Sitting of 4 June 1852

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Sandwich, Lord Charles Pelham Clinton.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Disabilities Repeal.
2°Savings Banks (Ireland).
Reported. —Scutch Mills for Flax (Ireland).
3°Turnpike Trusts Arrangements; Suitors in Chancery Relief.

SUPPLY.
Order read for receiving the Report of the Resolutions in Supply.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that it was most unusual to proceed with Supply at
2
12 o'clock in the day; hut in the position of public business he would not oppose the reception of the Report, or afterwards going into Committee, though he hoped the course now adopted would not be drawn into a precedent.
Resolutions reported.
The House then went into Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
(1.) 17,920 l. Board of Trade, Department of Practical Art, &c.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was glad to state that this Vote had been productive of great public benefit, and that twenty-one Schools of Design, assisted by this grant, had been established throughout the country.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 2,006 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Salaries and Allowances to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, to the 81st day of March, 1853."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he must oppose this Vote. He considered that as long as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were mere sectarian insti-

3
tutions, they had no right to come to that House, which represented the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, of all classes and denominations, and to ask for public money in aid of their own resources, which were already sufficiently ample. The Church of England was the richest Church in the world, and, if the funds at the disposal of the Universities were insufficient, that Church could well afford to give them assistance. He had no objection to the items of grant—they were reasonable enough; but so long as the people at large derived no benefit from the institution, so long ought it to be supported out of its own funds, which were ample enough. Similar grants were not given to any dissenting body, and he saw no reason why an exception should be made in favour of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. He thought this grant to Oxford and Cambridge stood entirely upon the same footing as the Maynooth grant. The only difference was, that, in order to deprive Maynooth College of the grant now made to that institution, an Act of Parliament must be repealed, while, in order to discontinue the grant to Oxford and Cambridge, it was only necessary to negative this Vote. He might remind the Committee that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which were not averse to receive a Parliamentary grant, had shown a stubborn determination to resist Parliamentary inquiry, and, in his opinion, grant and inquiry ought to go together. All they knew was, that these two Universities existed for the benefit of the Church of England alone; that they were largely and adequately endowed; that those who presided over them were "clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day;" and that yet they stood in need of this miserable grant. He regarded this as a sectarian grant of the worst description, and he should certainly divide the Committee upon it.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he felt deep regret that these two national Universities should come annually to Parliament for a grant. He regretted the circumstance the more when he remembered their great wealth. The revenues of the University of Oxford alone amounted to about 75,000 l. From the Report of the Commission appointed to institute an inquiry with respect to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, it appeared that there were in Oxford nineteen colleges, but only six out of the nineteen had kept
4
any account of their revenues or proceedings. Six of the colleges had given an account, from which it appeared that the aggregate income of those colleges alone was 37,000 l. a year. It was well known that some of the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge enjoyed incomes of 10,000 l., 20,000 l., 25,000 l., and even 30,000 l. a year; and, considering their vast wealth, they certainly ought not to apply to that House for grants of public money.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he was most unwilling ever to hear the Church of England described as a sect, and that such Votes as this were intended to support a sectarian establishment. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. Anstey) ought to recollect that if these expressions had been used twenty-five years ago, he would have had very little chance of ever sitting in that House. It was because a great profession was made that it was not the intention of those members of the Roman Catholic religion, who sought admission within their walls, that they would not avail themselves of the opportunity which their position in that House would give them of assailing the time-honoured and cherished institutions of this country, that the decision in favour of their admission to seats in Parliament was mainly influenced. He would now advert more directly to the specific charge of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal against the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. That hon. and learned Gentleman said that these demands ought to be met from the finances of the Universities themselves. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) contended that was a grant made originally by the Sovereign of England, and not by that House, as a dotation to science and literature, when the Civil List was not in its present mutilated form. It was contended, then, that it was most injurious to the interests of those Universities to bring under the discussion of that House the making of such allowances, inasmuch as the Crown could by its own unfettered act make the grant. He knew sufficiently well the minds of those learned bodies to whom the Vote was to be given, to be certain, that if that House would consent to relinquish the tax in the form of stamp duty upon degrees conferred by the two Universities, the Universities would cheerfully abstain for asking for this small vote. There were more than 2,600 l. paid annually by those two bodies in the shape of stamps upon degrees. The hon. and learned Member said he was acting con-

5
sistently in opposing this Vote, having also opposed the grant to Maynooth, Where would the hon. and learned Gentleman stop? There was a Vote on the paper for the Church of Scotland. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would never consent to call the Church of Scotland a sectarian Church, yet they received a grant in aid of education. Then there was the University of London—
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY: That is an institution which opens its doors to every class and every creed; it is not sectarian.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLIS: No; the University of London is not sectarian, hut it is worse than sectarian, because it is nothingarian. He found on the Votes Estimates for 3.957 l. for the University of London, 7,500 l. for the Universities in Scotland, 300 l. for the Royal Irish Academy, 300 l. for the Royal Hibernian Academy, 6,340 l. for the Royal Dublin Society, 3,000 l. for the Belfast Institution, 1,710 l. for the Queen's University in Ireland. He did not, therefore, see why the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge should be made an exception. Upon these grounds, if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal felt it his duty to divide, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would feel it his duty to oppose him—a duty he was prepared to discharge with the greatest pleasure.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he must maintain that the grant, when originally made, had been made by the Crown in its capacity as trustee for the Realm at large; and Parliament had always exercised a supervision over the application of the money. Either these supplies ought to be granted to every persuasion, or to none. Where an institution was founded solely for the benefit of one class of believers, it had no claims to support out of the national funds. He should, therefore, persevere in taking a division against the Vote, and against the whole of this class. He might observe, however, that the University of London, to which the hon. Baronet had referred, was not a sectarian establishment, but a national institution, open to all persons, without distinction of creed or class.
MR. S. CARTERsaid, that it appeared from the statement of the hon. Baronet, that these Universities demanded this grant for the purpose of recompensing themselves for their contribution to the general revenue. This, he did not think just or proper. The Universities were the most richly endowed institutions in the
6
country; and after the refusal of all but six colleges to render any account of their revenues, they were entitled to no assistance from the State, it being evident that they had something to conceal. There was no analogy between this case and that of the London University. The two older Universities had abundant means of their own, without coming to Parliament for assistance.
The Committee divided: —Ayes 78; Noes 8: Majority 70.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(3.) 3,957 l., University of London.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 7,500 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay grants to Scottish Universities formerly defrayed from the Hereditary Revenues of the Crown, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he must complain that this grant was only applicable to a certain section of the Protestants of Scotland—the members of the Free Church, as well as Roman Catholics, being excluded from the Scotch Universities. He considered that these Universities were exclusive, and he, therefore, would oppose the grant. Besides that, there were included in this sum the salaries of various professors of divinity. Now, as he was against pensioning any religion at the expense of another, he found an additional reason for the course he was pursuing. And considering that the religion of about one-half the people was proscribed within the walls of these colleges, he did not think that the Committee would assent to this vote. The Free Church had set a noble example. In the course of a few years they had raised a sum of nearly 3,000,000 l. for the support of their own creed, including educational institutions. It would have been more liberal had the Government proposed a grant to the members of this Church. He denied that these grants could not be touched because they had been originally made by the Crown. The same objection might be urged against any alteration of the Judges' salaries. It was a great pity, for the sake of religion, that religion was ever established in any country as an exclusive creed, to receive endowments out of the public revenue. Under these circumstances he should move the suppression of the grant—not out of any sectarian feeling, but on a principle of justice to the community.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he ap-

7
prehended that whatever the power of Parliament might be, that House would always feel that, the hereditary revenue having been surrendered, the charges which had been imposed upon it by the Sovereigns of the country while they had it at their disposal, rested upon a very strong ground of justice as well as policy.
MR. W. WILLIAMS,while admitting the benefits which the public had derived from the Scotch Universities, was opposed to the principle of charging these grants on the national revenue; he would suggest that the opposition should be confined to that part of the Vote which was for professors of divinity.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he could not vote for the withdrawal of the grant, because it included others besides theological professors.
MR. COWANsaid, he regretted that the House had rejected a Bill doing away with the tests required from professors in the Scotch Universities, which would have removed any objection to this Vote. The pittances allotted to the professors were most miserable; as a consequence, they were apt to be tempted away by more lucrative situations. The Treasury had been memorialised by the University of Edinburgh on this subject, and he hoped the matter would receive the attention of the Government.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he would take that opportunity of vindicating the character of the University of Cambridge, which had been termed sectarian. He himself saw a Dissenter attending lectures at that University.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), and move that the grant be reduced by 595 l.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 6,905 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay Grants to Scottish Universities formerly defrayed from the Hereditary Revenues of the Crown, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
SIR GEORGE CLERKsaid, that if any class of professors ought to have an exception in their favour, it was the theological professors, whose revenues were subject to a variety of charges. The Scotch Universities had no funds of their own; they were open to all sects; and none had derived more benefit from them than the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland. These Universities had been endowed by
8
the Crown out of its hereditary revenues, when it had full and unlimited power over those revenues; and it was a mistake to suppose that Parliament had the slightest control over the application of those funds until the alteration which was made in the Civil List on the accession of William IV. It would be a gross breach of faith were Parliament now to reduce or abrogate this grant. As to the salaries of the Judges, no reduction had ever been made.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYmaintained that Parliament had a perfect right to deal with the grant in any way it deemed proper.
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, that theological instruction would be as easily attainable if this Vote was struck out as it was now. He should support the Motion in its amended form, as it did not interfere with the larger grant for secular education.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 86: Majority 70.
Original Question put.
Vote agreed to; as were the following three, namely—
(5.) 300 l., Royal Hibernian Academy.
(6.) 300 l., Royal Irish Academy.
(7.) 6,340 l., Royal Dublin Society.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 3,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that it was his painful duty to renew his objection to this Vote. He did not object to the latter part of the grant, which was 700 l. for the allowances of the retired professors; but he did object to the former and larger portion of the grant. The salaries of four professors of divinity were provided for in this Vote. He found first professor of divinity, 250 l.; second professor of divinity, 230 l. Then, again, he found first professor of divinity non-subscribing association, 150 l.; second professor of divinity ditto, 150?. He should like to know what these four professors taught, and what was meant by non-subscribing association? He objected to the grant, because it was for sectarian purposes, and would move that the vote be reduced by 2,300 l.
Afterwards, Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 700 l., be granted

9
to Her Majesty, to pay the Salaries of the Theological Professors at Belfast, and Retired Allowances to Professors of the Belfast Academical Institution, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the non-subscribing association were a body of Presbyterians in the north of Ireland, who were allowed to make their own arrangements.
The Committee divided: —Ayes 13; Noes 90: Majority 77.
Original Question put.
Vote agreed to; as were also—
(9.) 1,710 l. Queen's University, Ireland.
(10.) 21,350 l. British Museum Build-ings.
(11.) 52,343 l. British Museum Establishment.
MR. STANFORDsaid, he wished for some further explanation with regard to the new arrangements of the classes of the attendants at the British Museum, by which persons merely carrying wands were placed on the same level as those of superior qualifications.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, the history of the matter was this: in the year 1836, after some inquiry by a Committee of that House, the attendants were divided into three classes, and the generality of appointments were made in the lower classes, though the trustees occasionally made appointments in the upper classes. The objection of the hon. Gentleman was untenable, because, if a man of superior capacity was placed in the lower class, he would still rise to the higher classes. The only difference since 1836 was that the attendants, instead of being paid daily pay, now received salaries. Formerly, if any attendant was absent, no matter from what cause, the day's pay was deducted. That did not appear just to the Committee when they looked into the affairs of the Museum, and all the attendants were placed upon salaries, from which no deductions were made; therefore, a material benefit was conferred upon all persons employed in the Museum. On that occasion the trustees again made a rule for dividing the attendants into three several classes, accompanying it with a notice that it would not affect injuriously those who were previously in the service of the Museum.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(12.) 2,966 l. British Museum Purchases.
(13.) 2,495 l. National Gallery.
VISCOUNT MAHONsaid, he might, per-
10
haps, be permitted to offer a suggestion with reference to this establishment. He was most anxious to see measures taken for the gradual formation of a gallery of national historical portraits. Some years since, during the Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel, he had ventured to make this suggestion, which appeared at that time to meet with very general approval. No one who had visited Versailles could have failed to admire, amidst a largo collection of gorgeous modern paintings, one gallery in which were deposited original portraits of many of the most illustrious men whom France had produced. He thought they might easily provide for the gradual formation of a similar gallery in this country. It would only be necessary to vote a very moderate sum for such a purpose—say 1,500 l. or 2,000 l. a year; and to give power to certain commissioners to make purchases from time to time when original portraits of distinguished individuals were offered for sale. It would, of course, be understood that if no opportunities for such purchases occurred during the year, there would be no necessity for spending the money, but that it would be retained in hand until purchases could be made. He believed that original portraits of distinguished persons were occasionally to be obtained at a very moderate price; and if he should have the honour of a seat in the next Parliament, he would probably bring forward a specific Motion on this subject.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsidered that the suggestion of the noble Lord was a very valuable one. He thought, however, that the whole question of the establishment of public galleries of art in this country was one which must come, without much delay, under the consideration of Parliament. Fortunately the subject had engaged the attention of that illustrious Prince who had done so much towards elevating public taste for art in this country; and be (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) entertained the hope that, with the sympathy and assistance of the House of Commons, and with the sympathy of the country generally, they might ultimately be able to erect a building for the reception of works of art which would remove, what he might almost call, a stain upon the national taste. He hoped that at no distant period the suggestion of the noble Lord would receive that consideration to which it was entitled.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) 14,920 l. Museum of Practical Geology and Geological Survey.
MR. CHARTERISsaid, he wished to referto a deputation which had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to point out the importance of establishing a museum of economic and practical geology in Edinburgh. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the deputation, admitted the importance of the subject, and he wished now to ask whether the Government had taken any steps with reference to it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the representations of the deputation which waited upon him were most ably supported by the hon. Member; but the fact was, there were other claims of a similar character which had also been made on the Government, and considerable attention was required before the Government could arrive at any satisfactory decision. There were, however, many causes which induced them to hope that some steps would he taken for generally establishing scientific museums in the more important places in the United Kingdom. He could assure the hon. Gentleman, the subject was altogether one which had received, and would receive, the attention of the Government.
MR. COGANbegged to call attention to the smallness of the sum (1,500 l.) for the prosecution of the geological survey of Ireland, which was generally considered in Ireland, and he was sure by the Government also, as of great advantage to the agriculture of that country.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the Government quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman on the importance and value of that survey; but 1,500 l. was considered sufficient for conducting its progress during the next year, according to the rate at which it had advanced in previous years.
Vote agreed to; as were the three following, namely:—
(15.) 4,018 l., Scientific Works and Experiments.
(16.) 5,000 l., Galleries of Art, Edinburgh.
(17.) 4,049 l., Civil Establishment, Bermudas.
(18.) Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 7,747 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Ecclesiastical Establishment of the British North American Provinces, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that
12
although it appeared that this grant had been reduced from 11,228 l. in 1850 to 7,747 l. for the present year, he could not understand why the Committee should be called upon to assent to such a vote. All the grants included in this vote, with the exception of two to Presbyterian ministers, were for the benefit of the Church of England in the colonies. Why should the Parliament of Great Britain be called on to vote money for a Church establishment in Canada, and not in Australia, when they had no control over Canada or its expenditure, the Canadian Legislature being almost as free and independent as the Parliament of Great Britain? The first item was for the Bishop of Quebec, 1,990 l. England did not pay for any other establishment in Canada. Then there was the Bishop of Newfoundland, 500 l. They did not see the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland seeking any assistance. It was not pretended these sums were for the support of these officials, because they had already broad lands assigned for the purpose. He observed that, with the exception of 100 l. to the Presbyterian minister of Argenteul, in Canada, and 75 l. to the Presbyterian minister in Nova Scotia, all this amount was for the support of the Church of England, and he should certainly divide the Committee against the grant.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should not vote with the hon. and learned Member, because all sects had had their fair share of assistance, and an understanding was some time ago come to, that as these persons died off, the sums paid to them would not be renewed to their successors. That accounted for nothing appearing under the head of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland. If the hon. and learned Member for Youghal went back only a year or two, he would find the Roman Catholic Bishop of Montreal in the receipt of a very large amount.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, his objection did not rest upon the grant being applied exclusively to one body of men. He objected to any such grants, and he should have just as much satisfaction in cutting off any grant to the Roman Catholics as to any other persuasion.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the hon Member for Lambeth had approached in a very fair spirit, and, unlike the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Anstey), had shown that he understood what he was speaking about. If the hon. and learned

13
Member examined into the real state of the matter, he would find that in 1850 this vote amounted to upwards of 11,000 l., and that in 1835 it was about 15.000 l. The amount now proposed was 7,747 l. The fact was, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth, that this was an expiring grant, now voted annually under an arrangement made twenty years ago. It was first made under a state of things very different from that which now existed; and as to the distinction which the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed to be drawn between members of the Church of England and Roman Catholics, he must observe, that not long ago there was an item of 1,000 l. a year to the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec.
MR. P. HOWARDsaid, he should support this grant upon the plain and simple ground that what was contributed by all should be shared by all. He would not take advantage of this grant to followtheex-ample of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had attacked the College of Maynooth, and to raise a theological discussion. He might remind those hon. Gentlemen that on the other side the Channel Protestant ministers were supported by the Government, and were better paid than the Roman Catholic cures, although the majority of the people were Catholics.
Mr. NEWDEGATEwillingly admitted that many of the Roman Catholic laity were actuated by the charitable spirit evinced by the hon. Member (Mr. P. Howard), but he did not think the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church were influenced by a similar spirit.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, that seeing the amount was gradually diminishing, and that Parliament was pledged to maintain the grants to the present incumbents, he intended to support the Vote.
The Committee divided: —Ayes 112; Noes 10: Majority 102.
Vote agreed to.
(19.) 12,424 l., Indian Department, Canada.
MR. FORSTERsaid, he wished to know what had been done towards colonising Vancouver's Island, which had been ceded to the Hudson's Bay Company. That Company was a trading and not a colonising Company, and he feared the island had been greatly prejudiced by being placed in their hands.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must beg to be excused himself from entering into
14
the policy of placing Vancouver's Island in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company; that question had been fully debated at the time, and it was an arrangement to which the present Government were not a party. The question of the hon. Gentleman was, he understood, what had been done, in pursuance of the Charter so given, in the way of colonisation of Vancouver's Island. Not long ago, in answer to another hon. Member, he had stated partially what had been done, and he would now state it more distinctly. The Hudson's Hay Company had sold, with a view to colonisation, lands to the extent of 1,200 acres; the price was 1l. an acre, and the number of families that had settled there was nine; in addition, they had sent out a considerable number, about 100, of agricultural labourers and miners. That was the substance of the return which the Hudson's Bay Company were required by the Charter to make every three years to the Colonial Office, and which was the only return received, as a second period of three years had not yet elapsed; but in a communication with the Colonial Office last January, the Company explained that they had been unable to do more, owing to the complete derangement of everything on that coast of America, in consequence of the gold discoveries in California.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(20.) 10,528 l., Governors and Lieutenant Governors, West Indies, Prince Edward's Island.
(21.) 33,862 l., Stipendiary Justices in West Indies, Mauritius.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, whenever complaint was made of the amount of this item, the answer always was that no new appointments were made, and as the old Justices died off the vacancies were no filled up; but he could not discover that the lightest diminution had taken place. Had he not seen the result of two or three divisions to-day, he would divide the Committee upon this item.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could only repeat the answer which the hon. Member said was always given, because it was the only answer of which the case admitted. The sum was reduced 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. as compared with last year, and no new appointments were made.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, his principal complaint was that the sum was not charged to the Colonies. The Justices might be quite necessary, but the Colonies ought to pay for them.
Vote agreed to.
(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum not exceeding 13,780 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, perhaps the hon. Baronet would supply the reason why we paid 400 l. for a chaplain in the unimportant colony of Gambia, and nothing to Sierra Leone? He should move that the vote be reduced by 400 l.
Afterwards, Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum not exceeding 13,380 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must express his regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman should consider all grants for the support of ministers of the Church of England subjects for complaint. There was a chaplain at Sierra Leone as well as at Gambia. The only difference was that from the smallness of the latter colony assistance was necessary, whilst the charge in the former was borne by the revenues of the Colony.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, the hon. Baronet did him great injustice in accusing him of selecting grants to the Church of England for opposition. He opposed grants of every kind. He had voted against grants to Presbyterians and Episcopalians, and he should vote against grants to Roman Catholics. He considered the hon. Baronet's statement quite beside the question, and he should certainly divide the Committee.
The Committee divided:— Ayes 6; Noes 94: Majority 88.
Original Question put.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(23.) 10,802 l., Island of St. Helena.
(24.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 7,059 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charge of Western Australia, to the31stday of March, 1853."
Afterwards, Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 6,159 l., be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Charges of Western Australia, to the 31st day of March, 1853."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 114: Majority 105.
Original Question put.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(25.) 491 l., Port Essington.
On the Vote of 10,000 l. in aid of the charges of New Zealand,
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that it was stated that this Estimate was less by 10,000 l. than last year, and the Governor of New Zealand represented that it would be diminished to 5,000 l. next year, after which it was hoped no further aid would be wanted. He would further that benevolent wish of the Governor by moving that it be reduced by 1,190 l. That was more than a tithe of the 10,000 l., and he supposed it was given as a tithe to the bishop, 600 l. to himself and 590 l. to the chaplain and schools which were under his management.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as the hon. and learned Member would insist on a division, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would now move that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he had voted against all grants for religious purposes in the Colonies; he felt justified in doing so; and he should vote with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. C. Anstey) because he did not see any reason whatever why the people of this country should pay for religious instruction in the Colonies. If the Colonists wanted spiritual food, they ought to supply themselves.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, before the question was put, he wished to draw the attention of the Government to a very material omission in the Estimates, by which a great number of very objectionable items did not appear there at all. A paper which he had moved for early in the Session, and obtained with some difficulty, threw some light upon the subject; for it appeared from that return that the following allowances were made annually (he believed) out of the funds in their passage to the Treasury, without any warrant from Parliament for their being so withdrawn from supervision and control:—Her Majesty's Commissioners to the General Assembly, 2,000 l.; for defraying the charges of the Church of Scotland and the salaries of its officers, 1,100 l.; itinerant preachers and catechists in connexion with the Church of Scotland, 2,000 l. These sums were apparently defrayed from various sources, as the Woods and Forests, the Customs, Inland Revenue, &c. With regard to the Customs and Inland Revenues, he admitted the charges were not in themselves objectionable, but he contended they ought not

17
to be made in this manner; they ought to be made on the authority of the Treasury, and an account rendered to Parliament. Having given notice of the matter, he hoped he should elicit from Ministers an explanation of the practice, which certainly did not commence with them, and probably they did not intend it to continue.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, these sums, if they did not appear in the Estimates, appeared in the Finance accounts, which was the answer he was prepared to give when the hon. Member for Lambeth brought forward the Motion of which he had given notice.
MR. WILLIAMSsaid, the Motion of which he had given notice was to call the attention of the House to the fact that 7,000,000 l. of taxation were intercepted in their way to the Exchequer. He had given way at the request of the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to give him an opportunity to bring forward the subject. Had the right hon. Gentleman any objection to his doing so on Thursday next?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should always appreciate the kindness of the hon. Member in withdrawing the Motion at his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) particular request. There was great difficulty in making any arrangements; but it was his intention to give the hon. Member a fair opportunity of bringing forward the question, and he would see if it could be managed on Thursday.
House resumed.
Chairman reported progress.

NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order for Committee read.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONhaving presented several petitions from persons connected with New Zealand, said, those petitions were all of them to the same effect, expressing strongly the desire that this Bill should be allowed to pass. The petitioners called attention, some of them to one part, some of them to another part of the Bill, but the general conclusion of the whole was that the Bill should pass. The last of those petitions was from Mr. Gibbon Wakefield, the prayer of which was particularly directed to the question whether there should be provincial Legislatures, or whether there should be a Central Legislature and Legislatures for particular localities. With his usual ability, Mr. Wakefield discussed the subject, and earnestly
18
prayed that the Bill as it stood might pass into a law. Before moving that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, on the House going into Committee on this Bill, he (Sir J. Pakington) was disposed to hope that he would save time, which he held extremely valuable in this ease, and at this particular period, if he entered into some short explanation of the changes which it was his intention to propose in this Bill. Since the second reading of the Bill he had received suggestions from several quarters, but principally from some hon. Members of that House, of the highest eminence and distinction, Gentlemen with whom he had no political connexion, and whose courtesy and kindness of feeling in offering these suggestions, and the manner in which they had done so, he would really be wanting in justice to his own feelings, as well as to the manner in which, as he had said, those suggestions had been tendered, if he did not take that opportunity of acknowledging. From those Gentlemen he had received suggestions entitled to the greatest weight, not only as coming from them, but entitled to the greatest weight from their intrinsic value, offered in a spirit entirely apart from party feeling, and intended to facilitate the passing of this Bill in such a shape as should be most effectual for its objects. He had stated before that his whole object in this Bill was to give the inhabitants of New Zealand the best and most acceptable Government for themselves, consistently with those imperial considerations which he felt bound to keep in view. The suggestions to which he had alluded related principally to two points. He would, with the permission of the House, direct its attention to them, with reference especially to the very difficult question, as he had always thought it, of what was the best mode of providing Governments for the different provincial districts of those Colonies. He had to choose out of three alternatives, namely, the Bill as he had ventured to submit it to the House; next, a suggestion, coming from a quarter to which he was bound to pay the greatest respect, that, instead of taking the Bill as it stood, and giving Provincial Legislatures, he should rather follow the precedent of the Australian Government Act of 1842, and give distinct municipalities, that was to say, municipal bodies with enabling Clauses to legislate on certain subjects, and that they should be restricted from legislating on all subjects beyond those specified. The

19
third suggestion he had received from the hon. Member for Southwark (Sir W. Moles-worth) was, that, instead of putting into the Bill either Provincial Legislatures or provincial municipalities, it should be left to the Central Legislature, when formed, to provide for the municipal government of these separate districts in such manner as they might think best. Those were the three alternatives he had to consider. He thought the House would see that between the Bill as it stood, and the second of those alternatives—the precedent of 1842, the distinction was really rather one of name than of fact. As he had drawn the Bill, and announced when he first moved it, his intention was that those Provincial Legislatures should, in fact, be municipal. As he had drawn the Bill, those local bodies were to legislate on all matters of interest to the locality, being restricted from legislating on certain specified subjects, those specified subjects embracing the main objects of what he might call a Colonial or Imperial Legislature. It was a question whether they should legislate on all except certain important restricted subjects, or should legislate on certain specified subjects, those being very large and comprehensive. After the fullest consideration, he had come to the conclusion that, looking to the nature of the restrictions, those bodies could hardly be regarded as Colonial Legislatures; and while the restrictions being negative on subjects which they cannot touch, it enables them to embrace various objects which might be necessary for their welfare that a Legislature should touch, and which would not come within the specific objects prescribed. He had, on that ground, ventured to prefer the course he now took. To the other course, which the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W, Molesworth) was going to propose, namely, that the House having nothing to do in this Bill with provincial legislation, but that the Central Legislature should settle what they were to have, there were, he thought, obvious objections. First, there was a loss of time. In the next place, looking to all precedent and experience, the House would find that Colonial Legislatures had not shown themselves disposed to part with powers once intrusted to them in favour of anything like minor districts. He rather thought he might adduce Australia as an instance; but the case had been so strongly put by Mr. Gibbon Wakefield, that he hoped the House would permit him to refer to an
20
extract, in which Mr. Wakefield said that this was a case "where prevention was more easy than cure, because if once a Provincial Government were established, those who composed it were little disposed to diminish their authority." He (Sir J. Pakington) should not trouble the House with more extracts. Mr. Wakefield dwelt at considerable length on the subject, and that was the view taken by him. If the House, as it appeared to be, were disposed to give the different localities powers of independent government for their own interests, it would be better to lay down in this Bill broadly and distinctly the basis on which those governments were all to be formed, than to leave those localities to the uncertain result of the view which the Central Legislature might take of the matter when they came to deliberate on the powers they might think it necessary to intrust to the local Legislatures. He would now briefly advert to a fourth plan recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), who, if he rightly followed the right hon. Gentleman in a former debate on this subject, expressed great objection to the course he (Sir J. Pakington) had taken of establishing a supreme Legislature in the Colony. Knowing the weight of the right hon. Gentleman's authority, he should say, with great respect, that he could not agree with him in his view. With reference to the local Legislatures, the right hon. Gentleman wished that they should have no concurrent power, that their powers should be defined, that they should act, so far as those powers extended, in a perfectly independent manner, and that the Central Legislature should act on equally broad and defined independent powers. If that plan were adopted, it would certainly lead to very great confusion. Instead of simplifying the legislation of the Colony, it would practically be found extremely difficult to define the boundary between the powers of the Provincial and the Central Legislatures. He believed the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would lead to the very difficulty he was anxious to avoid, and therefore he could not yield to the right hon. Gentleman's objection with regard to the concurrent power. It was not so much a concurring as an overriding power which would be vested in the Central Legislature; and he could not but think that for the future welfare of those Colonies there should be one supreme Legislature, whose

21
power shall be superior to those minor bodies, who ought to deal only with the interests of their own localities, subject to the paramount authority of the Central Legislature. Having had those suggestions thrown out, to which, from the manner in which they were given, and the quarter from which they were offered, he repeated that he felt bound to give every attention, and having unusual opportunities of consulting those connected with the colony, having opportunities of consulting parties directly connected with Nelson, Wellington, Otago, and Canterbury, namely, four out of six localities — he thought, with this choice before him, his best course was to avail himself of the period intervening between the time when these suggestions were offered and the present moment to take the opinion of those gentlemen possessing great local knowledge, and taking a deep interest in the welfare of the Colony. He had consulted, then, with those interested in the Colony both in London and in the country, and he was now enabled to state that which was proved by the petitions he had presented. He was bound to say that those who were interested in the Colony unanimously desired that he should proceed with the Bill as it stood, rather than that he should take either of the two alternatives of granting only municipalities, or of empowering only a Central Legislature to prescribe what those Governments should be. Anxious to meet the suggestions which have been offered with so much weight from different quarters in that House, he submitted to the gentlemen so interested in the Colony whether, if be retained the Bill essentially as it was, but made certain important alterations, they would be willing to accept those alterations? The answer he received was, that they not only approved of the alterations, but they most thankfully and gratefully accepted them. Under these feelings, then, he had determined upon a very important alteration with respect to those Local Legislatures. The alteration was, that, instead of the superintendents being nominated by the Governor of the Colony, as proposed in the Bill, they should be elected by the same constituencies as elected the Legislatures. He had not made this alteration without very serious consideration. He had had to consider how far it was consistent with the British Constitution that he should venture to enact an elective Executive. The noble Lord whom he had succeeded
22
in the office he now held, with reference to this very Bill, laid down broadly—and he (Sir J. Pakington) begged to say he agreed with the noble Lord-—that anything like an elective Executive was unknown to the British Constitution. Agreeing in that proposition, he (Sir J. Pakington) would be no party to any measure making an Executive elective. But he looked upon these different districts in New Zealand not as separate Colonies, hut as so many municipalities of one Colony. In whatever ratio they were distinct Colonies, in that ratio he should be opposed to the creation of an elective Executive; but in whatever ratio they were municipalities, then in that ratio the proposition came within the spirit and the practice of the British Constitution in making the heads of those municipalities elective. Looking at the wording of the Bill— knowing what were his own intentions in introducing it—believing, moreover, that these districts partook so largely of the nature of municipalities — and being conscious that he intended they should have that character, he thought he was not open to the charge of departing from the spirit of the British Constitution in proposing that these superintendents should not be nominated, but elective, and that by the same constituencies who were to elect the Provincial Councils. Following up that principle, it was also his intention to strike out of the Civil List the provision of salaries of 500 l. for each of these superintendents, leaving it entirely to the option and discretion of each Provincial Legislature whether they would or not vote a salary for these officers. This was one important alteration with regard to the government of these localities which it was his intention to make. The next clause in the Bill to which he would refer, was one on which there had already been more discussion than he had expected, and he hoped what he was about to say would not lead to any further discussion on the subject: he alluded to the clause relating to the rights of the New Zealand Company. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), had adverted to that clause. He (Sir J. Pakington) had endeavoured to take a ground upon this subject to which he thought the House could not fairly make any fair exception. At least he had acted upon the spirit of strict justice, and had taken a ground from which he must

23
be allowed to say he could not depart—a ground beyond which he did not think it his duty to go, but less than which he was not justified in taking, namely, that whatever might be the equitable claim of the Company under the Act of 1847, he was bound to see secured to them by this Bill. The Bill, as was well known, was not intended, originally, to apply to the New Zealand Company; it was intended to confer the blessing and advantage of self-government on New Zealand; but still he thought it a paramount duty on his part to take care that the effect of the Bill should not be to leave the New Zealand Company in a worse condition than that in which he found it. The only question, then, was how best to carry out that principle. He thought the House would go with him one step further; and that they would admit, looking at the Act of 1847, that he had no right to consider whether the bargain between the New Zealand Company was a good or a bad bargain. It was a bygone transaction. An Act of Parliament had settled it. That Act was confirmed and explained by the correspondence which had passed between Earl Grey and the Company. A question had been raised whether Earl Grey was justified in taking upon himself to put the construction he had done on the Act of 1847. With that he (Sir J. Pakington) had nothing to do; he felt himself bound by the contract as it stood. The only difference between the Act of 1847 and the present Bill was this: The Act of 1847 prescribed that the produce of every town-land sold in New Zealand should be divided into three portions; and that one portion should be devoted to emigration, another portion to surveys; and the balance, whatever it might be, should go to the New Zealand Company. The fault of the Act was, that while the produce of the sales was so divided, it said nothing about the proportions, and there arose a practical difficulty. By analogy, however, with what had occurred in Australia, it had been held and argued that half of the money should be devoted to emigration. The Act, however, did not so state; and Earl Grey thought that one-fourth would be a fair proportion to be given to the New Zealand Company. Now, assuming the price at 1l., and 10s. thereof to be the proportion for emigration, there would then remain the surveys to be defrayed, and then the balance for the Company. It was a matter of some doubt whether the surveys would require more than 5s. in the pound, or not.
24
If it did, then it was questionable whether the balance would meet the equitable rights of the Company. He would not, however, enter into the question whether Earl Grey was justified or not in taking upon himself to construe the Act of Parliament as he had done; but this he thought, that the noble Lord had taken a very convenient course, and a very just and very moderate course; and, looking at the whole transaction, and at the construction which Earl Grey had put upon the Act of 1847, he would ask the House, and he did so with some degree of confidence, whether he was doing more than justice in proposing to give to the New Zealand Company one-fourth of the produce of the sales of land in that Colony. In the interviews which he had had with persons connected with that Company, they had said there were many districts in which the land would sell for more than 1l. an acre, and they asked why the sum of 5s. only should be paid to the Company. But, on the other hand, it was shown that in some districts the land would sell for less than a pound; therefore it was asked why give the company so much as 5s.? His answer to these objections was that they should set one case against the other. But his own feeling was, that the best and fairest plan would be to abandon the clause which gave 5s. in the pound to the New Zealand Company, and to enact that the Company should receive one-fourth in every case. He had now explained what his wish and object was, namely, to do the Company justice—not more. Considering that the subject was incidentally introduced into the Bill, he hoped the House would not allow it to be made a matter of protracted discussion; but that the clause would be allowed to pass either in one or the other shape—the Company, on their part, he believed, being quite disposed in either case to be satisfied. There was only one other point to which he wished to advert. Strong feelings of approbation had been expressed by petitions and otherwise of that part of the Bill which placed the lands of the Colony at the disposal of the Legislature. Upon that subject, perhaps he might be allowed to add one word more. In these days it was impossible to say in what Colony in that part of the world those extraordinary discoveries of gold might not take place. He knew that in New Zealand expectations were strong among the populace that gold might be discovered; he therefore wished to say, in addition to the placing of

25
the land of New Zealand at the disposal of the Colonial Legislature, that in the event of any gold mineral discovery in that Colony he should he prepared to advise the Crown to place the whole of the proceeds of the discovery at the disposal of the local Legislature. He hoped he should not be considered as travelling unduly beyond the object of which he was now addressing the House if he stated that by the mail which left this country yesterday he had announced to the Australian Government, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that it was the intention of this Government to place unrestrictedly at their disposal all the revenues which might he derived from any gold discovery in those Colonies. He had now concluded the observations which he had to make as to the alterations he intended to propose in Committee. He had done so for the sake of saving time, and in the hope that, in Committee, he should experience a continuance of that forbearance from all sides of the House which was so desirable when deliberating on a measure intended to promote the welfare of an important and rising Colony; and that they would now merge all differences of a minor nature in order to go into that Committee as speedily as possible.
MR. AGLIONBYbegged to express his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the attention which he had paid to this subject, and for the liberality of his views and intentions in conferring a good constitution on New Zealand. He considered that many of the Amendments alluded to by the right hon. Gentlemen, were decided improvements in the Bill, and he trusted they would be accepted by the House. There was one point, however, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and that was the claims and position of the New Zealand Company, to which the right hon. Gentleman had adverted. He (Mr. Aglionby) was willing to pay a tribute to the ability and industry which the right hon. Gentleman had devoted to this entire subject, and he believed that it was his sincere wish to do justice to the New Zealand Company; and they asked nothing more. He sympathised in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be wrong to place the New Zealand Company in a better position than it occupied in the year 1847; but at the same time he (Mr. Aglionby) must say that it would be monstrous to place it in a worse position. He wished that the right hon. Gentleman would take some advice
26
as to what were the legal and equitable rights of the Company, and thus endeavour to determine out of that House whether any of the clauses of the Bill failed in doing justice to the Company. He (Mr. Aglionby) thought he owed it to himself and to the New Zealand Company to allude to some remarks which had been made respecting that body, which nothing but an unfortunate illness had prevented him from noticing at the time of the second reading of the Bill, when they were brought forward. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) had been particularly severe against the New Zealand Company, and, though admitting that it had received opposition from quarters where it ought to have found support, he had yet said that its principal failure had been owing to great mismanagement. [Sir W. MOLESWORTH: No doubt of it.] He (Mr. Aglionby) begged to deny that statement in toto, and he was perfectly ready to meet any proof that might be advanced in support of it. He could not help feeling some surprise that the hon. Baronet should have been the one to make such a charge, considering the position in which he stood as one of the earliest members of that undertaking. The name of the hon. Baronet had had considerable influence with the public; he had been elected a director of the Company in the year 1839; and he had continued an active member of the direction until 1843, when the Company was first involved in great difficulties. So far from there being any mismanagement of the affairs of the New Zealand Company, he (Mr. Aglionby) believed that the opposition of certain persons in authority had produced the distress into which it had fallen; but as the hon. Baronet had been a director of the Company for so long a time, he might at least have been silent on the subject of mismanagement. From the year 1843, when the hon. Baronet had left the Company to struggle with its difficulties, down to the year 1847, when Parliament interfered at the suggestion of the then Colonial Minister, he (Mr. Aglionby) was not aware of any mismanagement beyond that which was forced upon the Company by circumstances, and over which they had no control. The late lamented Mr. Somes, the Member for Dartmouth, continued at the head of the affairs of the Company till his death; and many others of the distinguished gentlemen who had taken an active part in the direction still adhered to

27
it. In 1847 Parliament introduced some alterations, but he was not aware that between the two periods he had named, there had been any mismanagement. In proof of that he would refer to a letter of Earl Grey, dated July, 1850, three years afterwards, in which his Lordship stated that he had an unchanged sense of the importance of the colonising efforts of the Company, and the great value of their results, and that nothing had occurred in any degree to affect the satisfaction he felt at the progress they had made. He (Mr. Aglionby) should be very willing to proceed with the Bill at present before the House; but, connected as he was with the New Zealand Company, and having a common interest with the shareholders, he must be excused for feeling somewhat strongly on the subject of those unjust and unfounded allegations. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) had also made some remarks respecting the New Zealand Company. He had said, indeed, that he excepted that Company from other colonising companies, which he viewed with considerable horror, but from the collocation of his speech he had unfortunately mixed them all up together. The right hon. Gentleman objected to colonising companies in the mass, and said that they were irresponsible bodies, and that their affairs were always conducted with secrecy. But this was not the case with the New Zealand Company at least, the whole of whose affairs had been made fully known to the public. With respect to the statement of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), that the Colonists would be willing to pay the debt of the Company, he (Mr. Aglionby) would only remark that he should rather have for his creditor the Government at home, to which an appeal could be made, than a Colonial Legislature at the distance of many thousands of miles away, over which there could be no control. He would merely echo the remark of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), and say, Let the New Zealand Company have justice and no more, and let it not be placed in a worse position than it occupied in 1847. He hoped to convince the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that some of the clauses of this Bill would operate unfairly to the Company, and that the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the alterations which he should propose in Committee.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONwished to say he had made no remark that could be regarded as an attack on the hon. Member, or on the New Zealand Company. He earnestly implored the House to reserve the discussion until they were in Committee.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that in reference to the attack of which the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had spoken, he had no remark to make as to the way in which the New Zealand Company had managed their affairs; but what he was prepared to prove was this proposition, that the Company had obtained their Act of 1847 by misrepresentation and by the concealment of the truth; and, if the House liked, he would proceed with his proofs now. [cries of "No, no!"]
MR. MANGLESsaid, that whenever the hon. Member brought forward his charges, he and the representatives of the New Zealand Company were fully prepared to meet them.
House in Committee.
Clause 1, repealing the 3rd & 4th and 11th & 12th of Victoria, agreed to.
Clause 2.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he rose, in pursuance of notice, to move the omission of the 2nd Clause, and all subsequent ones before the 32nd Clause, and, in their stead, to insert—
"It shall be lawful for the General Assembly, by Act or Acts, to incorporate the inhabitants of any district within the said colony, and to establish in such district a council for the local government thereof; such council shall have power to make orders and by-laws for providing for any matters which shall be specially subjected to the direction and control of the said council by any law of the said General Assembly."
He was quite willing to allow that the discussion on the second reading of the Bill had had two useful results: first, it showed that hon. Members were generally anxious that, if possible, New Zealand should obtain a Constitution during this Session of Parliament; and, therefore, he hoped that the minority would hot offer any factious opposition to the further progress of the measure; and, secondly, it showed what were the chief differences of opinion with regard to the future form of that Constitution. The first great difference of opinion was whether New Zealand should form one political unit, or should be divided into several political units. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) was of opinion

29
that New Zealand should be divided into six political units, that each of those units or provinces should have powers of exclusive legislation on all subjects except a certain number of enumerated subjects; that these independent provinces should be federated after the fashion of the States of the American Union, by means of a General Assembly, which should only have powers of legislation on the subjects on which the Provincial Legislatures were to be forbidden to legislate. This plan was clear, distinct, unobjectionable in theory, and worked well in the American Union. And if New Zealand, instead of being of the size of Great Britain, had the magnitude of the United States, or of the continent of Australia; if, instead of being-divisible into six provinces, with a population of from 1,500 to 8,000 each, it were divisible into a score of States with a population of from 100,000 to 1,000,000 each; and, finally, if, instead of continuing to be a dependency of Great Britain, it were about immediately to become independent, then he admitted that the plan of his right hon. Friend was the one which experience had shown to be best adapted for the government of a system of States covering an extent of territory too vast to form one complete political unit. He objected to this plan for New Zealand, because he thought that New Zealand was formed by nature to make one political unit. For, though its settlements were separated by mountains, they were closely connected by sea; all its best parts were close to the sea. Therefore, with steam vessels communication between various parts of New Zealand would be more easy at present, than communication between various parts of England was in the time of the last generation. He objected also, because New Zealand was so distant from any other country that it would have no natural enemies, unless we divided it into independent rival and ultimately hostile communities. He objected also, because six or more independent codes of laws would be a great inconvenience in the limited area of New Zealand, which did not exceed that of Great Britain; for in this country considerable inconvenience at present resulted from the difference between the laws of England and of Scotland England would not have been as great as it was at present if the Heptarchy bad continued in existence. He doubted the expediency of establishing a Hexarchy in New Zealand. From the debate on the
30
second reading of the Bill, he was entitled to infer that the majority of the House were of opinion that New Zealand should form one political unit. That seemed to him to have been the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies, of his right hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), of his hon. Friend the Member for Malton (Mr. J, E. Denison), of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel), and also of Earl Grey, the two latter of whom thought that the General Assembly would ultimately eat up the Provincial Legislatures, and reduce them to municipalities. He might, therefore, assume that the Committee would be of opinion that New Zealand should form one political unit or Colony; and, at the same time, he must infer from the debate on the second reading, that the Committee would be also of opinion that New Zealand should be divided into districts or provinces, and that each district or province should have some amount of subordinate local self-government. If this were admitted, then came the question which he proposed to raise, namely, by whom ought New Zealand to be divided into districts or provinces; by whom ought the constitution of the subordinate local governments to be determined? Ought these things to be done by the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain, or by the General Assembly of New Zealand? He proposed that they should be done by the General Assembly—first, because, as the local governments were to be strictly subordinate to the General Assembly, they would have a more subordinate character if they were created by the General Assembly than by the Imperial Parliament; secondly, and chiefly, because the constitution of these subordinate governments was a matter of very little consequence to the Empire at large, but of very great consequence to New Zealand; and therefore, it was probable that the settlers of New Zealand would know better than we did what form of subordinate government would suit them best. It appeared to him that, in a matter of such purely local concern as the division of New Zealand into districts or provinces, and the establishment of subordinate local governments, the wishes of the settlers in New Zealand should be consulted. It would be impossible at that moment to enter into a statement of this whole question; but he might say, with regard to the case of New South Wales, to which reference had been made

31
in the course of the debate, that no argument against his proposition could he drawn from the conduct of that Colony, because it had only opposed the establishment of Provincial Councils so long as the Colonists were under restrictions; but they subsequently, by their own free will and wish, established Provincial Councils. It appeared to him to be a fundamental principle of sound colonial policy that in matters of pure colonial interest we should meddle as little as possible, and should leave to the Colonists themselves to settle what they would wish to have. If the Colonists wanted these Provincial Councils, they would create them; and if they did not want them, they ought to be allowed to do without them. Now, he believed, there was a difference of opinion in the Committee as to what were the wishes of the settlers in New Zealand with regard to this subject. On the second reading he had assigned his reasons for thinking that the majority of the settlers in New Zealand were opposed to Provincial Councils of the description contained in this Bill, and would prefer simple municipalities. He had also quoted memorials to that effect from Wellington and Nelson; also the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor of New Munster on behalf of the settlers of Canterbury and Otago. But his hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) flatly contradicted his statements, and asserted that the term "municipal," as used in these documents must be taken in a non-natural signification; and on behalf of the Canterbury Association in London, he declared that the majority of the settlers in New Zealand were in favour of Provincial Councils somewhat after the fashion of this Bill. Now, he had every respect for the gentlemen of the Canterbury Association; but it was the characteristic of all associations, especially of earnest and sincere men, to believe that the interests of their association were the interests of the human race, and that the wishes of their association were the wishes of mankind. These were the consequences of well-known laws of the human mind. Therefore he warned the Committee not to attach all the weight to the authority of the members of the Canterbury Association which would be due to them as individuals; for Canterbury had been intentionally made a class settlement. Its founders wished it to continue a class settlement, distinct from the other settlements of New Zealand. Therefore they
32
believed that the Government of New Zealand should be a Hexarchy, and that such were the wishes of the settlers of New Zealand. Now, as he was perfectly open to conviction on this subject, he hoped his hon. Friend was equally so. He (Sir W. Molesworth) was ready to abide by the decision of the settlers of New Zealand. Would his hon. Friend abide by that decision? or did he wish, for the sake of carrying out the views of the Canterbury Association, to force upon the settlers of New-Zealand these Provincial Councils, whether they were wished for by the Colonists or not? And if his hon. Friend wished to force these Provincial Councils on New Zealand for the sake of the Canterbury Association, he must beg the Committee to remember that the Canterbury Association had only about 3,000 settlers. It had only about one-ninth of the European population of New Zealand; and there were three other settlements in New Zealand larger than Canterbury, though Canterbury had more influence in this country than all the other settlements in New Zealand put together. But if his hon. Friend denied that he wished to force these Provincial Councils upon New Zealand, contrary to the wishes of the settlers, if he asserted that he wished to establish these Provincial Councils because the settlers of New Zealand desired to have them, then he must, under the penalty of contradicting himself, vote for his (Sir W. Molesworth's) Amendment, because, if it were carried, the representatives of New Zealand would have the power of establishing the Provincial Councils contained in this Bill. They might enact every one of the clauses which he proposed to omit from this Bill. They might divide New Zealand into six provinces, establish in each province a superintendent and Provincial Council, vest in the Governor the appointment of the superintendents, pay to each of them a salary of 500 l. a year, direct that each of them should have a veto, should obey instructions from the Governor, and should reserve Bills for the assent of the Governor. They might also vest in the Governor a final veto, to be exercised within two years; and, if the settlers of New Zealand wished these things to be done, the General Assembly would do them, and establish the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary in all its integrity. But he did not believe that the settlers wished these things to be done, but would prefer municipal institutions of the simplest kind,

33
which they might obtain under his Amendments. It followed, therefore, that by his Amendments the settlers in New Zealand would obtain that kind of subordinate local government, which they might like best, while by this Bill Provincial Councils would be forced upon them whether they liked them or not. He might observe that the powers which he proposed to give to the General Assembly of New Zealand, were analogous to those which the Legislature of the Australian Colonies possessed by the Act of 1850. He would not further trespass on the patience of the Committee, but would divide on the question.
MR. ADDERLEYwas understood to observe that there were quite as many precedents for the permanence of local governments gradually united under one head, as of one Government originally so established remaining united. The hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark might have recalled the instance of this country, which was once a Heptarchy, and afterwards became a United Kingdom; the Provinces of France now a Kingdom; or that of the United States of America, which subsist under a Federal Government. There were, in fact, many such precedents of Provincial Governments ultimately concentrating under one head. The proposition of the hon. Baronet seemed to him (Mr. Adderley) to differ only in degree from that of the Bill before the Committee, and ultimately to arrive very much at the same point. In both cases it seemed to be the wish that those functions which were absolutely and purely local should be discharged by a local body, whether it be called a municipality or by any other name, and that the Central Government should attend to those matters which applied to the whole of the colony. When the hon. Baronet referred to the wishes of the colonists, he (Mr. Adderley) fully agreed with him that that was the right quarter to appeal to; but when he said that the colonists agreed with his views, he (Mr. Adderley) thought that the hon. Baronet was mistaken, and that he had taken an erroneous view of the documents to which he referred. At various meetings in different places, the colonists had expressed a wish for local self-government; and in using the word "municipal," they had said that they did not employ it in its strict and limited meaning, but in a larger sense, expressly citing the Rhode Island precedent as an illustration of the large powers they so designated. He was not now al-
34
luding to the petition from the Canterbury Settlement, but was quoting the language employed at a large meeting held at Wellington. With respect to the statement that the Canterbury Settlement was an exclusive Colony, he must tell the hon. Baronet that there was nothing exclusive in that settlement. The colonists were Churchmen, and went out on a combined plan for carrying out all the institutions necessary for civilised life, in which they of course included the Church as their provision for the most important requirement of all. Close beside them was a Presbyterian Colony, to which, certainly, with equal justice, the title of exclusiveness might be applied; but they all knew very well that there were such principles of exclusiveness in all the most successful Colonies. But he begged distinctly to deny that such combination necessarily implied exclusiveness. The combination of men agreed in all essentials, was necessary for the complete execution of any scheme; but the combination of Churchmen proved Canterbury had no spirit of exclusion in it against any who chose to come into a settlement so formed. He appealed from the hon. Baronet to the colonists themselves; and before the hon. Baronet pressed the Amendment, he would beg of him to con? sider if there really was any great difference in ultimate effect between his plan and that proposed by Government.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was certainly very desirable that a Bill should be passed during the present Session which should confer representative institutions on New Zealand. There were, indeed, several points in the present Bill on which he might entertain a different opinion from that of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, yet he did say, that upon its principal points there was a great concurrence of opinion, both on his own part, and generally on the part of the House. Therefore he should wish to interfere as little as possible with the progress of this Bill through Committee, and he would apply that wish to the statement made by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Moles-worth). Their general opinion was, that there should be one general representative Legislature for New Zealand, and that there should be local bodies, having more or less powers, and partaking more of a municipal than of a supreme legislative character. He (Lord J. Russell) would have preferred that they should have begun

35
by creating a legislature for the whole Colony, and had made the powers of the various local bodies to arise out of the powers of the general legislature. But that appeared to him to be a difference upon which the House ought not to be divided; and as his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark had stated his views upon the subject, he (Lord J. Russell) should much rather, if the Government persisted in their view of the mode in which the Bill ought to be carried into effect, that the hon. Baronet should waive his opinion in favour of that of the Government, and allow the Bill to pass in the shape in which it had been proposed. He the more readily said this, for two reasons that had arisen since the second reading of the Bill. One was, because the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had given notice of an alteration by which the superintendents, instead of partaking of the character of lieutenant-governors appointed by the Crown, should partake more of the nature of mayors of municipalities, being elected by the bodies over which they had to preside. That change certainly reconciled him more to the present shape of the Bill. The other reason was, that the right hon. Gentleman had himself declared that night, before going into Committee, that the municipal character was the character which he wished to affix to these local bodies. It was the more desirable that they should have that character, because then there was no reason to apprehend that conflict of jurisdiction which he thought was the only practical evil they had to dread from the present shape of the Bill. There was, even with regard to the municipalities of this country, a power in the Secretary of State to disallow the by-laws passed by any corporation; and in the same way there would be a power with respect to the legislation of the local bodies in the Central Legislature. Therefore, upon the whole, he should say there was nothing inconsistent in the scope and object of the Bill. He did not wish to take any further part in the discussion, but perhaps he might state that he thought some difficulty was likely to arise hereafter on one point, if a considerable alteration was not made in the measure. He did not wish to dispute the point whether the Legislative Council should be nominated or elective. He should certainly prefer the elective shape, as contemplated by Earl Grey; but, however, that was a matter on which he should not vote if it was not in accordance
36
with the views of Her Majesty's Government. But there was a provision in the Bill by which there should be a limitation of the number of members of the Legislative Council, and yet that they should be appointed for life. Now, he apprehended that there would be considerable danger in that provision; because they might have the Legislative Council appointed for life separating themselves upon some questions from the community, and thwarting the measures of the representative body. If that body was to be appointed for life, he thought it would be absolutely necessary that the Crown, or the Governor as the representative of the Crown, should have power to make it from time to time act in accordance with the views generally entertained by the representative body, and with the feelings of the colonists at large: otherwise there would be the danger of a minority setting themselves up against the majority, and no means of terminating the antagonism, owing to the minority holding their seats for life, and there being no power to increase their number. This difficulty would be obviated by allowing the Crown to extend the number of the Legislative Council without limitation. As the Bill now stood, it was provided that the number should be not less than ten, nor more than fifteen; which, in his opinion, was an unnecessary restriction upon the power of the Crown. If a contingency should arise, he thought it desirable that the Crown should have the power he had mentioned; and, with this exception, he had every wish that this Bill should pass into a law this Session.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he had heard the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary with great satisfaction on many points; but one argument used by him did not appear to carry any great weight with it. The right hon. Baronet said, that if we gave this Central Legislature any very considerable powers, he feared it would be very l0th ever to part with the powers so confided to it to a subordinate jurisdiction. Now he (Mr. J. E. Denison) thought the great objection to the establishment of this Central Legislature was the difficulty of communication between the various parts of the Colony, which was such that he had believed it would be impossible to get men of standing to give their time in the performance of legislative duties in this central meeting. If, however, he understood that these difficulties might be overcome, he thought the

37
preponderance of argument was certainly in favour of the Central Legislature, in favour of endowing it with supreme power, and with all possible dignity and honour, so as to induce men of consideration and of standing in the Colony to devote themselves to the discharge of the duties of members. He should, therefore, infinitely prefer the form suggested by the hon. Baronet below him (Sir W. Molesworth); but, at the same time, after the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), and in the face of what seemed to be the general opinion of the House, namely, that hon. Members should not seriously interfere with the passing of this Bill, he feared the suggestion of the hon. Baronet would not be of much avail. He should like, however, to ask the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary, whether, in the clause which granted the powers of altering the Constitution to the Central Legislature, it was his intention to extend those powers so far as to enable the central body very materially to affect the form and functions of these local Legislatures themselves, because, if so, the matter in dispute was contracted into a very narrow compass. He did not wish to give any serious opposition to the passing of this Bill; hut if the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) divided the Committee, he should feel bound to support the Amendment.
MR. MOWATTsaid, that notwithstanding the extraordinary circumstances in which the House found itself with regard to the amount of business which had to be transacted before the termination of its existence, and notwithstanding the deprecation of obstruction, or even criticism, that had on that plea been urged, he could not let this Bill pass without submitting a few observations, taking, as he did, a deep interest in the welfare of our Colonies, and possessing some practical knowledge of the real character of their wants. He had hoped that the disadvantages resulting from the want of experience on the part of the present head of the Colonial Department, would have been in some measure remedied by the advantage of finding that right hon. Gentleman unprejudiced and unfettered on the subject of Colonial legislation. But he was sorry to say that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, since he had entered upon his present duties, had confirmed the opinion which he had long entertained, namely, that it was hopeless to expect that the
38
people of this country could legislate for the permanent good of the Colonies. He had expected that the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, as regarded colonial matters, would have been at least a tabula rasa; but it must be apparent to every one who had observed his conduct since acceding to office, that he had constantly walked in the beaten paths of, and been altogether led, by the old habitues of the Colonial Office. What the Colonies desired was not a complicated body of laws passed by the Imperial Legislature, but a measure which would permit them to govern themselves. If the right hon. Baronet should ask him in what manner be proposed to give that power to the Colonies, his answer would be—Give them such a measure as has been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark. He would not go so far as to predict the failure of this Bill, because of the establishment of six independent Legislatures, for be must confess that he entertained no such opinion. Whatever might be the character of the Legislatures which might be granted to them, the Colonies would in the end progress, and that progress would be the result of their own energies. But he would say this with regard to this measure, that he believed that it would operate prejudicially and injudiciously; and if the hon. Member for Southwark should divide the Committee, he should give him his support. If this Bill were passed in its present shape, he had no doubt that next Session petitions would reach that House from every province in New Zealand, praying to be delivered from its oppressive operation. He thought, how-over, that by far the most objectionable part of the Bill was that which provided for the nomination of members by the Crown. Now it was a fact incontestably established by experience, that however valuable those men might be before then-nomination, their selection by the Government at once destroyed their character. If the Government desired to have a second chamber, they should make it elective, and dependent upon the choice of the people also, without which choice it would never possess their confidence. The Government should elevate the standard of qualification, so as to make the office desirable to the most worthy inhabitants of the Colonies. Some people in this country imagined that our Colonies were to be treated as if they were children, and utterly incapable of managing their own business. Now, a

39
grosser delusion there could not be. If the whole globe were searched, it would be impossible to find men more intelligent, acute, able, and enterprising than those that were scattered at the present moment throughout our Colonies. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Colonial Office would pause in the course upon which he had entered, of inflicting petty, complicated, and detailed legislation upon our Colonies, and boldly propose to the Imperial Legislature a measure that would enable them to govern themselves. What our colonies desired was not an extended and complicated body of laws imposed by the mother country, but as few as might be—as little in the way of legislation as possible; for it must always be remembered that legislation implied interference and, generally, obstruction. Whatever legislature was forced upon them by the mother country, it would have but little effect, except that of retarding their progress for a little while; but it would amount to the same thing in the end— they would owe their progress entirely to themselves. The only persons who appeared really to understand questions were the writers in the press of this country. For example, ten days ago there appeared in the Times an article on colonial self-government, the sentiments of which, he would stake his existence, if put to the vote in any one Colony, would have been triumphantly carried by acclamation, so precisely did they chime in with the wants and feelings of the people of the Colonies on Legislation. The language of the colonists was, "Give us as much power as can be safely confided to us, and leave the rest to us."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must protest against the application of the last speaker's observation to New Zealand, because he believed that nothing would be so painful to that Colony as to be left alone. It was because he had a deep conviction that New Zealand required this Bill, that He had undertaken to introduce it, and it was because he believed he was taking the course most acceptable to the Colony that he preferred the shape that the Government had given to the Bill, to the shape proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Molesworth), great as was his authority on these subjects. Looking at our past experience of Australia and Canada, he thought it was wiser to give the Colony municipal institutions at once, rather than to expose their creation to risk and uncer-
40
tainty. But this Bill was a mere outline, giving large powers to the colonists to fill up the details as they deemed best; and he would remind the hon. Baronet that he (Sir J. Pakington) had made it his business to consult all those in this country conversant with this subject; and it was in consequence of their advice that he had adopted the present plan in preference to the hon. Baronet's. He therefore hoped the hon. Baronet would not divide the Committee.
MR. MOWATT: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I said was, that the Colonies simply desired a measure which would enable them to legislate for themselves, and not a piece of detailed legislation like that now before the Committee. I am surprised at the statement of the right hon. Baronet as to the large powers of self-government which had been conceded to the Colonies, when it is well known that not a shilling of their revenue can be expended except in such manner as is directed by the officers of the Imperial Government.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that seeing that he was in a decided minority, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 3 to 17 inclusive.
Clause 18.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he had to propose an alteration in this clause, the effect of which would be to strike out the general powers conferred by the Bill on the Local Legislatures, and to give them power only over certain enumerated subjects, such as were contained in the Australian Constitution Bill. If they left in the Bill the powers now conferred by it on the Local Legislatures, they would not be creating simple municipalities, but they would be carrying out the views entertained by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone); for as sure as the Bill passed in its present state the various Provinces would become States very nearly as independent as the States of the American Union now were. He would suggest, therefore, whether it would not be better to confine the powers proposed to be conferred upon the municipal bodies to certain enumerated subjects, and to give the general powers to the Central Legislature. With this view he proposed to leave out all the words in this clause after the words "all such laws and

41
ordinances," and to introduce the words "to make by-laws for local purposes."
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that when the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark talked of this clause giving effect to his (Mr. Gladstone's) views, and not to those of the right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies, he thought that the hon. Baronet was more than just to him, and less than just to the Secretary of State in carrying out the views which he entertained. He should have been very glad if the Bill had given effect to his views, because he had great faith in the full application of the principles of local government to New Zealand; but he must observe, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State appeared to have followed the principles of the Municipal Corporation Act of England. It did not exhaust by a catalogue the subjects of legislation, with which the Local Legislatures were to meddle, but it gave them general powers to enact bylaws for the order and good government of the corporation, reserving to the Government the check of a veto to be exercised within forty days. In the present instance the Secretary of State had gone still further—further, indeed, than he thought was wise—for he reserved the check of a veto which might be exercised any time within two years. He had objections to the measure; but he looked at the Bill as a whole, and he felt that its great merit was this— that it would allow the deliberate will of the colonial community to settle the institutions of New Zealand as they might think proper. If the intelligent public feeling of the Colony should be in favour of the local principle of government, he had no doubt that the local principle would in that case gain full scope, and override those powers, giving the Central Legislature a check over the Local Legislatures; but if public opinion should be in favour of a Central Legislature, then the central legislative power would limit, curtail, and cut down the powers of the Local Legislatures. On these grounds he was willing to support the clause as it stood at present.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had little to say in addition to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. He thought the sound and liberal principle was to allow the different municipal bodies to legislate for the good of their respective localities, restricting them only in the case of subjects of general and imperial importance, and that it would be far better to
42
leave their powers wide, in order to meet unforeseen contingencies, than to tie them up to any enumerated list of subjects, however wide they might be.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he preferred the Clause to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth). He considered it was unwise to lay down rules and to attempt to legislate for the Colony.
MR. MOWATTapprehended that, in the first instance, there would be a great struggle for supremacy between the Local and Central Legislatures under this Bill; for though a power of veto was given to the Central Legislature, yet he feared that would not be enough.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he should support the clause, because he felt that at the commencement of the working of these institutions the Provincial Councils would require greater scope than they would need afterwards.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 19.
MR. F. PEELsaid, he ventured to suggest an Amendment in one paragraph in this clause, the object of which would be to give the Local Legislatures the power of controlling the sale and letting of the Crown waste lands situated within the limits of their respective provinces, and also the appropriating the land fund arising from their disposal. As matters stood at present, the Crown—subject of course to the rights of the New Zealand Company—was at liberty to appropriate the proceeds of the land fund; but it was proposed by this Bill to transfer that power to the authorities within the Colony, and it therefore became a fair question to consider whether it would not be preferable that the local councils should exercise that power rather than the General Assembly. Now, he was of opinion that it would be, on the ground that where it was required that persons should pay a price for their land higher than its intrinsic value, they were entitled to receive an equivalent in the form of some moral or material advantage, directly and personally beneficial to themselves, and that they could derive that advantage only from this power over the produce of the land sales being conferred on the local councils. If they gave it to the General Assembly, he had no doubt that it would be exercised for the general benefit of New Zealand. But that general benefit might have a very remote and distant bearing on the interests of the particular settlement where the land was situ-

43
ated, and within which the land fund had been created. The revenue of the Colony must he derived principally from two sources—the customs, and the sale of land. Now the customs duties were imposed on articles that, though landed at particular ports, were consumed generally throughout the Colony, and therefore there could be no objection to giving the Central Legislature the appropriation of the revenues derived from the customs. But the case was different with respect to the land fund; because not a shilling of it might be spent in the neighbourhood of the persons who had contributed to it. So far with regard to the land fund. Now with regard to the power of controlling the price of land sold and let within the Colony, he believed that if it were not for the terms of purchase at which the New Zealand Company had contracted to sell their lands, and the rights of the Canterbury Association, the best thing would be that they should fix by Act of Parliament one uniform price for the sale of lands in New Zealand. That would be the only way in which they could prevent fluctuations in the price, and give a guarantee to persons investing capital in the lands of that colony, that their investments would neither be capriciously enhanced, nor depreciated in value. He believed farther, that such a course would be in accordance with the wishes of the Colonists themselves, because there had very recently been received from the residents an address to the Crown, praying that Her Majesty would fix one uniform price of land in New Zealand. But then they were told that the existing terms of purchase were contracts binding on the Crown, and that the Crown could not alter them without a breach of faith, unless with the consent of parties. It was fair to those who had purchased land in New Zealand on the terms issued by the Company, that those terms should not be altered without their consent. He considered, therefore, that the he3t course now would be to give to some authority within the Colony, the power of altering the terms of purchase. He thought it was most desirable that the terms of purchase should be altered. At present the price of land varied in the different settlements from 60s. to 20 s.; and, therefore, he was in favour of giving to some authority within the Colony the power of altering it so as to bring it eventually into uniformity throughout every settlement. But he would give that power to the Local
44
Councils rather than to the General Assembly, because he considered that the purchasers of land within each settlement were the only parties entitled to determine whether the price should be altered or not. He pressed this the more, because he observed that in the Bill two provinces out of the six—the provinces of Canterbury and Otago—had the power of altering these terms. Now, he thought the other provinces would have a just right to complain if Canterbury and Otago, besides having the exclusive right to alter the price of their own lands, should also have a voice in altering the price of the land in the other provinces, as they would have if the power in question was conferred on the General Assembly. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary would not object to the alteration in the clause which he suggested.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, no one was better acquainted than the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel), with the peculiar circumstances which regulated the sale of lands in the two settlements to which he had alluded. But he was not disposed to yield to the suggestion of the hon. Member, because he intended the concession as a boon to the Colony, and he was unwilling to impair its value by subdivision. He agreed that it would be most desirable to have one uniform price for the lands; and the most likely way he thought of obtaining that end, would be to have all the lands under one management. Another important consideration was, the economy with which these lands might be managed; and he certainly thought that economy would be better consulted by having one central management, than by diffusing it Over the different Local Legislatures.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he was also in favour of a uniform price for the land. At first that price was fixed at Wellington at 20 s. per acre, 10 s. of which was regarded as payment for the land. At Nelson the price was raised to 30 s.—at Otago to 40 s., and at Canterbury to 60 s.In all of these the price of the land was about the same, but the additional price was intended as payment for additional advantages, as in education and religion. He thought that a uniform price, however, was desirable, but he did not think it would be attained by the means suggested by the hon. Member for Leominster.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the Colony was most grateful to the right hon, Gentleman

45
(Sir J. Pakitigton) for having handed over to the colonial authorities the management of the land fund. With regard to the details, he concurred generally with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. P. Peel), and he felt grateful to him for having stated so clearly and impressively the argument in favour of giving the management to the Colonial Legislatures. He could not say, however, that he was in favour of a uniform price—he should not think it was either desirable or even attainable, for circumstances would always differ in the different settlements. Neither did he think that economy would be gained by placing the management of the land fund in the hands of the Central Legislature. But at the same time, he knew the Colony felt so grateful in having the management of this fund conceded to them in any shape, that he would not now impede the progress of the Bill by raising objections to the mode.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, the question of land was the master question in every new settlement. For his part, he rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary had placed this question under the control of the Central Legislature, as he was satisfied that, when the transfer was once made, all questions regarding the price of land, and a hundred other subjects, would speedily be put an end to. The Colonial Legislature would have power to settle the price according to the natural principles of supply and demand; and he had no doubt that the proceedings of the New Zealand Legislature in this respect would set an example worthy to be followed by the other Colonies.
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he thought the observations of the hon. Gentleman (Mr, J. E. Denison) would be deserving of more support if the Colony of New Zealand were now dealing with the land question, without being encumbered with the decisions of the various companies who possessed land there. He did not desire to impede the progress of the Bill; but if he might suggest the postponement of this clause, he thought it would be very desirable, as it was a most important one, and should be reconsidered. He also objected to that part of the Bill which related to post-offices and the carriage of letters, as he thought the term "Post-offices" a very ambiguous one. Another point which he thought was not sufficiently explicit in the Bill, was that relating to the erection and maintenance of lighthouses.
SIR JOHN PARTINGTONsaid, he could not accede to the proposition for the postponement of the clause. Nothing could be more generally acknowledged than that the regulation of the Post-office was an Imperial concern. It was so here, and he could see no reason for a departure from the universal practice in this case.
MR. MOWATTsaid, here was more evidence of the unhappy disposition of the Colonial Office in this country to encumber the Colonies with its interference. The Post-office, it had been said, was always matter for Imperial legislation. That was so in Europe; but to make it absolutely so in a case where it would take six months or more to get an answer on such a trifle as changing the office from one house to another in the same town, was ridiculous. What possible harm could result from striking such a clause out of the Bill? So, too, in the case of a lighthouse, what danger to Imperial interests was to be apprehended because a point of this kind was not referred to the Central Legislature?
MR. F. SCOTTsaid, he should move that the words "Post-office" be struck out of the fifth division of the clause.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, the Central Legislature had power, by the 69th Clause, to alter the provisions of this Act; and if the regulations of the Post-office were found not to work well, they might be altered.
MR. SLANEYthought the management of the Post-office was properly confided to the Imperial authority. A proof of this was afforded by the cheap postage of this country. The price of land, too, was properly left to the governing body; were it otherwise, the municipalities might bid against each other.
MR. VERNON SMITHwished to know if it was likely any difference could arise in the legislation respecting Europeans and natives.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that in the event of the Central Legislature passing any enactment, that enactment must receive the consent of the Crown. As to any differences being likely to arise in legislation, as it regarded Europeans and natives, the whole spirit of this Bill, and the whole spirit of his intentions with regard to it, was to put the natives as completely as possible on a footing with the Europeans.
Amendments negatived.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 20 to 32 inclusive.
Clause 33 (Appointment of Members of the Legislative Council),
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that in deference to what had been said by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell) in an earlier part of the evening, he was quite ready to strike out the words limiting the number of the Legislative Council to fifteen.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that the great object of a second chamber was to obtain a Conservative element of a character to gain and deserve the respect of the people. The only way to make the upper house effective, was having it elective by the people, and allowing its members to sit for a longer period than those of the lower. Supposing they took six provinces, gave to each two members, elected them for eight years, and made half go out every four years; such a house, as shown in the States, would, and does truly, represent the natural Conservative element. That element it was impossible to obtains by means of Government nomi-nature. There was a strong feeling against nominees everywhere—in New Zealand as in Australia. Take the most popular man and make him a nominee of the Crown, he at once ceases to be popular; he is considered a mere tool of the Government. By making nominees he was certain that they did not get what they wanted, and that they offended the sense of the people. He protested against this nominated second chamber as being contrary to that sound principle of balance of power which he thought ought to exist in every Government formed on an analogy to the Constitution of England or of the United States.
MR. MOWATTsaid, that this clause constituted the essence of the Bill, and if it was retained in its present shape, and the Upper Chamber was nominated by the representative of the Crown, however perfect the Bill might be in the rest of its machinery and details, it would be utterly valueless for the purpose which that House had in view—to satisfy the colonists. An effective upper chamber was found in the case of the Senate of the United States to infuse a conservative element into the Legislature of the country; and he believed that a check upon the popular body in the Lower House could be obtained in the mode proposed by the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), or by other means, as efficiently as by the system of nominees.
48
Let them raise the standard of the qualification for the members of the Upper House as high as they liked, so as to obtain, in the best way they could, the men whom they would wish the Governor to select for the members of the Upper House; but let them not adopt a system which would have the effect of utterly destroying the efficiency of any man who was called up to that assembly.
MR. S. CARTERhoped the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth) would divide the Committee on this question, because he regarded it as the most important clause in the Bill. It was an attempt to establish a bungling imitation of the House of Lords in a new settlement, or, what was worse, to create an oligarchy of fifteen in the Colony. The most effective and satisfactory way of proceeding would be to make the members of the Upper Chamber elective.
MR. FORSTERsaid, he must express his concurrence in the views which had been stated by previous speakers with reference to the injurious effect of the nominee system. He had rather have the sole responsibility of the Governor than that of the nominee Upper Chamber, which was generally used merely as a screen for the exercise of his authority. He believed that the clause as it at present stood would have a most mischievous effect in the Colony, and would give great dissatisfaction.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that, whatever decision the Committee might come to, he could not subscribe to the opinion which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. Mowatt), that this clause was so important as in its present form to render the Bill entirely valueless. He thought that was attaching a most exaggerated importance to the clause, and that it was a view which would not be entertained by any Colony under our rule. When he heard the statement of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. S. Carter), that this was a bungling and abortive attempt to create a House of Lords in the Colony of New Zealand, he could only suppose that that hon. Gentleman, having only just entered the House, had never ascertained what was the constitution of the Legislative Assemblies in those Colonies in which representative institutions existed. This was certain, that whether the alteration which was now pressed upon the Government was or was not a good one, it was an experiment which had never yet been tried in the British dominionsl;

49
and however unpopular the avowal might he, it was a change to which nothing should induce him to assent. The hon. Member for Penryn said that an elected Upper Chamber answered in the United States; he (Sir J. Pakington) did not say that it did not, hut with every respect for the United States, he was not disposed to go there for precedents for the constitution of a British Colony. He preferred the institutions of his own country; and the hon. Member had not, in his opinion, brought forward any argument for an elected Upper Chamber, which would not be equally good for an elective representative of the Crown. He thought it was the duty of that House to see that the institutions of our Colonies were assimilated as closely as possible to those of the mother country. How they had no precedent for an elective Upper Chamber either in England or in any of the Colonies which had representative institutions; and although he did not mean to say that they could make the analogy perfectly literal and close between the two cases, he believed that they would obtain the closest analogy possible to the House of Lords, by giving to the Crown the power of nominating the members of the Upper Chamber; the only difference being that the dignity conferred was hereditary in the former, and not in the latter case. There were five representative constitutions in North America, namely, those of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland, and in every one of these the Upper Chamber was nominated by the Crown. The same was the case in the West Indies, with the exception of British Guiana, which had a peculiar constitution left by the Dutch. He might be told that there was an exception to this rule in the case of the Cape of Good Hope; but the constitution for that Colony had only been sent out the other day; it was not yet completed, and had not yet become one of the settled constitutions of the British Empire. He would be no party to any other course than that of assimilating the constitution of the Colonies to that of the mother country, which would not be done if they made the Upper Chamber elective. He differed altogether from hon. Members opposite with respect to the theoretical disadvantages of a no minee Upper Chamber, for, looking to that body to fulfil the functions of a check upon the more popular branch of the legislature, and at the same time as standing between
50
it and the Crown (represented by the Governor), he thought those functions would be much more efficiently discharged by an independent body of men, than by a chamber deriving their existence from the same authority which nominated the lower branch of the legislature.
Mr. F. PEELsaid, that the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary declared that he desired to assimilate the constitution of the Colonies to that of the mother country, and would be no party to the adoption of a different course. Now it was very natural that we, who knew by experience what was the advantage of living under institutions so nicely balanced and justly proportioned as our own, should desire that our descendants in the Colonies should participate in what we found was so great a boon to ourselves. But then he thought we should give the Colonies not only the form but also the substance of the English Constitution. Now, he failed to perceive what was the practical advantage to be derived from having a nominated Upper Chamber. The advantage of an Upper Chamber was generally supposed to be that the passage of a measure through two chambers gave time for deliberation, and prevented crude and hasty legislation, and what was merely the reflection of the transient impulses of the moment. Another great advantage of a second chamber was, that it prevented the representative of the Crown from coming into direct collision with the will of the people, which would be the case if there were only a single chamber, and he was obliged to veto any objectionable measure which it might have passed. If, however, the Upper Chamber was to resist the current of popular feeling, it must have some inherent force and vitality in it that commanded the respect of the country, and in some sort enlisted on its side the prejudices and feelings of the people. Now the House of Lords in this country was qualified to discharge functions of this sort, because it was composed of persons having large territorial possessions, and who had been ennobled for services they had themselves rendered to the country, or which had been rendered by those who stood in the line of their ancestry. But what resemblance would a nominated upper chamber have to the House of Lords? The Governor was to select whom he pleased for its members, without respect to territorial possessions, or to any other condition of eligibility. He did not think that a body so

51
composed could command the respect of the Colony. Moreover the members of the Council, when once chosen, were to hold their offices for life, so they would not merely be independent of the people, hut also of the Governor; and it was clear, therefore, that they would compose a close oligarchy, who would be most likely to impede the progress of all measures that would conduce to the advantage of the Colony. When the right hon. Baronet referred to Canada and the other provinces of British North America, he (Mr. F. Peel) must remind the Committee that there had been recent changes in the constitution of these colonies, which were not without a bearing upon this question of how the Council should be composed. It was always supposed that the Governor would fill up the vacancies occurring in the Council by persons of acknowledged ability, distinct from any party considerations, and because they represented the leading interests in the Colony. But of late years there had been an agitation in North America for what they called responsible government— very incorrectly, as he thought, because he hoped and believed that the Executive of our Colonies was conducted under a sense of responsibility, not merely to the Colonial Office, but also to the people whose administration they conducted, and whose affairs were placed under their direction; what they meant was party government—government by persons who possessed the confidence of the majority of the House of Representatives. Now in Canada, Nova Scotia, and, he believed, in other provinces of British North America, where responsible Governments had been established, what had been the effect produced on the manner in which the Councils were appointed? The vacancies were now filled up by the Governor, on the views of his Executive; and the Executive, being now the government of a party, of course recommended persons, not with reference to their station or ability in the Colony, or to their being of the leading interests, but because they sided with their own party views. The effect of that change had been still lower to depress the Council in public estimation, and to lessen the respect attached to it. But the right hon. Gentleman said that precedent must rule the day, and that in whatever Colonies there were two chambers, one of these had always been nominated by the Governor. Now we had a very extensive Colonial Empire, and one extending to all
52
the quarters of the world; but only in the West Indies and in the North American provinces had we any example of legislation by two chambers. The area, therefore, of our experience was comparatively a restricted one. It was quite true that the upper chambers, where such existed, in the West Indian Colonies were nominated by the Governor; but he contended that there were particular reasons for this, which did not apply to the case of New Zealand. In these islands the upper chamber was not merely the Legislative Council, but it was also the Privy Council and the Executive of the Governor; and no one had suggested that the Executive of an officer appointed by the Crown, should be elected by the people. The Legislative Council in Jamaica, for instance, which was only an illustration of what existed also in the other islands, consisted of eleven persons; three being members ex officio — the Bishop, the Chief Justice, and the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces—who were also members of the Privy Council of the Governor, and gave advice in that capacity —and eight others holding the chief offices of the Executive, and being in fact, salaried officers of the Government. But although this reason existed for the upper chamber being nominated by the Governor, it was not true that there had been no disposition in Jamaica to make the upper chamber elective. When, two or three years ago, the Retrenchment Bills which passed the House of Assembly were rejected by the Legislative Council, the former body passed a resolution declaring that the latter did not possess the confidence of the country, or of the House of Assembly, because it was nominated; and although their constitution had been in existence 200 years, they addressed the Crown, praying that it might be altered, and that the Legislative Council might be made elective; nor, in fact, did the people in our North American colonies so entirely acquiesce in a Legislative Council appointed by the Governor, or consider it so serviceable to good government as the right hon. Gentleman had represented. Only last year the House of Assembly in New Brunswick passed a resolution to address the Crown to make the upper chamber elective, and the Governor had prepared a measure for carrying out that object, and had laid it before the Legislative Council. That body had postponed the consideration of it to the present year; but what course the Legislature of the Colony had taken with respect to it

53
this year, he was not aware. Newfoundland had also last year addressed the Crown, asking for party and responsible Government, and that the Legislative Council might be made elective. Every one, too, who knew the history of Canada knew that there had been a constant struggle and antagonism between the two chambers in that country. What took place with respect to the clergy reserves, was one illustration of the want of harmony between them. In nine consecutive Sessions immediately preceding the union of the Canadas, the House of Assembly of Upper Canada passed a Bill, which was as often rejected by the upper chamber, for secularising the clergy reserves, and applying them to the purposes of education. Now if the Legislative Council had not been nominated but had been elected, that measure would have passed through both Houses; and it was quite clear, therefore, that the members of the Legislative Council had been selected by the Governor without much reference to the proportions which the different religious bodies in that Colony bore to each other. These were reasons that might well lead the Committee to doubt whether the precedents that had been referred to by the right hon. Baronet were of so much weight as he supposed, and whether it was not expedient to try the experiment of an elective chamber in New Zealand.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that one argument that had been used against this clause convinced him that the clause ought to be agreed to. The argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat was, that the effect of this clause would be to have a Legislative Council independent of the people, and also of the Crown, as represented by the Governor. Now, that was the very object of an upper chamber— to guard against crude and hasty legislation, reflecting too rapidly the premature opinions of the people, before they were well digested, and admitted as sound opinions by the country at large, while, on the other hand, it operated against any undue encroachments on the part of the Crown, which, by its preponderance, might press on the liberties and freedom of the people. But, in addition to that, what the hon. Gentleman had stated in reference to precedent ought to weigh very strongly with the Committee in their decision upon this question. It was right they should assimilate the institutions of every part of Her Majesty's dominions, as far as circum-
54
stances would admit, to those institutions which we had found so much for our own benefit; and he was astonished, when they were discussing this Colonial question, to find a sort of censure cast upon those institutions which they were so willing to praise when applied to this country, but which they were prepared to abandon when applied to our fellow-countrymen in the Colonies. He thought that if that House wished to encourage the best class of emigrants to go out to our different colonial dependencies, they could not do it in so excellent a manner as by securing to these Colonies all the laws, habits, and usages to which they had been accustomed in this country.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, he agreed that, in order to encourage the upper classes to become Colonists, it was right to hold out all the inducements possible; but yet he thought the present clause was the blot upon the Bill. He should like to know from the right hon. Colonial Secretary, who had told the Committee that he had been in communication with gentlemen connected with our Colonies, whether any of these gentlemen had sanctioned this mode of proceeding by a nominee Council? He had no objections to the existence of a second chamber as a check on hasty legislation; but he would ask whether there was no other mode of constituting this intervening body which it was desirable to have? Was there no way of introducing a property qualification in the constitution of that chamber, so as to effect a nearer resemblance to the House of Lords in this country? He declared, from his extensive correspondence with those parties who had emigrated to this Colony of New Zealand, that nothing was more odious than a nominee Council; and it was a fact that the persons summoned to the Council by the Governor refused to be his nominees, on the ground that they would have been looked on with suspicion as the tools of the Government. He strongly urged upon Her Majesty's Ministers the reconsideration of this clause, and the question which had been raised upon it.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought that the fact of the members of the upper chamber being nominated for life, was, perhaps, a saving clause; and he thought it just possible that it might render them sufficiently independent of the Crown. For he did not think the Governor would dare to swamp them by increasing the number of the chamber, nor that he could do so if

55
he tried. He joined issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies upon the point of precedent, for he maintained that every precedent in English Colonial history was in favour of an elected upper chamber. If he refused to take the United States as a model for the constitution of a British colony, let him go back to those States when they were not only the finest Colonies of England, but the finest Colonies that the world had ever seen. A division of the legislature into two chambers had always been found necessary in New England, and in every case both chambers were elective. He thought when the right hon. Baronet said that he would not take a lession from the United States, he was carried away by forms and names, and had lost sight of the spirit and essence of the thing. And when he referred to the case of Canada, let him bear in mind what was pressed upon their attention the other evening by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that those who were there agitating for such a change in the constitution as would render the upper chamber elective, were the Conservatives, and those who were in favour of the preservation of British influence in that Colony. He (Mr. Adderley) trembled when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the Constitution for the Cape of Good Hope was not yet a settled feature of our colonial policy, but was still sub judice, for he was perfectly certain, from information which he could not doubt, that any despatch which the right hon. Gentleman might send out, altering the elective character of the upper chamber, would convulse the Colony to its very foundation. That was the most popular feature in the Constitution, and, once having been promised and held out to the Colonists, their attachments, hopes, and expectations connected with it, were such that it would not be safe, having regard to the integrity of the Empire, to deprive them of it. He hoped, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman made a sine quâ non of this proposition, the Committee would consent to it, rather than lose the Bill altogether.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was not much in the habit of taking part in colonial debates, but it seemed to him that some hon. Gentlemen who had expressed their views upon the formation of a Constitution for this Colony were too apt to consider that Constitution as thoroughly complete, and not in the light more or less
56
of an experiment. It was impossible that, in a new Colony, they should find a House of Lords, or House of Commons, or Court of Judicature, or Established Church, that would be exactly equivalent to the corresponding institutions in the mother country; and the objection that had been urged against a nominated upper chamber in New Zealand might as well be urged against the House of Assembly of New Zealand, or any other institution in that Colony. What the Committee ought to regard on such an occasion as the present was, whether the institutions proposed for the Colonies were calculated in their ultimate effect to produce the same results which had issued from the institutions of this country. He supported the clause in the Bill, because the upper chamber, which his right hon. Friend proposed, might very fairly be expected to yield those results which had flown in a long series of years from the corresponding institution in this country. He saw in this chamber, thus nominated by the Governor, the germ of a New Zealand House of Lords. It was true, they did not find at present the elements which would form a House of Lords as it existed at this moment in England; he did not see the property and the ancestral position which rendered the House of Lords, in the 19th century, worthy of the dignity and the high respect universally accorded to it. But if these were now wanting, that was no reason for saying they would always remain so. Their duty as statesmen was to provide institutions for the Colonies with a view to the future—such as would give those results that had been arrived at in this country. He regarded it as a recommendation of a chamber appointed by the Governor, that it would be independent of him. Such a chamber would form the basis of a more free, and a more independent, upper chamber than any which the hon. Gentlemen opposite could devise, and of one more free, more independent, and more powerful than any that should exist at the will of the Governor. He therefore trusted the Committee would accede to the proposal of his right hon. Friend.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he was glad to find they had got in the noble Lord a new recruit on Colonial affairs, because the great cause of complaint was that so few persons in that House had taken an interest in them. He must say, however, that he was surprised and astonished at the alteration of tone on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers, because hitherto they

57
had proceeded on the supposition that the consent of the Colonists was the first thing to he considered, and he was sorry to hear that Her Majesty's Government had departed from that doctrine. The elective principle was the one advocated by almost every Colony; it was the Constitution they had given to the Cape of Good Hope. And why not give it to New Zealand—why did they go backward in their course? He was surprised at the right hon. Baronet's sudden horror of American and Republican Constitutions, when he introduced this Bill, forming, in fact, six small Republics and a sort of Federal Government; and anything having more of an American appearance could scarcely be conceived. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman was determined that nothing should be done in the Colony except by exact analogy to the mother country. Instead of a House of Lords, they were to have sixteen gentlemen nominated by the Governor of the Colony for life; but it would require the fancy even of the noble Lord who had just sat down to discover any analogy between the two bodies. The House of Lords was possessed of property and of prestige, and he could not conceive anything more absurd than a proposal for establishing in their Colonies a nominative Council and calling it a House of Lords. All they wanted was a double assembly for the purposes of deliberation— that was to say, that every question should he submitted twice for consideration; and if they elected that second body with a different qualification and a different term of duration, they had all that was wanting for deliberative consideration. The hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Ad-derley), had asked them not to oppose the clause, because it would be fatal to the Bill. He (Mr. V. Smith) had yet to learn that it would be fatal to the Bill; but it was their duty to assert the principle which was most dear to the Colonists, namely, the elective principle; and they should not he scared from their course by the threat of the right hon. Gentleman to throw up the Bill if the clause were struck out—a threat which he hoped he would not carry into effect.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he would admit that an elective Council was against the general usage of our Colonial policy; hut the consequence of that policy was, that, instead of our Colonies being really an outlet for our population, we found that 99 out of every 100 emigrants betook themselves to other Colonies instead of our
58
own. This was but one instance of our insisting upon legislating for the Colonies in every single matter even of the most trifling importance. They must change the system of legislation for the Colonies, because it was a gross inconsistency to talk about self-government to them, when in the same breath they assumed that their own institutions were perfect, and therefore would force them upon the Colonies. That was what the right hon. Baronet had said over and over again; and it appeared to horrify him that they should get up there and talk of the institutions of the United States; but he (Mr. Mowatt) thought it must be admitted that, as a Conservative Chamber, the Senate of the States of America had worked admira by. He believed it was the desire of the right hon. Baronet to confer such a system of self-government on the Colonies as would work beneficially, and, therefore, he hoped he would lay aside the idea that he was committed to all the details of this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had only recently acceded to office; he had not had a lengthened opportunity of studying the question, and he (Mr. Mowatt) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not object to their proposing in Committee the alteration of some important clauses.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he wished to know by whom it was desired that the Constitution of this country should he imitated as far as possible in the Colonies? Was it by theorists on this side of the ocean, or by the Colonists themselves? He had never been able to satisfy himself that there was any occasion for a second House at all; but if two Houses there must be, the second ought to he like the House of Representatives, an elective one. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, and the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners) spoke of the necessity of having a nominated chamber, in order to keep down what they were pleased to term the democratical element. Had either of them seen how this principle had operated in colonics where it had been tried? He (Mr. C. Anstey) had been in a Colony where the prerogative of the Crown had been exercised by the nomination of a Legislative Council, and he assorted that not a single gentleman of landed property or consideration in the Colony found a place there. The persons who wore originally named refused to sit in it, and the places were filled up with adventurers who happened to be in the

59
Colony. This was the sort of House of Lords which the right hon. Gentleman wished to plant in New Zealand. He would not find a single gentleman who would consent to sit there; but he might find clerks and adventurers, and—to use a word which Thackeray had rendered classical—snobs. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that a nominee Council caused a rebellion in Canada, and if we had not been wise in time, the same grievance would have caused a rebellion in Australia. There was but one choice to make, and that was between one House of Representatives and two Houses of Representatives. Other choice there was none; and if the Bill passed in its present shape, he was sure that the people of New Zealand would repudiate with indignation the insult which had been offered to them.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, it was his intention to move that the clause be omitted.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that when the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith) spoke of his (Sir J. Pakington's) creating six little Republics, he begged to repudiate the term. What he had proposed would no more make little Republics, than every city in this Kingdom was a Republic. After the spirit in which the Bill had been met, he could not help expressing a very earnest hope that the great majority of that House would be disposed to act in, the manner which had been announced by the noble Lord the Member for London. The noble Lord had stated that there was great weight in the reasons which he (Sir J. Pakington) had given for a nominee chamber, and said that, though he might be disposed to agree with Earl Grey in preferring an elective upper chamber, certainly he should not be disposed by any vote of his to endanger this Bill upon that point. That was what the noble Lord had stated in very distinct terms. He could not help saying once more that he had heard nothing in the course of the debate to support some of the statements which had been made of dissatisfaction on the part of the Colonists. The petitions which he had laid on the table that evening, begged that, as the Bill was, so it might pass. He begged also to remind the Committee, that it was not only throughout Canada, and not only in the West Indies, that the nominee Legislative Council existed, but by the constitution of the Australian Colonies, as reconstructed
60
with only a single chamber, in every one of them there was a proportion of nominee members. [An Hon. MEMBER: One third.] Yes; one-third. The fact was, that wherever there were two chambers, one was a nominee chamber, and where there was a single chamber, the same principle was recognised, and one-third of the members were nominees. He must repeat his hope that the Committee would be actuated by the spirit which he had already alluded to. There might be differences of opinion as to the details, but he thought the principle had been admitted, and he looked upon this as an essential principle of the measure.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWOTHsaid, the right hon. Baronet was hardly treating them fairly. The debate had been entered into that evening, as far as he was concerned, with the understanding that the minority should yield to the majority, because they were all anxious to carry this Bill. There were many clauses in it to which he strongly objected, and if he had opposed them separately, the Bill could not have passed. But he had not done so; and on every occasion when he found himself apparently in a minority, he had yielded. He now asked that the right hon. Baronet, if he found himself in a minority, should in like manner yield. He and those who agreed with him on this question were prepared, bond fide, to carry out this Bill without any factious opposition, according to the will of the majority, and he said that if the right hon. Baronet should throw up the Bill, if the majority decided that the Legislative Council should be elected, it would be a departure from the understanding which had been come to.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that in several instances in the course of the discussion that evening, he had acted upon the principle of the hon. Baronet, and had yielded to what appeared to be the wish of the majority. At the commencement of the discussion, also, he had agreed to several important alterations; but he begged it to be understood that he could not say, and that he should not be justified in saying, on the part of the Government, that he would give up anything with regard to what he considered to be the important principles of the measure.
MR. WALTERsaid, he hoped that no apprehensions as to the fate of this Bill would deter hon. Members, who, like himself, shared the objections of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W.

61
Molesworth) from recording their votes against this clause. Any temporary delay in the passing of this Bill which might be occasioned by an adverse vote upon this clause, would be compensated by the advantage of gaining another opportunity of framing a measure for the government of New Zealand upon sound principles of colonial policy. He, for one, entertained the strongest objections to this clause; and he could not imagine a greater libel upon British institutions than the attempt which had been made to compare this nominee Chamber with the British House of Lords.
Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 89: Majority 43.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Gaskell, J. M.

Adderley, C. B.

Goddard, A. L.

Arkwright, G.

Gooch, Sir E. S.

Bailey, '.

Greene, T,

Bailey,.I.

Grogan, E

Baillie, H. J.

Gwvn, H.

Baird, J.

Hale, R. B.

Bankes, rt. hon. G.

Halsey, T. P.

Baring, T.

Hamilton, G. A.

Barrington, Visct.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Barrow, W. II.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Beresford, rt. hon. W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Best, J.

Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

Blair, S.

Hemes, rt. hon. J. C.

Blandford, Marq. of

Hervey, Lord A.

Boldero, H. G.

Hildyard, R. C.

Bramston, T. W.

Hill, Lord E.

Bremridge, R.

Hope, Sir J.

Bridges, Sir B. W.

Hope, H. T.

Broadwood, H.

Hotham, Lord

Bruce, C. L. C.

Howard, Sir R.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hudson, G.

Campbell, hon. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Campbell, Sir A. 1.

Johnstone, Sir.].

Cayley, E. S.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Chandos, Marq. of

Jones, Capt.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Kelly, Sir F.

Child, S.

Knight, F. W.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Knox, Col.

Christopher, rt.hon.R. A.

Langton, W. G.

Christy, S.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Cocks, T. S.

Lockhart, W.

Cotton, hon. W. II. S.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Darner, hon. Col.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Deedes, W.

Mandeville, Visct.

Disraeli, rt, hon. B.

Manners, Lord G.

Dodd, G.

Manners, Lord J.

Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

Martin, C. W.

Dunne, Col.

Meux, Sir H

East, Sir J. B.

Miles, W.

Edwards, H.

Moody, C. A.

Farrer, J.

Morgan, 0.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Mundy, W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Mure, Col.

Floyer, J.

Naas, Lord

Forbes, W.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Fox, S. W. L.

Neeld, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Noel, hon. G. J.

62

Packe, C. W.

Tennent, Sir J. E.

Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Palmer, R.

Tollemache, J.

Palmer, R.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Peel, Col.

Tyler, Sir G.

I'owlett, Lord W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Renton, J. C.

Vesey, hon. T.

Repton, G. W. J.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Rushout, Capt

Vivian, J. E.

Sandars, G.

Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

Scott, hon. F.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Seymer, H. K.

West, F. R.

Smollett, A.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Somerton, Visct.

Whiteside, J.

Stafford, A.

Wodehouse, E.

Stanley, E.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Stanley, Lord

TELLERS.

Stuart, J.

Lennox, Lord H.

Sturt, H. G

Knox, W. S.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hindley, C.

Anson, hon. Gen.

Hollond, R.

Anstey, T. C.

Hutchins, E. J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Hutt, W.

Bailies, rt. hon. M. T.

Keating, R.

Bell, J.

Keogh, W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Bouveric, hon. E. P.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Bright, J.

Locke, J.

Brotherton, J

Meagher, T.

Brown, W.

Mangles, R. D.

Bunbury, E. H.

Matheson, Col.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Milner, W. M. E.

Carter, S.

Morris, D.

Clay, J.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Clay, Sir W.

Parker, J.

Cobden, R.

Pechell, Sir G. B

Coke, hon. E. K.

Peel, F.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Perfect, R.

Cowan, C.

Ricardo, O.

Crowder, R. B.

Rice, E. R.

Dalrymple, J.

Romilly, Col.

Denison, J. E.

Romilly, Sir J.

Devereux, J. T.

Sadleir, J.

D' Eyncourt, rt hon, C.T.

Seobell, Capt.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Scully, F.

Duff, J.

Seymour, Lord

Duncan, Visct,

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Duncan, G.

Smith, J. A.

Ellice, E.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Ellis, J.

Stewart, Adm.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Stuart, Lord D.

Evans, Sir De L.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Forster, M.

Tancred, H. W.

Fox, W. J.

Thompson, Col.

Geach, C.

Thornely, T.

Greene, J.

Towneley, J.

Hardeastle, J. A.

Townley, R. G.

Harris, R.

Walter," J.

Hastie, A.

Watkins, Col. L.

Hastie, A.

Williams, J.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Williams, W.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Wyld, J.

Heywood, J.

TELLERS.

Heywortb, I.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Higgins. G. G. O.

Mowatt, F.

Clause agreed to; as were also the Clauses from 34 to 49 inclusive.
Clause 50, which provides for the vacating of seats in certain cases,
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he wished to know whether Her Majesty's Ministers could assign any reason for not including in this clause a provision for excluding Jews from the House of Assembly in New Zealand. Some of the Members of Government had certainly distinguished themselves for their Christian zeal for the exclusion of Jews from the House of Commons of this country, and here was an admirable opportunity for the exercise of the same zeal to exclude Jews from an assembly not yet in being, with this difference—that in the House of Commons of Great Britain and Ireland the Jews had a right by law, whereas in New Zealand they had no right whatever. He trusted, therefore, that some Christian Gentlemen on the Opposition benches would get up and move the insertion of a provision to exclude Jews from the House of Assembly in New Zealand; and he (Mr. C. Anstey) should have great pleasure in voting against it.
Clause agreed to; as were also the Clauses from 51 to 67 inclusive.
Clause 68, which provides that the General Assembly shall have power to make any alterations in the constitution of the House of Representatives.
SIR EDWARD BUXTONsaid, that the Local Assemblies had not the power of inflicting any disabilities upon the natives of New Zealand to which Europeans were not equally liable. This restriction, as he understood, did not at present apply to the General Assembly. It seemed to him that no course could be so dangerous as, in a case where the natives were so numerous, intelligent, and warlike as in New Zealand, to give power to any portion of the Colonists to establish an internal superiority over the natives. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would take care that some words were introduced which would extend the limitation in question also to the General Assembly.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he fully appreciated the motives of the hon. Baronet in making this suggestion. He (Sir J. Pakington) could hardly imagine that the Central Legislature would desire to pass any law which would bear hardly upon the natives, considering what those natives were; still less could he imagine that, even if they did pass any such law, the Governor-in-Chief would hesitate to disallow it. Besides which, it would have to come home for ratification. At the same time he could conceive it possible that there might be
64
outbreaks among the natives, and that it might be necessary to give the Central Legislature power to deal with such a case. But he promised the hon. Baronet that he would consider the matter, and see what could be done with regard to it.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he took objection to the clause on the ground that, as it then stood, the Governor of New Zealand might take any portion of the Colony and make it a native district, and then establish all the native laws and customs there.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, by Clause 53 it was competent to the General Assembly, except as after mentioned, to make laws for the peace and good government of the Colony, provided such laws were not repugnant to the law of England. Then, by Clause 71, power was given to the Governor to cause the laws, customs, and usages of the aboriginal inhabitants to be observed, so far as they were not repugnant to the general principles of humanity. The reason for the clause was, that there were portions of New Zealand where it would be advisable to maintain the customs and laws of the natives until the whole Colony had become more or less incorporated with the European inhabitants. It was not advisable to say at once that the General Assembly should make no laws except such as were consonant with the laws of England, and so at once destroy all the usages and laws which the native inhabitants might think it desirable to retain.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 72 and 73,
Clause 74, which provides that upon all sales of Waste Lands 5s. per acre shall be paid to the New Zealand Company till their debt is discharged,
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know how the Exchequer was to recover back the sum lent to the New Zealand Company?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had endeavoured to do justice to the New Zealand Company and no more, in making that provision in the Bill, and he could not help expressing a hope that it might not be made a ground for reviving bygone differences. The loans in question were cancelled, and he was afraid the state of affairs between the Exchequer and the New Zealand Company was all the other way, and not as the hon. Baronet supposed. The truth was, the Crown was a

65
purchaser of the New Zealand Company to a very large extent.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: Have these loans been repaid? [An Hon. MEMBER: No!] Then the Exchequer has sustained a loss.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that the present Government, whatever its merits or demerits, was not responsible for the transaction to which the hon. Baronet alluded. That matter was settled by an Act passed in 1847. He concurred in the remark made by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies deprecating a renewal of old discussions. He regretted that at the commencement of the debate he had been led to introduce bygone transactions, to which it would have been better had no reference been made. He objected to the clause, not as surplusage, but as tending to cause doubts.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 74.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, that it was his intention, at this stage of the Bill, to discuss the conduct of the New Zealand Company.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid: As this question of the New Zealand Company is not necessarily connected with the legislation which is now before the Committee, I beg to suggest that the best course which we could take would be to postpone the discussion of that question until the bringing up of the Report. We should then come prepared to deal with that subject — to form an impartial opinion, and give an impartial verdict. If the hon. Baronet will agree with that suggestion—if he will reserve the discussion of that question till another occasion—we shall be able to get through the remaining clauses of the Bill. If we should fix the discussion on the con duct of the New Zealand Company for the bringing up of the Report, that controversy could be entered into, and every other topic excluded.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid. he was very sorry to say that he could not agree with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. He could not consent to the adoption of this clause.
The CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER: Has the hon. Baronet any objection to the postponement of this clause until the remaining clauses have been agreed to.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTH: None at all.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that unless this clause was retained (with such amendments as he hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Colonial Office would agree to), Parliament would commit a gross breach of faith. Amendments on Clauses 74, 75, and 76 had been drawn by counsel, with the view of securing sufficient protection to the New Zealand Company. Those Amendments had only been submitted to the right hon. Baronet on the previous day, and it was impossible that he could have fully considered them. He (Mr. Aglionby), therefore, suggested that progress should now be reported.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would consent to that course, but thought that the Committee might proceed with the further discussion of the Bill on Monday morning.
MR. AGLIONBYhoped that so early a day would not be fixed for the resumption of this discussion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should propose, then, if convenient to hon. Members, to take it on Thursday, after Supply.
House resumed.
Committee reported progress.

CASE OF MR. MATHER.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the papers laid on the table respecting the outrage committed on Mr. Mather, a British subject, by an officer in Tuscany. It would appear from the papers that the Government entirely disavowed the proceedings of Mr. Scarlett, at least so be read the papers of Lord Malmesbury. It seemed the noble Lord disapproved of the arrangement. He wished to ask whether he was right in reading those papers in that light?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: said, the Government had placed on the table all the papers connected with the circumstance referred to, and now the noble Lord asked Government what opinion he was to form respecting them, and what conclusion he was to come to. That was really an extraordinary inquiry. The pa-pears would soon be in the hands of every hon. Member, and they must be left to form their own opinion respecting them. He thought it would be satisfactory, but he certainly could not answer for the opinion the noble Lord would form.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, the

67
right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, certainly could not he called upon to tell him what opinion he (Lord D. Stuart) would form on these papers; hut he could he called upon, and he called upon him now— [Cries of "Order! Chair! and Spoke!"] He was asking a question. He believed he was in order in asking a question. ["No, no!"] He really must appeal to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is not strictly in order. On the question before the House the noble Lord is not entitled to make another speech, but he might put a question.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he had no intention to make another speech, or to ask another question, but to set the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer right, as he had misunderstood the question which he (Lord D. Stuart) had asked or meant to ask. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any further step to obtain redress for the outrage committed on Mr. Mather or not?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his answer to the very irregular inquiry of the noble Lord was, that the Government had placed on the table of the House all the papers relative to the subject, and that among those papers there was a despatch describing the ulterior steps which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take with respect to that circumstance.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESbelieved the noble Lord's inquiry was a little premature. He had no doubt when the papers were on the table, and when the noble Lord's question was repeated, as he hoped it would be, that Her Majesty's Government would be able to give a most satisfactory answer, and that the answer of Lord Malmesbury to the Tuscan Government would be found to be most grateful to this country.
Subject dropped.

PASSENGERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Bill, as amended, considered.
MR. W. BROWNmoved the following Clause:?—
"Provided always, that whenever the owner, charterer, captain, or consignee of the ship shall be dissatisfied with the decision of the Emigration Officer, in any matter in which such decision is rendered authoritative by the provisions of this Act, then, and in every such case, it shall be lawful for the owner, charterer, captain, or consignee to apply to two Justices of the Peace having jurisdiction in the Port; and such Justices, or one of
68
them, shall, by order, under their or his hand, appoint two disinterested persons, having acquaintance with the subject matter in which such decision may have been given, to hear the appeal of the owner, charterer, captain, or consignee, against such decision; and such two persons shall return their determination upon such appeal in answer to such order, and upon such determination the Justices or Justice shall make such order as to them or him shall in the premises seem meet, and such order shall be final and conclusive."
He said, he should have been the last man in the world to propose such a proviso if it interfered at all with the comfort or the safety of passengers. He did not find fault with the enactment that the emigration officers should examine into the various matters connected with the regulation of passenger vessels; but if the owner or the master found himself aggrieved by their decision, on any point, he ought to have the right of appeal; the loss of time and consequent expense that would arise from it, would be too serious a matter ever to be resorted to, except in cases of great hardship. Was it right to intrust to any individual, without appeal to some competent tribunal, a power which might be abused from caprice, ignorance, or vindictiveness, and add to the burdens which the shipowner now laboured under? He might be told that the shipowners may bring their case before the Emigration Commissioners in London, by whom, he must say, he had always been treated with the greatest courtesy when he had occasion to call on them; but suppose a complaint be made, the agent states his own case and defends himself. Being an appointment of the Commissioners, they are not likely, if they can help it, to condemn their own judgment in the selection of their servant, when the shipowner may be unknown to them, and his representations would, of course, have less weight. An appeal to London from the outports, considering the loss of time and expense it would incur, with the chance of missing wind and tide, would make the remedy, in many cases, worse than the disease. The Emigration Commissioners having great power, it was natural that they were not willing to relinquish it, and there was no doubt but that the right hon. Baronet consulted them on these matters. It was said much of the present Bill was not a new enactment, and that there had been no complaints against it. The former was true, and equally true that there had been many abuses of power under it; but, as there was no proper court of appeal, the parties had to submit, and

69
it was a reason for not re-enacting those clauses. As he (Mr. W. Brown) considered it right and due to the country, and not ultimately injurious to the shipping interest, to vote for the repeal of the Navigation Laws, he considered he was equally bound, as far as he could, to aid in removing all unnecessary burdens from their shoulders to enable them to compete with their foreign rivals. It was extremely hard on them that there were some clauses in this Bill which you cannot enforce against foreigners, but you always can against British owners. He did expect those Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, who had called out so lustily for protection to the British shipping interest, would vote for the proviso he had submitted to then-consideration. The agent must have a universality of talent, which few men possess; he must be a judge of the beams, the decks, and of the berths, and the best means of separating the sexes. He must he a judge of the sufficiency of the hospitals, and of the conveniencies that are necessary to relieve nature, and of lights and ventilation, which men of science cannot efficiently accomplish. He is to determine what boats, life-buoys, fire-engines, and night-signals are necessary. The manning of the ship is subject to his dictum. The quantity and quality of provisions and water for passengers are to be determined by him; he is to survey the crew; he is to regulate the stowage of the cargo and stores; he must have the knowledge of a cooper, to judge of the sufficiency of the water casks or tanks; he is to see what stewards, cooks, and cooking apparatus are sufficient When foreigners embark as passengers, he must be a linguist, to be able to judge whether the ships must take interpreters. He is to be the judge of the qualifications of medical men, and he ought to have the knowledge of a chemist, as he decides upon the quantity and quality of medicines, of the surgical instruments necessary, and the quantity of disinfecting fluid that passenger ships must carry. No man could possess all that knowledge, however clever he might be; and it was only in the event of capriciously abusing his power, either from ignorance or vindictiveness, that an appeal ever would be made. It did so happen, that, as there would not be time to appeal to London in all cases, when a passenger from any cause thinks he is entitled to the return of his passage money, he may bring the case before the magistrates. And to show how power can be abused, even by a
70
person who was represented to him as a captain in the Royal Navy, Captain Brown-rigg, it appeared that a passenger of the name of M'Kay claimed his passage money back from an agent, Mr. Hunter, and to sustain that claim, Captain Brownrigg was his witness. The case came before the sheriff at Greenock, and was dismissed as frivolous and vexatious; but Captain Brownrigg could not forget his defeat by Mr. Hunter, and another opportunity offered to show his vindictiveness. He summoned Mr. Hunter before the magistrates, at Glasgow, for some alleged irregularity. There were three on the bench. They considered Captain Brownrigg's conduct so improper that they made him pay Mr. Hunter's costs. Clothed with a little brief authority, although this gentleman resides at Greenock, if he get angry with the master or agent of a vessel, he will not receive a notice of his services being wanted at Greenock, but insists on the party giving notice at his office in Glasgow, which causes unnecessary delay, which he (Mr. W. Brown) hoped would prove to the House that the discretion of agents is not always to be trusted. In addition to the burdens which the shipping interest already bear, which he would briefly state, they were adding others; not only the foregoing, but Lord Campbell's Act, as it is called, which leaves the owners of steam or other vessels liable for any losses that might arise to passengers who have an action for damages against them in the event of the vessel on board of which they are being run down by them at sea; and if a steamboat be going more than five or six miles an hour, it would be taken as an evidence of carelessness, when, in dark nights and fogs, they can hardly see the stem from the stern of the ship. Mr. M'Iver, Messrs. Cunard's partner, told the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, (hat he had sold his interest out of forty steam vessels, for an accident, which the owners could not control, might ruin a rich shipowner. He had an action brought against him for an unavoidable accident of this kind, and compromised it. This Act was a new and recent burden. The old ones were, excessive lighthouse dues; pilotage where the mate and master were competent to the charge of the vessel; consul fees abroad; the manning clause, which was considered one of great hardship, as other nations were under no such restrictions; desertion from merchant vessels to ships of war: although the sailors violated

71
their contract, the captain was obliged to pay their wages up to the day, and allow them to take their clothes. The timber duties and other minor matters were certainly great grievances, and no less so were the heavy salvage charges claimed and paid by British shipowners to men-of-war for rendering them assistance in distress, which ought to be rendered by national vessels for a very moderate charge. He (Mr. Brown) hoped he bad made a sufficient case to induce the House to accept his proviso.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, this Bill was to consolidate and amend the laws with regard to the conveyance of emigrants, and was brought in at the recommendation of a Committee which sat last year. In the previous Acts there was no such appeal as that proposed by the hon. Member at the instance of the shipowners of Liverpool. The Committee to which he alluded recommended no such appeal, and, what was more, there had never been any complaint as to the want of this appeal. The present was not a moment, when emigration was so much increased and increasing, to do away with any of those securities which existed for the preservation of life among passengers by emigrant vessels. He would rather abandon this Bill than consent to the proviso which would destroy the object contemplated by the measure.
MR. W. BROWNsaid, it was impossible than an emigration officer could be a competent judge of all the miscellaneous subjects which he was required to examine into in the course of his inspection of a ship; but if he were of a vindictive disposition he had the power of harassing the owner or the captain of a ship in a manner against which they ought to be protected. It was exceedingly hard that such a power should be vested in any individual without an appeal being allowed to some tribunal unconected with the accused; and it was, therefore, to provide such a check that he brought forward this Amendment.
MR. FORSTERsaid, he should support the clause, and knew not on what ground the power of appeal could be refused.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that this clause had been brought forward for the most extraordinary reason, because the hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown) had not stated a single case of hardship that had occurred under the existing law. The Amendment, he believed, instead of being advantageous to the shipping in-
72
terest, would be most detrimental to it. He was satisfied that the only effect of this clause would be that both Justices and Shipmasters would be landed in the Queen's Bench upon such a simple question as whether a cask of biscuit was good or bad. He was satisfied that the Government officer was as likely to be as impartial as any Justices.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEdenied that only one case of hardship had occurred under the present system. He knew many himself, which he was only prevented from detailing by the late hour of the night. He hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass without this clause.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
The House divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 73: Majority 48.
Amendment made: Bill to be read 3° on Monday next.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYmoved the Second Reading of this Bill, which he said contained only two clauses—the one being to give County Courts jurisdiction in actions for bribery penalties, and the other to enable any Royal Commission, in case of corrupt practices being proved against any particular district, to inflict exemplary punishment upon it; and also to make the guilty parties pay the costs.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that so important a measure ought not to be discussed at that late hour. He moved that the debate should be adjourned.
MR. KEOGHsaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) had recently proposed a very important Bill at a much later hour. He had been there since twelve in the morning to half-past one at night. Now, what did the Government think about the proposed adjournment? If they thought it too late an hour then to proceed with public business, he should support the Motion for adjournment. He was the more anxious to obtain their opinion because he had been unable to learn from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland at what hour he should think it too late to bring on two important measures regarding Ireland, which were not only at the bottom of the list of Orders of the Day, but also

73
some three or four down the Notices of Motion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had kept the Irish Members till that hour because he could not make up his mind at what period of the evening it was too late to proceed with such measures.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought there could be no strict rule laid down on a subject like this, as it depended on the circumstances of the Session, and other considerations of that kind. In the present state of Parliament, they must not be very nice as to their hours, and must sit up later than at ordinary times. The Government had already passed over several of their measures that night without advancing them a stage, on account of the lateness of the hour, and had indeed brought forward no subject that would lead to discussion. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. C. An stey) had, however, moved the adoption of a measure which was sure to provoke debate, and he certainly thought it unreasonable in him to press it. At the same time, he could not pledge himself that next week he might not, at a late hour, bring forward Government measures; though he would not do so if he found that it was not agreeable to the wishes of the House.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.

SAVINGS BANKS (IRELAND) BILL.
Bill read 2°.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he should now post pone till Monday next the notice he had given to move for leave to bring in Bills to continue the Act 11 & 12 Vict,, cap. 5, for a limited time, and to consolidate and amend the Whiteboy Acts and Acts against Unlawful Societies.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he should therefore move that the House do now adjourn, for he considered that they had been treated with very great discourtesy by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It being the intention of a number of Irish Gentlemen to oppose the continuance of the measure to be proposed by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, they had asked him what hour he should consider too late for proceeding with the measure in question; they had been answered that no hour could be fixed as too late. They were decidedly opposed to proceeding with Irish business at half-past one or two o'clock in the morning. The right hon and learned Gentleman would neither expedite public
74
business, nor carry out his views, nor contribute to the sustainment of his party, by treating Irish Members with discourtesy; for he would be met at every step he took by an opposition that would not yield to his suggestions. They would insist upon being treated with the same courtesy that was shown to every other Member, and would not allow him to proceed with business of that importance at that hour of the morning. He did not consider that those measures, even if necessary, ought to be entrusted to a provisional Administration.
MR. NAPIERsaid, one of the Bills of which he had given notice was to continue an Act at present in force for a limited time, and he was surprised when he heard that it was the intention of certain hon. Gentlemen to oppose its introduction. When he was asked if he would go on with the Motion that evening;, he said it was his intention to do so at any hour the House permitted him; but when be heard afterwards the arrangements suggested by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course he felt that he should submit to the views taken by the leader of the House. With respect to the lecture of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Keogh), he should only say that he would treat every person in that House as a Gentleman, and neither threats nor anything else should prevent him from doing his duty as a Gentleman and one of the Law Officers of the Crown.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, the complaint against the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland was, that he had informed Irish Members that he would bring on this business at any hour; but finding the Opposition benches tolerably filled, he now postponed it till Monday. That left the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was fishing for a night when he might bring it on with no opposition, and that was not a seemly way of conducting business, especially Government business.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no attempt at present to advance this Bill a stage; and he must say it was not to the honour of the House that their discussions should end every evening with an unseemly brawl. The disorder was become almost chronic. A great deal of time would be saved, and they would get on much better, if they went on with the transaction of business with good temper. The hon. and learnod Member for Youghal seemed always prompt

75
to introduce, not very agreeably, a good deal of temper into their discussions. The hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) might think he had some cause of complaint against his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland; but he was under a misconception, for although his right hon. and learned Friend would be ready to proceed with his Bill, he must be regulated by the directions he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) gave as to the manner in which the business of the House should be taken. He hoped, therefore, the hon. and learned Member would recall his Motion, as a vexatious one.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, that what they complained of was, that when an Irish Member asked when certain business would be brought forward, they did not receive an answer of yes or no. Irish Members had a right to complain that Irish questions were brought on at so late an hour. They ought to receive an assurance that no important Irish business should be brought forward at an unreasonable hour. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had only told his (Mr. Soully's) hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Keogh), that this Bill would not be proceeded with, the Irish Members might have gone to bed long since.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they were met there to do the business of the nation, and they could not have a distinction drawn between English and Irish business. It could not be said that Irish Members were to go home when English business was brought forward, or that English Members should go to bed when Irish business was brought on. They must bring on the business of the country at the best time they could. It was never his intention to bring on a question of this importance when a discussion could not be taken, The hon. and learned Gentleman shall have a full opportunity of discussing the Bill.
MR. KEOGH: I told the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland that I would oppose the Bill at every stage, and in every line.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, he must admit that it was not only most inconvenient to attempt to press upon Parliament the consideration of important measures at an unreasonable hour, but most futile, and led to those unseemly brawls to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded; but the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his
76
hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. F. Scully). What his hon. Friend meant to say was, that there should be no distinction drawn between English and Irish business. No Government would press English measures at that most unreasonable hour of the morning (a quarter to two o'clock); but the practice had arisen with the late Government of pressing upon the consideration of the House Irish questions at a late hour, and they had always been obliged to yield after much temper and unpleasant discussion.
LORD NAASdid not think the hon. and learned Member for Athlone was in earnest when he said he would oppose the Bill in every stage, seeing that when the measure was introduced in 1847 by the then Home Secretary, the hon. and learned Gentleman had voted at every stage of the proceedings in favour of the measure.
Subject dropped.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.

Preamble
MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Industrial and Provident Societies.
Reported —Representative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment.
THEIR Lordships met; and having transacted the business on the paper, House adjourned till To-morrow.