Sitting of 28 May 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Local Government Supplemental; Municipal Corporations Act Amendment.
2° Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000).
3° Boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland) Act Amendment; Public Offices Extension.

DUBLIN CORPORATION WATER BILL.

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into Consideration."
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he rose to move as an Amendment that the Bill be recommitted, for the purpose of hearing a petition from ratepayers of the city of Dublin, complaining of new matter that had arisen before the Committee during the progress of the Bill. Certain new clauses had been inserted in the Bill, after the opposition had been withdrawn, when the preamble had been proved. Injustice had thus been done to the interests of the ratepayers. His object was not to defeat but amend the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'Bill' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'be re-committed, for the purpose of hearing the Petition of Ratepayers and others of Dublin, deposited in the Private Bill Office, and complaining of matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee on the Bill,'"—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question,"
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should oppose the Motion for a recommittal, the practical result of which would be to destroy the Bill for the Session. He hoped the House would not reverse the decision of a most able and painstaking Committee by assenting to the Motion.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, the Motion was in the nature of an application for a new trial, and if the hon. Baronet could show that there had been any miscarriage of justice or any fraud practised it would be right for the House to agree to it. But this was not what the hon. Baronet alleged. According to him the fault lay with the counsel for the petitioners themselves. His case was that the ratepayers were damnified by the insertion of certain clauses in the Bill after their counsel had retired. But that was the fault of the counsel for the ratepayers, not of the Committee. There would he no end of litigation if such a course were to be allowed. If, indeed, the Members of the Committee were to

  181
  express a wish to re-hear the case it would be a different matter; but he did not understand that to be the case.
  ME. VANCEsaid, there was no wish to destroy or delay the Bill, and the investigation asked for would only occupy a few hours. The fact was that the clauses now objected to had not been argued or considered. They were not in the original Bill; they took most persons by surprise; and in some respects they were most oppressive and unfair. No good reason could be shown why Trinity College should be exempted and not the Dublin University. Then the Admiralty clause bound them for ever to maintain the same depth of water as existed at present in the channel and harbour of Wicklow, and this would operate as a great hardship. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Massey) said that the ratepayers ought to have stated their objections by counsel before the Committee, but the fact was that large bodies of other ratepayers now petitioned to have the matter reheard.
  MR. C. R. M. TALBOTsaid, that as a Member of the Committee, he thought it most unreasonable to refer the Bill back to them. He contradicted the statement that the Committee did not consider the clauses complained of. It was true that those clauses were unopposed, but the Committee considered them, and thought on the whole that the Trinity College clause was a fair one, while they did not consider themselves warranted in altering the clause which was sent down by the Admiralty.
  MR. WHITE SIDEsaid, that Trinity College was exempted, as the students did not want the water, for they had always had as much as they chose to drink; but he could not understand how the river, which was first to be drank by the citizens, was afterwards to cleanse Wicklow Harbour.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, that if the Bill had been fully heard before the Committee, not only on the preamble but on the clauses, there would be no locus standi for those who sought to have the Bill reconsidered; but that was not the case.
  MR. LEFROYsaid, that the insertion of the clauses relating to the University could be no reason, for the recommittal of the Bill. It was so well known that these clauses were to be inserted that a petition was got up by certain parties in Dublin against them, and the University took over witnesses to support them, who, however, were never called upon. The Committee
  182
  had conducted the inquiry in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner, and no ground whatever had been shown for recommitting the Bill.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that as a Member of the Committee, he wished to reassure the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, who seemed to think that the ratepayers of the city would be put to great cost in consequence of some threatened damage to the harbour of Wicklow. He had paid particular attention to the effect which the abstraction of the water of the Vartry would have upon the harbour of Wicklow, and he had examined Mr. Hawksley on the point; and from all the descriptions of the harbour given to the Committee, and the photographic views laid before them, he was perfectly satisfied that the abstraction of the water would have no practical effect on the harbour. The harbour consisted of a channel and a large shallow lagoon extending several miles, and the manner in which the engineers proposed to deal with it seemed likely to be most serviceable. They proposed to construct floodgates at a certain point, which would retain the water at high tide, and flush the harbour so as to clean it out at low tide. He was satisfied that there was no risk of the ratepayers being called on for compensation by reason of any damage resulting from the abstraction of the water of the Vartry, and he hoped the House, therefore, would support the decision of the Committee.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he sincerely hoped the Bill would never pass into law in its present shape, as no adequate advantage would be derived from the startling amount of taxation which it was proposed to place on the citizens of Dublin.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, it was useless to contend against the opinion of the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of the Select Committee, and he would, therefore, withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read 3°.

THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. COWPERsaid, he felt bound to

  183
  call the attention of the House to this Bill. It was generally agreed that an embankment along the Thames was desirable which should be open to all passengers; but the Bill before the House was a proposal of a railway company, to take possession of that embankment and make a railway upon it and levy tolls upon passengers. They proposed to get their capital partly by shares, partly by taking £400,000 out of the funds of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and partly from a Vote of Parliament. The clause on which this proposition was embodied was a curiosity in its way, and was worth reading. It ran thus—
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty's Commissioners of Woods and Forests to contribute, out of any money which Parliament may vote for the purpose, and to apply such sum of money as shall be sufficient to defray the expenses of compensation."
  The Government was to buy the land, and give the company as much as they wanted for their railway—a most convenient mode of proceeding for the company; but one which ought not to be adopted without the assent of the Executive Government. He was unwilling to take a hostile part on the subject of a private Bill, but he thought that in allowing such a clause to be passed they would be admitting a precedent which might have a very injurious effect. He, therefore, thought that it would be the duty of the House not to allow it to be read a second time. Another reason was, that a Commission had boon appointed to examine into the subject and had not yet made its report, and if the Bill should pass there could be no action upon the Report of that Commission. He, therefore, moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed to leave out the word "now," and-at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was informed that the right lion. Gentleman himself was mainly responsible for these objectionable clauses being in the Bill, and that the right hon. Gentleman had encouraged the promoters to insert them. [Mr. COWER: No. no!] He believed that the principle upon which the Bill was founded was the only principle upon which there was the least chance of getting an embankment of the Thames without jobbing, without intriguing, and at a definite expense. If perfect irresponsible Royal Commissions
  184
  were to go in search of schemes, and prepare for themselves permanent occupation, there would be no end to the cost and no end to the work. Westminster bridge had been in course of building for years, and the outlay had been enormous, while Victoria bridge had been completed by a railway company in about a year for £95,000, or just the expenditure which had been made on Blackfriars bridge to repair it, as it was called, but really to prepare it for demolition. The principle of the Bill was recommended by the Committee of 1856, and he hoped the House would allow it to be read a second time, although he quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be most inconvenient to adopt the clauses in the Bill to which their attention had been directed.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, the embankment of the Thames was a most important—indeed almost a national—question, and they ought to deal with it in a proper manner. By the Bill, however, a private company proposed to deal with public money. He feared that such a proposal would result in jobbing. Again, a Commission was sitting, and about to report. Surely the House had better wait and see the report before deciding whether they would proceed by means of a private or a public Bill. It would be injudicious to allow these parties to occupy the ground, because, even if they decided in favour of a private Bill, it did not follow that the London, Chatham, and Dovor was the company who ought to carry out the work.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Select Committee which sat last year upon the subject carefully abstained from expressing any opinion either in favour or against a railway being carried on the top of the embankment. The Bill before them was a Railway Bill, and if the railway was struck out it would be entirely destroyed. He should be extremely sorry if the House, by giving the Bill a second reading, pledged itself to the principle that the embankment should not be carried out except through the agency of a railway company, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, the company did not bind themselves to carry out the details as embodied in the Bill, but were quite willing to leave them to the decision of the Government. As he had charge of the Bill he should put the House to the trouble of dividing in order to show upon whom rested the responsibility of

  185
  withholding from the Metropolis a work of great public utility.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there was danger in the House going to a division without understanding the real facts of the case. He must deny that the Government had been at all remiss in the matter. The Select Committee appointed to inquire into the subject recommended that the embankment should be executed under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and that the expense should come out of the London coal dues, so that no additional charge should be placed on the Exchequer. The Government lost no time in acting on that recommendation, and there was no remissness or supineness on their part. They issued a Royal Commission to inquire into the best plan for the embankment, and he himself brought in a Bill, the object of which was to appropriate the coal dues to that object. That question was now pending for the decision of the House. If the House decided in favour of the present proposal they would create a nominal company, which would not mainly be supported by the subscriptions of the shareholders, but by a large subsidy, to be provided by prospective Votes of the House, and by large contributions in the shape of rates upon the Metropolis, to be raised by the compulsory powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Such a decision would not only amount to the virtual rejection of the Government measure, but be totally unprecedented.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill if he had any objection to postpone the second reading until the Commission had presented their Report.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he would agree to that suggestion.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Bill was so objectionable in principle, placing, as it did, a large sum of public money at the disposal of a private company, that he could not assent to the course proposed.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Put, and negatived.
  Words added,
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

STATE OF SIEGE IN VENETIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Fo-
  186
  reign Affairs, Whether, when Count Rich-berg, in his Despatch of the 27th day of April, denied that a state of siege existed in Venetia, it is not the case that the ordinary Government in Venetia is at least as severe as any state of siege, and that four men were executed by sentence of Court Martial at Venice or its neighbourhood on the very day on which Count Richberg dated that Despatch?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I stated in a despatch the general view which Her Majesty's Government entertain with respect to the Kingdom of Italy; and Count Cavour addressed n despatch to the Marquis d'Azeglio, the Minister at the Court of Her Majesty, and these papers I laid before the House. When they came to be published, Count Richberg addressed a despatch to Count Apponyi in London, which he read to me. I did not think it proper to lay that paper on the table of the House, and I did not think there was anything regarding the Government of Venetia which I ought to lay on the table. With regard to the matter referred to by the lion. Member, no intimation of the kind has been received at the Foreign Office; and of course I cannot give any information respecting a speech made by a Deputy in the Parliament of Turin, on the report of which the hon. Gentleman's question is founded.

CIVIL AND MILITARY OFFICERS IN INDIA—QUESTION.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Civil Servants who have covenanted with the East India Company under penalty to serve them in India, the Company having on their part entered into a contract that they should succeed to appointments usually filled by covenanted servants, will lose their title to those advantages in any plan for throwing open the Civil Service? Also, whether those officers who have purchased Commissions in the Company's service under the sanction and authority of the Government, will be permitted, in their turn, to sell the Commissions that they have purchased, under similar authority, after the amalgamation of the two services?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that of course to whatever extent any uncovenanted servant might be placed in a position hitherto exclusively reserved to the covenanted service he would be deprived of the

187
advantage of that exclusive right; and he (Sir Charles Wood) proposed to introduce a Bill upon the subject. With regard to the second question of the hon. and gallant Member, he had to observe that it was not quite correct to say that any Indian officer purchased his Commission, or that there could be a case in which he was entitled to sell his Commission. The matter to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred was no doubt the fact that Indian Officers after serving a definite time were entitled to a certain amount of pay or pension, and that, by an arrangement made with the junior Officers of their corps or regiments, a bonus was given to them by those officers as an inducement to them to retire. That arrangement was known to the Government, and to a certain extent might be said to be sanctioned by the Government, who had announced their intention of not exacting from an Officer so retiring a declaration that he had received no money to induce him to retire, The arrangement, however, had been declared by a Court of law to be illegal, and he could not say that permission would be given by the Government to Officers to sell their Commissions after the amalgamation of the two services.

INDIAN PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  SIB HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the Prize Money due to the Military Forces engaged in the suppression of the Mutiny in India will be paid; whether it has been employed by the Government or lent out for any other purpose; and whether those who have claims to it will receive interest upon the sums due to them? He also desired to know whether it is proposed to give the booty taken at Kirwee to the Army, and, if so, when and where; and whether it is proposed that Sir Hugh Rose's and General Whitelock's Forces shall both participate in it?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he could do little more than repeat the answer which he had given upon former occasions to similar questions. It was impossible for him to say when the prize money due for the taking of Delhi and Lucknow would be paid to the army, because that event could not take place until the prize rolls had been made out and transmitted from this country to India. The money had not been employed by the Government or lent
  188
  out. It was in the treasury of India, and no interest would be paid on all prize property to those to whom prize money was due. The booty taken at Kirwee was to be given to the army; but it was for the Treasury, and not for him to decide whether the forces of Sir Hugh Rose and General Whitelock should participate in the division of that booty.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT.

  QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Sir, I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the views of the Postmaster General, expressed in a recent Letter, and annul the Galway Contract?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the communication made to the Galway Company by the Postmaster General was not the announcement of a decision of the Post Office, but was the communication of a decision of the Government. It is of course competent to the parties concerned to make to the Government any recommendation which they may think fit in regard to the communication so conveyed to them; and it will be for the Government to decide as they shall think fit upon any such representation as may be made to them. I would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that a Motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Galway has been agreed to, for the production of all the correspondence upon this subject, and when that correspondence is before us the House will be in a better position than they can now be to form a judgment upon this matter.

THE UNITED STATES—CIVIL WAR— CORRESPONDENCE.
Copy presented, of Correspondence with the United States Government respecting Blockade [by Command].
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in moving that this Correspondence should lie upon the table it may, perhaps, be convenient to the House, and especially so to the commercial interests in this country, that I should state the substance of the correspondence which has lately taken place with the Government of the United States of America with regard to the blockade of ports in that country. On the 19th of April the President of the United States issued a notification in which he intimated that it was intended to

189
institute a blockade of the ports of the seven States which had seceded from the Union, and on the 27th of April another notification was issued, announcing that it was intended to blockade the ports of North Carolina and Virginia. When Lord Lyons applied for an official notification of the establishment and commencement of the blockade, he was told by the Secretary of State that it was not usual to make such a notification, but that it would be made by the different naval commanders at the several ports when the blockade was instituted. It results from the correspondence that the blockade is to be notified in that manner, and that one blockade has already been so notified; namely, that of the ports of Virginia and North Carolina by flag officer Prendergast, who has declared that he is in a situation to make an efficient blockade of those ports. There has been no notification of a similar kind with regard to the ports of the other States which it was declared were also to be blockaded. The rules, so. far as Lord Lyons has been able to ascertain them, and of which he has given an account to Admiral Milne, commanding the squadron in these waters, are, first, that the notification is in each place to be made by the naval officer commanding the squadron or the ships which institute the blockade; and, in the next place, that fifteen days are to be allowed, after the establishment of the blockade, for vessels, to come out of the ports. It appears that whether they were loaded or not at the time the blockade was established, provided they come out within fifteen days, their passage is to be allowed. On the other hand it is not permitted, by the United States' Government that vessels should be sent to ports which are blockaded for the purpose of bringing away the property of British subjects, or the vessels or property of other nations. An application for such permission was made, to which the Secretary of State replied that if such a facility were granted it would be used by American citizens wishing to bring away property. Lord Lyons ends his communication to Admiral Milne very properly. He says that if the blockade is carried into effect according to the rules established by the law of nations we must of course conform to it; and that we can only see that the blockade is sufficient and regular.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: Sir, I think that the noble Lord ought to inform the House what means he has taken to give protec-
190
tion to British subjects and British property in the Slave States of America. I understand that the greatest outrages are being committed upon British subjects in those States. The noble Lord may have no information upon the subject, but I have this morning received letters from persons upon whom I can depend, and who have requested me to ask what the Government are doing or intended to do in this matter. There is not the least complaint made against the Government of the Free States. But in the Confederated States neither life nor property is safe, and it has been stated to me that British subjects who went there with wholly different objects and under very different circumstances are compelled to take up arms and fight in the pro-slavery ranks. The noble Lord took great credit to himself for having issued a proclamation and for declaring that the Foreign Enlistment Act will be put in force. But, if that be so, all persons compelled to engage in this war under such circumstances will be treated as pirates. The mercantile marine of America, particularly of the Southern States, is chiefly manned by Irishmen and Englishmen, and others from our own colonies, who will now be compelled to remain and to enter the ranks of the belligerents, and if taken, though they may be loyal subjects of the Queen who wanted to get away, but had not the means, of doing so, under the noble Lord's proclamation they will be treated as pirates. We talk of our neutrality; we boast of it. A letter which I have received from a gentleman asks:—"Is it nothing that a British officer," the captain of a merchant vessel, "has been tarred and feathered?" [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but I foresee that these are questions which will involve us in difficulty before long. "Is it nothing," this gentleman asks, "that a British subject has been tarred and feathered; nothing that free men of colour, British subjects, are imprisoned; nothing that men of colonial birth are forced to sea in an open boat; others held as prisoners, and that Englishmen should be compelled to fight in pro-slavery ranks?" What is to be done, and what means have been taken by the noble Lord to give those persons an opportunity of avoiding being treated as pirates. I can state on reliable information that at this moment there is an advertisement in the newspapers of the Slave States offering on the part of the Con

191
federated States 20 dollars for every person killed aboard an American vessel. What a set of savages they must be! Who would care for going to war with such a people? Do you suppose the people of Canada will submit to have their fellow-subjects dragged away and compelled to fight for slavery? They will stand no nonsense, and after a time your very neutrality will lead you into war. The question which I have been requested to ask is whether it is not intended immediately to increase the British squadron on the Southern coast, and to have every vessel examined, so that Englishmen, Irishmen, and subjects of our colonial empire, who may be serving compulsorily on board American vessels shall have an opportunity of getting away in case they wish to do so? I have received letters from men on whom I can depend, and they all state that occurrences such as I have adverted to have already taken place, and more will undoubtedly follow unless England adopts a more decided tone. We have no right to sit down and occupy ourselves exclusively in quarrelling about the paper duties while our fellow subjects are suffering by hundreds and thousands in the hands of these savages.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Sir, I must, at this early stage, protest against the language made use of and the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), who has altogether prejudged this question. He talks of reliable information which he has received from certain friends of his; but I am also in possession of reliable information which gives the direct lie to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman. I am not only in a position to deny that any of those outrages have been committed in the Southern States; but, if this were the proper time, I could point to outrages committed by the militia of New York in one of the Southern States occupied by them, where the General commanding, on the pretext that one of his men had been poisoned by strychnine, issued an order of the day, threatening to put a slave into every man's house to incite the slaves to murder their masters. Such was the general order issued by General Bulter. Therefore, do not let us be led away by old wives' tales into appeals to that very powerful and very dangerous element in this House—I mean the Exeter Hall feeling. I do hope the feeling of the House will be strongly expressed against anything like a debate upon this subject
192
at the present moment; and that hon. Gentlemen will not be tempted to follow my hon. Friend, but will rather imitate the judicious silence which the noble Lord has always maintained on this point.
MR. BRIGHT: I think nothing could be more injudicious or more unfortunate than to have submitted to us accounts from private letters of particular outrages said to be committed in America. We know, before war is terminated, there or anywhere else, there will be outrages enough; but of this I think we may be quite assured that in the North as well as in the South, and in the South quite as much as in the North, there will be the greatest possible disposition to avoid everything which can bring about a quarrel with this country. Nothing could be more unfortunate for the South, nothing could be more unfortunate for the North, whatever quarrels there may be between the two sections of the American Republic, than that the quarrel should extend to this country. I feel confident that we are not more anxious to remain at peace with both the sections than they are to continue on good terms with us. In the policy which the noble Lord has announced—that of strict neutrality—I agree as cordially as any other Member of this House; and I think it would be well if that policy were not confined merely to the Government, but if individual Members of the House were as far as possible to adopt the same line of action. It is an unhappy thing that these dissensions should have arisen; but let us hope, and I hope still, that among a population more extensively educated, probably, than the population of any other country in the world, it may yet be found possible to surmount the vast difficulties which have arisen in that country without those extensive cruelties which almost always accompany a civil war. With that expression of opinion I wish to make a request—and the House, I am sure, will feel that I am only asking what is reasonable and prudent—that we should avoid, as much as possible, discussions on matters which, I believe, we cannot influence for good, but with regard to which we may create a state of feeling, either in the North or South, that will add to the difficulties of the Government in preserving the wire line of action which they have laid down.
MR. GREGORY: Sir, I really must warn the House not to be led away by stories and by letters which one gentleman has received from another gentleman,

193
on whom he places the most implicit reliance, but who very probably knows nothing more of the matter than the Gentleman who reads the communication with such perfect faith in the accuracy of its contents. As to the nonsensical trash of twenty dollars being offered by the Confederated States for every man put to death on board an American ship, the House knows perfectly well that neither letters, newspapers, nor accredited information of any kind can at present be received from the South, but all are stopped on the borders. Anything which does see the light is cut into slips and published in the New York papers. Very few communications of the kind have reached this country, and they are principally the State documents which have been put forward by the South. I cannot better evidence the spirit by which they are animated than by referring to the late address of President Davis; and I will ask the House whether it breathes a single one of those bloodthirsty, wicked, terrible opinions which my lion. Friend is anxious to impress on the House as being the doctrine of the Southern States? I beg to take this opportunity of saying that I shall certainly bring forward my Motion on the subject of the recognition of the Southern Confederacy on the 7th of June, when I trust the matter will be fairly discussed, and in the meantime that we shall not throw imputations on one party or the other.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: Sir, in the question of notification of blockade to which reference has been made a matter which is very important for the commercial interests of the country is' involved. The rule, I believe, is this—Public notification must be given to the State of which a neutral who seeks to violate a blockade is a member, before he can be held to have subjected himself to forfeiture of his vessel and goods; or actual notice must have been given to the neutral himself. The House will see that this is a most important question, because the intent to sail to a blockaded port, as to which a neutral merchant has received a notice of blockade, is considered as a violation of neutrality, and the ship will be accordingly condemned in the prize court of the capturing Power. I wish the noble Lord to state distinctly whether or not the mercantile interests of this country are to understand that a public notification of blockade of the ports to which he has referred will be given; or that merely an intimation of the blockade
194
to neutral ships arriving off those ports will be given to them when they get there?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he could not give any further information to his right hon. Friend with regard to the blockade; but the papers on the subject would shortly be laid on the table, and when they were submitted the House would be in possession of the exact state of the case. But his right hon. Friend would understand that when Mr. Seward was asked whether he would give a notification of the blockade he refused to do so, saying that he found no precedent for such a proceeding. He (Lord John Russell) referred him to a precedent, but Mr. Seward said that he would not give a general notification of a blockade, but would leave it to the naval commanding officer on each station to declare that the blockade had been instituted, and when that was generally communicated it was to be considered that the blockade was of course, established. He would not regularly enter into questions which might afterwards have to be argued and decided in a prize court with regard to the regularity of the blockade. He had no doubt that the United States Government, always very cautious on the subject of blockades, had consulted precedents and taken the best legal advice before they had adopted the course which had been pursued. With regard to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, he must say that it was founded on rather on a vague statement, and he had not brought forward any particular facts upon which the Foreign Office could take any steps. His hon. Friend had alluded to the case of the master of a merchant vessel who had been tarred and feathered, but the case occurred several weeks before anything like the outbreak of civil war—at a time, in fact, when the whole country was at peace. There might have been some intention of secession, but no secession had actually taken place. There were rumours of a very disparaging character with regard to that master of a merchant vessel, and he was attacked and ill-treated by the mob; but the authorities endeavoured to arrest the rioters, and the English Consul stated that they had done everything that it was possible to do to afford him protection. That affair, therefore, had really nothing to do with the question of secession or civil war. With regard to such cases generally, he might refer to the steps which had been

195
taken by the Government, and they were chiefly these:—They had desired that Admiral Milne should be present with a sufficient squadron, and orders have also been given by the Admiralty that other vessels should be sent out to strengthen the squadron in those seas. Lord Lyons had taken care to inform himself in regard to the law of the United States and of the seceded States in regard to persons serving in the militia. Those laws varied in different States in Europe, and they varied even in the different States of America. Lord Lyons had taken the opinion of counsel, and, no doubt, if any question arose Lord Lyons would entertain the matter with due discretion, having reference both to international law and the law of the particular State in respect to which the question arose. In the next place, without entering on the question of neutrals, which he should be ready to discuss at the proper time, he might state that Her Majesty's Government had been in communication with the French Government, and had made a proposition on that subject to the Government of the United States. He agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) that in respect to that unhappy quarrel, which had given the greatest pain throughout the whole of the country, no words should be used which would either tend to bring the country into the conflict or that might create exasperation or bitterness on the one side or the other. That a great and free nation like America should be exposed to all the evils of civil war was an event which every lover of liberty must deplore, and he hoped that the conflict, if it could not be averted, might, at all events, be a short one, and not interfere with the ultimate prosperity of the country.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

THE DERBY DAY.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have to move, Sir, that the House at its rising do adjourn until Thursday. I think it will be for the very general convenience of the House that it should adjourn over Wednesday; and it is quite unnecessary to go into any details of the reasons which induce me to make this Motion, because I think that the reasons must be patent to every hon. Member.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition
  196
  to the very popular proposal of the noble Lord; but when a Motion was made which would have the effect of taking away one of those days which were considered at the disposal of private Members, it appeared to him a very proper opportunity to call the attention of the House to the position of private Members in respect to the business of the House, and which had resulted from the recent alteration which had been made in the mode of conducting business. When that alteration was proposed by the noble Lord he ventured to offer some opposition to it, on the ground that its effect would be to take away a portion of the time which had hitherto been placed at the disposal of private Members. The noble Lord assured them that such would not be the case; and that so far from it, in his opinion, it would rather add to the time at their disposal, because from the arrangement that Supply was to be taken on Fridays after the private Members' business was disposed of, a House would be kept, so that private Members would be always able to ensure that day for the introduction of the various topics which they might wish to bring before the House. What had really been the effect of the change? On Tuesday, the 14th, the House was counted out at a quarter before seven. They might be told that that was in consequence of the very uninteresting nature of the business which private Members brought before the House. But what happened on the two following Fridays? On Friday the 17th, a day on which the noble Lord assured them that they would have more time at their disposal in consequence of the Government being interested in keeping a House to go on with Supply, the House was counted out at a quarter past eight. That was bad enough; but last Friday it was still worse, for when the Speaker came down to take the chair there were not forty Members present to make a House, and, consequently, an immediate adjournment took place to Monday, Was it possible to imagine a more complete refutation of the statement of the noble Lord, or a more forcible justification of the opposition which he (Mr. Bentinck) made to the Motion? The inconvenience which had resulted to private Members had been still greater on account of the frequent and urgent appeals which had been made to them by Members on the Treasury bench to give way on the ground of public convenience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a recent occasion entreated the House to go on

  197
  with the business on the ground that great inconvenience would result to the public if the Budget Resolutions were not proceeded with. Now he (Mr. Bentinck) had always been under the impression that private Members gave way on the implied, if not expressed understanding that the Government should give its assistance in getting a House when private Members had Motions, so that the public time might be economised. To their surprise, however, so far from pressing on the public business, the Government appeared to have so much time at its disposal, or the public business was of such little importance, that it was of no consequence whether it was terminated a week sooner or later, and on the very subject with respect to which they were called upon to come to a decision some weeks ago, on the ground that it was of the utmost importance to have it settled, the Government had recently proposed a further adjournment of the debate. That rendered the position of private Members still more hopeless than it was before. They had been deprived of the privileges they had possessed up to the period of the alteration, and it was quite clear that they could not expect any assistance from the Government in getting that time which it was proposed to reserve to them by the arrangement then made. After hearing so much of the "independence" of the House, he was surprised that they should have so tamely submitted to the deprivation of one of their greatest privileges by an arrangement between the two front benches—namely, the Ministerial and the front Opposition bench. He did not blame those benches. It was natural enough that the leaders on both sides—those who were in office and those who expected to be in office—should do all they could to put a stop to the operations of private Members altogether, and he would do them the justice of saying they had always done their best to carry out that principle. But he did blame that want of independence on the part of the House in general which allowed it to be deprived of its rights and privileges. He had cited pretty good proof of how the new arrangement was likely to work, and if no more influential Member took up the subject he should attempt to induce the House to reverse the injudicious decision to which it had lately come.
  MB. DISRAELI: Sir, I feel it my duty to say, having been one of those who were responsible for the change in the
  198
  course of public business on Fridays, that I certainly did so on the clear understanding that the Government would feel it his duty to secure a House on that day. On some occasions, no doubt, a "No House" may be beyond the control of the Government, but this does not seem to have been the case on Friday, for I am informed that when the adjournment was declared only two Members of the Administration were present. Now, there ought to be a clear understanding on this subject, and the noble Lord should, I think, give us an assurance that the Government will consider it their duty always to make a House on a Friday. When, indeed, I recall the language of the Standing Order on the subject, I very much doubt whether, strictly speaking, the House ought not to have met last Saturday. The Standing Order, if I recollect it, says that the House after its meeting on Friday shall, without the Motion formerly made, adjourn at its rising until the Monday; but the Standing Order, I think, cannot have applied to the case of last Friday, because the House did not really meet them at all. If that be so our proceedings were altogether irregular, and the Speaker ought to have resumed his seat, and, if possible, to have formed a House on Saturday. All this shows that our proceedings in reference to the recent change in the mode of conducting our business, are of a very crude character, and it will be very desirable, therefore, to arrive before long at some general conclusion which will be more satisfactory to the House. At all events, I trust the noble Lord will assure us that he will consider it one of the duties of the Government always to make a House on a Friday, and to give us those advantages which certainly on the part of the Government were undertaken to be secured to us.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I can assure hon. Members that the Government themselves regret that no House was made on Friday last, because we ourselves had business which we should have liked to bring forward. That "No House" was the result of accidental circumstances, but, undoubtedly, it would be the desire of the Government to secure, if possible, the making of a House on Friday. As to the other instances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I can only say that, if private Members bring forward questions of interest, other private Members will probably attend and listen to them, but if they do not think it worth while to do so, it is not

  199
  in the power of the Government to make them. While it may be the duty of the Government to make the House on Fridays, keeping the House must depend on private Members rather than upon the Government.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would remind the noble Lord, that by an old Parliamentary tradition there were certain Members whose duty it was both to make a House and to keep a House.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Thursday.

EDUCATION OF NEGLECTED AND DESTITUTE CHILDREN.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in rising to move for a Select Committee on the subject of the Education of Neglected and Destitute Children, said, that a conference had been held at Birmingham in the autumn, at which it was determined to bring the matter under the consideration of Parliament, and he was requested to submit it to the House. Parliament was in the habit of granting every year a large and increasing sum, amounting in the present year to upwards of £800,000, for the promotion of national education among the children of the poor. That sum was applied in educating children ranging from the lower ranks of the middle classes down to a certain level among the lower classes. It was, of course, distributed subject to certain conditions, with a view to prevent abuse, and those conditions were such that the fund did not reach the children of the poorer classes below a certain level. Now, how were these children provided for? Provision was made for the education of some of them in workhouses, and certain funds, amounting to £80,000, were voted annually for the education of others in reformatories, and in certified industrial schools; but these votes were on a totally different footing from those made for the promotion of national education. The last mentioned sums were granted in aid of the eleemosynary efforts of charitable persons and of certain fees paid by the poor. The State did not profess to educate anybody gratuitously in these schools. But in the workhouses the State stood towards the children in loco parentis, and both maintained and educated them, while it assisted private efforts in establishing reforma-
  200
  tories with a view to prevent and decrease crime. Certified industrial schools, again, were intended for certain vagrant classes of children who might become criminals, and for whom it was thought desirable to provide in this way; and these schools stood in the same relation to reformatories as reformatories did to prisons. But in distributing the funds voted for these schools it was also necessary to attach conditions in order to prevent abuse, and it thus happened that there was a class of children who were not comprised in the reformatories, in the industrial, or in the national schools. With regard to reformatories and industrial schools, it was necessary to say that children should only be admitted there by a sentence or an order from a magistrate, and should have brought themselves within the cognizance of the law in some specified manner. But there was a large and important class of children who were below the standard practically fixed by the education grants, but who were also above the grants in aid of reformatories and industrial schools, and the question he wished to submit was, whether the State proposed to do anything for these children, and what it proposed to do? That question was one of great difficulty, and it was for that reason, and not to carry out any preconceived idea of his own, that he asked for an impartial Committee to examine into the subject. The range of its inquiry need not be very wide, and it would be easy during the remainder of the Session to condense the information which it would be necessary to obtain and to arrive at a practical conclusion. But it would probably be said, "The whole subject has already been inquired into by a Royal Commission, which, after sitting for a period of three years, has produced very recently an elaborate Report. This Report is still sub judice; the evidence on which it is founded has not yet been presented; and it is improper as yet that any one should ask for further inquiry into the subject." It might even be said that he was showing disrespect to the Commissioners by taking that course, and was casting a slur upon their labours; but to such an indictment he did not plead guilty. He had the highest respect for the Royal Commission, for amongst them were some of his most intimate friends: Sir James Coleridge for instance. It was quite certain they had conducted the inquiry with a desire to arrive at a right conclusion, and they had also produced a Report which ho

  201
  did not hesitate to say was of the highest value. It was not quite clear, however, from what had occurred in "another place," that the Government were prepared to accept the conclusions of the Commission in their entirety. At present the Government had the Report under their consideration, and next year, probably, Parliament would be called upon to take some steps to give effect to the Report, or, at least, to so much of it as the Government might ultimately see reason to adopt. He was anxious, however, before those steps were taken, that that part of the inquiry should be completed which the Commissioners had left incomplete, and that the House should have before it full information as to that class of children which fell between the two classes now receiving the grant. The first point which he should have to establish before the Committee would be the existence of that class, because he had heard it said that there was no such class. The fact was that that unfortunate class were sunk into such a low state of ignorance that they were not only ignorant themselves, but the cause of ignorance in others, and there could be no more conclusive ground for the necessity of a Committee than the fact that there were persons who denied their existence. What he desired was to bring such persons as Dr. Guthrie, Miss Carpenter, and others who had gone into the large towns and brought back tales of what they had discovered there which one could scarcely believe, face to face with a Select Committee which might criticise their statements, and might say how far that class of children was a proper object for a share of the educational grant. The next point, after establishing the existence of the class—and that was admitted by the Royal Commissioners—would be to inquire what means there were for providing education for them. In the first place there were the ordinary pay schools, and it would be a question deserving consideration whether these schools were suitable to them, and whether they were able to comply with the conditions of those schools. No doubt a certain number of them might be admitted into these schools, either at once or after a certain ordeal. Some people seemed disposed to say, "Why don't they make themselves nice and tidy, and go to school like other children?" but that was very like the old story of the French Marchioness, who, when she was told that the people were starving for want of bread, said they were
  202
  very silly, then, not to eat buns. Then, it was said that it was no part of the duty of the State to supply the neglect of the parents, and that if children were so unfortunate as to have parents who would not send them to school, it was not for the State to interfere with them. He, for one, was prepared to controvert such a position. The whole principle of the education grant was an eleemosynary one. The parent paid something, but the State paid a great deal more in order that the child might have an education worth having; not for the sake of the parent but of the child, and because it was thought important for considerations of State that the children of the State should be well educated. For that purpose the State stepped in and gave double or treble the amount paid by the parent; for out of the annual cost for educating each child the parent was only called upon for 6s. 6d., while the State paid about 10 s, and private persons about 11 s. per annum. Surely, therefore, if that eleemosynary principle were adopted in one case, it ought to be applied to that unfortunate class of children out of which our criminal population was recruited. If the parents of these children were unable or unwilling to give anything, that did not discharge the State of its duty. But then it might be said that these children might be sent to certified industrial schools and other schools conducted on that principle. If the country were ready to make education compulsory, then that course might be adopted; but it would be some time before that principle could be adopted here, and until it was so, the schools in question would no meet the wants of the class, since they were open only to children who were in some sense offenders against the law. To return to the question whether the pay schools were fit for that class of children or the children fit for them. On that subject be trusted hon. Members had read the Report of the Commissioners. These children did not want a high-class education in matters of literature; but they wanted the rudiments of education—reading, writing, and arithmetic, and sound, moral, and religious training. No doubt the pay schools were exceedingly well managed, but they did not supply the particular kind of education which these children particularly wanted, and the whole tone of the Report of the Commissioners showed that such was the case. The Commissioners reported that the children did

  203
  not remain at such schools sufficiently long in some cases even to be able to read and write; and that the religious instruction in them was non-intelligent, and the lessons imparted to them not calculated to form a religious character. These schools did not supply that sort of moral and religious training which, in the case of the lower classes of children, was the one thing they wanted. The teachers were generally very young men who had received an education of a refined character, and they naturally shrank from contact with ragged and dirty children. They had not the knowledge of, and sympathy with, human nature, which alone enabled the masters of ragged Schools to deal with outcast vagrant children, and to reclaim them. The pay schools were not the proper schools for these children even if they could get in there, and, if they did get in, they would disarrange and do a great deal of mischief to those schools. He made those statements partly on what he found in the blue-book, partly on what he heard out of doors, and partly on what had fallen under his own observation. He did not want them to take his statements for granted. He was asking for a Committee to examine into the whole subject, and he indicated what his views were, because he thought no one ought to move for a Committee who was not prepared with some views to lay before it, but he was ready to enter into a fair and impartial investigation of the whole matter. In answer to the objection that these children were so ragged and dirty as to be unfit for the better class of schools, it was suggested that benevolent persons might give them good shoes and clothes, and the necessary pence, in order to attend; but it was perfectly well known that in too many instances the good shoes and clothes would be turned into gin, and drunk by the parents. The Commissioners pointed out that a considerable number of these children might be provided for in pauper schools. The claim of the children to consideration was not denied, but each department in turn said it was not its business to provide for them. The Poor Law Board might admit a certain number who were the children of out-door paupers, but a great many were not the children of paupers, and it would be said that it was contrary to the principle upon which the Poor Law was administered to assist them. Some proposals of the Commissioners with regard to those children who fairly came within the pauper class would, if adopted, lead
  204
  to a great improvement in the mode of providing education for them. But those proposals would necessarily give rise to considerable discussion, and very possibly the House would not adopt them; but, even if they did adopt those proposals, the whole class would not be provided for, and the Committee might inquire how they could be provided for if that plan were not adopted. A great deal had been said with regard to the certified industrial schools. No man looked upon those schools with more interest than he did, as, in conjunction with a right hon. Friend near him, he introduced a Bill to extend to England the system which prevailed in Scotland. He believed that the certified Industrial Schools were immensely valuable, but at the same time those schools had their limits, and it was impossible to extend them so as to take in all these children without serious inconvenience. As to expense, he was not bringing forward the question with the view of throwing any additional expense upon the funds of the country. He was anxious to see how they could most economically deal with these children, for deal with them in some way they must, and he believed that the certified industrial schools would be very much more expensive than other schools which would be found more efficient. A very excellent Bill was before the House, which he hoped would pass, but it must be remembered that that Bill authorized the Treasury to pay 3s. per week in respect of all these children. He did not say that it was an unnecessarily heavy charge, but he wished the Committee to inquire whether the education of these children could not be provided at a much loss expensive rate? On the ground of expense, therefore, the certified industrial school was not the proper mode of dealing with these children; and, besides that, it was necessary, in order to prevent abuse, to have some safeguards which partook of a penal character, which introduced the interference of a magistrate, and which, to a certain extent, infringed on the liberty of the subject. They might say that any child who did any of certain acts should be sent to those schools, but unless they said that every child whose parents did not give it education should be sent there they would not reach the whole class. He had now spoken of the pay schools, the workhouse schools, and the certified industrial schools, and had endeavoured to show that none of them would meet the wants he had described.

  205
  There remained yet another class of schools—the ragged schools. He had avoided any mention of ragged schools in his Motion, and did not wish to bring that part of the question particularly before the House. He was bound, however, to express his opinion that much more use might be made of these schools than was done at present. It was said that they were disorganized and ill-managed, that they were draining the paid schools, and receiving children whose parents were able to supply them with education, and, in short, doing a great deal of mischief. Now, without questioning the conclusions of the Commissioners, he held that their own evidence showed that there was a strong case for inquiry into these schools, and for an effort to turn them to better account. For instance, in the Report of the Commission a broad distinction was drawn between the ragged schools in Bristol and Plymouth. Those in the former city were described as generally well conducted, and doing a great deal of good, and those in the latter town as ill-conducted and productive of evil. That was a conclusive reason for an inquiry into these schools, to ascertain why there were such differences among them, and whether those which were doing badly could not be assimilated with those which were doing well. The Report of the Privy Council, which had been just presented to the House, contained a passage from the pen of Mr. Ruddock, the Inspector of Schools in Gloucester, in which he spoke of the great care which was taken by the different committees of ragged and industrial schools in that city to confine them to the class of scholars for whom they were intended; and expressed his conviction that, as far as the schools which he had visited were concerned, few of the children in them would obtain any education whatever but for their existence. That was the evidence of an official and impartial authority, that some of these schools were doing good. The children were there, and something must be done for them. Did any one believe that, because there was no place for them in the official system, the class would therefore cease to exist, or that benevolent persons would not endeavour to deal with them? It was not right that a stain which they did not deserve should be thrown upon the character of the ragged schools, and that the education of the unfortunate children should be left to private charity, because it happened to be
  206
  a difficult question how to treat them. If it could be shown that the ragged schools were doing only harm, then let the Government come boldly forward and suppress them. On the other hand, if the truth was that, although some of them might be bad, all were not so, then an earnest effort ought to be made to convert the worst of them into what the best were now. He trusted he had not said anything to give offence. Nothing was further from his wish than to cast any reflection on the Commissioners, but he felt strongly on the subject, and entreated the House not to say "Because there are difficulties in the way we will throw the thing overboard." All lie sought was an inquiry; and if the House would agree to his Motion he would endeavour to procure as fair and impartial a Committee as possible. He felt that he might look with confidence for support from many Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He might appeal to the noble Lord the Member for the City, who had always taken a deep interest in the education of the lower classes. He entreated the House seriously to face the question boldly, and at least to respect the feelings of those who, like Dr. Guthrie and Miss Carpenter, had been labouring in the cause for many years, and who thought that justice had not been done to their efforts.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire, how the funds voted by Parliament for the promotion of National Education may be most efficiently and most economically applied, in the case of neglected and destitute children."
  MR. LOWE: Sir, I have no doubt there is a strong desire on the part of many hon. Gentlemen that an inquiry of the nature proposed by the hon. Baronet should be granted, and if it can lead to any good I shall be very glad to see it instituted. It is no part of the business of the Education Department to stand in the way of any investigation of the kind which the House may desire. The subject is an exceedingly interesting one, and has been treated with great ability and candour by the hon. Baronet. I may say in limine, that as far as the Government is concerned, there is no objection to an inquiry on the subject. I must, however, take the liberty of objecting to the terms of the hon. Baronet's Motion. That Motion is to inquire—
  "How the funds voted by Parliament for the promotion of National Education may be most efficiently and most economically applied, in the case of neglected and destitute children."

  207
  My first objection is that it assumes that the Commissioners were wrong in their recommendations. The Resolution is not merely a notice of inquiry by a Select Committee, but implies the proposition that the funds voted by Parliament for national education ought to be applied to the purposes of educating neglected and destitute children. I am not going to deny the truth of that proposition. I only ask the House not to assume it prior to the inquiry. I entirely deny that we ought to assume that the funds applicable for national education are the only funds applicable for the purposes mentioned in the Resolution. I deny it, because I find that the assumption is altogether opposed to the Report of the Commissioners. That Commission has certainly been one of the most laborious on record. It sat for three years, and the amount of attention and labour it has bestowed on the subject has been enormous. The arrangement of the Report is most admirable, and it is drawn up in so masterly a manner that, I believe, no one ever read a Parliamentary document which was less wearisome. It has thrown a flood of light on a difficult and complicated subject. No one except those who have the labour of conducting the department can do justice to the insight which it affords into many confused and perplexing matters which are obscured under the forms of routine. I entertain, therefore, the greatest respect for the Report and its framers, and I feel sure it will not be the wish of the House to throw my slight either on it or them. The recommendation of the Commissioners on the subject may be stated briefly as follows:—They think, whether rightly or wrongly, that to keep poor children for three or four hours a-day in a ragged school, and then to leave them for the rest of the day in the hands of vicious parents, is not an efficient way of educating those children. They hold that the better plan would be to remove the children during twenty hours of the day from the contaminating influences from which they are at present preserved for four hours in the ragged school; and they propose, with that view, an extension of the district schools, by which the children may be kept apart from their parents. It is not my business to assume that the recommendation is right. Indeed, I have not had time to study the subject sufficiently to pronounce an opinion on it. All I say is that it would be premature for the House on the present occasion to assume that the Commissioners are
  208
  wrong. In consequence of the attack which has been made upon the Commission in "another place," I think it right to read the passage with which they conclude the part of their Report which refers to this subject. At page 404 they say—
  "In order to avoid the appearance of ingratitude for services of the most valuable, disinterested, and self-denying character, we conclude our observations on this head by recording our strong opinion that no class of persons interested in popular education have conferred greater services upon the public, or services involving greater sacrifices of personal convenience and inclination, than the managers of ragged and industrial schools and similar establishments. We think that the time may come when these generous and charitable efforts may advantageously be replaced by a general system; but the fact that they first directed public attention to the subject, and that their labours showed the extent and urgency of the evil to be met, and the proper means of meeting it ought never to be forgotten."
  Language was used in "another place" which seemed to imply that the Commissioners made a dead set against ragged schools, and that they were incapable of doing justice to the admirable motives of those who had called them into existence. I think that the passage which I have read shows that such an accusation is entirely unfounded.
  The second objection which I have to the wording of the Motion of the hon. Baronet arises from the structure of my own department. I apprehend that what the hon. Baronet desires is, that if the Committee should be convinced that these schools ought to receive public aid such aid should be extended to them in the manner least injurious to the public service. I do not ask the House to prejudge this point; but I must state that it is my strong conviction, confirmed by the opinion of every gentleman in my office, that if aid is to be given to these schools there are probably no hands in which you could place the duty of affording that aid so unfit to discharge it as those of my department. The main objects of the Educational Departments have hitherto been to raise the standard of education, to create a class of schoolmasters who are adequate to the task of popular instruction, to encourage parents to take an interest in the education of their children, and to contribute something towards it, and to treat the school not merely as a place where children receive intellectual instruction, but also as a place where they may learn order, cleanliness, respect, and the manner proper to beings who have to live in society. The

  209
  plan upon which we have acted has been that, in exchange for the grants which we have made out of the public purse, we have bargained that those who received them should satisfy our inspectors upon these points—namely, that the masters were equal to the work of instruction, that the schools were well-built and ventilated, and the children cleanly and orderly. Now, it may be necessary, for I prejudge nothing, to have side by side with this system one of a totally different character. It may be necessary that the school should be brought down to the child, because the child cannot be raised to the school; that we should have schools in which much shall be tolerated which would be most disadvantageous to a school conducted according to the Government pattern, in which the children shall be dirty and offensive in their habits, and rude and uncultivated in their manners, for ragged schools exclude none of these. At present we deal with such schools to this extent—that we make them capitation grants, allow them to have masters of a lower class than are required in other schools, and exempt the parents of the children from the payment of school pence; the result being that these schools receive a smaller portion of the public money than do the ordinary educational schools. What is anticipated from the recommendations of this Committee is that the grants to these schools should be made rather in proportion to the necessity of the case than to the degree of progress, cleanliness, and good instruction which is secured in them. It may be right to make the grants upon such a principle, but it will never do for the Privy Council to make them. It will never do for the same department to have two systems, and for the Privy Council to say to the public, "If you have a school of a good class, which secures cleanliness, order, and right instruction, we will pay you so much; but if you open a school of an inferior class for poverty, misery, dirt, and destitution, with inferior instruction, little order, and rooms not half so well adapted to the purpose, we will pay you more." It will never do for us to go into opposition against ourselves in that manner. If we take such a course we shall break down our own system, and undo in a few years all that we have done by twenty years' successful operation upon the public, by means of which we have gradually screwed the system up to its present very creditable pitch. It may be necessary that this should be done, but
  210
  ours is not the hand that ought to do it. When, in the year 1856, large grants were made to these schools, symptoms existed which showed that the new system was sapping the vitals of the old one. We had nothing but complaints from the inspectors and from the Committees of the Pay Schools that children were enticed away from them to these inferior schools, and it was on account of the deep sense which was entertained of the evil which this was doing to the system of elementary schools that the minute of 1857 was passed which altered the system. I do not ask the House to take the same view of that matter. Let this also be inquired into by the Committee. But if the words of the Motion are retained as they now stand, requiring that ragged schools should be supported out of the funds voted for national education, the Committee will have no alternative but to impose the duty of forming and managing the new system upon the Committee of Council. If the hon. Baronet will alter the terms of his Motion so as, while embracing the system of the Privy Council, not to confine the Committee to it, I see no objection to this inquiry. The words which I should suggest would be "to inquire how the education of destitute and neglected children may be most efficiently and economically assisted by any public funds."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he was quite willing to accept these words.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, I rise to support the Motion made by my hon. Friend, and I wish that the duty I have to perform had fallen into abler hands, though I will yield to no one in the deep interest I have for many years past taken in the cause of destitute children. Whatever may be the result of the Motion just made I am sure the House and the country will feel grateful to the hon. Baronet for the ability and moderation with which he has dealt with the important subject before us. I will briefly state my reasons for the course I am taking on the present occasion. At the beginning of this year I was present at the Conference which was held at Birmingham for the purpose of discussing the subject of the present Motion, and I was much struck with the want of information manifested by many persons who attended that Conference. No two seemed to agree as to what was really wanted, or to have a clear idea of the nature of the institutions which ought to be assisted by public money.

  211
  "Ragged Schools" was the subject under discussion. In Scotland they are known as "Ragged Industrial Feeding Schools." In London such institutions are termed Refuges, Homes, or Industrial Schools. Ragged Schools in London are simply Educational Schools. In Scotland, and in some of the provinces, they are industrial likewise. I merely mention this to show how little the subject is understood even by those who are supposed to be fully conversant with its details. Surely a Committee of Inquiry would be most useful in order to ascertain the character of the institutions which are established for the benefit of the vagrant and destitute, and also fully to ascertain the nature of the class who are received into them. Various objections will, doubtless, be raised on the part of Her Majesty's Government; amongst others, it will be said that the Estimates will be increased to an unlimited extent if we begin to subsidize such institutions. This is far from our intention. I believe a considerable amount of money might be saved by a more judicious distribution of the educational grants. Many schools might be found at the present time receiving far more assistance than they ought, and the children who attend such schools are in many instances of parents fully able to pay for the education they obtain. On economical grounds it would be worth while to assist ragged schools, for it is quite evident their influence has contributed very materially to the decrease of crime. Is it not cheaper for the country to pay £10 to prevent a boy from becoming a criminal than £50 or £100 to punish him when he is become one? It will next be urged that the character of the schools would be entirely changed if they are assisted by grants. I cannot see how this will be. Our object always has been and is still to keep down as low as possible—and not in any way to raise the standard of the schools or the object we have in view would be entirely defeated. The inspectors (and I think these schools would be benefited by full and ample inspection) would be able to prevent this from being the case. The Government will, perhaps, say it is unwise and unfair to grant this Committee before the Commissioners have issued their last and final Report. Now, with regard to that Report, I do not wish to make a hostile attack upon it. It contains most valuable information, though I am not prepared to endorse all the recom-
  212
  mendations I find there. Still, I venture to say it does not appear to me that the cause of ragged schools have received so full and impartial a treatment as they deserve—I do not think that evidence was taken from those most qualified by experience to give it. I think the House will be in a far better condition to legislate if it possesses the evidence which I believe would be brought before the Committee we seek. One word as to the good ragged schools have effected: Upwards of 300,000 children have passed through their purifying influence, and if it is not too much to suppose that 10 per cent have derived benefit, the result is far from insignificant. In page 382 of the Report I find it stated that 100,000 children receive no education. From this class juvenile criminals spring. How is it then to be accounted for that during the last five years there has been such a reduction in crime? In Mr. Sydney Turner's Report for 1859 he states there were 5,000 less commitments than in 1856. May we not infer that ragged schools have been partly instrumental in this great change? I firmly believe that ragged schools have been the indirect means of originating almost every institution in the United Kingdom during the last fifteen years for the prevention of crime and the reformation of the criminal. I am borne out in this assertion by reference to the document I have in my hand—a classified list published by the authority of the Reformatory and Refuge Union. I find there 175 such institutions accommodating upwards of 15,000 inmates—only fifteen of these were in existence previous to the ragged-school movement. In all large towns we find the ragged schools to be the pioneers of refuges, homes, penitentiaries, and reformatories; in fact, of all institutions for the mutual aid of the destitute and degraded. I feel we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the promoters of ragged schools for their noble self-denying-efforts. Who can estimate the good they have done? It cannot be ascertained in this world. Although there is a great decrease in crime the number of destitute and vagrant children is not so great as formerly; yet my experience leads me to believe there are still thousands of children who can alone be reached through the agency of ragged schools. I wish to state that the voluntary refuges in the kingdom, institutions receiving this very class, the destitute and the vagrant, have been sadly crippled by the withdrawal of the 50s. a year Capitation granted by the Privy

  213
  Council in 1856, and withdrawn in 1858. Many of these Institutions, from my own personal knowledge must he closed, or else will have to admit children of another class, unless something is done to assist them more fully than at present. These Institutions are doing a great work, saving hundreds of children from being a burden to the country by training them to habits of morality and industry. It would, I know, be said, that if these Institutions were certified under the "Industrial Schools Act," they would be entitled to receive considerable assistance from the Home Office. In theory this is true; but unfortunately that Act has hitherto been almost inoperative, and either owing to a defect in the drawing up of the Act, or to public feeling being opposed to its principles, it has been found almost impossible to get children committed under it; the result has been that Institutions have had all the trouble of obtaining a certificate without receiving any advantages to which it entitled them. I heartily trust that the amended measure now before the House may remove some of these difficulties, but I feel however perfect the Act may be, there will always remain the necessity of our voluntary refuges. The Prince Consort stated some time since that there were "no less than two million children in England and Wales who were not at school at all, and whose absence cannot be traced to any legitimate cause. Can it, then, be said or thought there is little to do, or that there is any shortness of material? for surely it is but fair to infer that by far the larger proportion of these two millions of children belong to a class for whose benefit ragged schools are specially designed." If these cannot be found in ordinary schools, or in private schools, where are they receiving education? If not in ragged schools they must be in the streets. Believing, as I do, that ragged schools have done a great work, and are the only agency by which the destitute and vagrant can be properly reached, assured that they well deserve every possible encouragement and support, from public money as well as private benevolence, I have much pleasure in supporting the Motion, and earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will grant the Committee.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he had heard with great pleasure the unexpected answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, for he had understood from what he thought good authority that it was the intention of
  214
  the Government to resist the Motion. Indeed, he was not sure that it might not be inferred from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that on his part at least there was not some disposition to oppose the Motion. But he hardly thought it possible that the Government would have refused so fair and moderate a proposal, and he did not believe they would have been supported by the House had they adopted such a course. In admitting the necessity of some further action with regard to ragged schools it was not, however, to be supposed for a moment that he intended to throw the slightest disrespect on the valuable Report of the Education Commissioners. The House might recollect that the Commission was appointed in consequence of a Motion which he felt it his duty to submit; and on that occasion he received most valuable and efficient support from the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who at some time—at no very distant period, he trusted—would find leisure to look into the book, and would, doubtless, derive much satisfaction from having been concerned in its production. In every word of praise which had fallen from the lips of the right hon. Vice-President of the Council he fully concurred; he believed the Commissioners were deserving of every gratitude for issuing a most valuable and interesting compendium of the great subject of national education, and he hoped it would not be suffered to remain long without leading to practical results. But, as one part of that Report was directly at variance with the minutes of the Council, and went to prove that a class did not exist which was not only recognized but defined by minutes of Council, it was evident that inquiry must take place.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he hoped it would be distinctly understood that the Committee were to finish their labours this year, so that the House might again have the opportunity of considering the subject. The report revealed a new and unexpected fact—that there was hardly a child throughout the whole island who did not receive an imperfect education. The system had been brought so far that nearly every child received some education; the next step should be to improve the quality of that education, and he fervently hoped no obstacle would be thrown in the way of taking it. It was most essential that a year should not be lost, and before the end of the Session he hoped the Government would be able to state whether,

  215
  and how far, it was prepared to carry out the views of the Commissioners. Nothing had been more misrepresented than the views of the Commissioners with regard to ragged schools. He thought their views could hardly be controverted. If aid was required let it be given; but if a new principle was to be introduced it should not be done on the authority of the Council of Education alone, even if the proposed Committee reported favourably on the subject, the proposal should be first submitted to the House.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he regretted that he was obliged to differ from the rest of the House on the question before them, but he wished to enter his solemn protest against the appointment of the Committee, that would overlay an investigation just completed by a fresh inquiry. The Report of the Royal Commission had just been presented, and before they had read that Report or even received the evidence on which it was founded, they were going to embark in a new inquiry. He protested against that course. It was a question of common sense. A Royal Commission had been instituted on a large scale and at great expense. They should, at least, read its Report before reinstituting an inquiry upon any part of the same subject. The Report contained 600 or 700 pages, it had only been published about ten days, few Members could have read it, and the evidence, filling five volumes, had not yet been distributed. The Commission must have cost altogether £40,000, and they were now going to institute another inquiry into the same subject again. He did not support the constitution of the Commission when it was proposed; he never thought it likely to effect much good, or to do more than make an historical digest of the subject, very interesting to read, but not likely to lead to any practical result. And the recommendations of the Report bore obvious marks of several contradictory opinions on the subject, and very little actual recommendation that would be practicable or possible to adopt. The evidence he would leave to the future consideration of the House. But he would ask the Government when that system of inquiry was to cease? He had observed that men generally came out of Parliamentary inquiries with exactly the same opinions as they had when they went into them; and under a cloud of inquiry the existing system would continue for a series of years. Continual
  216
  inquiries were, however, very objectionable, and he hoped the House would insist on something like an end of them. What was to be the nature of the proposed inquiry about schools for destitute children as distinguished from the one just completed? The Royal Commissioners had taken Bristol and Plymouth as sample towns, and had reported that in the one case the ragged schools had worked well, and in the other badly. What could a Select Committee do more? They might, indeed, take twenty towns instead of two, and examine Miss Carpenter, Dr. Guthrie, and Lord Shaftesbury, but the only result would be that the evidence would be ten times as much as was produced before the Commissioners, though in kind it would, no doubt, be identical. For his own part, his views were more favourable to the conclusions of the Commissioners than to those of the lion. Baronet. The Commissioners said of ragged schools that they were to be considered an exceptional sort of institution, and that they were only useful in the nature of feeders to the national schools. The hon. Baronet allowed that there must be conditions attached to grants of public money in every national system, and the children attending the ragged schools were exactly outside the line of conditions which could be laid down in any organized system of schools whatever. He begged the House to bear in mind what had fallen from the right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), that it was impossible for any department of State to be worked upon two diametrically opposing systems; and if in this case there was a higher and a lower standard the latter would become the ruling standard, and the exception would shortly become the rule. The present system of education was not an eleemosynary but a voluntary system, supplemented by State funds, and if the Government once allowed it to be understood that upon the failure of voluntary efforts the State would supply what was needed they would soon destroy the whole voluntary system throughout the kingdom. The inquiry contemplated could not, he feared, do anything but harm; at all events, the House sought to discuss the Report of the Royal Commissioners before authorizing a further investigation even upon a single branch of the subject. But it was a mistake to suppose that ragged schools were not at present aided by the State. They came within the terms of the public grants;

  217
  they had the same claims as other schools, and practically they also had received the public money. Miss Carpenter's ragged school had a total income of £200 a year and received £50 a year from these Parliamentary grants. With regard to certificated industrial schools, the whole of them were dealt with by existing Acts of Parliament, and if it were wished to alter the terms of the grants to those schools, the proper way to do so would be to raise the question by means of amending Bills instead of by a vague, roving, interminable inquiry into the whole subject. The Government themselves had an amending Bill on the subject now before the House. He regretted that they had consented to a fresh inquiry.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: I am unwilling to trouble the House; but after what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to make an observation on one point. It is not my business to defend the course taken by the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) but the proposal he has made seems by no means an unreasonable one. A Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the whole system of education in this country, and there was no exception, as far as I know, to the scope of its inquiry. A Report has been presented, written in a most lucid and comprehensive manner, containing an exposition of all the different branches of our popular and elementary teaching, and deserving all the commendation bestowed on it. The ragged schools and the other schools for neglected and destitute children, however, form but a very small part of the subjects discussed in this Report. The hon. Baronet differs from the recommendations of the Commissioners, and he disputes the correctness of the elements by which they are supported, and he asks the House to grant an inquiry. I cannot see that there is anything very unreasonable in that. My object in rising, however, is to observe that, as the hon. Baronet proposes only to institute an inquiry into the schools for neglected and destitute children, and does not wish to include those schools of which the character is mainly criminal, I trust that when the Bill which I have introduced for the amendment of the law relating to the Industrial Schools is brought forward, no objection will be made to that Bill on the ground that the subject is under investigation before a Committee. In giving my vote in favour of this Motion I wish it to be understood that I do not
  218
  feel myself precluded from proceeding with that Bill.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Secretary of State had agreed to the Committee. It had been said that Parliament gave £800,000 a year to raise the standard of education. He thought it ought to be given only to promote the education of the poorer classes, and that those who could afford to provide a better education for their children should do so at their own expense. He hoped this point would not be lost sight of by the Committee.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that in reply to an observation for the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) he would refer him to the last Report of Mr. Morrill, one of the Inspectors of Schools, who showed that a large number of the poorest class of children still eluded the efforts made for popular education. That would form a very fitting subject of inquiry before the Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thanked the hon. Baronet for having brought forward his motion. He agreed in the commendation which had been bestowed on the Report of the Royal Commissioners, but there was so much contradictory matter in the way of opinion brought into it, that until the evidence was published it would be difficult to understand what it was that brought them to the conclusion at which they had arrived. They complimented the authors of these industrial schools highly, but then, in return, they gave them a slap in the face by wishing them to be snuffed out altogether. That was a specimen of the way in which most of the matters contained in the Report were handled. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Educational Committee, said his department was much too high up in the clouds to have anything to with these schools, though they received the most necessitous of poor children, the very class who wanted most looking after. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) had rather begged the question when he wanted to alter the terms of the Motion. The ragged schools, if he understood aright, already received some assistance from the State. The right hon. Gentleman, however, urged that the Commissioners in their Report declared that the ragged schools ought to have nothing, and, by his Amendment, called upon his hon. Friend to stand in the same position as if these schools were now receiving

  219
  nothing, and as if the Committee were to go into a fresh case. That seemed to him to be rather hard upon his hon. Friend. He could not help remarking that nowhere in the recommendations of the Commissioners was there the least shadow of reference to the necessity of religious teaching in schools. He could not help regarding that as a capital defect in what was, doubtless, a very able Report.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I will not discuss the Report of the Commissioners, for I must confess I have not had time to read it. The question, however, now before us is not the merits of their Report, but the appointment of this Committee, and it is, therefore, important to understand what it is to inquire into. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) appears to think that the duty of the Committee is to inquire in what manner the funds voted by the State are to be distributed. That, however, is not the object of the Committee. If that were the proposal before us, I should say let us by all means first study the Report of the Commissioners. What, however, the hon. Member (Sir Stafford Northcote) wishes to do is to inquire into the operation of the present system as it affects the education of neglected and destitute children. It is urged on one side—and that view is supported by the Commissioners—that the children who are sent to ragged schools are, in fact, the children of parents who can very well pay for sending them to other schools, but who are tempted to send them to ragged schools by the absence of the necessity for sending them clean and in decent clothing. On the other side it is said that a certain number of the children taught in these schools are the children of destitute parents who would not receive any education at all if it were not for the voluntary and charitable efforts of the promoters of the ragged schools. For my own part, I am inclined very much to agree with the hon. Baronet. I believe that where these ragged schools are conducted by persons who are careful in what they are about, and who take precautions in regard to the means of the parents, they afford an education to children who would not otherwise attend any school at all. That will be an important point in the inquiry, and connected with it is the ability of parents to supply their children with proper education, but who prefer rather to spend the surplus of their wages in gin. If the result of the Committee is
  220
  to show that these schools are worthy of encouragement and support, another question will be in what way that encouragement and support ought to be given. I concur with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) in thinking that in such an event it would not be expedient to place under the same body two different systems—one a superior and another an inferior system of education. If these ragged schools are to be encouraged, it will, perhaps, appear that they ought to be conducted by some other machinery, and connected with another kind of management. When the Committee of Council of Education was established, I may say, as I took a considerable part in the arrangements then made, that one primary object was to improve the quality of education rather than to increase the numbers educated. That object has been answered. The standard of education has been greatly improved, and I should consider it most disastrous if the effect of any inquiry which we may now enter upon should be to lower that standard. Concurring, therefore, in the appointment of the Committee I think we should watch with jealousy any changes which would have the effect of deteriorating the quality of the education now given in the schools under the Committee of Privy Council.
  MR. LOWEsaid, it was quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) had pointed out, that the Report of the Commissioners contained no reference to the subject of religious education in schools. The reason was that the Report was founded on the present basis laid down by the Committee of Privy Council, and it assumed that all the regulations of that system had been and would be observed.
  MR. HENLEY: That is not stated in any part of the Report.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he felt bound to thank the Government for the kind reception they had given to his Motion. He cheerfully assented to the alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, believing that the wider the scope of the inquiry, and the less the Committee were bound down as to the particular mode in which, or through which, aid should be given, the better. He had refused to bring the subject before the House until both the Report of the Commissioners and the Industrial Schools Bill were before the House. He found that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his excellent Bill on Industrial Schools, did not touch the

  221
  class of ragged schools, and as the Report of the Commission also left these schools on one side, he thought the time had come for bringing the matter before the House. He could only say he should go into Committee entirely unprejudiced. As to the object to be attained he had a distinct impression, but in regard to the best mode of attaining it he had not yet made up his mind.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire how the Education of destitute and neglected Children may he most efficiently and economically assisted by any public funds."
  House adjourned at Nino o'clock till Thursday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Government of the Navy; Tramways (Scotland).
2a New Provinces (New Zealand); Combination of Parishes Dissolution (Scotland).
3a Offences in Territories near Sierra Leone Prevention.

CULTIVATION OF COTTON IN THE COLONIES.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that seeing the noble Duke the Colonial Minister
150
in his place, he wished to call his attention to a matter which, in his opinion, was at the present moment one of the greatest possible importance; he referred to the growth of cotton in our various Colonial possessions. He would abstain from alluding to one part of the subject, because it would lead him, however unwilling, to make some observations on that very lamentable state of things existing in the United States of America, and which filled him and all friends of peace and freedom with sorrow; but he considered it had become absolutely essential, independently of those events in America, that Her Majesty's Government should promote by every means in their power the growth of this great staple; and he would urge upon his noble Friend the importance of losing no time in recommending the different Colonial Governments to encourage by all means in their power the growth of cotton in the districts under their control. He had received from Jamaica samples of cotton which had been submitted to persons of known skill in this country, who had pronounced them to be the finest sorts they had seen, and they had fixed the price so high as to show that the cultivation of cotton in that island would be highly remunerative. They said that this cotton would in the market be worth 1s. per lb.; but even if it should not be worth more than 6d. per lb. its cultivation would be profitable, if, as he was informed, they could on one acre of land in Jamaica, at an expense of £8, grow 600 lbs. of cotton, that would produce £15. He had been furnished with all the items relating both to the cultivation of cotton and to the expenses attending it, and he found that all the expenses would not exceed £8 an acre. There could be no doubt whatever that, with due encouragement, cotton might be grown to an unlimited extent in our colonial possessions—not only in Africa, but in the East Indies; and he looked forward with confidence to the time when those countries would be capable of furnishing the supply necessary to this country. He wished to ask the noble Duke whether the Government proposed to hold out any encouragement to the growth of cotton in the British possessions?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEwould first remind his noble and learned Friend that he had not observed the usual custom of giving notice of his question; but as he was in a position to give an answer at once

151
he had no objection to do so. He could assure his noble and learned Friend that the Government—not only the Colonial Department, but also the Indian Department—had not neglected the important question of the growth of cotton. But the real difficulty was not to find districts that were suited for that staple, but to find districts where there was an adequate supply of labour to allow it to be produced at a remunerative price. The noble and learned Lord, in alluding to Jamaica, said that that island was capable of producing large supplies of cotton. He (the Duke of Newcastle) was aware that in Jamaica there was land capable of producing the finest qualities of cotton; but he was by no means clear that it could produce those large supplies that his noble and learned Friend suggested. His noble and learned Friend asked whether the Government proposed to offer any encouragement for the growth of cotton. If the noble and learned Lord meant anything in the shape of a bounty, then most undoubtedly they were not prepared to adopt any plan that would be so prejudicial to the object they had in view. If the noble and learned Lord's statements were accurate—but he feared they were not—if they were accurate, and cotton could be grown for £8 and sold for £15–100 per cent profit—surely that could be encouragement enough in itself. The Government considered that the best encouragement they could give would be by facilitating the introduction of Coolie labour into such of the British colonies as had land applicable to the growth of cotton; and with this view he had sought the sanction of the Indian Government to the removal of the restrictions now existing as to Coolie labour, and under new regulations Queensland would be able to participate in these advantages. "When those restrictions were removed, and ample supplies of Coolie labour was introduced the various colonies would have the opportunity of trying the experiment of growing cotton.
LORD BROUGHAMentirely agreed that no encouragement of a pecuniary nature, and no forced encouragement of any kind should be given. Lord Canning's despatch on this subject laid down the true principles most soundly and discreetly; to encourage by increasing information, but above all to remove every possible obstruction, was all that Government either could or if it could, ought to do.

NEW PROVINCES (NEW ZEALAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving the second reading of the New Provinces (Now Zealand) Bill, briefly explained its object. When the constitution was conferred upon New Zealand by the Act passed in 1852, a provision was contained in it establishing certain provinces—Auckland, Canterbury, and others—and giving power to the General Assembly, the representative body of the whole colony, to divide them further into separate distinct provinces, if they should so think fit, by a reserved Bill—that is, a Bill reserved for the approval of the Crown. A subsequent Act was passed in 1857 by which many restrictions imposed on the General Assembly of New Zealand were removed; and it was intended to remove the restrictions on the character of the Bills by which a province might be divided. Permission was granted to constitute new provinces by a reserved Bill by the Act of 1852, and by that of 1857 it was intended to give power to constitute new provinces by an Act of an ordinary character. But in removing this restriction the Imperial Parliament made an unfortunate mistake in repealing the 69th Clause of the Constitution Act. This obviously not being the intention, the General Assembly of New Zealand three years ago did separate one of the provinces into two by an Act of the Colonial Legislature. No doubt was entertained at home as to the perfect validity of that Act; but some doubt arose in the colony, and on its being reported to him he took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, who held that it was not competent to the Legislature of New Zealand to separate those two provinces, although such was the obvious intention of Parliament. Under these circumstances this Bill was introduced, with the double object of enabling the colony to divide the two provinces as originally intended and render that division valid, under the powers of the existing Act, and also to declare the validity of the Act for the future.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  EARL GREYsaid, the Bill which the noble Duke had just explained to the House was one to which he presumed there would be no objection; but he could not allow it to be read a second time in the present critical and distracted state of New Zealand

  153
  without expressing his surprise that a Bill of so insignificant a character should be the only measure with reference to that colony which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to submit to Parliament. Their Lordships knew from the papers on the table, and from more recent accounts in the public prints, that for more than a year war had raged in New Zealand. In that unhappy war fifty officers and men of the European force had been killed, and nearly 140 wounded; a vast amount of property had been destroyed; one settlement had been laid waste, and women and children had been compelled to take refuge in another part of the province. Already an enormous expense must have been incurred in remedying this state of things, which he feared would greatly derange the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to any surplus at the end of the financial year. They were also aware that the Government had sent large reinforcements to New Zealand; but they were not as yet aware whether Government contemplated the adoption of any means but force alone to put an end to that war. He was far from objecting to the despatch of additional troops to New Zealand. On the contrary, whatever other measures might be required, no doubt could be entertained that these troops were necessary. But he was no less persuaded that this unhappy contest could not be brought to a satisfactory close by arms alone. There was no doubt that the military power of this country was more than sufficient to finish the war by the extermination of the native race; but that was an end of the contest to which he could not look forward without horror, a feeling which, he was sure, was shared by Her Majesty's Government and by every one of their Lordships. When they considered how these interesting natives of New Zealand, the Maoris, from having within a comparatively short time been plunged into the lowest superstitions of degraded barbarism, were now generally converted to Christianity, they could not look to the possible destruction of this interesting race by British arms without feeling that such a result would not only be a calamity, but a great disgrace to this country. Nor could such a result be brought about except at a fearful loss of blood to Europeans as well as to natives. The nature of the country was such that it presented great difficulties to the operations of regular troops, and great facilities to every kind of irregular warfare. Then
  154
  there was the impossibility of adequately protecting the scattered dwellings and property of the settlers. When they considered all these things, they must admit that if the Maoris were driven to desperation by the manner in which the war was carried on, they might, before they perished, inflict almost as much suffering as they might have to endure. Therefore, he was of opinion that it was not enough for Her Majesty's Government to send additional troops to New Zealand; they ought to have attempted, by some conciliatory measures, to induce the natives to lay down their arms, and to support the effect of their armed interference by gaining the confidence of the people. If the assistance of Parliament was necessary to the success of such a measure, that assistance ought already to have been asked for. It was the more incumbent upon the Government to take this course, because this subject could not be carefully investigated without bringing any candid and dispassionate inquirer to the conclusion that the Maoris were not solely—perhaps not even principally—to blame for the present war. The war had been produced by errors in the past government of New Zealand—errors which, in one respect, it might not be too late to correct. It was impossible to prevent the evils which had already arisen from the war, but we ought not, at least, to persevere in a course which would make these calamities only the commencement of others of a still more serious character.
  Their Lordships were aware that the war was begun by an attempt on the part of the Governor of New Zealand to take forcible possession of a piece of land, acquired from the natives by a purchase, the validity of which was disputed by one of the chiefs, supported by many of his countrymen. Much had been said and written upon the question whether, under the engagements contracted with the native races, and according to the rules hitherto observed, that purchase was valid and regular. He would not abuse the patience of their Lordships by entering into that argument, or by raising a discussion upon the usages and customs of barbarous tribes. It was sufficient for him to observe that the very weight of the authorities who were ranged on one side and on the other proved, at all events, that the question was one of much doubt and difficulty. There were very high authorities against the validity of the purchase made by the Governor. In

  155
  the first place, there was the authority of the Bishop and the great majority of the missionaries in those Islands. An attempt had been made to lower their authority by saying that, while no man would presume to question the purity and sincerity of the convictions which had induced the Bishop of New Zealand and the missionaries to take so decided a part against the measures of the Government, still their habits were not such as to fit them for taking a clear and dispassionate view of the subject. If it were admitted that there was some force in this objection—which he disputed—it did not apply to others who had taken the same view of the question. The validity of the purchase was denied by Mr. Clarke, formerly Protector of the Aborigines, who, under Sir George Grey, had considerable experience in making purchases of land. It was denied by Mr. Fox, for many years the able and zealous agent of the New Zealand Company; it was denied by Mr. Swainson, formerly Attorney General in New Zealand, a gentleman of high character and extensive knowledge; and, above all, it was denied by Sir William Martin, formerly Chief Justice of New Zealand, who had acquired the highest reputation by the manner in which he filled that judicial station, and of whom the Governor himself only a short time ago, in writing on other matters, said that his knowledge and experienced caused him to be recognized as an undisputed authority upon all points affecting the Maories. Such were some of the authorities who might be quoted against the validity and regularity of the purchase. It was obvious, therefore, that the question was, to say the least, one of doubt; and he had no hesitation in expressing his opinion that if even a shadow of doubt rested upon the strict regularity of the purchase under the engagements we had contracted with the Maories, and according to the rules hitherto observed in such cases, both justice and policy required that the Government of New Zealand should abstain from making that purchase, and, above all, from asserting it by force. That was the course prescribed bothly justice and by policy; because justice required that, when a right was contested, one of the claimants should not take upon himself to assume and to exercise that right by force until some fair means had been adopted for bringing it to a decision; and policy required that, when the Maories were known to be in an excited state—considering the extreme jea-
  156
  lousy and sensitiveness they had always displayed upon questions relating to land—considering, also, the fearful calamities which a collision could not fail to bring on, especially when the colony was so unprepared for a native war—it ought to have been understood that no advantage which could possibly arise from the purchase of an insignificant plot of land could for one moment be put in competition with the dangers which would be incurred by making the purchase and taking possession of the land by force.
  He had said that great excitement already prevailed among the Maories when this dispute arose. That excitement was so great that, in his opinion, the dispute with respect to land ought rather to be regarded as the occasion for the war breaking out than as its real and original cause. For that cause we must look further and deeper. The war was, in his opinion, solely to be attributed to our having for the last seven or eight years adopted in New Zealand a system of government which gave great offence to the Maories, and deprived the British authorities of the confidence and attachment with which they were formerly regarded. That policy was adopted, of course, in unfortunate forgetfulness of the wise advice given by Sir George Grey a few years ago, and contained in a despatch written on the subject of the Act for the establishment of representative government in New Zealand, passed in 1846. When that Act was passed Sir George Grey took upon himself the great responsibility of not bringing it into immediate execution, at the same time addressing a despatch to the Government at home in which he explained the dangers which would have arisen at that moment from an attempt to introduce it. He pointed out that the war was scarcely over; that both the natives and the settlers were in a state of great excitement; that by the proposed constitution the entire power over the revenue would be vested in the representatives of the settlers, while the natives were large contributors; that, in fact, it would be making one section, and that the smaller section, of the whole population, arbiters of the whole; that it would be giving the complete disposal both of the revenue and of other matters to the representatives of the European minority, excluding from all power and influence the native majority in the colony. He stated that the natives could not be expected to accede to such an

  157
  arrangement, and he predicted that the result of an attempt to enforce it would be armed resistance. The arguments of Sir George Grey appeared so conclusive to the Government of that day that they had no hesitation in admitting the error which they had committed in passing the Act of 1846; and the result was that they obtained the ready assent of Parliament to a Bill for suspending the constitution which had been given to New Zealand. Subsequent events had shown how sound was the advice upon which they acted. Armed with the powers conferred by the Suspension Bill, and with the full support of the Government at home, Sir George Grey adopted a policy of which the principle was the firm maintenance of the authority of the Colonial Government, the suppression of everything like violence or disturbance, but at the same time the administration of justice to both races, and the display of kindness and consideration especially towards the Maories. He adopted severe measures to restrict the sale of arms and spirits to the natives; but, on the other hand, he multiplied schools and constructed roads, by which the Maories were enabled both to obtain access to markets for their produce and to receive the advantages of good wages and of an industrial training, and which, moreover, rendered large and important districts of the colony easily accessible to troops and artillery. The beneficial effect of those measures had been increased by the pains which Sir George Grey had taken to keep up communication with the natives, and to acquire their confidence and attachment. In making that attempt his efforts had been rewarded with success; but the policy on which he acted was, after all, said to be a very poor one, inasmuch as he did not trust to laws and measures which he had proposed and passed, the influence which he had acquired over the minds of the natives being purely of a personal character, so that when he departed that influence was likely to cease to exist. The objections thus made to the policy of Sir George Grey constituted, however, in his opinion, the very highest praise which he could receive. He was a Governor who was aware that men were not to be ruled by mere laws, but rather—and the observation applied especially to the case of s barbarous people—by attaching their minds The effect of the wisest laws and the best institutions could, he knew, only be gradual, while upon a generous and high-
  158
  minded race a great impression might speedily be made by convincing them that heir welfare was the object of the Government. To imbue them with that confidence was the highest triumph of the policy of an able and energetic ruler. Nor was that triumph in the case of Sir George Grey purchased by any dangerous or improper concession. On the contrary, if there were one law which was to be regarded as more unpopular than another in New Zealand, it was that passed and strictly enforced by Sir George Grey browing obstacles in the way of the purchase of arms. The result of his policy was, at all events, most satisfactory. The disturbances which had taken place were in a short time put down; peace was completely restored; and when he left the country he might have entertained a reasonable expectation that it was on the high road to become at no distant period a flourishing community, in which men of Maori and European descent would be found blended in one united people. These were fair prospects, and they would in all probability have been realized, had it not been for the mistakes which had been afterwards committed. Before the five years, during which the Constitution of 1846 stood suspended, had expired Sir George Grey had expressed it to be his opinion that the state of affairs in the colony had so much improved that, with proper precautions, that constitution might be brought into force, reserving to the Crown the usual power of purchasing land from the natives and the right of maintaining their laws and customs in certain districts. In 1852, accordingly, during the brief Administration of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), a Bill, in the main in accordance with the recommendations of Sir George Grey, had been passed. But the measure, unfortunately, contained one provision which had led to great evils—he alluded to the clause making the superintendents of the provinces into which New Zealand was divided elective, instead of being appointed by the Crown. The proposal was one, it was true, which was in conformity with Sir George Grey's advice, who, although he was a most able man, and one on whose judgment the utmost reliance might in general be placed, yet could no. more than the most distingushed of human beings claim to be infallible. In the present instance, at all events, experience proved that he was wrong. For his own part, he was of that opinion at the time of

  159
  the passing of the Bill, because he thought that to make provincial superintendents elective was in reality to deprive the Governor of the greater part of the executive authority he ought to possess. How he would ask, was it possible for the Governor to carry into effect the policy which he desired, when he was obliged, in the provinces where he was not himself President, to act through officers not appointed by the Grown, not removeable by it, but chosen by popular elections, and absolutely independent of any superior authority during the time for which they were elected? For that reason it had appeared to him that the clause to which he was alluding was one which ought not to have been passed, and when it had been proposed by a succeeding Government he gave it all the opposition in his power. He did not, however, succeed in persuading either the Government of the day or their Lordships to adopt his views upon the question; but the result had more than justified the anticipations which he had formed with respect to the working of the provision. Nor was that all. One of the first measures of the newly-created Legislature was to insist on establishing that which was very improperly called a responsible Government, and which was really a party Government—a character of Government which was the most irresponsible that could exist in a community such as that of which he was speaking. Such a Government, however, was demanded by the House of Assembly, and the demand was, he thought, most unfortunately acquiesced in by the Government at home during the Administration of Lord Aberdeen in 1854. For himself, he might say that he had always been of opinion that party government was but very little suited to a colony in the early stages of its existence, and, indeed, until it had made some very considerable progress; and that the real advantages of representative institutions could in such a case be enjoyed far more fully under the old system in accordance with which the Governor was responsible for the due exercise of the executive authority, not to the Assembly, but to the Crown, while, of course, the power was reserved to the Assembly to complain to the Crown of any maladministration on his part, and, if necessary, to appeal to the Imperial Parliament. The blessings of freedom could, he believed, be more perfectly enjoyed under that old system than under a party Government; and in that view he was con-
  160
  firmed by the experience of that description of Government furnished by our Australian Colonies, where the burlesque of our own institutions which was exhibited was of a nature of which those who had watched their proceedings must feel ashamed. The evils, however, arising from the vices of the system to which he was referring in Australia—where there were but few natives, and those few capable of causing no serious disturbances with the settlers—where the European inhabitants were already numerous and wealthy, and where the first difficulties of a new settlement had been almost completely surmounted—were altogether insignificant compared with those which must be expected to arise in a colony such as that of New Zealand, where all the circumstances which he had just mentioned were exactly reversed. It was impossible, he should contend, that a few thousand British settlers could be placed in contact with a much larger number of natives only just emerging from barbarism, every man of whom was used to war, and at the same time extremely sensitive as to the maintenance of his rights, and capable of understanding when he was wronged—it was impossible that all that should occur and that the entire power should be placed in the hands of the European minority without creating in the minds of the natives, who were the majority, a sense of injustice and deep discontent. That such had, at all events, been the result in this case was clear from the papers which had been laid on the table. He found that so long as the Governor possessed authority sufficient to enforce his impartial administration towards both races, the natives looked up to him as the representative of the Crown, who had real power to protect and befriend them. They were, with few exceptions, loyal, and attached to the Crown. That was the representation of the state of things some time ago, as given, not only by Sir George Grey, who might be disposed to be a partial witness as to the results of his own policy, but by those who succeeded him in the administration of the Government. He (Earl Grey) found that in February and April, 1854, the then acting Governor reported the continued prosperity of the colony, and the success of the measures for the purchase of land from the natives. In May, 1854, the acting Governor, on opening the new Legislature, congratulated that body on the peace and prosperity of the colony, and the friendly relations between the native and European

  161
  races; and the House of Assembly, in their address in reply, expressed their concurrence in the language used by the Governor. The Legislative Council, in their address, spoke still more emphatically of the peaceful and friendly relations existing between the Queen's subjects of both races, and of the increasing intelligence and civilization of the natives. In July, 1854, the acting Governor reported that the purchase of land still continued to be easily made. At the beginning of the following year the reports were still better; but during its course symptoms of a change for the worse began to appear. In September Governor Browne, the present Governor, reported that he had seen the chiefs of most importance in the north; that they all seemed well disposed to the local Government; but that they did not view the Assembly very favourably, partly because they did not understand its power, but chiefly because they considered it less scrupulous in its desire to obtain land than the Governor, whom they looked on as a protector. In July, 1856, there proceeded still more unfavourable reports from the Governor of the disposition of the natives, for he said it was evident that they disliked popular government over which they had no check. And it seemed impossible that the case should be otherwise, because the authority of the Governor was reduced to a shadow. In the general affairs of Government he was obliged to act on the advice of his Executive Council, who, in fact, were the mere delegates of the Assembly; and, although there was a nominal reservation of matters affecting the natives as to which it was said he might act upon his own judgment, yet it was perfectly clear from reading the papers presented to Parliament that even with regard to native affairs the Governor had no real power, and that he did, in point of fact, implicitly follow the advice of the Executive Council. But what was worse than all was the administration of affairs in the provinces. Almost the whole patronage of the Government, and a great part of the control of the expenditure, had been transferred by a series of measures to the provincial Assemblies, and the Governor reported that superintendents would obey no instructions from the Governor except those which were in accordance with their own views; that they had the disposal of the funds for the time being in their hands; and that, in the political contests, they felt bound to favour the party to which they owed their
  162
  appointment to office. Was it possible to be surprised that, under a government of this sort, the Maories should be discontented? They not only comprehended the injustice of being excluded from all practical share in the government, while constituting a large proportion of the population and of the contributors to the revenue, but they were made practically to feel the effect of this exclusion in various ways. They felt it by the miserable and inadequate grants grudgingly made by the Assembly for purposes in which the Maories were interested, and by the misuse of patronage for party purposes. He had no doubt, from information which had reached him, that nothing so much contributed to irritate the Maories against the existing Government as the manner in which patronage was misused. They saw men holding office, in the right discharge of the duties of which they were deeply interested, and in whom they had great confidence, replaced by other men whose appointment was due to party interests, and they said that the Crown was deprived of any effectual power of instituting an impartial administration in their behalf. It must not be supposed that these were the only grievances of the natives. It was impossible at this distance to judge of the details of the administration of a colony, but their Lordships would concede that in the daily administration of affairs there were many opportunities for acting oppressively; and he regretted to say that if the disposition of the European population was to be judged of from the tone of the public press, and from the language used at public meetings and in the committees of the Provincial Councils, there could be no doubt that there had grown up of late years a lamentable want of consideration for the feelings and interests of the Maories, and even of their lives. It appeared from the papers on the table that the Provincial Council of New Plymouth presented, in 1856, an address to the Governor, in which a want of consideration for the natives was most painfully manifest. It was also to be learnt from the able pamphlet published by Mr. Fox on this question that in 1858 this same Council called on the Governor to compel the natives to sever their tribal tenancies with a view to the acquisition of land, stating that the natives were incapable of offering any resistance. This fact was significant, especially when coupled with this other circumstance, that one of the representatives of New Plymouth was Mr.

  163
  Richmond, who held the situation of one of the responsible advisers of the Governor, and was what was called his Native Minister. What was still more significant was that it, was the virtual adoption not very long afterwards of this advice of the memorial to compel the recusants to submit to the. proceedings of the Governor in reference to the purchase of land that was the cause of the war. Could it be believed that Mr. Richmond would be a trustworthy adviser of the Governor in matters as they at present existed? There could be little doubt that the Maori race had just ground for discontent. That was not his opinion alone, but the recorded opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers also. It was implied very distinctly in many of the despatches, and still more in the measure introduced to Parliament last year, when the Government then brought in a Bill to establish a Council independent of the Assembly for the purpose of advising the Governor on native affairs. The only justification for such a measure was that the Government, as it now existed, could not safely be trusted in mutters affecting the natives. That measure passed their Lordships' House, but failed to obtain the assent of the House of Commons. He rejoiced at that failure, because, although the evil was apparent, he did not believe the Bill provided a remedy for it. That measure would, indeed, only have led to a conflict of authority, and would have increased the evil. The Government had admitted in the course of the present Session, in the other House of Parliament, that affairs were not in a satisfactory condition in New Zealand.
  There being, then, just ground of dissatisfaction on the part of the natives, and the local Government being so bad, he would ask, what did the Government propose to do? Did they propose to compel the natives to submit to a Government which they acknowledged to be unjust and bad, and, if they resisted, to reduce them to obedience? He trusted not. He implored them not to let this state of things continue, but to prepare measures of redress. It seemed to him that Her Majesty's Government ought without delay to take measures, for the redress of the grievances of the native inhabitants, to endeavour to conciliate them by equitable arrangements, and to put an end to this war. Why should not Her Majesty's Government make an appeal to the well-known public spirit of Sir George Grey, and ask him to return to the colony with special
  164
  powers to deal with so great an emergency? He was persuaded that Sir George Grey was a man of too much public spirit; and, moreover, he must naturally take too deep an interest in the welfare of the colony for which he had already done so much to refuse to make such a sacrifice, great as it would be, if he were asked to do so. But, if he accepted such a mission, he ought to be armed with large powers. In the present state of irritation of the Maories and the Europeans, perhaps nothing less would answer than the suspension for three years of the representative system of the colony, and the concentration of the whole legislative and executive authority in the hands of Sir George Grey and a Council deriving its powers from the Crown. Armed with these powers, the influence which Sir George Grey possessed over the minds of the natives would enable him to restore peace in the colony at no distant period. There was already a strong military force in the colony, but the presence of Sir George Grey would, as far as the restoration of peace was concerned, be worth more than 10,000 additional troops. Of course, after such a period of suspension, the representative Government of the colony could not be again brought into operation without correcting the defects that had been shown to exist in it. The calamities that had occurred would then have this good result—that Parliament would be enabled to decide what changes were required in the constitution of the colony. He believed that these changes were not numerous, and could easily; be effected. If the arrangement for establishing a representative Government were assented to, and if the Governor were assisted, not by advisers whose advice he was bound to follow, and who held their office by the fleeting tenure of the ascendency of parties, but by men of experience, selected for their knowledge, and holding office practically during good behaviour—so long as the Crown was satisfied with the mode in which they discharged their duties—if these things were done, and if a fair and fixed appropriation were made for the expenses of the Government and for those objects in which the Maories were concerned, he was not aware that anything else was required to enable representative institutions in a short period to be once more established with safety in New Zealand. If Her Majesty's Government declined to take the more decided course which, in his opinion, they ought to take,

  165
  and to suspend during the war the action of the present Government of New Zealand, lie trusted they would make modifications in the government such as he had pointed out. He knew it might be said that Parliament, having once conferred representative institutions on New Zealand, could now neither withdraw nor modify them. If the colonists were ready to undertake the defence of the colony against all but a foreign enemy, if they did not appeal to us in such cases, then they might have reasonable ground of complaint if we interfered with their institutions. But he found that it was urged in New Zealand that no less than 4,000 or 5,000 British soldiers, to be maintained at a large expense by the mother country, and two or three steamers, were absolutely necessary to enable them to defend themselves against their native enemies, Nay, he saw that they meant to push their claims still farther, and ask that the pay of their own militia and the expense of their own forces in the field should be defrayed, not from the colonial, but from the Imperial Treasury. He did not deny that in the present state of the colony it was necessary to assist the British settlers. He was persuaded that it was impossible for them to bring this war to a satisfactory close unaided; and he, therefore, did not object to the employment of a sufficient number of British soldiers for that purpose without charge to the colony. But, if the Government and Parliament of this country were to, undertake the defence of the colony against the natives, they must also undertake the regulation of the policy by which it was in future to be governed. They must take care that the generosity of this country was not abused, and that power was not placed in the hands of the settlers in such a way as might lead to its improper exercise. Gould it for a moment be pretended that it was just and reasonable, that the colonists should on the one hand claim the undisputed right of managing their own affairs, and on the other have the liberty to call on the mother country to bear the burden of any war occasioned by their own mismanagement? If by injustice and oppression they drove the natives to, resistance, were they to call on us to extinguish that resistance in blood without allowing us to exercise our judgment upon the measures resorted to? That was a, doctrine which he was sure would receive pa countenance from any of their Lordships. He believed that if the
  166
  colonists were told that they must defend themselves as well as manage their own affairs, that would be a sufficient inducement to keep them on terms of friendship with their semi-barbarous neighbours. He was not ignorant that the colonists had much to bear. No doubt they were exposed to many wrongs and grievances, but those wrongs and grievances ought to be borne, not only with justice, but with forbearance. If the impartial authority of the Crown was to intervene for the government of both parties, that justice and forbearance could be enforced, for the Crown would not be influenced by those passions and feelings that naturally arose in the contact between civilized and half-civilized races; but if the government of both parties were left to the colonists themselves, with an unlimited power to draw upon the Treasury of this country, there would be taken away the only effective check for that selfishness which he feared human nature was never exempted from. He, therefore, felt himself bound to object to the measure before the House, as one entirely inadequate to the circumstances of the case; and he thought the second reading of the Bill afforded a legitimate opportunity of expressing to their Lordships his conviction that they could not safely leave matters as they were. He implored the Government not to think they could go on from year to year with things as they were, but to set themselves earnestly to the adoption of some wise and comprehensive measure that would meet the circumstances of the case. If they did not, they might be assured that before this war was brought to a close thousands of British soldiers would be sacrificed and millions of money would be spent, while in the end, in all probability, they would only be able to restore peace by reducing New Zealand to a desert, by exterminating the natives, after a struggle which would reduce the colonists to beggary, and drive them to seek homes in more peaceful and prosperous colonies.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he was satisfied with the steps which had been taken by the Government, and with the despatches they had sent to New Zealand since the commencement of the war. He did not complain of the Bill now before their Lordships; but he must express the hope that the power given by it to the General Assembly of New Zealand would be exercised more carefully than it had been. He could not agree with the noble Earl (Earl

  167
  Grey) in the opinion that the constitution of New Zealand was erroneous in principle. He should express his sympathy with the Governor of New Zealand on one point, and that was the spirit of hostility with which had been opposed by the leading ecclesiastical authorities. This he regarded as a very unfortunate circumstance. There seemed to be some mistake existing as to the object for which the colonization of New Zealand was undertaken. That colonization was the work of the New Zealand Company, backed by the Government, and had no other motive than the ordinary one. The work of colonization by a country like that of England, and that of evangelization were not naturally promotive of each other. Indeed, they were to a certain extent mutually obstructive; so that the best field for the one was not necessarily the best for the other. The best field for colonization was where there were few or native inhabitants—as Upper Canada, South Australia, and Port Natal, while the reverse was true to evanglization. We had certainly not done enough for the natives of New Zealand. What savage nations required was a great deal of Government; and he was afraid that in New Zealand we had, in a great measure, destroyed the Government that had formerly existed, and substituted very little, indeed, in its stead. He found among the papers a complaint from a native that when they adhered to their own customs they had "light," but that under the new order of things they were in "darkness." This was followed by an observation that we Europeans had effected this change, and that it was for us to lay down laws to meet the case. The colonization of New Zealand might be dated from the time when the Marquess of Normanby was Colonial Secretary. In a despatch dated August, 1839, the noble Marquess assumed that cannibalism, human sacrifices, and warfare among the natives were among the things which should be put down by force in New Zealand. Whether cannibalism and human sacrifices had ever been put down by force was a matter into which he should not now enter, but he found that the first Governor held that it was out of his power to put down warfare among the natives by that means. There were pages in the blue books to show that the Governor held as axiomatic that it was foreign to his business to interfere in the case of such an occurrence. The restless state of the natives had been known to the colonists
  168
  for many years. It was now some years since a feeling had sprung up among them for a king. In former times they had no king, but were governed by chiefs. When the authority of those chiefs was destroyed, as had been the case, the natives cast about for some authority to rule them, and it seemed to them that the only substitute was to set up a king. With this view a feeble and imbecile old man named Potatau was elected king. He was now dead, but a successor had been elected king. This must be taken as an expression of the desire of the Maories for a native Government. With regard to the particular question of the origin of the present war, he (Lord Lyttelton) must confess, having read all the papers on their Lordships' table and many others which had reached him from New Zealand, that he quite agreed in the conclusion of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), that the question of the tribal right was one which was open to very considerable doubt. He must also say since the Bishop had expressed his opinion in favour of the tribal right, and particularly of the exercise of that right on the part of Wirimu Kingi, that a perusal of those papers had very much shaken his (Lord Lyttelton's) opinion on this point, and he should recommend no one to form a definite opinion on the matter without having read the last despatches on the subject, especially that one from the Governor, dated in December 4, 1860, which occupied a space of some thirty pages in the volume before them. He thought that the Governor had produced weighty evidence to the effect that there was reason to doubt whether any ancient signorial rights had existed at all among the native chiefs, and in favour of the justice and wisdom of the course he had pursued.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that his noble Friend the noble Earl, in introducing this interesting discussion on a very important question upon the somewhat slender basis of a Bill which he (the Duke of Newcastle) had asked their Lordships to read a second time, expressed the regret which he felt that this was the only Bill which Her Majesty's Government were prepared to lay on the table with respect to the colony of New Zealand. Until the close of the noble Earl's speech he (the Duke of Newcastle) felt surprised at this expression of regret, not only because he knew the noble Earl disapproved of the measure which he (the Duke of Newcastle) introduced last year, but also because he

  169
  could not gather what remedial measure the noble Earl wished should be adopted. He (the Duke of Newcastle) would not say anything with regard to the recommendations he had received from time to time as to the measures lie might have introduced; but his noble Friend had certainly misunderstood or had misquoted the observations which he made in introducing the measure of last year. He certainly did not advocate that Bill on the ground that he disapproved of the constitution or Government of New Zealand, or of the course that had been taken with respect to the management of native affairs. He understood his noble Friend to say that that was the sole ground upon which that Bill was supported. What he (the Duke of Newcastle) did say was this—that the Constitution Act of 1852 having imposed upon the Governor certain duties with regard to the management of native-affairs, and it being found not only difficult, but almost impossible to carry those functions into effect, in order to enable him to do so he introduced that Bill giving him the assistance of a native Council. His noble Friend said he rejoiced that that Bill failed, because he thought the establishment of an independent native Council would have caused more confusion than already existed there. That, however, was not the opinion of the colonists. They objected to the Imperial Parliament legislating upon the subject, and he had expressly admitted that it was a purely exceptional case; but, so far were the colonists from thinking that a native Council would be productive of evil, that they had themselves introduced a Bill into the local Legislature constituting such a Council, thus adopting the principle, although varying the details, of the Bill of last year. His noble Friend had not dwelt at any length upon the origin of the war, and was right in abstaining from so doing, considering that they were now discussing the question a year after the commencement of the war; but, as the noble Earl had entered upon that question so far as to express his opinion, founded on the opinion of certain authorities in the colony, that the Governor was wrong, and that Wirimu Kingi's claim was a substantial one, he (the Duke of Newcastle) was bound to say that he did not concur in that opinion. He believed the Governor to be right, and in this respect he must say his mind had taken the same course as that of the noble Baron (Lord Lyttelton). Immediately after his return from America he
  170
  wrote a despatch, in which he stated that he had doubts of the justice of the course that had been pursued; but the despatches since received, and particularly the one referred to by the noble Baron, had convinced him that the Governor was right, and that the balance of opinions inclined in his favour. He did not dispute the authority of Sir William Martin; but against that he believed he might set the opinion of the present Chief Justice Arney, and of many others who had studied the question thoroughly. He could not understand upon what principle the claim of Wirimu Kingi was based. It had been said that it was not right the Governor should raise this question on an insignificant piece of land. No doubt in quantity it was an insignificant piece of land; but the principle involved was not insignificant. He had reason to suppose that other claims of a similar character would be brought, and it might fairly be put to their Lordships whether the Governor would have performed his duty to the Government he represented, or to the colony, if he had withdrawn his claim because a powerful chief resisted, and whether he must not then have closed all purchases of land had he submitted to the dictation of Kingi whose claim was totally unsubstantiated. So far from the Governor acting hastily, nine months were spent in the adjudication of the case. Every claim was maturely considered. It had been said that the hostile claims ought to have been referred to a tribunal. This was very plausible at first sight; but what tribunal? Was there any tribunal in New Zealand to which such affairs could be referred? The Governor and settlers would have been only too glad to have had such a tribunal; but the opponents of such a tribunal had always been the natives. No Governor was ever in circumstances to constitute such a tribunal without raising the apprehensions or opposition of the Maories. The Treaty of Waitangi did not refer to such a tribunal, but it said that transactions for the purchase of land should be carried on between the native proprietors of the land and the Governor, and that was the course which was taken in this case. And there was no doubt that the adjudication of the Governor was more favourable to the natives than such a tribunal could be, proceeding as such a tribunal always must on legal principles rigidly applied between seller and purchaser; whereas, on the contrary, it had been the constant and moat judicious procedure of the Government agents

  171
  established by the Treaty of Waitangi to yield every doubtful point in favour of the natives; and no doubt they consulted the interests of the colony by doing so. This question of a tribunal had been strongly urged, among others by the Bishop of New Zealand, in the document which he called his "solemn protest;" and here he must say he was greatly obliged to the noble Baron who had just sat down for the course he had taken, and the language he held with reference to the conduct of the Bishop and the missionaries. If the words used had fallen from himself as colonial Minister no doubt they would have had but little effect but coming from the noble Baron, occupying as he did an independent position, but one of warmest friendship to the Church in New Zealand, it could not fail to have an important influence. He trusted that excellent man the Bishop of New Zealand and the Missionaries of the Church of England would take in good part the lesson which had been read to them, and that they would in future abstain from that intererfence with the Civil Government which he had no hesitation in saying, on this occasion had been most unfortunate and mischievous. The protest, no doubt, was a most able document; but he must take the liberty of saying that if that protest had been on a political subject, or a question between the governor and the governed in any country nearer home, and had emanated from any bishop in a country of Europe, there would have been an universal cry against the impropriety of bishops and priests interfering in such matters, and above all of adopting such a tone as the Bishop of New Zealand had assumed. He made these allusions with very great pain to one holding the high position of the Bishop of New Zealand, and whom lie so sincerely respected, both for his admirable character and as a minister of the Gospel; but he had certainly allowed himself, both on this and on former occasions to be diverted from his high calling into the partial advocacy of native rights which had led to consequences of a very serious kind. If he said so much with respect to that great man—for so lie must call the Bishop of New Zealand—he said so still more emphatically with reference to smaller men in the Church, who, without the talent and ability, and, in some respects, the judgment he possessed, had certainly played a very mischievous part in these transactions. He would not say another word on this part of the subject with regard to the Bishop.
  172
  His noble Friend, as he had observed, had not entered at any great length into the origin of the war, and it was not necessary that he (the Duke of Newcastle) should do so. It would have been just as wise during the period of the great mutiny in India to have been discussing constantly in the press and the Houses of the Legislature the questions of the greased cartridges and other matters which were supposed to be the origin, but in reality were, he doubt, only the pretext of the rebellion. So he maintained that the question of the land was a more pretext. He believed, however, that it had been providential both for the Maories and the settlers that the event had been hastened. However much anything was to be deprecated that led to war and bloodshed, if this occasion had been obviated, eventually we should have had a war of a more serious nature, when we were, perhaps, less prepared for it, and when the preparations of the natives were more complete. There could be no doubt, in his opinion, that the struggle was one for nationality. There was a feeling among the Maories that their nationality was becoming gradually extinguished, and they were, therefore, anxious to prevent the extension of the English over the country of which they felt they had themselves been the paramount possessors. In this feeling alone the Land League originated, of which Wirimu Kingi was the chief. He had heard it stated in favour of this chief that, although he was at the head of the Land League, his object was totally different from another movement—namely, the Maori King movement—because he did not join that chief who had been already referred to bearing the the humble name of Potatau. Now, he attached no value to this fact at nil. William King did not join that movement because it was not his interest to do so. Of course, William King would not join in a movement which was in fact a rival movement to his own. The Maori King was his rival; Kingi wanted to be a great paramount chief himself; but when he was obliged to enter into hostile operations against the British Government his scruples vanished, and he not only joined the Maori King but made the Land League subservient to his purposes. The King movement had been going on for the last seven years; but for some time it made little progress, and there was no doubt the Government policy of leaving it alone to die out of itself would have been successful if none had been concerned but the natives. The

  173
  natives, however, in their hostility to the English Government, had not only been used but instigated by disaffected Europeans. There was no doubt upon this point. An agitation had long been carried on; emissaries had been sent abroad; in one part of the country subscriptions had been raised for setting up a printing-press with the view of disseminating among the natives everything which could excite them against the British Government; a flag had been designed and hoisted at the residence of this so-called Maori King—nay, more, an attempt was made to levy customs; all with the view of persuading the natives that the Governor of New Zealand had conceived a secret plan to exterminate them by degrees, and seize their whole lands for the common use of the British settlers. He did not say this without reason; and, if proof were wanted, he could point to the conduct of one of the native friendly tribes, who had shown every disposition to continue so in spite of the existence of what was going on around them. The question, in fact, had become one of sovereignty—a question between a Maori King on one side and the British Queen on the other. The natives were determined, if they could, to drive the British into the sea, and to establish an independent sovereignty under a Maori King. The Governor, in his last despatch, stated expressly that they showed no disposition to accept any terms of peace except such as should surrender the sovereignty of England. It was, of course, hardly necessary to say that no intention existed to extinguish the Maori race. He concurred with the noble Earl that the extinction of the native race would be most disgraceful to the character of this country. If there was one set of aborigines more than another which the English people respected and admired it was the Maori tribes. The Maories had shown many great qualities. They were almost, if not quite, as brave as Englishmen; and even in the present foolish and disastrous war they had performed individual acts of courage which did them the highest honour. He was sure, therefore, their Lordships would agree with him when he said that every life which could be spared would be a gain, and that the sooner we could bring the rebellion to a close the better it would be for all concerned. There could be no doubt that the causes of the war were of older date than the disputed purchase of land. He could not admit, however, that the chief blame lay, not
  174
  with the representative institutions which had been introduced into New Zealand, but with what had been called responsible government. Party government might have aggravated to a certain extent the evils caused by representative institutions; but throughout the whole of the blue book he thought the noble Earl would find no more than the two passages he had quoted to indicate that responsible government had really alarmed the natives. [EARL GREY: Twenty others.] Well, he was quite unable to find them. On the other hand, there could be no doubt that the change in the constitution which took place in 1852 had deprived the Governor of powers which he then possessed, and had indirectly deprived him of what was of still more importance—namely, the funds which were formerly at his disposal. Up to 1852 the Imperial Parliament voted a considerable sum annually for native purposes, and no equivalent substitute had been supplied under the system of government established in that year. He could not agree with the noble Earl in what he had said in condemnation of the General Assembly of New Zealand. The debates of that Assembly had been conducted with singular forbearance towards the natives, and with every disposition to promote their interests, as well as with very remarkable ability and moderation. The tone of the press was a different thing; but it was not right to quote the opinions of the press as conclusive; at all events, the press might be quoted on both sides—for as well as against the natives. He agreed with much that the noble Earl stated with respect to the provincial Legislatures and to the elective character of the superintendents. It was a great misfortune that the superintendents were not only independent of the supreme Government, but that the persons elected were frequently antagonistic to it. The system was a bad imitation of that prevailing in the United States, without any of the reasons which might be found in support of it in that great republic. He could not help thinking that if the provincial Legislatures had been confined more to municipal duties, and if their presidents had been nominated by the Governor-in-Chief, that would have been a" great improvement upon the system adopted in 1852. Although the revenue of New Zealand was considerable, nevertheless, it was of little general application, inasmuch as any surplus was divided amongst the provincial Governments, which generally con-

  175
  trived to absorb it altogether. Another cause of much of the mischief which had occurred was to be found in a merely nominal and fictitious extension of English laws to the natives. We had pretended to extend English laws to the natives, but in reality we had done no such thing, and under the present system the natives were neither separated from nor were they incorporated with English settlers. Scarcely any Maori was an elector. By the decisions of the Courts in New Zealand no title to land was recognized except such as was admitted by English law. If, therefore, a native wished to have a vote he must become a freeholder; but few natives could have any interest in acquiring a freehold. Nothing, he thought, could be more likely to conduce to the benefit of that colony, and to put an end to the state of things which had led to the present war than the adoption of that system which Sir George Grey had so usefully introduced at the Cape in the instance of British Caffraria—a system which he had previously carried to a certain extent in New Zealand itself, and which consisted in the acquisition of the friendship of the native chiefs by conferring upon them appointments in connection with the English Government, at the same time that they maintained their own position with the natives, and by establishing among them paid magistrates and a police. If, in addition, those schools to which his noble Friend near him had alluded were established, and the English language were taught in them, still greater advantages would in all probability result. The missionaries who went to the colony generally endeavoured to make themselves masters of the Maori language in order to communicate with the natives in their own tongue; forgetting the advantage to be acquired by the natives becoming acquainted with our language. He should next, notwithstanding that the House was becoming rapidly reduced to that number which usually sat out the discussion of colonial subjects, say a few words with reference to the disposition of the colonial Government to bear a due proportion of the expenses connected with its military administration. It had been observed in the course of the discussion that not only did the colonists expect that the British Government should pay the expenses of the whole of the Imperial troops which were sent out there, but that they had attempted to force upon us the payment of a purely colonial expenditure for
  176
  the purposes of their own militia and volunteers. Now, he, for one, was entirely opposed to any attempt on the part of the colonial Government to throw on the Parliament of this country expenses which they themselves ought to bear; but he was at the same time of opinion that it was desirable the Legislature of Great Britain should be just in dealing with the subject. There was, in connection with the point to which he was adverting, considerable difference between the privileges of some colonial Governments and others, but he certainly could not help admitting that the demand which had been put forward on the occasion which had been referred to by his noble Friend was both improper and untenable. He was happy, however, to be able to state—and he had heard of the circumstance with great satisfaction—that an agent from New Zealand was engaged in negotiating a loan of £150,000 on behalf of the colony for the express purpose of defraying expenditure consequent on the war. He might add that he hoped it would turn out to be a fact that there was upon the part of the Colonial Government an intention to provide a fund with the view of carrying out those improvements which he believed to be necessary to the better administration of native affairs when the present war was concluded. One of the great difficulties which existed in dealing with a colony at so great a distance from us as New Zealand was that the Government at home was obliged to fix upon a particular course in entire ignorance of the state of things which might exist in the colony when their instructions had arrived at their destination. Two months had elapsed, for example, since the date of the despatches from New Zealand which had just been received, and it was quite possible that orders sent out from the Colonial Department might be found to be calculated to be disadvantageous, if acted upon in the position of affairs which might, between the present moment and the period at which they would reach the colony, arise. As to which was the most probable, peace or a continuance of the war in New Zealand, he could make no positive statement. There were many symptoms which would lead one to the conclusion that the natives were desirous to sue for peace, and ho, trusted that before long their better instincts might prevail upon them to surrender those points with respect to the abandonment of the Sovereignty of the Queen

  177
  for which they were contending. Such being the prospects on the side of peace, there were, he must admit, on the other hand, serious appearances of a further extension of the war; and if those appearances should he realized the contest would, no doubt, in many respects, be one of the most disastrous character. Under all the circumstances of the case it was impossible to take at home steps of a very definite nature; but the Government, nevertheless, felt that there was one course which ought to be adopted—namely, to provide that the person to whom should be committed the management of the affairs of New Zealand should be a person likely to continue there a sufficient time to carry out any line of policy which it might be deemed expedient to pursue. The present Governor of the Colony, Colonel Gore Browne, would, in two or three months, have completed his period of office, inasmuch as at the expiration of that time he would have been there six years. It would, of course, be his duty if he were then Secretary for the Colonies to recall Colonel Browne, and to appoint a successor. He had, lie might add, felt that it would not, under existing circumstances, be desirable to wait for the expiration of the time which he had just mentioned to take the necessary steps in the matter; for if the war should, by the end of two or three months, have terminated, the new policy to be adopted should be entered upon immediately afterwards. He had, consequently, felt it to be his duty to recommend to Her Majesty to appoint a successor to Colonel Gore Browne; and, he was happy to say that the Queen, acting upon that recommendation, had been graciously pleased to appoint Sir George Grey as Governor of New Zealand—a choice than which he quite concurred with the noble Earl near him in thinking no better could be made. He had, of course, felt that in asking Sir George Grey to return to the Government of a colony the affairs of which he had before administered, and that from an appointment which was looked upon as somewhat superior, he was making a tax on his patriotism, and calling upon him to perform a public duty at a personal sacrifice. lie had, however, so much confidence in Sir George Grey's public spirit that lie felt no doubt that when he received the intimation which he had sent out to him on the subject by the mail of last month—it being probable that by the next mail—namely,
  178
  that which left England yesterday, he would receive official instructions to proceed to New Zealand—he would not lose a moment in making the necessary preparations and would set sail for his destination by the first opportunity. He had sent intimation to Colonel Gore Browne of the step which he had taken by the mail which had left for Australia yesterday; nor should he wish to close his remarks upon this particular point without marking his recognition in express terms of Colonel Browne's services. In recommending Her Majesty to send out Sir George Grey to New Zealand not the smallest reflection on Colonel Gore Browne's conduct was implied, and nobody, he thought, could read the despatches of that gallant officer during the period in which he held the position of Governor of the colony without feeling that they were written by a man of great ability, and were distinguished by consideration for all the interests with which he had to deal; while they clearly proved that no man had ever steered a clearer course than their author between the interests of the settlers on the one hand and those of the native population on the other. The only charge, indeed, he had heard made against him was, that he was too favourable to the latter; but he must, for his own part, say that he did not think that Colonel Browne had erred in that direction. He did not think that Governor Browne, though placed in circumstances of almost unparalleled difficulty, had acted wrongly in regard to the immediate pretext—for so he must call it—for this war, while he had shown a temper and discretion in all his transactions which did him the highest honour. Being a military man, and placed in a position which might tempt him to interfere more than a Governor should in military affairs, Governor Browne had, nevertheless, steered a clear and proper course, and the native population as well as the settlers in New Zealand would, no doubt, feel, when the war was closed, that, however distinguished had been the conduct of Sir George Grey, they also owed a debt of gratitude to the Governor whose period of office was now about to expire. He should be most unwilling to allow the slightest doubt to arise in the mind of any one in New Zealand as to the feeling in respect to Governor Browne which had induced this step to be taken, and he should have greatly-regretted if he had not had this opportunity of explaining these circumstances, and of bearing this testimony. He might,

  179
  further, State that he had recommended Colonel Gore Browne to Her Majesty for another governorship, thereby showing that his conduct was not disapproved. He would conclude by expressing his hope that the appointment of Sir George Grey would tend to bring about the entire suppression of these unhappy disturbances.
  EARL GREYexpressed his satisfaction at the statement made by the noble Duke. He wished to be understood as not meaning any censure on Governor Browne. Great mistakes had, doubtless, been made; but Governor Browne was not responsible for them, for he was in a false position, being deprived of the power to carry out his own policy. He thought the remembrance of the past services of Sir George Grey would render his appointment peculiarly acceptable to the people whom he was going to govern. At the same time he implored the Government not to place Sir George Grey in a false position. When he went to the colony he ought to go armed with those powers without which it would be impossible for him to bring his task to a successful close. Let Sir George Grey find, on his arrival in New Zealand, a British Act of Parliament suspending the existing constitution of that colony, and concentrating, as was absolutely necessary in a time of rebellion, all the power in the hands of the Governor.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he could not comply with this last suggestion of the noble Earl. He believed that it would be most unwise and most unjust to suspend the constitution on the ground of an insurrection of the native races. To adopt that course would be to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty, and would create dissatisfaction among both races. He should think that the suspension of the constitution would be under any circumstances, and certainly under the present, one of the most impolitic acts which a British Minister could commit.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.