Committee for the purpose, he would second the Motion with the utmost pleasure.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMfelt himself at liberty to state to the House what was
960
the result of the consideration which he had given to the documents submitted to him last Tuesday. He had carefully considered the affidavits; and from the best inquiry which he had been able to institute, the impression which he at first entertained, and which he had expressed to the House, was, he thought, the right one. It was, that the affidavits were extra-judicial, and if false, no indictment for perjury would lie against their authors. Again, if false, although they were were clearly slanderous, no civil action could be brought against the parties issuing them. If they were false, there was, therefore, no remedy against their authors—but on the other hand, if they were true, it could not be doubted but that a criminal information might be filed against Sir Charles Taylor in the Court of Queen's Bench, certainly the most fit tribunal for the institution of such an inquiry. He was not prepared to include the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Collett) among the parties prosecuted; but, actuated by public spirit, as the hon. Gentleman was, the proper course for him to pursue, if he put faith in the affidavits, was to become prosecutor, and proceed against Sir Charles Taylor at law.

VISIT OF IBRAHIM PACHA.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESinquired whether Government had invited the distinguished son of that great man, Mehemet Ali, to visit this country?
SIR R. PEELwould best perform his duty by simply stating that, on its being intimated to the Government that it was likely that Ibrahim Pacha would visit this country, a direct assurance was immediately conveyed to him that, if he did, it would be the wish of the Government to show him every attention in their power.

EQUESTRIAN STATUE TO THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORwished to put a question as to the intended equestrian statue to the Duke of Wellington. Some three weeks ago a scaffolding had been commenced round the arch on Constitution-hill, and on inquiring what was going forward, he was told that the enormous colossal statue to the Duke—a statue much too large for the intended base, was to be immediately placed upon the summit of the arch. Since that period, however, objection was taken to the destination of the statue, and some attempt was made to

961
ascertain whether the arch was strong enough to bear its intended load—the result of which was a report that a large outlay would be required to put the building into a condition to support the statue—and a rumour that Government was likely to interfere and put a stop to the operation. Since then, however, he had heard that proceedings were still going on; and what he wished to know, and what he was sure the public wished to know, was whether the site in question was to be disfigured by the Wellington Statue Committee.
SIR R. PEELshould like to leave on record what had passed that evening, as an instance of the number and variety of questions a Minister of the Crown was expected to answer on one day. First, he had been called upon to answer a question respecting the Customs Tariff of this country and of the Zollverein; then came a question about the Bingley union; then another respecting the visit of Ibrahim Pacha; and now came a question respecting the Duke of Wellington's statue. He believed the facts were these—and when they were stated, he did not think that there would be found any ground for any accusation against Her Majesty's Government. Some time ago a subscription had been proposed for erecting an equestrian statue to the noble Duke, and a Committee had been appointed by the subscribers to direct the application of the fund. But before the subscriptions were raised a communication had been made to His late Majesty King William IV., who had been requested to state whether, in the event of the proposed subscriptions being raised for a magnificent equestrian statue to the Duke of Wellington, His Majesty would give his consent to its being placed on the arch at the top of Constitution-hill. Subsequently, a similar request had been made to Her present Majesty; and, he believed that Lord Melbourne, who was then Prime Minister, had been authorized to communicate to the Committee that Her Majesty would confirm the intention of Her Royal predecessor. Therefore the subscriptions had been raised after two successive Sovereigns had declared that they had no objection to the proposed site of the statue. He would not give any opinion on the question; but the noble Lord was of opinion that the statue, if placed as proposed, would disfigure the neighbourhood. The subscribers, on the contrary, thought it would be a very great ornament to the neighbourhood. In fact, they ought to
962
have withheld their subscriptions if they disapproved of the site on which it was proposed to place the statue. He had felt disposed to think that a better site might be chosen. However, there was great difference of opinion as to the best mode of placing the statue. Then the architect's opinion as to the strength of the arch was to be considered. On the matter being brought before him, he had proposed, on the part of the Crown, to give almost any other site that might be agreed upon. The statue might be placed either between the Athenaeum and the United Service Clubhouses, or in the immediate neighbourhood of the Duke of Wellington's residence, or near the Horse Guards. He had also undertaken, on the part of the Government, to propose to Parliament to vote a sum for the erection of a suitable pedestal, and that, on the whole, he had thought would have been the more satisfactory mode of settling the matter; but the Committee having again considered the subject, thought, that the consent of Her Majesty having been formally signified to them, and considering that many of the subscribers had subscribed with the idea that the site originally fixed upon would not be departed from, doubted whether they had the right to make any alteration in the site, and therefore it was determined by the Committee (he believed unanimously), that the site should not be altered. Now, certainly these assurances having been given on the part of the Crown, and the Committee having come to the resolution that they could not alter the site, he could not advise Her Majesty to withdraw the consent that had been given by herself and her predecessor.
MR. BAILLIEobserved, that it was generally reported that the statue was too large for the arch, and that it was consequently to be placed lengthways to the arch, so as to look east and west, or at right angles to the road; and what he wished to suggest was, that at all events the statue should be placed properly on the arch.
SIR R. PEELapprehended that if the statue were to be placed north and south, it would somewhat obstruct the thoroughfare by breaking down the arch.

THE OFFICERS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
SIR J. GRAHAM, seeing the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Evelyn Denison) in his place, would take the opportunity of

963
making an explanation to him on behalf of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman had lately brought under the notice of the House the conduct of the Solicitor of that Commission, who had circulated a paper with reference to a discussion in a Committee of this House, which he had the high authority of the Speaker for saying was a breach of the privileges of the House. He was, however, directed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to express their regret, that their Solicitor should have violated the privilege of the House—a regret which they felt the more deeply, inasmuch as the document contained comments on the conduct of hon. Members which were quite incorrect and unfounded.
MR. J. E. DENISONsaid, that the intimation was perfectly satisfactory. When he had ascertained the contents of the letter in question, he had written to the Earl of Besborough, who was to preside at a meeting of the Commission the following morning, stating that the document was inconsistent with the privileges of the House, and not the less so, because the statements it contained were incorrect. He had further stated in this communication, with regard to Mr. White, the writer of the letter, that all he had done before the Committee, was done with propriety and ability. He trusted that the explanation which had been now given would set him right with all parties; he had every disposition to put a favourable construction on Mr. White's motive.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that had he been aware at the time, which, from the noise in the House, he was not, that the hon. Member for Maldon was making some disparaging observations on the conduct of the Secretary of the Ecclesiastical Commission, Mr. Murray, he (the Attorney General) would not have lost the opportunity of declaring, that from Mr. Murray's high character, a character earned by thirty-five years' experience in a public capacity, nothing was more unlikely than that any step officially taken by that gentleman would be of such a nature as to require such animadversion. [Cries of "Order!"] He thought he should have been allowed to rebut a personal accusation, which had given great pain to an individual.
MR. HUME: I move that the Paper said to be an invasion of the privileges of the House be put in, thus giving an opportunity for discussion.
The ATTORNEY GENERALresumed.
964
The first charge made against Mr. Murray was, that he was a dealer in railway shares to the amount of 260,000 l. The facts were, that Mr. Murray, in 1844, became a director of an established company—the South-Eastern Company. Finding, however, that the Commissioners objected, his name was immediately withdrawn. But while he was a director, it was proposed to extend the line, and it became necessary that another subscription contract should be deposited, in order to satisfy the Standing Orders. The shareholders being very numerous, and it being quite impossible to collect them in order to obtain their signatures, it was proposed by the solicitor that a certain number of the directors should sign the contract as trustees for the general body; and in the character of trustee only did Mr. Murray sign it. The liability was now finally put an end to, the responsibility being taken by the directors in a different form. He did not think any blame could be attached to Mr. Murray on this head. Now, as to the other charge. It appeared from a statement made to him, that a gentleman, the son of a clergyman, was employed by the Eastern Counties Railway, not as one of their servants, but in a confidential business which they were anxious to transact; and it being very desirable that he should have a second room, where he could have his papers under lock and key, Mr. Murray gave him the accommodation in Whitehall Palace, and that was the sole ground of fastening on Mr. Murray the charge of having used his office for the purposes of the South-Eastern Company. He should add, that Mr. Murray performed very responsible duties with the strictest honour and integrity, and that he believed he might in all respects be relied upon.
MR. J. E. DENISON: The very singular and remarkable indiscretion of the Attorney General compelled him to enter a little further into a matter which, so far as he was concerned, he should willingly let drop. As to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he was incorrectly informed as to their conduct, and it was of course unnecessary to enter into explanation on that head. He should like to ask the House whether they would take the assurance of the Attorney General, or the opinion of four selected Members, and of seven Members from the Speaker's list, who, one and all, expressed it as their decided opinion that the prayer of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to be

965
heard in opposition to the preamble of the Bill was not well advised, and should receive the animadversion of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman said that he had used a strong expression with regard to Mr. Murray. That remark was, that a highminded man, having an immense amount of property passing through his hands, and having public interests of the gravest moment submitted to his consideration, would not have acted as Mr. Murray did. In justice to himself, he was compelled to give the House some further information as to this gentleman. When he spoke of Mr. Murray on a former occasion, he merely referred to two matters which forcibly came under public notice; first of all, the subscription to the railways; next, that his whole time was not given to the public service; and, lastly, he touched on the proceedings before the Committee. But the Attorney General had compelled him to state a circumstance which was very painful to allude to, but which he must divulge in justification of himself. It happened to him, about six weeks ago, to be admitted to an audience in explanation of a business which had been some years before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On that occasion, a report was to be read for his information. Every member of the Commission had that report in his hand, and was completely conversant with its contents. Mr. Murray was desired to read it. In a part of that report a passage occurred, in which the surveyor of the Commissioners recommended them not to sell a certain property, because its retention would give considerable political influence. Mr. Murray dropped the word "political," and read great influence; on which the Bishop of London, sitting near him, said, "read fully or fairly"—he could not say which—"it is political influence." Now, he asked the right hon. Gentleman if a counsel in a court, or any individual of character, was asked to read a public document for the information of the court, and that such officer was to omit the word which gave the whole point to the sentence, he asked whether such a man would come under the denomination of a highminded gentleman? He saw one of the Commissioners present who heard what took place. And he now asked the House this—when he was compelled by a sense of duty to animadvert on the public conduct of Mr. Murray with regard to matters before the House, and when, though he communicated some other circumstances to the right hon. Gentleman,
966
he refrained from stating them to the House—he asked whether he was disposed to deal harshly with this gentleman; and, further, whether he was not justified in the remarks which he now made under a sense of public duty?
MR. HUMEwithdrew his Motion, and the discussion ended.

MR. W. SMITH O'BRIEN.
MR. SPEAKER: I have to acquaint the House that I have received the following communication from Mr. S. O'Brien:—
"Prison, House of Commons, May 21, 1846.
"Sir—I take the liberty to call your attention to the following correspondence between the Clerk of the House of Commons and myself:—
"'Prison, House of Commons, May 20,1846.
"'Dear Sir—I beg to call your attention to Standing Order No. 4, page 13, and shall feel obliged if you will inform me where I can find the appointment of a Committee of Selection pursuant to that Order, as I have in vain searched for it in the Votes of the House of Commons.
"'It being my intention to cause the attention of the House of Commons to be directed to this Correspondence To-morrow, may I request that you will send me an immediate and official reply.—I have the honour to be, your obedient faithful servant, "'WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN.
"'To John Henry Ley, Esq., Clerk of the House of Commons.'
"To this note I received the following answer:—
"'May 20, 1846.
"'Dear Sir—In answer to your note, delivered to me by Mr. Mahony, I consider it will be sufficient for me to say that the Committee of Selection is appointed and named by the Standing Order No. 4, and that it was not considered necessary at the beginning of this Session to read that Order, as has sometimes been done, and for the House to make an Order that the Committee of Selection be appointed accordingly. You will, therefore, not find any entry in the Votes.—Your obedient faithful servant,
"'JOHN HENRY LEY.'
"Mr. Ley's letter confirms my conviction that the Committee of Selection was not appointed for the present Session in due conformity to Standing Order No. 4, which is worded as follows:—
"'That a Committee be appointed at the commencement of every Session, consisting of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, and of the Chairmen of the Committee and of the Sub-Committees on Petitions for Private Bills, of whom Three shall be a Quorum. And such Committee shall be denominated the Committee of Selection.'
"It is manifest from Mr. Ley's Letter that there is no Evidence in the authentic Records of the House of Commons that Mr. Estcourt and the other gentlemen who have acted as a 'Committee of Selection,' have received due authority from the House to act in that capacity during the present Session.
"Under these circumstances, all the proceedings which have led to my imprisonment, have

967
been void and informal ab initio. I, therefore, respectfully claim my immediate discharge.
"I cannot conclude this Letter without recording my solemn Protest against the conduct of the House of Commons, in having subjected me to Imprisonment. Even if the Committee of Selection had been duly nominated, I should still deny that I have violated any Law of the Land, and should therefore regard my Imprisonment as contrary to the Law and Constitution of these Realms.
"As I do not desire to throw upon you the responsibility of expressing my opinion upon this case, except under the sanction of the House of Commons, I do not expect an answer to this letter, but respectfully request that you will do me the favour to lay it before the House of Commons today, at five o'clock, and to invite the opinion of the House upon it.—I have the honour to be, your obedient faithful servant,
"WILLIAM S. O'BRIES.
"To the Right Hon. the Speaker," &c.
MR. O'CONNELL: I hope I shall be permitted to move that this correspondence be printed, circulated with the Votes, and taken into consideration to-morrow.
Ordered accordingly.

NEW ZEALAND.
MR. C. BULLER, in the present state of public business, could not think of bringing forward his Motion on the subject of New Zealand. He therefore withdrew his Notice, reserving to himself the liberty of renewing it when he might deem it necessary. At the same time, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance which would be most satisfactory to the settlers, that it was not the intention of Government to allow the Session to pass without introducing some measure in reference to this Colony. Such an assurance would allay great anxiety.
SIR R. PEEL: I am afraid the only assurance consistent with my duty which I can give is, that such an intimation shall be conveyed to the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the intentions of Government as shall enable him to bring forward any Motion which he may think fit at a period of the Session which will ensure full inquiry. The House, no doubt, bears in mind all that passed during the last Session as to this Colony. To the opinions I then expressed, and to the principles of the policy on which the government of New Zealand should be conducted, I still adhere; and no efforts have been spared by the Government, so far as circumstances would admit, to give effect to that expression of opinion on my part and on that of the Government. We are in this predicament. Captain Fitzroy having been recalled, a gentleman eminently distinguished for his
968
success in another Government was appointed to the Government of New Zealand. At the period at which the last accounts came he had been but a few weeks in office; and I must add that, from the general tenor of the reports received from him, the favourable opinion entertained by the Government with regard to his ability, firmness, and resolution, has been entirely justified. In his last report he stated that he was about to leave the seat of Government for the purpose of directing an attack against a chief who had been connected with Held in the Bay of Islands. He was to have at his command all the available military force of the Colony, and was also to be assisted by a naval force. Under these circumstances, the next accounts may bring a report of a most important bearing on the state of the Colony, and the result may be that the Bay of Islands will be reduced to complete subjection. I cannot then give any other assurance than that I have before intimated.

REAL PROPERTY.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONrose to move an Address for the re-appointment of the Real Property Commission, when there being only 27 Members present, the House was counted and adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.