seeing the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place, was anxious to call his attention to a subject that had excited the greatest interest within the last few days. He alluded to the conviction of an unfortunate female, who was tried for the murder of her infant child under very peculiar circumstances. He had no wish to ask the right hon. Baronet to give him any distinct answer at this moment to his inquiry, but from the nature of the case he thought that the result was somewhat extraordinary. He had received an application from the country with respect to it. If he understood the circumstances connected with this unhappy woman correctly, it appeared that she threw herself into the water with her child in her arms (being at the time in a state of the most appalling destitution), apparently with an intention to commit suicide, and not wishing to leave the child alive after her, she took it with her. She, however, was taken out of the water, but the child was drowned. For this she was recently tried, and being found guilty, was sentenced to death. In. the report of the case which he had seen, it was stated that the learned judge, in passing sentence upon her, gave her no hope of any commutation of her sentence. Now he thought that such a statement required no comment, and he should make none. He would merely ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had directed his attention to the particulars of this case, as he thought that public feeling would be greatly outraged by carrying into effect a sentence that was so utterly opposed to the jurisprudence of this country. He merely mentioned the subject now, that the attention of the right hon. Baronet might be called to it.

said the House would feel that it was not consistent with his duty to enter into a discussion upon this subject. In point of fact, however, his attention had not been called to the matter until the present moment. In the very delicate duty which would devolve upon him (Sir J. Graham), the hon. Gentleman might rest assured he would do his best to exercise a sound and dispassionate judgment; but beyond this he could not then say anything, as the House must be aware of the inconvenience attending such discussions.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, doubtless, aware that great excitement had been occasioned in Ireland by certain recent decisions of the court of law and the House of Lords on the subject of Presbyterian Marriages. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure to legalise marriages celebrated by clergymen of the Presbyterian persuasion—marriages which had been, for the last two centuries, supposed to be perfectly legal.

The state of the law as to Presbyterian Marriages, connected with the recent decision of the House of Lords, was now under the consideration of a Committee of that House. He had reason to know that the subject had been there fully considered, and that a Bill, emanating from that Committee, would very shortly be brought into the other House.

gave notice that on the Motion that the House do resolve itself into Committee on the Factories Bill, he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee that they should not entertain any proposition for limiting the hours of labour of persons above eighteen years of age.

asked whether it were the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, that the instruction of which the hon. and learned Member for Bath had just given notice, could be moved consistently with the forms of the House.

said, he thought the Motion which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to make was open to the same objection as that which the noble Lord had proposed. The rule of the House was simply this, that no person could move an instruction to a Committee to do that which could be done without an instruction. If the proposition of the hon. Member was within the scope and title of the Bill, it was quite competent for him to introduce it in Committee, either by moving an Amendment to some Clause now in the Bill, or by a new Clause, and then it would not be competent for the hon. and learned Member to move an instruction for that purpose.

said, he had considered that point, and he took the rule of the House to be, that no instruction could affirm the powers of the Committee, but that it might restrict or extend those powers. His purpose was to restrict the powers of the Committee, and he conceived, with all deference and submission to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, that it was perfectly competent for him to move the instruction of which he had given notice.

would submit, that the object of an instruction to the Committee was not to direct that Committee to do anything, or omit to do anything, but only to give the Committee power to do something which otherwise they would not be competent to do. If it were competent to them to do anything, or to omit to do anything, without an instruction, then he submitted that the instruction not being necessary, was unparliamentary. The single question was, whether the object sought for by the hon. Member for Bath could be attained without an instruction. If it could be, he would submit that the instruction was unnecessary and unparliamentary.

said, he certainly could not attain his object without an instruction. His object was to prevent the Committee from entertaining the question of restricting the hours of labour, and he could not attain it without a previous instruction.

said, it would be for the general convenience of the House that this matter should not be further debated upon a hypothetical case. He had endeavoured to explain to the House what he took to be the rule. It was better not to prolong the debate on a point of order. The question would more properly arise when the hon. and learned Member moved his instruction,—Subject at an end.

On the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee of Supply having been moved,

wished to know why the writ for Horsham had not been moved for when the writs for the other vacancies were. A vacancy in the Representation ought always to be filled up without delay.

said, he was not called upon to explain why the vacancy for this Borough had not been filled up. He believed, however, from communications which he had had with the noble Lord (Lord Abinger), who had been a Member of that House, that the Writ had been delayed for the obvious reason that the Writ of Summons to the House of Lords had not been received. The House could not, of course, issue a new Writ till then.

said, the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Treasury, asserted, that he had no knowledge on this subject, and he was not answerable for what the Government took no particular interest in. The Government ought to feel an interest wherever injury was done, and there was no greater injury to the public than when a Borough was left without its Representative. It was notorious that no one could sit as a Member there when he had become a Member of the other House. The House had declared, that to prevent any mistake, they would require that the Writ of Summons should be issued to every such person, in order to give sufficient proof that the Seat was vacant, but if a person who was a Member did not choose to apply for that Writ of Summons, or if it was not granted, it would appear that the Seat might be kept vacant, and the people would be deprived of a Representative. The non-issuing of the Writ in question might arise from some delay or neglect, but if continued for more than a few days, it might be necessary to bring it before the House as a question of privilege, in order to see what remedy might be applicable to the case.

Subject at an end.

Order of the Day read on the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

said, he wished to put some questions to the Secretary for the Admiralty. A return had been laid before the House, in February last, of the quantity of timber received in the various dockyards from 1823 to 1841, some matters in which seemed greatly to want explanation. It appeared that during that time, no less a quantity than 274,113 loads of timber had been received at the dockyards by private contract, while the quantity supplied by public contract was only 56,035. It was usual, when Timber was received in the Dock-yards, to have it examined by the Surveying Officer, to see whether it was sound, and instances had occurred, when timber was rejected by the Surveying Officer of an order being sent down, not from the Admiralty, but from the Storekeeper General, to receive the Timber at reduced prices. If the Storekeeper General had the right to order Timber to be received which had been rejected by the Dock-yard, be did not know what limit there could be to the abuses such a plan would be likely to generate. Under the present system, the Surveyor General did not know either where the Timber had been cut, or how long it had been cut before being brought to the Dock-yard. It could be no matter of surprise, when such a state of things existed, that British ships of war should so frequently and so suddenly require repairs. He had received an interesting statement as to the force of the French navy, which he would read to the House, and which would show how imperfectly protected the great commerce and interests of this country were under our present naval establishment. In the Levant the French had two 80-gun ships, one 52, one 24, three of 10, 16, and 20, and two steamers. On the Brazil station they had two frigates of 40 and 52, two corvettes of 20 and 28, and several brigs and steam-boats. In the Pacific they had one frigate of 60, two of 50, one of 40, two of 30, two corvettes of 20 and 24, and two steamers. In the Indian seas, two 50-gun frigates, two of 30, two of 24, and a steamer. In the West Indies they had one 50-gun frigate, five corvettes of 20 and 24 guns, two gun-brigs, with a great number of smaller cruisers. On the west coast of Africa they had one corvette of 20 guns, and one of 16, with ten smaller vessels and store ships, and two steamboats. In Oceana and New Zealand, one ship of 30 guns, and several transports. This was their principal strength on foreign stations, but in addition to this, they had an immense force in their home ports. At Toulon, they had a squadron composed of one ship of 120 guns; one of 109, two of 90, one of 60, one of 50, besides steamers. At Brest, there were one ship of 86 guns, one of 80, one of 52, one of 38, and one of 20. In addition to these, there were, en disiponibilité, as it was termed, three ships of 120 guns, one of 100, two of 86, four of 80, and one of 50; and in ordinary or building, fourteen ships of 100 and 120 guns, nine of 90, six of 60, seven of 50, and six of 40. There were five steam frigates of 540 and 450 horse power in preparation; six of 320, and six of 200 or 220, without including those of lesser force. When he saw such a large force at Toulon ready to put to sea at any moment, it seemed to him extraordinary that Great Britain had not a single ship in her ports in a state to meet an enemy. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, on a former night, had jocosely recommended the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to take the command of the Channel fleet; but he (Sir C. Napier) would like to know where was the Channel fleet for the noble Lord to command? Where was the exercise squadron to be found? Four years ago, in France, 170,000,000f. had been voted for the navy, and this year 4,000,000f. more had been applied to the same service, and he begged to direct the attention of Ministers to that fact. At the present moment the Revenue of this country exceeded the expenditure by about 2,000,000l. sterling, so that it would not be difficult to find funds to apply to the equiqment and efficiency of our Navy, and he could hardly too often repeat the statement, that while France had so large a disposable force ready for sea, Great Britain had not a single vessel in a condition to meet an enemy. He moved as an Amendment that there be laid before the House a return of the quantity of timber rejected by the surveyors of dock-yards, which had afterwards been received; and for return of the number of official letters signed by subordinate officers.

complained that the hon. and gallant Officer, instead of merely putting a question, had gone into details respecting the naval services of different countries, particularly of England. He had not the slightest hesitation in giving all the explanation in his power. When large contracts for timber, such as 14,000 loads, were made, some of it was found not strictly to come within the terms; it was, perhaps, a foot too short, or a little too small, but at the same time excellent timber, and this, if it were needed, was sometimes taken at a reduced price. Not a single case had occurred since he had filled the post he had the honour to hold, in which it had not been made the subject of grave deliberation. Both the present Board of Admiralty and the last had done their best to break through the system of mo- nopoly, and to substitute competition; but the timber merchants Bad thrown much difficulty in the way of a change. As to the observations of the hon. and gallant Officer on the state of the French navy. It did not become countries in firm amity to be continually distrustfully watching each other, and the present Government had done what was due to economy on the one hand, and to efficiency on the other.

Amendment negatived. Main Question again put.

rose to call the attention of the House to the appointment of certain Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland. He observed that he was by no means opposed to the system of appointing Stipendiary Magistrates, and he admitted that they tended to promote tranquillity. He regretted even that they were not more numerous, and that they did not attend every Sessions, since on many accounts they had important ad vantages over the local magistracy. He complained however of the appointments of Mr. Brereton and Mr. O'Brien. With respect to the former, he was appointed, against the ordinary rule, for a district with which he was connected, and the Judge at the late Nenagh assizes had made severe comments on his conduct, in taking, if not entrapping a prisoner. The learned Judge then charged the Jury, and in commenting on the omissions in the informations, declared that he felt it to be his duty to say from the Bench, that Mr. Brereton did not do his duty, did not fulfil the obligations cast upon him by the Statute, and said, that particularly since the passing of the Prisoners' Counsel Bill, it was the bounden duty of Magistrates—a duty to which they were sworn—to give in their depositions a full, clear statement of the witness's story, and not curtail or abridge it in any material point. This, he again repeated, Mr. Brereton had not done, but had, in this case, clearly violated the law. With respect to Mr. O'Brien, he was in 1840, a flaming Repealer, and refused to give the health of Lord Fortescue at a public [dinner at Ballinasloe, on account of his Lordship's opinions not coinciding with his on the subject, and he wrote as follows in a letter to Mr. Dillon Browne, asking him to attend the dinner;—"Your friend and warm admirer, O'Connell, keeping his eye upon the falling sands of life's hour-glass, is terribly in earnest, and performs wonders under the pressure of advancing years." This was 1840. In 1841 he continues his unqualified admiration of Mr. O'Connell, and pronounces the most fulsome panegyric upon him in September that year. In the very next month, October, he speaks of the hon. Gentleman thus:—"A Repealer is a rebel, drilled by an old lawyer instead of a soldier. His stony eye has no moisture for affliction. He is an unnatural being, who lives in an inverted order of things." And from that time up to a very few months before his appointment, he kept writing letters in the newspapers, with his name attached, in which he described Mr. O'Connell as the publisher of a bloody manual, the raiser of a howl like the night-call of the hyæna, a monster, a cunning impostor, a rebel, a person to grace a gibbet. And of the priests, he says, when Mr. O'Connell declined an armed rising of the people, the reverend gentlemen were most woefully disappointed. This was the gentleman whom the present Government had appointed to office, and he asked whether it were calculated to inspire confidence in the administration of justice on the part of the peasantry, or respect on the part of any one. He deemed the appointment an immoral public act, and in the eyes of the people of Ireland it was on account of his abuse of Mr. O'Connell that this gentleman was appointed, who had no peculiar qualification or merits, and who had refused to give the health of Lord Ebrington. He mentioned the case there to call to it the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government.

said, with regard to Mr. Brereton, he was a Magistrate of the county of Tipperary, in the year 1837; he was then appointed baronial collector, on which occasion he received a very complimentary address from the magistrates with whom he had acted. Besides which 103 most respectable inhabitants of Nenagh had recommended him to the Government for appointment; and the Lord Lieutenant, not having any personal interest in him, had concurred in that recommendation. This was a prima facie case in favour of his appointment. He agreed that it was not generally the rule to appoint parties connected with any particu- lar district; but although Mr. Brereton resided in the neighbourhood of his own property, he was not allowed, as some had been, to reside in his own house. The House would excuse him for entering into the facts which appeared at the last assizes, for the Government had referred them to the Lord Chancellor for advice. With respect to Mr. O'Brien, he did not stand up to defend the foolish letter to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted; but it was written four years ago, when Mr. O'Brien was only twenty-four years of age. He was now twenty-eight, and it ought not, in his opinion, to form a permanent disqualification. Mr. O'Brien was of an old family, of an independent property, and had been brought up to the bar, though not called, and had received a legal education. The charge had not been brought forward in any tangible manner to be dealt with. Mr. O'Brien denied that he had refused to give the health of Lord Ebrington, and if that Nobleman's name had been expunged from the list of toasts it had been by the stewards, and not by him. He admitted, that when a young man, he had been possessed with the notion, that the prosperity of Ireland would be produced by a local Legislature, but he began to suspect the motives of the leading members of the Association, his eyes were opened, when he found them seeking for foreign aid, and received communications from America and distant parts. In a letter to Mr. Ray, the Secretary of the Repeal Association, written in October, 1841, he ceased to be a member of that Association, saying that it now became the duty of any one exercising his reason to be the slave of no faction or no man, but boldly to come forward and sever himself from their body; and, at the same time, he wrote a letter, with some hyperbolical expressions, to Mr. Steele. This course Mr. O'Brien had pursued for upwards of two years, and it was not till November, 1843, that he was recommended to his noble Friend, the Lord Lieutenant by several respectable persons, who vouched for his ability, integrity, and honour. On those recommendations Mr. O'Brien had been appointed Stipendiary Magistrate. Of course his continuance in such a post must depend upon his future conduct and the nature of his qualifications, but he had done nothing yet to forfeit the confidence of the Government. If he want- ed a precedent for the appointment to office of a person who had been a Repealer, he might advert to the case of Mr. Nicholas Fitzsimon, who was for many years a Repealer. He came into that House in 1832; he remained in Parliament as a Repealer, or without avowing any change up to 1841, when he was appointed to office by the late Government. The Government was attacked for that appointment by the Monitor, a a Liberal, but not a Repeal Paper; and in a letter then written, Mr. Fitzsimon said, that he had changed, and that he no longer entertained opinions favourable to Repeal. Still he held his Seat, the world generally believing that he was a Repealer; and, therefore, the mere fact that a man had been a Repealer, was not a disqualification for office. All the inquiries he had made with respect to Mr. O'Brien, and the statements which had been placed in his hands, showed that he was a man of honour, and capable of discharging his duties; but if the hopes formed of him should be disappointed, or if he should display any bias to any party, it would be the duty of the Government to remove him. Further than this he could not promise.

was free to admit that the explanation of the noble Lord, with regard to the first appointment alluded to, was satisfactory, as far as it went. Mr. Brereton's folly rather savoured of Orange notions; but as there was to be further investigation into this reapitcular case, he would not say more of it now. But, however satisfactory the explanation as to Mr. Brereton might be, that with respect to Mr. O'Brien, was equally unsatisfactory. The juvenile protege of the noble Lord was only twenty-four when he wrote one hyperbolical letter, but he was twentyeight when he wrote the other hyperbolical letter. The only difference was, that he wrote it on the other side in language, equally violent. The noble Lord's protege now had his eyes open — he had been unmesmerised by being appointed to office. He believed, however, that there were some other facts connected with the case. When Mr. O'Connell was Lord Mayor of Dublin, Mr. O'Brien had been brought up before him. Not having the wherewith to pay his servant, he was brought before the Lord Mayor's Court. He denied the jurisdiction of the Court, being a Kerry man. Mr. O'Connell gave judgment against him, and he believed that his eyes were opened against that judgment. He then turned round, and used his hyperbolical language in writing against, not for Repeal. He was not aware whether he was rewarded on this account, but if so, he considered it most improper for the Government to hold out a premium for desertion, which was a most immoral course. He did not say that this was the case; he believed that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government was anxious to do justice, but he agreed with his hon. Friend, the Member for Bath, that it was impossible justice could be done for Ireland whilst the right hon. Baronet had such subordinates there. He had had some experience in Irish matters, and he was convinced that whilst the right hon. Baronet had the weight of such subordinates round his neck, they would sink the Government. The rumour ran, and it never had been contradicted till that night, that Mr. O'Brien had himself struck out the name of Lord Ebrington from the list of toasts, because he had expressed an opinion opposed to Repeal. Mr. Brereton had been recommended to the Government by the Lord Lieutenant of the County, and 103 gentlemen of the town, where he had acted. He would venture to say, that Mr. O'Brien had not been similarly recommended; he believed that Mr. O'Brien's property was of a very Irish description, and he did not think him a man who was recommended by the Lord Lieutenant of his county. The office required temperance, firmness, and discretion in a supereminent degree, and how did those qualities apply to Mr. O'Brien's appointment, who wrote those hyperbolical letters? Was the propriety of the appointment a question of letter writing? Did the Government expect such a writer to administer justice with temper and discretion? He said that they would not. At first he was sent to Nenagh, where temper and discretion were peculiarly necessary: he had since been removed to another place. Where Mr. O'Brien was now, he was not prepared to say; he believed, however, he was sent to his friend Mr. Dillon Brown, in Mayo, with whom he first commenced his career of letter writing. He admitted the sincerity of the noble Lord, but he must say, that the Irish Government required supervision. It was to be regretted that such appointments were made by Lord de Grey, who, he was sorry to say, was not in a good state of health, and it was said, there were many avenues open to his ear which delicacy prevented him from enlarging farther upon; it was, however, reported in Ireland that the Lord Lieutenant was influenced by those relations he had formed by marriage in a manner which caused a feeling of great dissatisfaction against the Irish Government. The appointment which had been alluded to, it could not be denied, had caused very general complaint in Ireland. He would not then allude to the Tipperary trials, as he understood his hon. Friend, the Member for Waterford, was about to bring that subject before the House; and he would only, in conclusion, repeat that he believed the appointment of Mr. O'Brien a most improper and unwise proceeding.

Subject at an end.

wished to make a few observations on the amount of " 379,651l. for Colonial, Consular, and other Foreign Services." Since the late Acts of Parliament regulating the Colonies, and the abolition of Slavery, they (the Colonies) were placed on a different footing. Formerly when an observation was made on the great amount of the charge for supporting the Colonies, they were told that the peculiar situation of the Slave population required it; but now as the Tariff was altered, and Slavery abolished, it surely was not necessary to keep up so expensive an establishment. The whole system on which our Colonial affairs were managed was bad, and required amendment. It was no use for any person, or body of persons, however reputable to send home any complaint from any of our Colonies, for the ears of the Government were closed against all communications that did not come to them direct through the Governor of the Colony. This ought not to be the case, for it was through private channels that the real grievances could alone be fairly communicated, for new Colonies required the most vigilant attention to prevent the ruin of those who had emigrated to them. There was the Colony of New Zealand. Upwards of 10,000 persons had been induced by the Company to emigrate to that Settlement and buy laud, and what was their present condition and prospects? He hoped a strict inquiry would be instituted into the whole of this case before the expiration of the present Session. The strictest economy was now become necessary, and ought to be enforced by Parliament into the whole expenditure of the country both at home and abroad; and he felt quite sure that if the whole were submitted to a Committee of any twelve Gentlemen on either side of the House at the beginning of the Session, a reduction of the expenditure of the country might be made, without the slightest detriment, of from two to three millions. Then see what relief this saving would give to the people. It would enable the Government to take off the Excise Duty on Soap, Paper, and Glass, and with our resources for the manufacture of those articles, would enable us to excel all the countries of the world. He did not mean to say that the Government were indisposed to relieve the people from the pressure of those duties, but they were so besieged by their supporters that they could not do as they wished. He thought it his duty to call the attention of the Government to this subject, and especially to the Colonial Estimates, many items of which he entirely disapproved of, and required the fullest explanation before be could agree to.

was anxious to give the fullest explanation with regard to any Estimate the hon. Gentleman might allude to, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Colonial Office was desirous of being as economical as possible. There were very few items introduced in these Estimates which had not been sanctioned by the House before in previous years. With regard to an observation made by the hon. Gentleman, he begged to say that it was the rule of the Colonial Office that, whatever complaint was made, it should come through the Governor, but it was the bounden duty of the Governor to forward to the Secretary of State, every application which might be made, with such observations upon it as he, being the recognised authority, felt it necessary should accompany such statements. It would be impossible that the Colonial Office could receive accusations from persons without giving the Governor the opportunity of answering them; and much time would be saved by requiring the Governor to accompany any complaint with his own observations, rather than it should be first received at the Colonial Office, and referred back to him for explanation; but every person in any Colony was fully at liberty to make any complaint to the Secretary of State, and no Governor had a right to withhold it. He could not understand the hon. Gentleman as meaning to say that a Gentleman holding the important situation of Governor of a Colony should not have an opportunity of explaining his own views upon any charge which might be sent by a colonist to the Colonial Secretary. The hon. Gentleman had stated that it was difficult to carry on the Government of a Colony where there were two authorities independent of each other, and each party, but neither wholly responsible. He did not think it would be desirable to enter on a discussion of the affairs of the Colony of New Zealand at the present moment. It was very probable from what he had recently heard, that the affairs of the New Zealand Company might come before Parliament before the end of the present Session, and he would then readily give the fullest explanation of the whole of the circumstances; but he agreed with the hon. Gentleman in the difficulty arising from two parties possessing authority in a Colony.

said, that as the Colony of New Zealand had been referred to, he must say a word or two on the subject. With reference to the New Zealand Company, most of the Gentlemen who formed themselves into that Company, did so with a view to the public good, and not for pecuniary benefit. He would not say, being himself concerned, how far they had well or ill-conducted the concerns of that Company. The hon. Member for Montrose said that they had incurred a great responsibility by having sent out 10,000 persons to that Colony, whose hopes, the hon. Member added, had not been realised. He agreed with the hon. Member that they had incurred a great responsibility, and he could only say he hailed with delight the remark made by the noble Lord opposite, that an opportunity would be given of discussing the affairs, not only of the New Zealand Company, but the whole affairs of the Colony, which must terminate in a Committee, by which every proceeding, he hoped, would be investigated, with a view to the security of the public. A mere discussion would not satisfy the public, and he therefore took it for granted that the noble Lord meant that it would end in a Committee, and as the affairs of New Zealand would shortly come before the House, he called upon the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government to bear in mind that he (Mr. Aglionby) was now stating on behalf of the Company that he thought it was due no less to them than to the public that there should be a strict Parliamentary inquiry into every portion of their conduct. It never could be tolerated that a Company should have taken upon themselves such vast powers, without having every motive and action investigated. The noble Lord had spoken of two different authorities, but he did not know that the New Zealand Company had ever usurped authority due to the Government. The Company was formed after an unsuccessful application to Parliament, a Bill being brought in by Mr. Baring for Colonising the Island, which was thrown out. A Company was then formed to save the island from going into the possession of other Powers; it had that effect, and the island now belonged to the British Crown, but he totally disclaimed any wish to set up an authority against the Government; all they desired was to be let alone, and he wished to heaven they had been. The hon. and learned Gentleman then alluded to the productions of the island, and the excellence of its climate, and concluded by expressing a hope that an inquiry would soon be instituted by a Committee of the House, or a Committee into the whole affairs of the country.

explained that he sedulously refrained from expressing any opinion whatever, but merely stated that from the knowledge of the Company, and the affairs of New Zealand, that it was probable an inquiry would take place. He threw out no remark other than the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose called for, that the affairs of the country could not be well administered by two parties possessing authority; and be certainly was anxious that an inquiry should take place.

said, that whenever the House went into the searching investigation which had been alluded to, it would be found that so far from the Company having been a source of expense to the Government, they had not only paid all the expenses of the paltry establishment which had been allowed, but bad contributed largely from their resources, and the pockets of the settlers sent out by the Company, to the proper Government.

complained that this country was charged with the amount of the Civil Government of the colonies, which should fall upon the colonies themselves. He most strongly objected to the payment of 130 Colonial Magistrates in the West Indian Colonies, as the negro inhabitants of these places were well able to pay their expenses. He complained also, that 11,300l. should be voted to pay the Clergy in Canada, and above all, since the Crown had surrendered all its rights over the lands of that colony to the Colonial Assembly.

Subject at an end.

said, the items under this head were pefectly preposterous. The vote was by 2,000l. larger than that of last year, and he should move that the vote be postponed; at any rate until more satisfactory information on the subject was obtained.

defended the vote. The charge under this head had been considerably reduced of late years.

The Committee divided on the question—Ayes 68; Noes 23: Majority 45.

said, that before he agreed to the vote he was desirous to have further information with respect to it, and he should, in the absence of such information, move, that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again. It was absolutely necessary that they should have further information before agreeing to the vote.

agreed in the opinion expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that the House ought to have further information before they agreed to the vote.

said, that further information would be afforded, and in sufficient time to enable the hon. Member to oppose the vote, if he thought necessary at a future stage.

withdrew his Motion, on the understanding that the House should be furnished with the requsite information before they finally agreed to the vote.

Vote agreed to.

objected to the charge for a Bishop for that colony. He wanted to know what we had to do with appointing Bishops, and maintaining the Church Establishment in all our colonies. The Government were not content with sending out an honest poor parson, but must sent out a Bishop. He did not know why such a functionary should be appointed for such a place. It was an outrage upon the people of this country to appoint individuals to such offices, to call them Bishops, and then to pay them out of the sweat of the industrious population.

would not discuss with the hon. Gentleman the propriety, when we were founding a new colony, of furnishing it with religious instruction. He should only say, that the present Government was not responsible. Dr. Selwyn had received from the former Government an assurance of a fixed salary as Bishop of New Zealand, and finding the vote in the Estimates, although he should have been reluctant to place it there, he was under the necessity of retaining it, in order to preserve the faith of the Government.

said, what he complained of was, that the Government, without consulting that House, made appointments, and then came down with an appeal ad misericordiam, to enable it to redeem its engagements. He wanted to know what this country had to do with forcing the Church Establishment upon all the colonies.

had all along protested against this expenditure as a charge upon the British people, contrary to a pledge given to the country, as an assurance had been given that there should be no additional charge upon the public. One half the people of this country did not go to Church, and yet they were obliged to pay for the Church Establishment, besides maintaining their own clergy. He thought the colonies ought to maintain their own clergy. Here were two pledges—one to the Bishop, and one to the country. Which was to be kept? The House of Commons ought to declare, that the pledge given to the country should be redeemed. Let the Government place a Bishop in every colony, if they pleased; but, for God's sake, let them not make him pay for it.

said, the House had already sanctioned this vote, and he thought the hon. Gentleman must be mistaken, when he said there was a pledge that there should be no additional charge on the public, because the vote had been introduced in the Estimates by the late Government.

begged to correct an error of the noble Lord, as to the introduction of this vote into the Estimates, for the noble Lord himself was the first Colonial Secretary who so inserted it, and in a former conversation on the subject, the noble Lord said, that the noble Member for the City of London had promised Dr. Selwyn that the vote should appear in the Estimates. He considered the appointment of a Bishop to New Zealand a most inappropriate one, as the congregation was so small; but at the same time he thought the question was too important a one to be discussed upon a Vote in the Estimates.

said, that when he entered office he found the appointment completed by an official letter from the Secretary for the Colonies to the Treasury, and he thought this a sufficient pledge to warrant the Government in placing this item upon the Estimates.

thought, that in a new colony of this description the appointment of a high principled man in the character of Bishop was likely to give a high tone to society. Dr. Selwyn was perfectly beloved in the colony.

said, that he thought, that whenever there was a separate community with clergy there ought to be a Bishop.

did not deny the high merits of Dr. Selwyn, and the utility of his services, but the question was, who ought to pay him?

said, that in order to show his disapprobation of the principle of this appointment he should move to reduce this Vote by 600l.

The Committee divided on the Question, that the sum be 6.965l;—Ayes 19; Noes 80: Majority 61.

Vote agreed to.

Several other grants were made. The House resumed, the Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at twelve o'clock.