said, he trusted that every word and every line in these clauses might not be made the subject of discussion, as they had hitherto been. Unless he had the confidence of the House, he must at once give them up altogether, for they would not be enabled to pass them before Easter, and then the main object for which they were intended would be utterly defeated. He did not say this for his own convenience at all; but he did feel that it was quite useless for them to meet there every morning, if the Bills should not pass before Easter. He did not, of course, wish to put a stop to the discussion of any principle; but that every clause should be discussed, word byword, did appear to him to be quite unnecessary. He should be governed in the course that he should hereafter pursue by what should occur that morning.

stated, that he had prepared an Amendment, which he proposed to insert in the place of that clause, and which, he trusted, would meet the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, who at their previous sitting had recommended the introduction of the word "highway," instead of "carriage-road," so as to include both footways and bridleways. The following was the substance of what he proposed to insert, viz.—

"If the railway shall cross any highway other than a public carriage-road, the company shall, at its own expense, and at all times, maintain convenient ascents and descents, and other convenient approaches, with handrails and other fences, and shall, if it be a bridleway, make and maintain good and sufficient gates; or, if a footway, good and sufficient gates or stiles."

wished to ask, whether something might not be done to compel the company to employ a sufficient police force, to prevent disturbances in the neighbourhood, and to preserve property through which the railroad passed. It was quite notorious that in many cases where a large number of unmanageable men were employed upon a railroad from all parts of the country, the depredations and disturbances which arose in consequence of there not being any sufficient power to keep them in awe were shocking to contemplate.

said, the subject had not escaped his attention; but he was not able to see how properly to carry it out, and he had on the whole thought it would not be advisable to introduce any clause on the subject; but he was open to suggestions from any hon. Member.

thought that the case was completely met by the Railway Police Act, which was passed a Session or two ago; and in conformity with which a railway company was compelled, on certain demands being made, to appoint a police force to protect the district.

, before discussing the matter more in detail, would examine the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule) had referred, and which he believed would quite meet the case.

said, it appeared to him that this clause would act injuriously to the public, and in this way:—Suppose a railway going through a high hill; if they found no stone or other valuable material there, they would make a tunnel through it, which would not much deface the property; but if it contained valuable stone for their bridges and aqueducts, they would in all probability make an immense open cutting, instead of a tunnel, in order to get at the stone, to use "in the construction of their works." That would quite destroy the appearance of the ground, and ought, in his opinion, to be guarded against.

did not think that the case which the right hon. Gentleman had made out was one of great hardship; because it was quite clear, by other clauses of the Bill, that if the company took stone, or anything else from the land, they must pay for it.

could hardly conceive the possibility of a company undertaking to make a tunnel, if a cutting would by any means answer the purpose; for every one knew that the expense of tunnelling was much greater than that of excavating, under ordinary circumstances. He regarded the clause as a safeguard to the landowner; who was, by it, entitled to any minerals found under the soil, even after he had unwittingly sold it to the company. He suggested, however, that the words "carried away" should be omitted, because the company might choose to carry a whole mine away.

said, that to speak of compensation in such a case as this was all a farce. No doubt the Legislature would next allow these marauding engineers not only to go into a gentleman's cellar and tilt his wine, but actually to run away with the bottles.

said, if the Committee would allow the clause to pass as it then was, he would look at it again, and would take care that it should not convey more than it was intended to do. The intention simply was to reserve to all parties the right to the minerals under their land.

thought that it ought to be made imperative on the companies to carry passengers and goods, after the great powers with which Parliament had invested them with a view to the accommodation of the public. He should move, therefore, the insertion of words which would make the first part of the clause read thus—"It shall be lawful for the company or their lessees, and they are hereby required to use."

did not see what good end would be served by the insertion of the proposed words. It was not at all likely that a number of men would combine to make a railway simply for the pleasure of making a railway. Beyond a doubt profit was their ultimate end, and they could not hope to make any profits unless they carried passengers and goods.

said, that lines had been made without the slightest intention on the part of the promoters that they ever should be worked. Suppose an existing trunk line of some length: a new company proposed to make certain new and shorter lines from, town to town, which if carried would materially interfere with the traffic of the main line. Then the old company seeing this also started sundry new branches, simply to compete with the other new ones, and if they succeeded in beating the new lines out of the field that was all they wanted, and they did not care even to construct their own new lines.

asked the Committee seriously to consider what would be the effect of acceding to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. If they said that the company must take every person who should offer himself upon the line, they must be prepared to say that if a million of passengers wanted to go on the line, the railway company was bound to carry them all. He certainly conceived, if it were intended to secure the rights of the public by a peremptory clause of this sort, that this was neither comprehensive enough nor stringent enough for the purpose. That, however, was not the object of the clause. Besides, he could not conceive that it would be just to compel railway companies who had started with hottest intentions, but had found that they could not afford to carry passengers, to continue, when instead of being remunerated, every train that was started proved a dead loss to them.

opposed the Amendment. Unless it were much more comprehensive, the companies might constantly evade it. They might, for example, run only one train, and that at so inconvenient an hour, and at so slow a rate of speed, that no one could go by it.

should vote for the Amendment, to put an end to the scheming and jobbing intentions with which railways were often started.

put the case of a railway made without being intended ever to be worked, or of a railway which was not remunerating the company—what would be the effect if, in such a case, a clause was inserted in this Consolidation Bill, compelling the company to work that line? Why, the public would be in danger of having the line worked when it was in a state of very imperfect repair; instead, therefore, of advantage accruing to the public from the adoption of the Amendment, he contended that very great danger both to life and limb would be the result.

objected to the Amendment. He was of opinion, that the difficulties which had been alluded to by different hon. Members in the course of the debate might very easily be obviated, if the Private Committees would exercise due caution and discretion. They might, for example, in the first place, not sanction any line where there was not proof of a sufficient traffic existing to induce the company to work the railway for the sake of profit. Another thing which he should suggest to Private Committees would be, to guard and watch very particularly all applications for the amalgamation of companies, or for giving one company control over the line of another company. And again, if a company applied for new branches he should take care to provide that those branches should be worked as long as the main line was worked. He did not see, however, how the proposed object could be carried into effect by a general rule. To compel a company to work a line when it was no longer remunerative to them, appeared to him to be contrary to every principle of justice. He hoped that the Committee would not attempt to enact, in these general Bills, clauses which it would be impossible to carry into effect.

said, that no doubt his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment if the noble Lord would give a promise to reconsider the clause.

suggested, that a Standing Order, requiring Private Committees to attend carefully to this matter, and to report to the House upon it in every case, might be found to answer the purpose.

said, that he had already given his best attention to the subject, and he did not, see what else he could do with it. He would prefer dividing, if the hon. Gentleman persisted in having a division, in order that the Committee might decide upon it at once.

said, he should press his Amendment.

said: I rise, Sir, to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government some questions of which I gave notice a few days ago, with regard to the hostilities carrying on between Buenos Ayres and Monte Video. It is well known that between those two States there has existed, for five or six years past, a state of hostility more or less interrupted. And it is also well known that the British Government at one time endeavoured, by an offer of mediation between the two parties, to put an end to those hostilities. The questions which I am going to ask are founded on documents which have been published in the newspapers of Monte Video, in which appeared a Correspondence between Mr. Mandeville, the British Minister at Buenos Ayres, S. Arana, the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Buenos Ayres, and S. Vidal, the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Monte Video. From that Correspondence I am led to infer, that about the summer of 1842, the British Government determined to interpose, and put an end to those hostilities by forcible interference. I beg to guard myself against being supposed to express any opinion, one way or the other, whether the case was such as either to call for or authorise such an interference on the part of any third party, though it is perfectly true that the great commercial interests of this country were affected by that war; and that it would be of great importance to the interests of this country, that the war in question should cease. Nor is it necessary for me to say anything as to which of the two parties was in the right; or to give any opinion whether both of them were in the wrong. But this I may observe—that it appears by a letter written by Mr. Vidal, dated August the 30th, 1842, and sent in answer to a letter from Mr. Mandeville, bearing date the 25th of the same month, that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had a short time previously informed the Agent of the Monte Videan Government in this country that the British Government had determined to put an end to the war between the two Republics in question. It also appears, by a letter from Mr. Mandeville, addressed to Mr. Vidal, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Republic of Monte Video, dated the 9th of September, in the same year, that Lord Cowley had an interview, on the subject of the war between the Argentine and Uruguay Republics, with M. Guizot; and that the latter had agreed to all the proposals made on the part of Great Britain, for the union of the forces of the two countries, in order to put an end to the war. It likewise appears that an official note was sent on the 16th of December, in the same year, by Mr. Mandeville, to the Government of Buenos Ayres; and a similar note was, I have been informed, delivered to that Government by the French Minister at the same time. Mr. Mandeville's note I will read to the House, as it appears in the public journals of Monte Video; and the right hon. Baronet will, I trust, inform the House, whether it substantially agrees with the official documents that are, no doubt, in his possession. It is as follows:—

In reply to the questions put by the noble Lord, I have in the first place to observe, with respect to the communication which was presented by our Minister, and by the Representative of France, to the Government of Buenos Ayres, that the translation which has been read by the noble Lord to the House is substantially correct, and agrees in the material points with the original document which I hold in my hand. There is, as might naturally be supposed, some variance in the expressions used; but I must at the same time admit that the translation is in substance perfectly correct. In December, 1842, the Representatives in the Argentine Confederation of the two Powers of England and France did send in to the Governments of Buenos Ayres and Monte Video the representation contained in the letter which has been read by the noble Lord to the House; and I think in the following January they went forward and stated that they had good reason to believe that the combined fleets of England and France had sailed from Europe for the purpose which they had before stated. I do not know whether the noble Lord recollects that in the month of June, 1843, a question similar to that which he has now brought forward was put to me by, I think, the hon. Member for Dumfries. That hon. Gentleman asked me on that occasion whether the Minister Plenipotentiary of this country had been entirely justified in the course which he had taken towards Buenos Ayres; and whether he had full authority for threatening that, if the amicable efforts of England and France failed in putting an end to the war raging between that Republic and Monte Video, those Powers had resolved upon a forcible interference for that purpose. In reply to that question, I stated that the Representatives both of England and France had received an instruction to make the most urgent communications to the Governments of the two belligerent Powers, pressing in the strongest manner for the suspension of hostilities; but I added at that time that the Representative of England had not been justified by his instructions in holding out any menace of armed interference on the part of England and France; that, in fact, I thought both the Minister of England and the Minister of France did go beyond their instructions; at the same time that I felt they had been placed in peculiar circumstances of great difficulty and embarrassment. They saw a desolating war interfering with the pursuits of innocent commerce, and materially injuring the interests of many subjects of their respective countries; and, under these circumstances, the Representatives both of England and France did, in my opinion, exceed the bounds which their instructions warranted them in reaching. Being most solicitous to put an end to the warfare, they took the earliest opportunity of communicating their views to the Governments of the two Republics; but in doing so they were induced, in my opinion, to go beyond the strict limits of their instructions. Such was the reply which I gave to the question put to me in this House in 1843. The noble Lord referred to a letter written by Mr. Mandeville, in 1842, to Senor Vidal, the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Monte Video. I am sorry that Mr. Mandeville did not communicate these documents to us; but we did not know anything of them until we saw them referred to in the public papers of Monte Video. I must at the same time observe, that I consider Mr. Mandeville to be a most worthy officer, and I am willing to make every allowance for the painful circumstances in which he was placed. He knew that the most cordial feeling existed between the Governments of this country and of France on the subject; and the Representative of France having arrived at Monte Video at the time, and having communicated with him, it was, I think, partly in consequence of that circumstance that Mr. Mandeville was induced to exceed his instructions. Though Mr. Mandeville was informed that he had exceeded his instructions, and that he had done wrong in stating to the Governments of Monte Video and Buenos Ayres that England and France had resolved to resort, if necessary, to armed interference to put an end to the war; yet, looking at the great object which he had in view, namely, the putting an end to the existing hostilities between those countries, it must be admitted, in justice to him, that he had a most powerful inducement to act as he did. At the same time after the appearance of that correspondence showing that the Representative of this country at Buenos Ayres had carried on a confidential communication with the Government of a country at war with Buenos Ayres, it appeared to us that he could not with propriety be continued longer in that country; but still, in justice to Mr. Mandeville, I must add that nothing whatever has occurred to induce the British Government to lose the confidence which they have always reposed in him. I have only to observe, in addition, that at the present moment, when we are about to renew our representations with the Government of Buenos Ayres—when this country, acting in conjunction with France, is about to make a fresh effort to restore peace in that quarter of the world, by offering, in the first place, a peaceable mediation, I do not think it is a time when I could with propriety consent to lay the Papers required by the noble Lord upon the Table.

wished it to be understood that he did not require the production of any Paper that would retard the negotiation at present going forward. He believed, that in the first place, Mr. Mandeville had been officially employed in negotiating a commercial treaty with Senor Vidal, and he had been thus necessarily obliged to communicate with that functionary. If, therefore, any blame was to be attached to the publication of a portion of the correspondence that passed between them, he thought it lay with Senor Vidal, and not with Mr. Mandeville.

said, he was convinced that Mr. Mandeville never expected that his letters would be published. He was also satisfied that M. Vidal knew nothing of the intended publication, as he had been labouring under indisposition at the time; and the documents were most probably made public by an act of treachery towards him.

wished to inform the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury of a circumstance which had occurred at the morning sitting. He alluded to the Sugar Duties Bill having been read a first time, and though he did not believe there would be the smallest disposition evinced in the House to obstruct the progress of that Bill—and certainly none whatever to retard it in its last stage—still he thought it ought to be an understood rule in the House that no Money Bill should be passed through any stage at the early sittings without special notice of its introduction being given in the first instance. The right hon. Baronet would perhaps have the goodness to state to the House his views of this matter, as it would be most desirable to have it understood whether the usual course was in future to be departed from or not. He could see no difficulty in having the Sugar Duties Bill then read a first time, instead of at the twelve o'clock sitting.

felt bound to admit that he entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in the general principle which he had laid down. He thought the best policy they could adopt would be, not to have any public Bill introduced at the morning sittings without a distinct prior understanding on the matter. With respect to the Sugar Duties Bill, he anticipated that there would be no division upon the first reading, or otherwise he would not have allowed it to be brought forward at the early sittings, but in future he would take care that no public Bill should be brought forward before the evening sitting.

said, he had given notice of a Motion on the subject of New Zealand, which he would beg leave simply to move for the adoption of the House, without entering into any discussion upon it for the present. The Motion was as follows:—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Governor of New Zealand, respecting the issue of Debentures and the rendering them a legal tender: Of all Correspondence between the same respecting the Taxes proposed in the Legislative Council of that Colony: Of all Correspondence between the same respecting recent outrages by the natives in the Bay of Islands, and the abolition of the Custom-house of that district: Of all Correspondence respecting the measures taken by the Governor of New Zealand to fulfil Lord Stanley's agreement of 12th of May, 1843, respecting the grant of a conditional title to the lands of the New Zealand Company: Of all Correspondence respecting the disallowance by the Governor of New Zealand of any awards made by the Commissioner of Land Claims respecting the Company's lands: Of all Correspondence relating to a Proclamation issued by the Governor of New Zealand, allowing the sale of lands by the natives at a less price than that fixed by the Act of 5th and 6th Vice. 36."

said, in seconding the Motion of his hon. Friend, it was not his intention to offer any remarks respecting the general question to which the Motion might give rise. In the observations with which he would presume to trespass on the House—and he should make them with considerable diffidence—his principal object would be to guard against any statements which might be made, either in that House or among the public out of doors, respecting the intention of the supporters of the Motion, to enter on that occasion into the whole question between the New Zealand Company and Her Majesty's Government. He believed that a notion of such an intention being entertained was generally prevalent, and he was stengthened in that belief by the inquiries which had been made of him by several hon. Members during the evening. But it was not at all the intention of the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Mr. Somes), and it certainly was not his intention, then to raise any discussion on a question which would probably come before the House on some future occasion. Hon. Gentlemen were well aware from the report of the Select Committee of last year, and the public at large were aware, through the usual organs of information to which they had access, of the allegations put forward on behalf of the Company and of the Colony. These allegations had been pub- licly made, and had become matters of public notoriety. It was well known that complaints had been made before the Committee to the effect that the interests of the Colony, and the progress of the settlements of the Company, were thwarted by the hostility of the Colonial Government. The late Governor of that Colony had been in particular complained of, on the ground of his having some supposed feeling in favour of the Government settlement in the north of the island, which was the child of his own creation; but into that question it was not his intention to enter. He would not on the present occasion enter into any question arising out of the Company's claims or the Company's wrongs; but this he would say, that the Report of the Committee of last Session could not be allowed to sleep. The question of the claims, which he believed on his conscience the Company and the Colonists had upon the Government, was one which might probably come before the House on a future occasion — that is, assuming that Her Majesty's Government collectively, and the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury in particular, should, notwithstanding the strong sense of justice for which he was remarkable, persevere in refusing to grant them the redress they required. But should that subject be brought forward, the Company and the colonists would depend on putting forward a full statement of their case in a petition, which would embody, as far as possible, all the particular acts of which they complained. He made these preliminary remarks lest it should be supposed that he, and the hon. Gentleman who went with him in that Motion, had any intention of raising the discussion on the present Motion into what he heard termed, the New Zealand debate. But, without entering into that part of the case, they had other important duties to perform in reference to the conduct of the Colonial Department and of the Local Government of New Zealand. It might be asked why he, and the hon. Member for Dartmouth, who were both known to be connected with the New Zealand Company, should have been selected to bring forward the subject, if it did not immediately interfere with the interests of the Company; but his answer was, that they were put forward as knowing more of the condition of the Colony than other Members in the House. They had also means of arriving at the conviction that no single office, such as the Colonial Department, could possibly, under any Colonial Secretary, pay that attention to the wants and the condition of each particular Colony which those dependencies required. He had had much of the condition of New Zealand brought under his notice; and he would venture to ask whether any other Members of the House, except those who were immediately connected with the New Zealand Company, had more than the slightest knowledge of the real position of affairs in that Colony? As to Her Majesty's Government, it was not to be expected that the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury could be aware of what was passing in that Colony, as he believed, according to the routine observed in Government, it was not the duty of the right hon. Baronet to look into the affairs of particular Colonies, unless his attention happened to be specially directed to them. But whether the officials in the Colonial Department knew as much as hon. Members connected with New Zealand or not, one thing was clear, that a portion of the information for which they now applied ought to have been made known long before the present time by the Colonial Office. He alluded to the first part of the Motion—namely, for "Copies of all Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the Government of New Zealand respecting the issue of Debentures, and the rendering them a legal tender." He did not suppose there were half a dozen Members in that House who had the least idea of the fact that the Local Government of New Zealand had issued paper money or debentures to the amount of 15,000l., and had made them a legal tender, though some of them were given for sums as low as 2s. It was not his intention to go into details on this matter; but from the allusion which he had made to it, he trusted the House would concur in thinking that he did no more than his duty, not merely to the New Zealand Company, but to the public at large, in requiring to know whether that issue of debentures had taken place with the knowledge and consent of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. As great anxiety was felt on this subject out of doors, he trusted that some information would be given to them respecting it, even before the Papers were produced. He wished to know whether he was correct in understanding that one of the regulations issued from the Colonial Office was to this effect:—

"The Governor is not empowered to pass any law without power from Her Majesty's Government, whereby any paper bill or debenture would be circulated or used, or any alteration made in the circulating medium of the Colony."

Now, if that rule were established and acted upon, he would wish to know whether any authority had been issued from the Colonial Office, authorizing the issue and circulation of these debentures. In one of the Colonial newspapers, which gave not merely the views and opinions of the Governor, and of the ex officio members, such as the Attorney General and the Colonial Secretary, who unfortunately had the majority of votes in the Legislative Council, but also of the independent members of the Council, he found that the measure had been in the strongest manner objected to in the Assembly. In the course of the debate the Colonial Secretary said that the Local Government had no other means of paying the expenses of the Colony, and that the parties holding the debentures must make the best use they could of them. He added that the Government had no other alternative but to issue them, and that the honour of the Home Government would be pledged to their payment. The Governor also defended the measure in his speech on similar grounds. He would also ask, whether that portion of the regulation of the Colonial Office which required the Governor of the Colony to send home Minutes of all proceedings in the Council, had been complied with, and, if so, whether these Minutes would be produced? The second part of the Motion was, for "Copies of all Correspondence between the same respecting the taxes proposed in the Legislative Council of that Colony." He thought the House had a right to know, when taxes were proposed to be levied in a Colony, what the policy of the Government was under which such proposition was made. He had seen many letters and despatches from New Zealand on this subject, and he thought the House ought to have full information laid before them respecting it. What, he asked, would they think of a tax which proposed to levy as much as 10s. on every sheep imported into the Colony, and thus imposing an effectual barrier to one of the principal means by which the prosperity of the Colony could be extended? Again, there was a tax placed on the dogs used in herding the sheep—also a most unjust and impolitic measure. But that was not all. Instead of seeking to promote cleanliness and health and morality in the Colony, the Governor actually proposed a tax of one pound sterling on every room found in every house over and above three rooms; thus forcing the family and their labourers and servants to reside together. He did not know whether this allegation would be proved by the production of the Correspondence; but it was certainly stated in all the Colonial newspapers, and the measure was only withdrawn through the opposition of the Legislative Council. The third part of the Motion was for "Copies of all Correspondence between the same respecting recent Outrages by the Natives of the Bay of Islands, and the abolition of the Custom House of that district." A feeling had grown in the Colony, that the Government were inclined to show undue favour to the native inhabitants, and that, in fact, almost any crime might be committed with impunity by the aborigines towards the whites. Without giving any opinion as to the grounds on which this feeling rested, he would ask whether it were a likely mode to remove it, for the Governor, after having promised to grant some inquiry into the murder at Wairau, to have pronounced his decision after an examination only of the murderer and his tribe? Was that an inquiry conducted according to the laws of the country? The removal of the Custom House was another circumstance that required investigation. There was a general feeling among the natives in the Colony, that they might do anything with respect to the European population with perfect impunity. He would not allude to the Papers which had just been printed, entitled, "Copies of Letters from Mr. Short-land, late Acting Governor, and Mr. Busby, late resident at New Zealand, to Lord Stanley and Mr. G. Hope," which had been laid on the Table on the Motion of an hon. Member opposite, beyond saying that those gentlemen had had recourse to the Colonial Office to make their statements public. Mr. Dandison Coates had also published a statement, he did not say with the authority, but with the apparent authority of the Colonial Office; and which, as well as the former Papers, had been made the vehicle for attacks on the Company. He wished to know whether they were to learn from them the manner in which the honour of Her Majesty's Government had been maintained, and in which protection had been given to Her Majesty's subjects in that Colony? It appeared from their account, that the Go- vernment flagstaff at the Bay of Islands had been pulled up by the natives, and the colonists, more especially the women, had been most grossly insulted. The Governor, on being informed of this, told the aborigines not to do so again, and as a punishment took ten muskets from them, which he afterwards gave them back. The next matter to which he should refer was connected with the Correspondence respecting the measures taken by the Governor of New Zealand to fulfil Lord Stanley's agreement of the 12th of May, 1843, respecting a grant of a conditional title to the lands of the New Zealand Company; and on this part of the Motion, as he found that the Under Secretary had given notice of an Amendment, and the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, would give some explanation, he should postpone what he had to say until he could reply to the hon. Secretary. On this point he, however, would at once state that there was a great deal more information on this subject which he intended to apply for, but not at present, as he wished to abstain from mixing up with the present Motion anything of a subsequent one connected with the claim of the Company; and then he should move fro a return of figures and official statements, showing how the Company's claim was made out. He presumed there would be no objection to the Correspondence respecting the disallowance, by the Governor of New Zealand, of any awards made by the Commissioners of Land Claims respecting the Company's lands. The last part of the Motion referred to the Correspondence relating to a Proclamation by the Governor of New Zealand, allowing the sale of lands by the natives at a less price than that fixed by the Act of 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 36. The hon. Under Secretary had given notice of an Amendment on this point: he trusted the hon. Member would state what his objections were to the wording. By the first regulation, all lands were directed to be disposed of by sales alone, and that these should be by public auction. By the 5th and 6th Victoria, c. 36, it was directed that these lands should be all put at the uniform price of one pound an acre. Since then extensive sales had taken place at much less than this price. If the hon. Member refused to give the correspondence which he had asked for in his Motion, he still trusted that the hon. Member would give an explanation as to the instructions of the Governor on the subject. It was formerly declared that all lands not in the possession of the natives were vested in the Crown, and any sales of lands by the natives were, for the future, put a stop to. This, however, was not adhered to; and purchases of land from the natives were allowed by the Governor. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had sent out fresh instructions on this subject. It appeared now that it was the intention of the Governor to give power to buy of the natives. He wished to ask whether the Government Proclamation had been issued with the authority of the Colonial Office; and if so, whether it was in conformity with the policy which it was intended to pursue for the future in that Colony. Several cases of this kind, in the Wellington district belonging to the Company had been productive of great injury and injustice. He had thus gone at length over the several points involved in the Motion; but smarting with the inattention which this matter had met with on the part of the Government, he might have been led away to make attacks of a personal nature, which he certainly did not intend. All that he wished was to call the attention of the House to the policy of the Government as manifested by the Colonial Office, both at home and in the Colonies. Was the House aware that there were 10,000 persons recently settled on the Company's lands, and that there were between 16,000 and 17,000 British inhabitants in the whole, all of whom were in a state of the greatest distress? He begged the House to remark that this distress was not confined to the Company's settlements, but was equally prevalent and severe in Auckland. He might be told that the distress had been occasioned as much by the drawing bills by the Company as by the Local Government. But here, in the seat of Government, at Auckland, and in the northern part of the island, the distress was much greater than it was in Wellington or any other part of Cook's Straits; he therefore called on the House, and more especially on the right hon. Baronet, not to listen to and be led away by ex-parte statements on this subject. He was sure that the Under Secretary would not deny that the Colony, under good regulations, might become a source of wealth to this country. New Zealand possessed the finest climate on the face of the globe; and, as was stated in the Report, it might hereafter become a source of defence for this country. The island was in such a position that it commanded every advantage—it possessed the means and materials for ship-building more than any other spot—and on its coasts were several of the very finest harbours in the world. Its soil was capable of the highest cultivation; and in an eminent degree, it possessed the sources of prosperity and wealth. A great number of the labouring emigrants who had fallen into distress, had been, and still were, maintained by the Company, although it was well known that the affairs of that body were not in such a state as to enable them to do so without great sacrifices. In order to save them from destitution the Company had expended between 20,000l. and 30,000l., by affording employment in public works, such as roads, bridges, and similar undertakings, which must be advantageous to the Colony at large. He trusted that the Government would act in a way which would promote the welfare of the Colony, and be consistent with the claims of humanity; and while they saw that every protection was extended to the settlers, they would also take care that the interests of the native population were not sacrificed. The hon. Gentleman concluded with seconding the Motion.

was afraid he must trust to the indulgence of the House while he was entering his protest against the course which had been followed by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth. He must protest most strongly against the course which he had pursued, even whilst he admitted that it was most important to have the information which was sought for produced. The hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth must have known very well that this information was ready to be given when it was asked for. The hon. Member must have known that he had only to move for the production of these Papers, when they would be laid before him. His astonishment and surprise were great to hear the hon. and learned Member utter such a speech in seconding the Motion for this information, while the hon. Member at the same time postponed another Motion the hon. Member had to make upon the same subject, to some future time. It had suited the hon. and learned Member's purpose to pursue this course, and to state that he would bring forward his Motion on this subject by bits. The hon. Member said that he would not raise the general question at present. Now, whether the hon. and learned Member had done so or not in the speech which he had made, he would leave the House to determine. The hon. Member said that they had been guilty of a great breach of faith. What right, he would ask, had the hon. and learned Member to state that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies; and the Government, were guilty of a breach of faith, without offering proof of the fact? Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman produce his evidence to substantiate his charge? He would appeal to the House to say whether such a course was fair or justifiable? Did the hon. and learned Member now mean to deny his words?

No, I did not say any such thing. What I stated, was only that it had been alleged over and over again that such conduct had been pursued by the Government. I have merely stated what had been alleged against the Government, and what I believe could be proved before a Committee.

The hon. and learned Member now took the more convenient course of stating merely that what he had said had been alleged against the Government; but the hon. Member had given his own belief in such allegations, and had left it to the House to draw their own inferences. He complained of such a course as this, because be thought the charge should not be brought forward unless the hon. Member was prepared to substantiate it. A full inquiry was made last Session into this question, and the whole evidence respecting it had now been before the country for months. Moreover, these charges had been most industriously published throughout the country. He believed it was well known that they had been circulated by the authority of the New Zealand Company. The Spectator and other journals gave insertions to these charges. He only referred to these facts now to show the extensive inquiry which had been made upon the subject, although most material facts were altogether omitted, or disguised in every possible shape, in the publications to which he had alluded. He presumed that the hon. Member for Liskeard would not object to the facts he was stating. All this information was before the public long before the Parliament met. It was stated over and over again that much indignation was felt at the conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Colonies, and it was even said that they would pro- ceed by impeachment against him. The hon. and learned Member for Liskeard smiled at this statement; he, however, had no doubt but that the hon. and learned Member would agree with him in the fact he had stated. It had even been asserted that the noble Lord was afraid to meet the charge in this House, and had, therefore, retired from it. He thought that he had every reason to complain of those charges having been made outside of this House, and some of them repeated inside of it, without any attempt being made to substantiate them. He trusted that, after this discussion was over, the question would not be any longer left in this position. The hon. Member for Cockermouth, not satisfied with the present Motion, stated it to be his intention to follow it up with a Motion for the production of other Papers, and that he would ultimately bring the whole case before the House. He appealed to the House to say whether or not the volume which they had before them did not contain everything relating to this Colony, and necessary to enable them to judge of the conduct of the noble Lord in connexion with it? When hon. Members arraigned his opinions, and talked of calling the noble Lord up for the purpose of judging him upon repeated charges of breaches of faith and a want of honour, he thought that he had a right to demand from those who made such charges that they should come forward and substantiate them, or to confess the total groundlessness of them. He would now proceed to those points to which the hon. Member had adverted. They had now before them the whole conduct of the noble Lord in the Colonial Office. The information had been some time before them, but it had never been made use of. The hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth evaded this fact; he attacked the noble Lord, and then said that the information required was a sealed book. Why, the book was there for the inspection of him, as well as every other hon. Member! But although Lord Stanley, who was present, was not attacked, a violent attack had been made upon the Governor of the Colony, who was absent; although the hon. and learned Member knew not, at the time, what that Gentleman could say in his defence. The hon. and learned Gentleman should have first sought for this information, and then have made his charges, if he could. No; he first attacked the Governor, then turned round and asked for information! He protested against this course. He would tell the House what information he could give on these points. It was well known that, from circumstances over which they had no control, for a very long time they had been without any advices from the Colony. In respect to the first subject that was alluded to in the Motion before the House, as regarded the question of legal tender, they had a statement of the issue of the debentures alluded to, but not that they were ever declared to be a legal tender. Even this course, however, was not approved of by the Government at home, and the withdrawal of them immediately was ordered. So far, then, as the information went, such a proceeding was not sanctioned by the warrant of the Government. As to the second question respecting taxes in the Colony, they had not received any of the minutes which alluded to this subject. He could not account for having been left for such a length of time without any advices from the Colony. With respect to the third question, as to the recent outrages which had been committed, the only account he had was that which he proposed to move for the production of—that would state the circumstances of troops having been sent for from New South Wales. He had only lately received this information from New South Wales. As to the fourth question, when the proper period arrived he would move his Amendment, and, if necessary, would go into the case involved in this paragraph. He could furnish no information in answer to the fifth question beyond that which he would lay before the House. He would now proceed to the other points to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded. The hon. Member had taken a most extraordinary course; he had attacked Captain Fitzroy in reference to the unfortunate occurrence at Wairau, as having given his opinion on the single statement of the murderer himself. ["No."] That was his understanding of what the hon. Member said, if he had misunderstood the hon. Member, he withdrew his assertion. So far from the opinion having been formed on the ex-parte statement of the murderer himself, the Governor's opinion was formed on the ex-parte statement of those who were opposed to the natives—on the depositions taken by the magistrates at Wellington, and on the statement of the accuser. He would not go into the case at large; the hon. Member had not done so, though he had thrown out insinuations; but this he must observe, that the questions involved were questions of the rights of the natives, followed by a conflict between them and Europeans; that on the whole review of the circumstances, taking into account the savage character of some of these tribes—taking into account their habits, and the customs which had been followed amongst them, it did not appear to the noble Lord that it would be a right course to take relative to this most unfortunate and lamentable occurrence, to subject it to the proceedings of an inquiry before a regular judicial tribunal. The hon. Member further alluded to the state of feeling which, he said, was produced by this occurrence in the island, on the part of the British population—a feeling that they could obtain no justice. He need, however, scarcely refer the House to the impossibility of at once enforcing upon a people such as the New Zealanders habits of obedience to the law. He believed that whatever feeling existed had arisen from dissatisfaction on that account. He did not admit that the feeling was so extensive as was stated by the hon. Member for Cockermouth. He did not admit that it was universal, nay, even that it was general. He admitted that occurrences had taken place to which it had been impossible to apply the regular and systematic law of this country; but that was the inevitable consequence of parties settling themselves amongst a numerous savage race; and it was too much to turn round and say, that, having obtruded themselves into that country, and taken possession of lands, because the natives did not conform to their customs, therefore the white man was unprotected and sacrificed to the man of colour. The hon. Member then referred to letters which he stated were moved for by the Under Secretary of the Colonial Office. It so happened that the letters were not moved for by him, although he would willingly have moved for them. As to the hon. Member's complaint on this point, he must refer to what passed respecting Mr. Short-land. He was acting Governor at the time—the witnesses remarked most severely on his conduct—he was without the means of defending himself—when he returned he requested permission to put in his defence. Would the hon. Member, having made the attack, refuse to produce his defence? Mr. Bushby's letter related to the outrages at the Bay of Islands; but it gave no information but that which was derived from the public press. He now came to the letter of Mr. Coates; and for the hon. Member's satisfaction he might be permitted to state, that although it was alleged that the instructions issued by Lord Stanley on the 13th August were taken from Mr. Coates' letter, Lord Stanley's instructions were on board a vessel bound to New Zealand before Mr. Coates' letter was received. They went out in a ship belonging to a gentleman well known in New Zealand, named Earp. Mr. Coates' letter was received the day after the despatch had been sent off. He should have thought that a candid examination of the question would have rather led to this inference, that, when two persons writing with no sort of concert, with the same facts and circumstances before them, came to the same conclusion, and expressed themselves to the same effect, the presumption was that their conclusion was a correct one. He should not have been ashamed to have communicated with Mr. Coates, had there been any reason for so doing; but it so happened that he had held no communication with that Gentleman; he had no occasion to do so; and the coincidence between the letters was a coincidence arising from two persons commenting on the same state of facts, and coming to the same conclusion. The hon. Member then asked what steps had been taken to vindicate the honour of the country at the Bay of Islands? From the official accounts it appeared that troops had been sent from Sydney. The hon. Member stated that he meant to make a further Motion for the production of Papers; it was one of that series of Motions, which the hon. Member intended to make until he succeeded in exciting public feeling. When the hon. Member made this Motion he should be able to judge as to the production of the Papers asked for. The hon. Member further inquired into the remission of the owners' right of pre-emption of land sold by the natives. The course which had been taken had been this—the Governor's object was to ensure a certain fund for the revenue concurrently with the sale of land. The course pointed out by the noble Lord the Member for London was, that waste lands should be bought by the Government and resold. The natives, not unnaturally, discovered the prices at which lands were sold by Europeans, and therefore the noble Lord's instructions, which were originally the instructions of Lord Normanby, did not apply. The natives said if 20s. are to be got for land, why are we not to have it? They consequently refused to sell, except at such prices that the Government had not the means of raising the money to pay for it; therefore the noble Lord's plan failed altogether. The Government was without funds, and without the means of buying the land. The natives would not do that which Lord Normanby and Lord John Russell proposed—sell at a small price, that Government might sell at a large price. Captain Fitzroy adopted this course. He said you may sell to individuals, but those individuals shall pay 10s. an acre to Government, being half what would be the estimated price of Government land. Lord Stanley, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, sanctioned that course. Although the hon. Member had put a number of questions, an answer to which he might have obtained from the Papers, he did not know that there was any which he had omitted to answer, and he called on the hon. Member who had threatened an attack on the noble Lord, at once to make it, or to abandon the endeavour.

said that the hon. Member had misunderstood and misquoted two of his expressions. What he said was, that the hon. Member and others took an extraordinary mode of making a matter known to the public through the medium of the Colonial Office. It was also said that he had threatened repeated Motions for Papers in order to hang discussions upon them. What he stated was, that he had prepared Notices of Motion, but withheld them because they applied to the Company's affairs exclusively, and therefore he did not wish to mix them up with other matters. He had said that as soon as he could, after the public business allowed him, he would put the Notice on the Paper.

observed, that the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies was exceedingly indignant about matters which were not before the House; and at the same time very indifferent with respect to the matter which actually was under the consideration of the House. He certainly considered it perfectly fair for any hon. Gentleman who had complaints to make on matters connected with the Colonies to bring forward his complaints in whatever manner he thought most suitable. The noble Secretary for the Colonies, it was said, had been annoyed by the comments upon his proceedings made by the press. It was by no means astonishing that the noble Lord should be annoyed at them. As some consolation, he might rest assured that full opportunity would be given to his hon. Deputy in that House to defend him, as best he might, on some future occasion. Gentlemen on his own side of the House would certainly not allow the Report of the Committee, and the evidence that had been given before it, to be passed over in silence. As to the question before the House, it seemed to him that it would be very odd if they were not to be allowed to bring it forward when the House and the country so much needed further information on the subject than was to be got out of the Papers before Parliament. These Papers presented no information upon several important occurrences which had taken place in the United States and elsewhere, of essential importance to the consideration of the subject. The hon. Secretary affected to be very indignant at what he characterised as the want of candour on the part of those who brought forward the Motion; but the want of candour rather appeared to exist on the Government side of the House. As to no fewer than five out of the six points upon which he had been interrogated, the hon. Gentleman professed entire ignorance; and as to the sixth he would not give the information which he admitted he possessed. Now was this a decent answer on the part of the Representative of a great Public Department, upon whose conduct the interests of so important a portion of the State depended? Was it decent, he would repeat, that when six clear and most important questions, affecting great interests, the welfare, the safety, of many thousands of our fellow subjects, were put to that Department, its Representative in that House should get up and coolly state that he was entirely ignorant of the subject; and, observe, these were no new matters — no subject that had never yet been touched upon—no topic which had never yet suggested inquiry or comment—very far from it. The information which the Government were called upon officially to speak to was printed in our country papers so far back as December last; yet here was the extraordinary spectacle presented to the House and to the public of a Public Officer, immediately concerned in the subject, coming forward, and coolly telling the House, that he had no information upon matters the details of which went the round of the newspapers here three months and a half ago. Did the hon. Member mean to say, that the information so given in the newspapers was wrong? If such were the case, it was his duty to state in what that information was wrong; otherwise, it was perfectly reasonable on the part of the public to take that information which had been before it uncontradicted for three months and a half, as the correct statement of the case. However, it was not his purpose to get into a controversy on this occasion with the hon. Member on this particular point, on which, in his opinion, the Colonial Office had exceedingly compromised itself. It was his object to call the attention of the House to more important questions, connected not merely with New Zealand, but with the government of our Colonies generally. The question of New Zealand was that of our Colonial Government at large; its history only a striking illustration of the entire ignorance of the whole subject of Colonial government, which pervaded the whole Colonial Administration abroad and at home. There were Gentlemen in the House who had been kind enough to lend him their attention when, two years ago, he brought before Parliament the question of systematic colonization; he had then, as he would now, expressed most emphatically his conviction that our Colonies might be rendered most valuable to the mother country; but no colonization could be beneficial while the affairs of our Colonies were administered in the manner in which they now were managed. In former days, when the people of England knew how to colonise—when they sent out those Colonies which were the origin of the greatness of the United States, the colonists whom they sent out carried with them their safeguard—their birthright—their right to representative government—their right to administer their own affairs—their right to tax themselves. This was the case with all our American Colonies—this the secret of their success. Look at Rhode Island, for instance; why, when that Colony did not count its population by hundreds, it enjoyed its representative Government. Since that time, we had introduced the system of governing our Colonies by despotic rule—we had deprived them of self-government — and a precious blunder we had made of it. What a Government was this of New Zealand! All its laws were made—all its taxes imposed—by a Governor nominated by the Crown, and a Council nominated by the Governor. How was that Council composed? Of the Attorney General for the Colony, the Solicitor General for the Colony, and the Colonial Secretary—three clearly dependent members, and three nominally independent members, the Governor having the casting vote; and the effect of this had been, that all the obnoxious measures had been regularly carried by the three Government nominees, with the Governor's casting vote. By way of extreme liberality, Governor Hobson tried the experiment of having a gentleman from Wellington, and placing him upon the Legislative Council; but as it turned out that this gentleman had an inconvenient knack of voting against the Governor's propositions, he one day received a communication from Governor Hobson informing him that he had issued a new commission, and that on looking over the names he found he had not placed him on the list—a very clear hint that his services were no longer required at the Council Board. Colonel Fitzroy, the new Governor, was less roundabout in his proceedings; for he wrote to a gentleman, telling him most distinctly that he held his situation at the Board merely at the will of the Governor; and that the Governor allowed no opposition to his will. There was no disguise about the matter; none at all; it was to all intents and purposes a perfect despotism; the Governor and his immediate nominees made their laws, issued their regulations, and if any of the nominally independent Members of the Council ventured to express a contrary opinion to that of the Governor, they were at once dismissed, and other more compliant tools put in their places. No question of the matter, our Crown Colonies were governed in the most arbitrary manner. He had no desire to run into any vulgar attack upon arbitrary governments, as such; it was no part of his present business; it was perfectly well known to all that, so far, there had been, and there were, despotic governments which administered well and wisely for the people; Prussia was a striking example of this; and some of our own most important dependencies were governed under a despotic system. There was the East Indies, for instance, where the system of government had been for years and years eminently despotic; but then the despotism was carried out upon a sound, and a just, and a well-based system, calculated to the circumstances of the case; there the despots set over the population, in various grades, were trained to their duties from the lowest to the highest ranks. They were all thoroughly educated to the task they had to perform. But what was our free despotic Government in New Zealand? Why, it had been carried on of late years by two cap- tains and one lieutenant in the Navy. Now, he by no means intended to speak disrespectfully of the Navy; naval officers were exceedingly good men in their way; but men might be exceedingly efficient on board ship, and yet not be the best men in the world for the government of a Colony. He very much doubted whether the quarter deck was the best possible school of diplomacy; and, therefore, when he found an officer of the navy placed in such a position, and conducting himself with the greatest incompetency, he thought he had a full right to complain of the selection of such a man for such a post. He would put it to the House whether these charges had been brought against Captain Fitzroy on light grounds? He certainly thought, that when three clear cases had been brought forward of the grossest mismanagement on the part of that officer in a period of six months, this was sufficient to convince every candid and unprejudiced person that the officer so conducting himself was utterly incompetent to the responsible position which he had so improperly been placed in. Let him take a glaring instance. He was about to speak of a question of finance, in the presence of a great master of the currency question—of course he alluded to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government—and not to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, who, though he had written about currency, was no authority on the subject; but he was speaking in the presence of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, a great practical authority. He had differed of late from the right hon. Gentleman, thinking he was carrying his hatred of paper money somewhat too far; but he would appeal to the right hon. Baronet, whether it were not astounding, that under the administration of a man supporting all kinds of the soundest views generally with reference to the currency, there should be a Governor of a Colony of Great Britain scattering assignats in every direction around him, for such they were, most completely; an absolutely inconvertible paper currency, which at this time of day was a perfect monstrosity. Here, in England, we had gone to the most inconvenient lengths for the purpose of returning to a gold currency; and even when paper money was more general, care had always been taken to limit the amount for which it should be issued. At one time that limit was 1l.; now it was 5l.; yet, in the teeth of all which the present Government had done, we found the Governor of New Zealand issuing a paper currency unheard of in the world's history, except in the memorable case of the shin plasters of the United States. They, indeed, went so low as 1s. 6d. Captain Fitzroy's currency was not quite so humble as that; but it was very little better, for his notes were for 5s. and 2s.—an inconvertible currency, which, inconvertible as it was, was forced upon the poorest of our fellow-subjects in the Colony, in payment of their wages. Imagine the effect of intelligence arriving in the Colony that the Government at home had declared that these notes should not pass current; for, be it remembered, that the whole of these debentures, to the extent of 15,000l., had been issued by the Governor in the face of 2,000l. worth of bills already dishonoured by the Government at home. Imagine the utter depreciation which, upon such intelligence, would involve the whole of these 5s. and 2s. notes. There would be some small speculating capitalist buying up the whole at 1d. or 1d. a-piece; and when the Government at home came at last to sanction its Governor's proceedings, as doubtless it would, we should have to pay 2s. and 5s. for that which had been bought up at 1d. and 2d. It was most scandalous, most monstrous, that a Governor of one of our Colonies should be thus permitted to trifle with the commonest principles which sound reason and common sense dictated and enforced at home. It was perfectly clear to him, that a man who did not understand that he ought not to issue 2s. notes or 5s. notes under any circumstances, was unfit for any place of the slightest responsibility—was not only an ignorant and incompetent man, but, moreover, a mischievous and dangerous man. One such proceeding as this was alone sufficient to condemn a public functionary, whatever other good qualities he might possess. Had Captain Fitzroy those other good qualities? Look at his system of taxation. There was nothing which required greater discretion and common sense than the taxation upon imports into a young Colony, where everything depends upon what is brought into it, and where, before you can raise commodities, you must for a time import the stock to raise them. What had Captain Fitzroy sagely done? Why, he put a tax of 10s. upon every sheep, and 1l. upon every head of cattle imported into the Colony. He could hardly have done worse than this had it been his full intention to ruin the Colony; yet, doubtless, his patrons at home would vindicate his conduct; and, at all events, smooth the affair off with saying, forsooth, that Captain Fitzroy had been actuated by the best possible intentions. Then, again, as to his precious Customs' regulations; never, certainly, since the time of the simpleton in Hierseles, who imagined you could draw water from the bottom of a tub without lessening the quantity of water at the top of the tub, had such a simpleton proceeding been heard of as that which Captain Fitzroy had been guilty of, under the extraordinary supposition that, by abolishing the Customs' duties at one of the ports of New Zealand, he should in no way lessen the Customs' duties at those ports where they were retained. In the Returns dated 7th March, 1845, the House would find, in the letter of Mr. W. O. Hector, an account of the outrages, under the influence of which the Governor adopted this most preposterous step; and he would read an extract from this Return, by way of illustrating the sort of outrages to which our fellow-subjects in the Colony were exposed, under the inefficient administration which now prevailed in New Zealand. After a detail of some gross violences, Mr. Hector stated:—

"Messrs. Spicer, M'Carthy, and myself, accordingly called on Mr. Beckham (the magistrate), and after being detained a quarter of an hour outside his door, he made his appearance. When I informed him of the desire of the inhabitants to place themselves under his command, and requested him to appoint a place of meeting, he replied, we need not alarm ourselves as he had arranged everything, and that the police would do their duty. I then asked him how it was the police had permitted the depredations already committed? We received for answer, that we must submit to them until he had force sufficient to protect us. In reply, we stated that, if he would yield to the request of the inhabitants, he would find that there would be force sufficient to repel any further aggressions on the part of the natives; that it was not our ambition to commence an affray, but to show the natives that, although we had permitted them to proceed thus far, we were determined to put a stop to any further acts of violence; and that, if he (Mr. Beckham) did not choose to assemble the inhabitants, they would meet and appoint some person to act in his place. He told us that he would put us down by force. We informed him we had no wish to infringe the laws of our country, but that self-preservation was the first law of nature, and we would no longer quietly submit to the in- vasion of our homes, have our wives insulted by the natives wilfully exposing their persons to them, our daughters' clothes pulled over their heads, and our property stolen; and that, if such were his intentions, we would oppose force to force, and he would then see who would gain the day."

The letter proceeded:—

"At the conclusion a portion was sent towards the flagstaff, to cut it down; the remaining, as a covering party, proceeding by another road to Waihihi, both roads meeting in one after passing the flagstaff. Parties of natives were stationed on the tops of the different hills as outposts. Mr. Beckham was, during this time, standing within 100 yards of the Custom-house. Mr. Potter and I followed the natives to the flagstaff, and asked them why they wished to cut it down; some said, there had been no payment given for the land; others, that it prevented the ships from coming in. On our arrival, the natives proceeded to work, and I saw the honour of my country laid low, without any attempt to prevent it. The ropes the natives took, and the staff and yard were cut into pieces. A demand was made for fire, and Mr. Tapper went to his house and got some. When the whole was over and the natives gone, Mr. Beckham and a few of the inhabitants arrived. The natives met on an opposite hill, commenced a war-dance, discharged their muskets, retired to their canoes, and left for the other shore."

Upon intelligence of these outrages being conveyed to the Governor, he sent to Sydney for forces, thereby throwing that part of the Colony also into excitement and dismay. Having obtained thence a force of 150 men, he marched with them to the spot where the aggressions took place, and then marched them away again, upon the natives telling him he had better do so. Next, in order to conciliate the natives of that particular quarter, the Governor abolished the Customs' duties at Auckland, leaving the Customs' duties at the other ports just as they were. What would the people of this country say if Government, by reason of some outrage committed at Bristol, were to seek to conciliate the men of Bristol by abolishing the Custom-house there, leaving those of Liverpool, of London, and all the other ports, just as they were; and thus effectually sending every article of commerce from them all to the favoured port? Would the people of this country tolerate so preposterous an outrage upon common sense and justice? Would the Government for a moment hear of it? Then why do that in New Zealand, the mere suggestion of which would be utterly scouted here? The Duke of Buckingham, or some other great agricultural light, somewhere or other, the other day, made use of an odd phrase, but, unlike most of what fell from the leading agricultural Dukes, pregnant with meaning. He was complaining of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and of the Queen's Speech, and making a great lamentation that neither the one nor the other had made any mention of agricultural distress; "they treated us so badly," said the noble Duke, "they treat us no better than if we were a Colony." This was how the Lords and Gentlemen of Parliament spoke of our Colonies: as the most forcible illustration of the lowest depth of indifference, it was said, you neglect us as though we were a Colony. The hon. Gentleman had touched very lightly indeed on the subject of the proclamation about land. From the mode in which he treated the point, it really seemed as though there were no grievance about it at all; yet a grievance there was of a most serious character. By the 5th and 6th Victoria, it was enacted that no waste lands in the Australian Colonies should be sold for a less price than 1l. per acre. The question was asked, can lands held by natives, and sold by them, be considered as waste lands? He thought there could be no doubt of this upon the mind of any person who had read the 23rd section of the Act. Yet the very protection which the Act extended to the natives the Governor had chosen to take away, by setting aside the right of pre-emption in the Crown, a right which the Crown had always asserted in these Colonies, and most justly and humanely; for, by reserving to itself the right of making the purchase in the first instance from the natives, it prevented their ignorance and simplicity from being imposed upon by unprincipled speculators. This was the rule acted upon in the United States, as derived from this country; and acting upon this rule, and under the Act of Parliament, the Government were called upon to take care that no land was purchased for less than 1l. That was the upset price; yet here came the Government's Governor, Captain Fitzroy, and by a single stroke of his pen altered the price at which land should be sold, and throws all the common lands into the hands of land jobbers, at not 20s., but 10s. With the most ordinary attention on the part of a Home Government desirous of acting justly this could not have been done; yet the hon. Gentleman, after the facts had been pub- lished throughout the country by the newspapers for the last three months and a half, came forward and said he knew nothing about the matter. Reference had been made to the Wairau massacre. He could hardly restain his feelings when his thoughts recurred to that horrible scene. He knew and most deeply valued one of the victims — Captain Wakefield — than whom no British officer of our times gave greater promise of doing honour to his country. That such a man should have perished in such a way, under such circumstances, the result of such gross mismanagement and inefficiency on the part of those who were most preposterously set over him, was perfectly unendurable; and almost equally unendurable was it that such a man as Captain Fitzroy should be seen taking advantage of his death to attach discredit to his memory. He would not go into a history of that deplorable event now. It originated in a dispute about land, the sale of which, on the part of the natives, the Home Secretary might, perhaps, need to be told the Commissioner for Crown lands had decided to have been irregular. The colonists, however, at the time thought they had a right to the property, and they went to the spot to survey it. The natives came down and drove them off, and burnt some huts, whereupon the magistrate at Nelson issued warrants for the apprehension of the two chiefs Rauperaha and Rangahaeta on a charge of arson, in reference to which matter the Colonial authorities had laid down some law which would hardly be countenanced by the Attorney General or Solicitor General at home. Mr. Thompson, who was sent with others to execute these warrants, was altogether misled as to the character of those with whom he had to deal; for the manners of the natives about Nelson, who were few and not warlike, were by no means a test of those whom Mr. Thompson was proceeding amongst, a fierce and savage tribe. A conflict took place, and the massacre of Wairau followed. The Governor might have said, You may now retire to your homes; but the first act which was done was to declare the meetings held in self-defence illegal, and to threaten to cut down those who held them. When Captain Fitzroy went to Wellington, after the proceedings which he had alluded to, he took part with the natives against the white people, and from thence he went to Nelson, where a warrant was issued for the apprehension of the murderer Rauperaha. Nelson was a town with six magistrates, and here he would remark, that it was rare, in so small a community as that, containing only 2,000 inhabitants, to find no less than six gentlemen of character and property fit to hold the Commission of the Peace. He could not understand why it was that a gentleman like Captain Fitzroy felt himself, when he went to a distant Colony like that, as Governor, relieved from the responsibilities and decencies which usually characterize the intercourse between one gentleman and another; an example of which was afforded by his conduct towards a gentleman in New Zealand named Dillon—a gentleman of high character and honour. Captain Fitzroy taxed Mr. Dillon with writing in a newspaper; and Mr. Dillon stated, upon being so taxed, that he had never done so in his life. What was the answer of Captain Fitzroy to Mr. Dillon, when he denied having so written? He said that the statement of Mr. Dillon was not true. It might be said that these were paltry matters. They were not, however, paltry matters; and it was not because Captain Fitzroy was Governor of New Zealand, that he was to insult every gentleman who came under his authority. It was not a paltry matter to show those who employed Captain Fitzroy how completely he mismanaged the proceedings arising from the Wairau affair, and to prove that, without any necessity, and in the most delicate point, he had wounded the feelings and susceptibilities of the Europeans who were residing there. They found the large expenditure in the Colony of 36,000l. per annum among a population of 14,000 persons—that was, two and a half times the expenditure of Great Britain; so that they had 14,000 persons in New Zealand governed at an expense of 36,000l. annually; whilst in Prince Edward's Island, with a population of 47,000 persons, the expenditure was only 12,000l.; but then Prince Edward's Island had a representative Government. Captain Fitzroy found a great expenditure in New Zealand; and he stated when he arrived that the greatest calamity which a good Governor ought to avoid, was subjecting the officers of the Government to a decrease of their salaries; and, accordingly, he laid a tax upon stock—upon the importation of cattle — upon three-roomed houses—upon sheep dogs, and issued three and five shillings assignats, for the purpose of paying the workmen their wages; but in addition to that he gave the finances of the island the advantage of abolishing the Custom-house in one port out of three or four, in order that he might equitably and efficiently collect the revenue. Why did he mention this? It was not to hold up Captain Fitzroy as a monster, for the execration of that House; it was not for the purpose of impeaching him; but it was in order that the House of Commons might be able to estimate him at what he was worth, merely as a very foolish and incompetent man. Why, he would ask, did the Government entrust a population of 14,000 persons in New Zealand to the incompetence of such a man? He did not wish to dwell on the folly of his conduct—he was not disposed to be hard on human infirmities, or to blame him for any deficiency of intellect; but he could not avoid saying, that a man who evinced such infirmities, and who displayed such a deficiency of intellect, ought not to be sent to a distant Colony as a Governor; and if employed at all it should be at home, where the proper steps might be taken immediately after the first act which indicated such an infirmity or deficiency of intellect. He wished to show the importance of not sending such a Governor to a Colony where his instant recall was not possible. He did not mention those circumstances with a view to any punishment, even though it might be merited, or with a design of warning other Governors, even though that might be required; but he did it solely for the safety of the Colony, which could not be safe for an hour under the influence of such utter incompetence as that of its present Governor. The course which he (Mr. Buller) took was necessary, as they would admit, when they recollected that the information with respect to the debentures was before the country for three months and a half without any step having been taken on the subject. Really the Government, after hearing of the conduct of the Governor, ought to send out a keeper for Captain Fitzroy and his successor in the same ship, for he was not fit to hold the important trust which had been confided to him a moment after the issue of the debentures, and he ought to have been recalled at the very instant when intelligence of the issue of those debentures reached this country. He trusted that he had not detained the House too long on this subject, and he hoped that, if they did not think the grievances of New Zealand beneath their notice, they would come forward with an expression of opinion that would act on the Government in such a way as effectually to prevent the Colony from being any longer subject to the recurrence of such mischiefs as those which had been described.

said, that the hon. Member for Cockermouth had stated certain complaints against the Colonial Office—with those he had nothing to do, the hon. Gentleman had also complained that the welfare of the Colony of New Zealand was affected by the conduct of the officer who now administered the government of that island, and added that the Governor had managed to make himself disliked by every portion of the colonists. He had no objection to any Gentleman in that House making any observations which he thought proper, for the public advantage, on the conduct of any public servant of the Crown; but when the hon. Gentleman opposite stated that he would not go into the whole question, yet went far enough into it to convey an imputation, without making any direct accusation, he thought it rather hard. As the matter was to be brought forward at a future time, when the whole subject would be before the House, it would have been better if the discussion of it had been postponed until that occasion, when they should have all the details before them, than that it should have been brought forward in the unsatisfactory manner which it had been to-night. With respect to the lamentable affair at Wairau, an event it was impossible to read or hear of without pain, it had been stated by the hon. Member opposite that Captain Fitzroy had been satisfied with hearing the statements of those natives who had been engaged in the attack, and that, without further inquiry, he formed his conclusion on that evidence. This was not so; he first heard the Europeans, and then the natives, and then he formed and declared his judgment. It was not a little singular, however, with respect to that circumstance, that Captain Fitzroy, who had an opportunity of examining the case upon the spot, had come to the same decision as Lord Stanley upon that subject, after a perusal of the despatches from New Zealand. That appeared to him to be a very striking illustration of the correctness of the conclusion to which Captain Fitzroy had come, namely, that two parties, separated by so great a distance, one having an opportunity of inquiring on the spot, and the other forming his opinion from the despatches, should so perfectly coincide in their conclusion with respect to the affair at Wairau. But the opinion of Captain Fitzroy was more fully borne out by the statement of the hon. Member for Liskeard, who said that the issuing of the warrant was illegal. [Mr. Buller: I said imprudent and injudicious.] He would not put his opinion on a question of law in competition with that of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard; but a legal authority in the Colonies had stated as his opinion that the whole transaction was illegal. Perhaps, however, it would be better to leave that part of the subject to those who understood legal matters better, and he should not, therefore, dwell further upon it. He should not have risen to take any part in this discussion, if it had not been for the extraordinary, the unfit, and unbecoming language which had been used by the hon. Member for Liskeard, in alluding to the actions, dealings, and intercourse of Captain Fitzroy with the colonists in New Zealand; and that language appeared still more extraordinary when they recollected that Captain Fitzroy was engaged, at the time that those circumstances occurred, in endeavouring to serve the Government and his country, and in devoting every energy of his mind to the benefit of the colonists. It was a little hard that, at this distance from New Zealand, so far removed that a period of five months would elapse before intelligence of the charges which had been made against him could arrive in the Colony, and it would be five or six months more before his defence could reach this country—it was, he repeated, a little hard, under these circumstances, that the hon. Member for Liskeard should have spoken of Captain Fitzroy as he had, which was certainly in no measured terms, and when he was in such a position that no voice could be raised in his behalf until the House met again in the ensuing year. The hon. Member who made these charges against Captain Fitzroy must have been perfectly aware that a portion of the information to which the hon. Member referred was information which the Government had not as yet received; and therefore it was impossible fully to answer that portion of the charges. With respect to the debentures, the Government had as yet obtained only partial information, and so far he had stated how the case stood as related to the public conduct of Captain Fitzroy; and he was not aware of the arrival of any private accounts of a recent date from him which could add much to that information, which was caused, perhaps, by his constant occupation in New Zealand. It was therefore impossible to go fully into the defence of Captain Fitzroy without further information, as it had not been afforded either to the Government or to any Member of his family; and he deeply regretted that he had been unable to do full justice to the conduct and character of Captain Fitzroy. He gave the hon. Member for Liskeard credit for the natural feeling which he had evinced in noticing the unfortunate end of a gallant Officer; and he hoped he would recollect how hard a task was imposed upon the friend of an absent man in endeavouring to defend him without the possession of that full information which was required, in order that such a defence might be complete. He, as an Englishman, must always regret that the lives of men who might have been so usefully employed in the Colony, had been sacrificed in the manner and under the lamentable circumstances which had been referred to.

rose to protest against two epithets which the hon. Member for Liskeard had applied to Captain Fitzroy, who was a distant connexion of his (Colonel Wood's), and he was sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member would not apply to a brave and gallant officer the words "foolish and incompetent." He (Colonel Wood) could make allowances for the excitement of a debate; but be was sure that on reflection the hon. Member for Liskeard would not persist in applying the words "foolish and incompetent" to a brave officer, at least without hearing all the circumstances. He trusted that the House would give him leave to say that Captain Fitzroy had been engaged in the service of his country for a considerable portion of his life, and that he had been five years absent on a dangerous survey of the coast of South America, and that he had brought his little vessel, at great pecuniary cost to himself, round the world, and had conducted the survey with great skill and professional ability. During that voyage, he touched at the Colony of which he is at present the Governor, and he relinquished valuable situations in order to fill the office to which he was appointed, he (Colonel Wood) believed, at the solicitation of the New Zealand Company. ["No, no."] At all events, he was solicited to accept the appointment by the Colonial Secretary. He went out to New Zealand to perform a most arduous duty; and in his absence, he (Colonel Wood) protested against those epithets which had been applied to him by the hon. Member for Liskeard, at least until the House had all the circumstances fairly before them. Those epithets ought not to have been applied on no other authority than newspaper paragraphs, which might be right, or which might be wrong; but his belief was, that when the whole transactions were investigated, Captain Fitzroy would be able completely to establish his defence.

had no intention of taking a part in the discussion, but he felt it his duty to make an observation upon the indecorous language which had been applied to Captain Fitzroy, a near relation of his. The hon. Member for Liskeard ought to recollect that Captain Fitzroy was absent; and all the House would recollect that the charges which were made against him were made upon imperfect information. The hon. Gentleman opposite began his speech by an important admission, namely, that nine-tenths of all the information which had been brought forward in support of those charges had been obtained from newspapers. He (Sir W. James) therefore hoped, that when the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard went forth to the public, it would go forth with this additional fact — that it was made upon newspaper information, and was a newspaper speech. Some of the expressions which had been used in reference to Captain Fitzroy were of a most extraordinary character. What did the hon. Member for Liskeard mean, by saying that Captain Fitzroy got rid of all the decencies and courtesies of life? Would the hon. Member aver that if Captain Fitzroy were present? Would the hon. Member bring forward any one fact to bear out that statement? The only thing which had been brought forward as a support of that charge was, a statement that he told a gentleman that a certain statement he made was not true. He admitted, certainly, if the gentleman to whom this was said was a respectable person, that it might be considered somewhat harsh language; but then, perhaps, Captain Fitzroy had good grounds for his observation. But he hardly thought the hon. Member meant seriously to bring forward such a circumstance, in order to vindicate his assertion that Cap- tain Fitzroy had done what was unworthy an officer and a gentleman; nor would the hon. Member for Liskeard increase his own character or reputation unless he was prepared to prove what he had stated relative to his gallant relative's conduct to be correct in every particular. Then, what could be more offensive than the language in which the hon. Member had expressed himself—saying, that the Government ought to send out a keeper for Captain Fitzroy, and a successor to his governorship? The hon. Member had shown a very good feeling when dwelling on one part of his case, and he sincerely sympathized in the sentiments which he had expressed towards his gallant friend, Captain Wakefield; and if he had not used language indefensibly strong and unguarded in speaking of Captain Fitzroy, he should not have felt called upon to address the House on the subject. The hon. Member must see the necessity for retracting the language he had used; for to say that his gallant relative had acted in a manner unbecoming a gentleman and an officer, was to speak in terms much too strong, except upon very different grounds to those upon which he had charged Captain Fitzroy. He therefore hoped the hon. Member was prepared to justify his strong expressions by facts equally strong, or else that he would withdraw his language. With respect to the unhappy massacre at Wairau, there was an expression which fell from the hon. Member which demanded an observation. The hon. Member had referred to Captain Fitzroy's having taken part with the natives in the sequel of the unhappy affray which had taken place. He could well conceive that a person of Captain Fitzroy's chivalric temperament, on arriving at his Government, and finding there existed a hostile feeling both on the part of the natives and of the English settlers, would take part with the weakest, and would look with charity on their unprotected and defenceless state. He had styled his gallant relative chivalrous, and he could well justify what he had called him. He knew that gallant officer; and if ever there was a man of chivalrous generosity and high-toned feeling—if ever there was a man characterized by his regard for truth, for integrity, and the best qualities of social life—he would not there speak of his judgment, for every individual was liable to errors in judg- ment—but if ever there was any one on whom he could lay his fingers as remarkable for public worth and private virtue, it was Captain Fitzroy.

said, that nothing could be more amiable in a Member who was the relative of a gallant officer serving abroad, than to get up and defend that officer when any charge was made against him. The gallant Colonel who had preceded the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, had proved Captain Fitzroy to have been engaged on an important survey, and had shown that he was a good surveyor; but a man might be a good nautical surveyor, and yet make a precious bad Governor. He thought the Government had committed a great mistake in sending out Captain Fitzroy as Governor to New Zealand, for he was better calculated to fill the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. His plan to pay the National Debt with debentures entitled him, at least, to be kept at home, to assist the Chancellor, if he were not appointed to that office. He could bear his testimony to the merits of the unfortunate Captain Wakefield, than whom there was not a better or more gallant officer in the service. He regretted his untimely end; and he also regretted that, instead of shaking hands with his murderer, they had not executed him.

could bear testimony to the high integrity and amiable qualities of Captain Fitzroy; but he said that, from the information derived from private letters, he was afraid the conduct of the gallant officer had not been all that his friends could wish. He was nearly related to Mr. Dillon, whose name had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Liskeard; and he was enabled to say, from the information which he had received, that the conduct of Captain Fitzroy to Mr. Dillon had been, he would not say ungentle-manlike, but it was not of that character which is generally adopted between gentlemen. It was quite true that Captain Fitzroy said he would not believe the statement of Mr. Dillon, to the effect that he did not write letters in a newspaper.

said, it was much to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion had not followed the example set him by his predecessor, and contented himself with some observations on the subject-matter of that Motion. No opposition would have been offered to it, with the exception of a slight alteration in its terms, for his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was perfectly ready to afford all the information in his power. But if hon. Members were prepared to call Captain Fitzroy's acts as Governor of New Zealand into question, then he thought it would have been but fair to have postponed that discussion until all the Papers and the necessary information were in the hands of the Government. But he thought it an injustice to his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) as well as to Captain Fitzroy, for hon. Members to indulge in such comments as had been made on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Liskeard had said that the heads of the Colonial Department had shown great ignorance of what was passing in New Zealand; for that he had known three months ago facts which it was admitted had not yet reached the knowledge of Government, and that Captain Fitzroy had used language and committed actions which rendered it the duty of Government to send out a keeper to take charge of him, and a successor to replace him as Governor of the Colony. Now, with respect to sending out a successor to Captain Fitzroy, the hon. Member had certainly a perfect right to express his sentiments on that subject; but nothing could justify him in his observation that a keeper ought to be sent out to take charge of Captain Fitzroy. Now, what were the facts? True it was, that his noble Friend had not yet received official information of the circumstances and occurrences to which the hon. Member had referred. With respect to one class of occurrences at New Zealand, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had stated to him that Captain Fitzroy certainly had omitted to send home a particular acocunt of them for the information of Government; but it was suggested, and thought probable, that this omission only arose out of the numerous and pressing calls upon the Governor's time and attention; and that might turn out to be a sufficient excuse. It might happen that both the omission and the occurrences themselves were unjustifiable; but did hon. Members mean to say that it was right to proceed at once to extremity, as called for against Captain Fitzroy by the hon. Member for Liskeard, upon mere newspaper information alone? Such information on the subject as Government possessed, or as had reached the Colonial Office, would be cheerfully granted; but his noble Friend was quite right in postponing all judgment on the circumstances until Captain Fitzroy had had an opportunity of explaining them. The hon. Member for Liskeard had asked him what he (Sir R. Peel) thought of the issue of inconvertible paper. All he could say was, that he could not give any opinion upon the subject until he knew all the facts; but at the same time he was ready to admit the circumstance was one which required very serious inquiry and consideration. But that was a very different thing from giving an entire credence to newspaper statements, and from proceeding to recall an officer, such as Captain Fitzroy, upon such grounds, [Mr. C. Buller: Have you not the ordinance respecting the paper?] The ordinance had not been sent home, although some extracts from it had reached the Colonial Office, and therefore the observations of the hon. Member as to his noble Friend's ignorance of what was passing in his Department were unwarranted by the facts. Then again, with respect to the debentures, he was ready to admit that there was no act of Captain Fitzroy's which he was less prepared to approve of. His noble Friend, however, had no official information on that subject; he had official cognizance of Captain Fitzroy having formerly issued certain debentures which were called convertible; and his noble Friend had disapproved of the issue even of these convertible debentures. But then again, the hon. Member disapproved of his noble Friend for having looked to the quarter-deck for a person to fill the situation of Governor of a Colony; and he had stated his opinion that a person selected from such a place was likely to prove incompetent to fill a civil governorship. He was not prepared to acquiesce in such an opinion. He was not ready by any assent on his part to establish such a distinction as the hon. Member wished to make with respect to naval officers filling civil posts. He was not addressing himself to Captain Fitzroy's particular case; but he was speaking generally of such appointments, and he was referring especially to the hon. Member's expression, "That the quarter-deck was a bad school for Governors of Colonies." [Mr. C. Buller did not mean to imply that the naval service disqualified a man from filling a Colonial governorship.] No; the hon. Member did not say that the naval service was a formal disquali- fication for such a post, but he intimated his opinion that such generally was the fact; his own experience authorised him to say that he had seen more than one instance in which a naval officer had discharged the functions of civil governor with signal success and advantage to his country. The hon. Member also said that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office ought to recall Captain Fitzroy. Now, that was not the opinion of the New Zealand Company. ["No."] Whatever was the opinion at present, the noble Lord had appointed Captain Fitzroy; and the New Zealand Company had then said he was a person well calculated to promote the prosperity of an infant Colony. Why, what was the noble Lord's object in appointing Captain Fitzroy but to promote the welfare of the Colony? It was not a very easy matter to get a good governor for a distant settlement; nor was it so very easy to find distinguished men who were willing and qualified to fill such responsible posts. One offered himself in the person of Captain Fitzroy, who was a distinguished officer, and who was ready to sacrifice his personal interests, as the gallant officer who had spoken had admitted. Captain Fitzroy was known for his humanity, his intelligence, his integrity; he was willing to serve his country in a distant Colony; and the New Zealand Company on his appointment did not entertain a different opinion of him from that of the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary. What were the sentiments expressed in the letter addressed by Mr. Ward, the Secretary of the New Zealand Company, to Colonel Wakefield, dated the 13th of May, 1843? The Company by their Secretary therein staled,—

"The spirit which Lord Stanley has manifested, showing that he is prepared to afford cordial countenance and assistance to the endeavours of the Company to execute to the greatest possible extent the public functions intrusted to them by their charter, is quite as gratifying to the Court as the letter of the actual arrangement."

[Considerable dissent on the Opposition benches.] What! was not that the letter of the New Zealand Company? Well; but with respect to Captain Fitzroy's appointment, the New Zealand Company abstained from all comments on the noble Lord's conduct towards the Colony, except in so far as the choice of a Governor was concerned; and, although for months he had been threatened with an attack, they had contented themselves on that night with attacking Captain Fitzroy, and therefore it was that he was proving from their own recorded sentiments that they approved of the appointment of Captain Fitzroy quite as strongly as the noble Lord. The only question which he was dealing with at present was, whether his noble Friend were not justified in having appointed Captain Fitzroy, and whether, also, he were not applauded and thanked for having done so by those who now blamed him, and demanded the recall of that officer. He would proceed with the letter to which he had referred:—"Nor are they less pleased with the appointment of Captain R. Fitzroy, R.N., to be Governor of the Colony." Why, with what pretence could the writers of such a letter as that now turn round and speak of the appointment as they had done? But the discreet and prudent men who thus wrote were not disposed to go merely upon the general report of Captain Fitzroy's personal character and qualifications. They sought a personal interview with him, and they then, after having heard him explain his views, wrote in the following terms to Colonel Wakefield:—

"Their communications with that distinguished officer have assured them that his views of colonization are sound and enlarged, and that he will enter upon the discharge of his duties altogether free from any partial preference for any particular locality, or for any particular section of the general body of Her Majesty's subjects whom he has been appointed to govern. The high position in this country which he has voluntarily abandoned, in order to undertake the administration of the rising Colony of New Zealand, places it beyond question that he could have been actuated in such a step only by a sense of public duty, and by a benevolent desire of becoming an instrument of good, both to the British colonists and the natives of New Zealand. All these circumstances combine to give the Directors the most entire confidence, that they shall henceforward be able to carry out the great purposes of the Company's incorporation with a vigour and success commensurate with their importance."

That was the opinion then formally registered by the New Zealand Company with respect to the propriety of Captain Fitzroy's appointment; and therefore, whatever the hon. Member for Liskeard might say with respect to the disqualification of quarter-deck officers, he must affirm that he thought the letter which he had just read from a public body like the New Zealand Company was the best answer that could be given to his remarks of that evening, and formed a full acquittal of his noble Friend the Colonial Secretary. Now, he believed the New Zealand Company only did justice to Captain Fitzroy; and he must express his belief, moreover, that in relinquishing a good civil appointment and a seat in that House, and in going out to New Zealand, upon an inadequate salary, to take upon himself the charge of that Colony, that officer was only actuated by a sincere desire to do good to his country and his fellow-creatures. Well, then, if such were the case, before such a man were condemned—and condemned, too, whilst absent in a distant Colony, was he (Sir R. Peel) not justified in asking them to wait and hear what he had to allege in his defence? He did think that such an act of fairness was absolutely called for. He could make allowances for the hon. Member's feelings. He knew how sincerely he deplored, how much he had reason to regret, the loss of his gallant and lamented Friend. But at the same time the hon. Member must not feel surprised at the warmth with which Captain Fitzroy's friends had stood forward to defend and uphold his character. They certainly had not to deplore his loss, as the hon. Member had too much reason to deplore the loss of Captain Wakefield; but they had quite as much respect for his character as the hon. Member had for that of the friend he had lost; and the honour and reputation of their absent friend and connexion were as dear to them as the memory of Captain Wakefield was to the hon. Member. The hon. Member must not therefore be surprised at the warmth with which Captain Fitzroy had been vindicated in all that regarded his personal honour and character. His friends did not seek to vindicate the acts done by him in his official capacity, nor did they deny the right of the hon. Member to question the propriety of continuing him in his government—all they required was, that a fair delay should be granted, in order that full information on all the points questioned might be obtained; and he (Sir R. Peel) must say that it was only consistent with justice to await Captain Fitzroy's explanation. If it should turn out to be the fact that the non-transmission of the documents required for this purpose resulted from accident, then he was sure the hon. Member would regret having spoken so severely of the noble Lord's being ignorant of matters which had appeared in the public journals. If the omission arose from pressure of other more important business, then the same regret would no doubt be felt on behalf of Captain Fitzroy. But, however the facts of that part of the case might ultimately prove to be, there could be no doubt whatever that any judgment at the present time would be premature, imperfect, and consequently unjust. He must say, that his duty to a Colleague who had been unjustly condemned, had induced him to read the correspondence, and to make himself master of the subject as far as he could from the Papers; and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not delay in bringing under the consideration of the House what every one had expected would be the first subject of discussion—the relation between the affairs of New Zealand and the Colonial Office. When that discussion should take place, he should be prepared to take his part in it, and to vindicate his noble Friend; and he thought that in common justice the hon. Gentleman would feel it his duty to bring forward that Motion, should he determine to persevere in it, at the earliest possible period. The conduct of Captain Fitzroy was quite distinct from the consideration of the Report of the Committee of last year; and the hon. Gentleman would be as competent now to consider the propriety of the course taken by his noble Friend subsequent to the Report of that Committee, and to say whether he had taken a just and prudent course, as he would be six weeks hence. The conduct of Captain Fitzroy might show that his noble Friend had made an unwise choice; but this was a very different question from that raised by the Report of the Committee of last year. His noble Friend had laid upon the Table all the despatches, and did not shrink from any inquiry. He would not say anything to anticipate that discussion; but the period had arrived when if the hon. Gentleman still contemplated his Motion, he ought to bring it forward and enable those who represented his noble Friend in that House to vindicate his noble Friend from the accusation that might be brought against him.

said, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it was clear that at no distant period the whole subject of the conduct pursued with respect to New Zealand, both by the Government at home and by Captain Fitzroy, would be brought before the House, and that in a form which would enable the House to pronounce a judgment for themselves. He should, therefore, wait till that period had arrived, and not enter now into the subject. He would not, therefore, have risen if it were not that the right hon. Gentleman had complained, without any adequate cause, of some expressions which had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend who had lately spoken in this debate. He had complained that the expression used in reference to Captain Fitzroy was that a keeper and a successor ought to have been sent out for him. The right hon. Gentleman was rather hard on his hon. and learned Friend. His hon. and learned Friend had used strong language certainly, but not stronger than the occasion deserved. The speech of his hon. and learned Friend was not less distinguished by moderation and temper than by ability; and in the whole course of it he had not said one word, as far as he (Lord Howick) had heard, imputing any blame to the motives of Captain Fitzroy. What he had condemned was, the judgment of that officer as shown by him in the exercise of the government of the Colony; and in his opinion, his hon. Friend could not have condemned that judgment too strongly—he could not have used expressions too strongly condemnatory of the utter want of judgment and discretion shown by Captain Fitzroy in the conduct of the affairs of New Zealand. To the expressions of his hon. and learned Friend, taken in that sense, he could see no real ground of objection. He entirely concurred in the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend relative to the conduct of Captain Fitzroy, as far as that conduct was known. The right hon. Gentleman, indeed, had told them that they ought not to condemn Captain Fitzroy unheard, and that they had had those things from newspaper reports. He admitted that in many cases a newspaper report was not an adequate ground for proceeding; but he thought the case was somewhat altered when what they had in the newspaper was not the effect of rumour—hot even a statement by the editors of what, they believed to be the fact, but a report of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Colony, containing Captain Fitzroy's own speeches, and referring to Captain Fitzroy's own proclamation and legislative measures. When they had such grounds for forming a judgment, he did not think any serious error could be fallen into on the matter. Further, he would say, with a government so distant, with the lives and fortunes of so many of our fellow-subjects at stake, he did think, in a case of that kind, the mere fact of not having taken care that the Government should be adequately informed of what was going on, constituted a very serious fault on the part of Colonel Fitzroy. Why could he not have taken care that the despatches, or duplicates of them, should have come home with the same vessel that brought the newspapers? He could see no possible justification for Captain Fitzroy having neglected to send them home. What his hon. and learned Friend suggested to the House was, that they ought to pronounce a positive condemnation of Captain Fitzroy's conduct so far as was necessary for the protection of the colonists. It was not the character and feelings of that officer that were alone to be considered. It was to be considered that the welfare and lives of 14,000 or 15,000 of our fellow-subjects were now in the utmost peril from the utter disorganization of the government there. Looking to the nature of the accounts which for three or four months had been brought home from the Colony, he had learned with great astonishment that evening that the Government had not already some time ago sent out some gentlemen on whose judgment they could rely to relieve Captain Fitzroy from his duties as Governor. He did not hesitate to say that his opinion was, that that course ought to have been taken. But he had already gone farther than he had intended. He had wished carefully to have abstained from entering into the question of the policy pursued towards the Colony of New Zealand. That was a question of the utmost importance, and he hoped that it would not be long after the Easter recess when it would be brought before the House.

said, it would be great presumption in him to attempt to answer any statement or speech made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but he had a strong reliance on the justice of the case and on the justice of the House, and with their kind indulgence, therefore, he would address them on the subject now under discussion. They had heard from various quarters, and no doubt arising from the most amiable motives, three defences of the conduct of Captain Fitzroy; and they had heard also his conduct defended by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel). ["No, no."] Well, he could understand and respect the motives which actuated the relatives of that officer in their defence of him. He had had the honour of a slight acquaintance with Captain Fitzroy, and a more amiable and excellent person he had never met with; and he believed that for the purpose of undertaking the government of the Colony he had given up lucrative situations in this country. He admitted with the hon. Member for Hull (Sir W. James) that it was unjust to attack a man who was at a great distance; and he should not, therefore, do so. But the right hon. Baronet had dwelt in rather a triumphant tone on the letter of the New Zealand Company approving of the appointment of Captain Fitzroy. The fact was that New Zealand had been so infamously governed, that any change was hailed as certain to be for the better; and moreover, when that letter was written, the Company were in a state of gross deception as to the conduct of the Colonial Office, believing, as they did at the time, that Captain Fitzroy was going to New Zealand to carry out the agreement they had entered into with Lord Stanley as a substitute for the more favourable agreement they had made with the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), which they had accepted under the iron foot of the Colonial Office, because they could not help themselves—because they knew that 10,000 gallant men who had gone out to New Zealand under their auspices were not able to get one single acre of land from the Crown. Having accepted the agreement of Lord Stanley, they did not know that Captain Fitzroy had at the time a letter of instructions in his pocket explaining away that agreement. That letter had not been seen by the Company till many months after Captain Fitzroy had left this country. A deputation of the Directors of the Company had had a personal interview with Captain Fitzroy, in utter ignorance that such a letter was in existence. Had they known of its existence they would have thrown up the whole concern—have sacrificed all the money they had spent, and have said, "Do your worst; we'll trust the Colonial Office no more." He wished particularly to draw the attention of the House to the nature of contracts entered into between the Crown and an individual or public company. According to the laws of this country neither an individual or company, in the case of such a contract, could sue the Crown to compel the fulfilment of the engagement so entered into. In India Lord Cornwallis, in the year 1793, had placed the Government and the subject upon a perfect equality in the courts of justice. Unfortunately that was not the case in this country. If it were so, the New Zealand Company would have long since appealed to the laws of their country to receive redress for the monstrous injuries they had received from the Colonial Office. But that not being the case, they appealed to the only tribunal open to them—to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. He could appeal to hon. Gentlemen if that Committee had not been most fairly selected; and that Committee had given a verdict on every point in favour of the New Zealand Company. That verdict had been contumeliously set aside by Lord Stanley, in a letter to the Governor, in which the noble Lord had spoken of the Report of the Committee in the most slighting terms. Their only resource, then, was to appeal to the justice of that House; and he begged the House to remember that the question was not a political or party one; but simply an appeal from men who had been greatly wronged, not merely on their own behalf, but on behalf of thousands of their fellow-countrymen whom they had unfortunately sent out to New Zealand. It could not be said that it was the conduct of the Company that had brought the Colony into that perilous state of bankruptcy in which it now was. Out of 12,442l. raised by means of taxation in the settlement of the Company, 7,921l. only had been spent on the spot where the amount had been raised; the rest was taken to Auckland to be expended in the northern part of the island—the great blunder originally being that the seat of government was formed in a place different from that which was the seat of population. The New Zealanders were like a nation of children; they were cockered-up to disobedience by the policy of Captain Fitzroy; the result of which policy was, that our countrymen and countrywomen were insulted and outraged—the national flag cut down, and the Custom-house removed. Where Captain Fitzroy's policy had had uninterrupted fair play, he himself in a public speech admitted that settlers could not go to the bush in safety. He could not, therefore, doubt that when the whole case was laid before the House and the country, due justice would be awarded to all parties.

said, that some expressions which had been used by his hon. Friend were not such as should have been introduced into that discussion. His hon. Friend had talked of the New Zealanders as a nation of children, and talked of them as having been roused to disobedience by the conduct of his hon. and gallant Friend Captain Fitzroy. He would take the liberty of saying, in the absence of the gallant Captain, that he felt it an honour to call himself his friend. So much, in the progress of that discussion, had been said against him—and not only against him, but also against the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government—in reference to the subject, that he could not help taking a stand in the matter, and saying that there appeared to him to be a fundamental error—a fundamental sin, he might almost call it—on the part of those who advocated the cause of the New Zealand Company; for he had heard in that House—and the hon. Member who had permitted himself to use the expression was then opposite him—that all the sympathies of their humanity were in favour of the savage and the slave, instead of in favour of the civilized man. He himself was not ashamed to say, that in the contest between the poor and the weak, on the one hand, and the rich and the powerful, on the other, his sympathies would always be with the poor and the weak. Could any one say that the inhabitants of New Zealand were a race for whom his sympathies should not be enlisted? He would not admit that the people of New Zealand were to be regarded as children. All the evidence which we had regarding them would justify us in placing them on a level with the English as they existed about eight centuries ago. They can trace their descent and the possession of their lands for twenty and twenty-five generations, that was to say for a period which extended back to about the time of the Norman Conquest. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard, with whom he had the pleasure of agreeing last night, although he could not have that pleasure on the present occasion, alleged, by the intimation given by him by a shake of his head, that that historical conclusion was unsupported by facts. All he could say was, that the statement was made by one who had had the longest experience in the case of New Zealand—he referred to the friend and protector of the native—Mr. George Clarke, who stated that the circumstances connected with the transmission of their lands, the identification of their property, and with their succession in inheritance in these islands, were not to be paralleled except in that state of comparative civilization which obtained about eight centuries ago in England. The New Zealanders were, therefore, entitled to respect, inasmuch as they possessed those requisites of civilization which were considered essential to the proper adjustment of property. But more, they could not talk of them as children, as they had already recognised their national character. From the moment that we thus recognised them, all our proceedings in reference to them should have proceeded on the footing of equal rights, not of equal power, for that was not possible. But, on the contrary, the case as it actually stood was the case of a mercantile company on the one hand, and that of a free nation on the other. He did not deny that among the individuals composing that Company were men of character as high and principles as just as any who are to be found in any part of the Empire; but their binding principle, it could not be denied, was a principle of pecuniary interest. Would any man say that they entered that Company on any other principle? Were not New Zealand lands as much marketable as any scrip in any railway company, or as the subject-matter of any pecuniary transaction whatever? Was it contended by any of them that high principles alone had brought them into connexion with this Company? Was it through pure zeal for the natives of New Zealand that they became thus connected? It was, in point of fact, a commercial speculation. When he saw these gentlemen, in a question of this kind, ranged on one side, and such a man as Captain Fitzroy on the other—firm, benevolent, and just, with no conceivable private interest or object, he had no hesitation whatever in giving his support to him, who unquestionably had no personal motives for taking a pan against the Company; in other words, he could have no hesitation in giving his support to Her Majesty's Government on this question. In respect to the recommendation of the New Zealand Committee and to their Report, there was not one Resolution which emanated from that body of any par- ticular importance, which was carried by more than a majority of one. The real value of reports of Committees would never be ascertained until they bore the names of the individuals who concurred in them. Let that Report bear the names of the seven gentlemen who concurred in it, and it would appear with much less force and effect than when it appeared as the report of an undivided Committee. He was apprised that there was to be no division on the Motion before the House; but had there been a division, he certainly should have given his support to that side of the House which supports the cause of his hon. and gallant Friend.

rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He would not trouble the House with any observations whatever, but for the observations which fell from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Guildford. It was not his intention to go into the question at large. It was but fair to state what the question was. What was the case as to which it was stated that the Company were under a deception? The fact was, that what was alleged by the Company to be an agreement, was wholly denied by the Colonial Office to have any such character attached to it. The Company, it should be recollected, had bought lands from the natives in the island of New Zealand, and had sent upwards of 2,000 settlers into it before they ever applied to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) then at the head of the Colonial Department on the subject in the year 1840. The question now was, whether that noble Lord had undertaken to find the Company land, or to make them compensation only, or then to confirm their previous purchases. The hon. Gentleman read an extract from a communication sent by the Company to the Colonial Office, dated Dec. 21, 1842, as follows:—

"The Company asks Her Majesty's Government to interpose in the manner promised in Mr. Vernon Smith's letter of 28th May, 1841, and whatever may be the present state of the Commissioner's proceedings, or his ultimate decision, to do that which, without impugning his authority, or contravening any existing ordinance, would at once take the Company's claims out of his jurisdiction; and that is, forthwith to instruct the Governor of New Zealand to make to the Company a legal grant of the amount of land awarded by Mr. Pennington, in whatever spot within the district claimed by the Company in 1840, we may choose to exercise an absolute and unrestricted right of selection. If other parties can substantiate rights to such spots, it would be the business of Her Majesty's Government to compensate those who maybe aggrieved by the complete fulfilment of the agreement with us, or to compensate the Company, if it be not able, or do not think fit, so to fulfil it."

It appeared that the demand now made of Lord Stanley was, that he should make to them an absolute grant of land, that he should find them lands, or make compensation to the Company if he could not do so. What had been done by the noble Lord was to offer to give them whatever the owner had to give—but no more—and that had been complained of as a breach of the agreement, as it was called. The Company felt the difficulty arising from the conditions under which the possession of the sovereignty had been obtained, and proposed to the noble Lord to disregard the Treaty. By a letter dated 24th January, 1843, they state:—

"We did not believe that even the Royal power of making Treaties could establish, in the eye of our Courts, such a fiction as a native law of real property in New Zealand. We always have had very serious doubts whether the Treaty of Waitangi, made with naked savages by a consul invested with no plenipotentiary powers, without ratification by the Crown, could be treated by lawyers as anything but a praiseworthy device for amusing and pacifying savages for the moment. But we thought it most probable that, whenever possession of New Zealand should be actually obtained by Her Majesty, the view hastily adopted by Lord Normanby would be found impracticable, and abandoned."

The letter in which they made their demand upon the noble Lord was dated the 21st of December, and the letter in which they thus explained their views of the Treaty was dated in January, so that but little time elapsed between their making the demand and their intimation that the Treaty should be set aside. The noble Lord, in reply to the representations made to him, stated, that he took a different view of the obligation imposed on the Crown by the Treaty. He stated, that his final answer to the demands of the Company should be, that as long as he had the honour of serving the Crown he would not submit to becoming a party to the setting aside the Treaty. The noble Lord could not admit that the noble Lord who preceded him (as was seen from an extract which the hon. Gentleman here read from the correspondence above referred to) had come under any obligation to provide the Company in land; and he could not, therefore, suppose that the noble Lord who preceded him had undertaken to guarantee them the finding of lands which they did not already possess, or to give them a pecuniary compensation. He had however offered to instruct the Governor of the Colony to make them a conditional grant. The noble Lord said he would thus deal with all the Crown had to give, but that he could give them no more. That proposal the Company rejected. The noble Lord had come under no agreement. What was proposed to be done was for no consideration. The Company had at last accepted the offer which was made at first, and instructions were given how it should be executed. It was alleged that there had been a breach of faith. Captain Fitzroy had asked for explanations on several points. He had asked for explanation as to what was to be done with regard to the grant to the Company. This was the case of an agent of the Government applying to the Government, from which he was to receive instructions, to know how these orders were to be executed. The instructions were given in the very words in which Mr. Somes himself requested they should be given. The Company demanded particular spots of land. It was urged by them that the noble Lord the Member for London, when presiding in the Colonial Department, had undertaken to give them particular spots, and now that the Government was not able to do so, the Government was bound to make the Company compensation. The hon. Gentlemen then contended that the Colonial Department had come under no agreement in a technical sense with the Company. Whatever directions were given in the matter were by the favour of the Crown, and not under any agreement.

said, that he was not anxious to get into any discussion on what he really must call such a wretched verbal distinction as had been brought forward on that occasion. The hon. Gentleman who had just taken his seat, said that there had been no agreement between the two parties. Now, he did not care very much what he chose to call it, but this was what he wanted to ascertain. On the 8th of May, 1843, Mr. Somes wrote to Lord Stanley, and made certain proposals. In May, 1843, the Company, after much discussion with Lord Stanley, sent a formal proposal of the terms on which they would make their contract. In the letter convey- ing that proposal, he found the following paragraph:—

"For the purpose of effectually settling the question of the Company's title, and of quieting the minds of their purchasers, they suggest that your Lordship should forthwith direct his Excellency to make to the Company a conditional grant of the lands selected by their agents; the Company obtaining within the district so selected the whole title which the Crown may have the power to grant; and having the option, in the event of prior claims being set up, of either excluding from the selected lands such portions as may appear to be subject to such prior claims, and in that case receiving a corresponding number of acres in lieu; or of including such portions, subject to the prior title, but obtaining from the Crown, in respect of them, the exclusive right of preemption enjoyed by the Crown, the Governor and Council being instructed, as soon as practicable, to establish some general rule for defining native titles, and settling the claims to land, and to do their best to aid the agents of the Company in effecting the necessary arrangements with the natives, either for the purchase of lands belonging to them, but unimproved, or for making on the part of the Company equitable compensation for the original value of land which may have been occupied by themselves or their settlers, without sufficient title, but on which they may have effected improvements."

On the 12th of May, 1843, Mr. Hope wrote back in these words:—

"Lord Stanley directs me to state his assent to these proposals, and to intimate further, that he will be prepared to issue to the Governor of New Zealand instructions to the effect proposed in your letter for effectually settling the question of the Company's title to land in that Colony."

Whether the hon. Gentleman called that an agreement or not, was for himself to decide; but he (Mr. C. Buller) must say, that the assertion that it was no agreement belonged to a peculiar style of reasoning—what one might call the Colonial Office style; and if any Gentleman could refuse for a moment to call what he had just read an agreement, he must quarrel with the English language in its ordinary terms. He did not want to dwell at the present moment upon the charge which the hon. Gentleman had so indignantly repudiated. The hon. Gentleman said that the instructions which Lord Stanley had issued on the 26th of June, 1843, were in perfect accordance with the agreement. [Mr. G. W. Hope: With the promise—] Promise! He must take the hon. Gentleman's own words, and when he said that Lord Stanley directed him to state his assent to the Company's proposals, and to intimate further, that he would be prepared to issue instructions for the purpose of settling the Company's title to land in the Colony, he did not know what signification such terms might have at the Colonial Office, but he regarded them as the distinct terms of an agreement, and he had a right to come forward and ask the Government how that agreement, or promise, if the hon. Gentleman liked that better, had been kept? The first complaint was this, and he merely put it, as to the indelicacy of the proceedings on the part of the Government. An engagement was made between two parties. The New Zealand Company left that engagement to be executed by the officer of the Government. They were told that a letter had been sent out with instructions to the Governor of New Zealand; but they were not told that any other instructions had been sent out, or rather it was six months afterwards that they learned that other instructions had been sent out. He would not at present enter into the discussion of the question with regard to the consistency of these instructions with the promise of the Colonial Secretary. They were instructions not dictated by the spirit which was supposed to preside at the making of the agreement. Two parties had been engaged in making the agreement; and the instructions, which were a departure from it, were dictated by one party, without consulting the other. Such a course was a violation of every honourable principle. Between men of honour and proper feeling, in private life, such a thing would never have been done. Suppose, for a moment, he himself made an agreement with the hon. Secretary. [Mr. G. W. Hope: It was no agreement.] No agreement! Suppose, then, he made a promise with the hon. Secretary, and suppose a part of the promise was, that his servant should carry it into execution, and suppose the servant to come and say that he did not know exactly what the promise meant, would the hon. Secretary, in that case, if he (Mr. C. Buller) had entrusted his interest to him and his servant, give that servant instructions deviating from the promise, without consulting him? All faith between gentlemen would cease if such a course of proceeding were once permitted to nullify the contracts of private life. He would not enter into the discussion of the question as to whether the instructions referred to were inconsistent or not. The Government had not observed the common delicacy which private parties generally observed in such cases. He did not care a rush for what they called the understanding between the parties, so long as they managed to get at the substance of the case. He had a much more serious accusation to prefer. They had formerly gone on disputing the title of the Company to land. The Government had called upon the Company to prove the validity of their purchases, and the dispute between them was, that it was not competent for the Government to call, in the first place, upon the Company to prove the validity of their title. The inquiry was to be subsequent, and not preliminary, to the giving of the titles. They would see the difference between the two cases—between making out the validity of their purchases in the Commissioners' Court before they got their title confirmed, and a conditional title on which they got the land into their possession at the moment. What he complained of was this, that Captain Fitzroy had not recognised this conditional title immediately on his arrival in New Zealand. The House was in possession of nine months' proceedings of his in the Colony, and they found that not one step had been taken by that functionary to carry out the terms of the promise. What he now wanted was, to know what instructions had been given to the Governor of New Zealand in pursuance of Mr. Hope's letter of the 12th of May?

The instructions given were given in the words of the letter of the 12th of May.

The letter of the 12th of May contained a promise, and what he wanted to know was, what instructions had been given to fulfil the promise so contained in the letter of the 12th of May? What had been done to fulfil the promise therein made to the Company?

The hon. Gentleman asked what had been done? The course was, that the Company's agents were to select the portions of ground of which they were to obtain a grant. It was not for the Governor to make a conditional grant, without application to him for that purpose. After a great deal of discussion, the compensation proposed had been accepted.

said, that although he seconded the Motion, he would not oppose the Amendment, especially as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dartmouth, who moved the Resolution, had assented to it. He should have another opportu- nity of calling the attention of the House to the letter of Lord Stanley.

said that notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he thought it would be more convenient for him to proceed with the Motion of which he had given notice than to postpone it to another night. The subject he was about to bring under the notice of the House might appear from the nature of his Motion to be of a local character; but the House would be mistaken if they considered it to be of mere local interest, for it involved the question, whether the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners should be enforced in every corner of England that still resisted their authority. It was in fact the great question whether all the districts under Local Acts, or which still managed their poor under the Select Vestries' Act, should be compelled to bow their neck to the yoke of that sovereign authority which had been not inappropriately called the authority of the Three Kings at Somerset House. The Motion which he brought forward also raised the question, whether the New Poor Law Act should continue as it was, or whether it should be amended in such a manner as to render it more conformable to justice, to policy, and to the ancient constitution of England. He would shortly state the circumstances more particularly connected with his constituents on the present occasion. The district of Rochdale had been managed for twenty-six years under the Select Vestries' Act, and he believed that no fault had hitherto been found with the manner in which the relief of the poor had been there conducted under that Act. In 1837 a Union was formed under the new Act for the purposes of Registration; but the guardians under that Union were directed to abstain from the management of the relief of the poor, which still continued conducted under the Select Vestries' Act. Matters remained so until October 25, 1844, when an order was issued by the Poor Law Commissioners requiring that the guardians should take on themselves the relief of the poor. This order was accompanied by a letter, in which, however, no reason was assigned for the course dictated by the Poor Law Commissioners, they merely stating that "the exercise of the function for the relief of the poor is expressly intrusted to them by the Legislature; and though the Commissioners deemed it expedient to restrain it for a period, they have come to the conclusion that the time has now arrived when that restriction may be properly withdrawn." This order, then, without any reason assigned, was issued by the Poor Law Commissioners, notwithstanding that the people of Rochdale had been permitted, since the formation of the Union for Registration purposes, to administer the relief for the poor in their accustomed manner. In spite of the order of the Commissioners, it was found impossible to obtain a meeting of the guardians, either ex-officio or other, in sufficient number to constitute a board of three to carry out the order, which was thought injurious to the interests of the people. In this state of things a mandamus was applied for on the 24th of November in the Court of Queen's Bench; and there was something that appeared very strange about that mandamus. It was moved for and required by the Poor Law Commissioners to be issued, not in the usual form, by way of rule to show cause, but the Court was solicited to grant an absolute mandamus at once, and, as he understood, on the allegation that the poor were starving. The mandamus was accordingly granted. It was exceedingly strange that such a representation should have been made to the Court of Queen's Bench, because, under the authority of a letter addressed to the overseers of the poor of Rochdale by the Poor Law Commissioners, the overseers were still relieving the poor according to the former system. The poor were not starving, but were relieved as usual, and that, too, under the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners themselves; for, in the letter to which he alluded, the Poor Law Commissioners "recommended that if any embarrassment or misunderstanding should arise, the paupers should be relieved by you (the overseers) as usual." The Commissioners, therefore, or those who acted under them, employed something like deception when they said that the poor were in danger of starving, and thereby induced the Court of Queen's Bench to grant an absolute mandamus, without allowing the people of Rochdale an opportunity, in the first instance, of showing cause against it. As to the legality of the mandamus itself, he should say nothing at present, as he understood notice had been served for the trial of the question at the assizes at Lancaster. The people of Rochdale had made every exertion possible to avoid the infliction on them of this New Poor Law. They had tried by all legitimate means to prevent its being forced on them; and at the same time had endeavoured to avoid the appearance of any resistance to authority. The guardians signed a memorial addressed to the Home Secretary; and the ratepayers of Rochdale also addressed a memorial to the right hon. Baronet, hoping for his interference to prevent the infliction of this New Poor Law upon them. That memorial was signed by 11,415 ratepayers; and it was a remarkable thing that amongst the vast number of ratepayers there was such a degree of unanimity. It was also remarkable, that notwithstanding his constituency was divided into so many political parties, he represented at that moment the feelings of the whole body. There might be some few exceptions, but he was proud to say that he was then advocating what might properly be termed the wishes of the whole body of the people of Rochdale. That memorial was presented to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but his answer was, that he had no power to interfere in preventing the operation of an of Act Parliament. Now, he would ask that House whether it was justi- fiable, under such circumstances as he had stated, for the Commissioners to force their authority upon Rochdale without having a sufficient cause for doing so? The memorialists wanted to know whether any mal-practices could be changed against them; if there were any, let them be stated and inquired into. But it was hard that the Commissioners should attempt to enforce their authority against the feelings and wishes of the people. It was on that ground that the inhabitants of Rochdale appealed to that House. They had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman as the organ of the Government; but were told that the Government could give them no remedy, and they therefore came to that House to ask whether they would give them any relief from the infliction of this law. Although no reason was assigned for the infliction of it in any regular document, yet he had a correct knowledge of a document which had been produced, and which he believed was made the foundation of this act of the Commissioners. It was the Report of Mr. Clements, and in that he found a table comprising thirty-nine Unions, and forming a comparison between the aggregate average of those Unions with three others under the Select Vestries' Act. Upon that comparison the Commissioner made out a case against the Select Vestries' Act. But his mode of computation was not correct; he stated that the average increase in 1843, as compared with 1838, had been under the Commissioners in thirty-nine unions 68½ per cent., whilst under the three Select Vestries Acts it had been 147 per cent. But if that Table were examined it would be found that in several Unions which included those thirty-nine, the percentage of increase was a great deal higher than in the three Select Vestry Unions. He could select three towns in which the average percentage would run as high as 170 per cent., and that without taking the extreme highest in the list. Now, under such circumstances, was it fair to compare the average of thirty-nine Unions with the average of three, when among those thirty-nine there were several which equalled or exceeded the average of the three so selected? Again, there was a difficulty in comparing the percentage of one Union with another, because the Commissioner wisely abstained from giving in his table the percentage of each Union. The Commissioner admitted that Rochdale was the lowest of those three Select Vestry Unions; and, if an examination were permitted, it could be shown that the amount of expenditure in Mr. Clements's table attributed to Rochdale was largely overstated; that between 8,000 and 9,000 persons and families were relieved in 1843, and that the average expenditure in that relief did not exceed 28s. per head. It could also be proved that in the year 1844 there had been a decrease of expenditure to the amount of 1,087l., equal to one-ninth of the whole expenditure of the former year. But there was a triumphant argument in favour of Rochdale. By the Tenth Annual Report of the Commissioners, page 3, it appeared that the number of paupers relieved in England and Wales (in-door and out-door) in 1843 was (in round numbers) 1,500,000; and the expense (in round numbers) 4,000,000l. This was at the rate of 2l. 13s. 4d. per bend, whilst at Rochdale the rate per head was only 28s. That was a strong argument why an inquiry should be made before this law was forced upon them. But it was not the first time that Rochdale had been attacked, and that he had had to defend it. In 1841 he stated the distress of the inhabitants of Rochdale, and the consequence was that an inquiry was instituted, which inquiry was extended to the system for the relief of the poor. That inquiry was reported by Mr. Tufnell in February, 1842, and in Mr. Tufnell's Report he found this passage:—

"They asked persons whom they found in distress, had they applied for relief? 'They declared they had not; and appeared to me to have a pride in endeavouring to keep off the parish as long as possible.' Again, you will not fail to observe the small amount of out-relief given in some of these townships, compared with what is usual in the Poor Law Unions of the south of England. In Wardleworth, a population of 11,400, the weekly out-relief amounts on an average to only 10l. A similar amount of agricultural population in Kent or Sussex would usually receive 35l. weekly, or three and a-half times as much."

Such was the testimony given by that Report in favour of the manner in which the relief of the poor in Rochdale was conducted. That was another ground why they should not be sentenced without being first permitted the liberty of showing why this law ought not to be forced upon them. But was economy to be the only object in view? Was that to be the only criterion of the administration of the law? There were other considerations. He thought the manner in which the poor were relieved, as well as the expense, ought to be considered; and if it were found that it afforded the poor insufficient relief it ought to be condemned, whilst, on the other hand, if there were economy with sufficient relief, the system should be maintained. But the Commissioners seemed to think only of economy, and they appeared, in his opinion, to have corrupted the guardians by the constant reiteration of that principle, for the guardians seemed to be as much inclined to starve the poor as the Commissioners. But this petition contained a variety of allegations, and he should not do justice to those who had commissioned him to appear before that House if he did not call the attention of the House to those allegations. They stated that the Poor Law system was unconstitutional, and that its introduction into Rochdale would utterly destroy that principle of self-government upon which the inhabitants had hitherto acted with perfect satisfaction to themselves and the poor of that town—a principle which was the acknowledged palladium of British liberty, and the only safeguard against despotism and tyranny. They also told the House that the Poor Law Commissioners were not recognized by the constitution of England. Nor were their commands to be regarded as legislatorial authority, inasmuch as the Commissioners took upon themselves, under pretence of administering the provisions of a law passed by the House, to issue mandates called rules and orders, having all the authority of law. The rules of the Commissioners had all the power of Acts of Parliament; but they were made by those who had no authority to make acts, who derived no authority from the people. The petitioners also told the House, that the Commissioners assumed the power of originating large levies of money to be imposed for purposes not consented to by the guardians. Now, that was a right of taxation vested in irresponsible hands, which the constitution did not acknowledge. They had also power to appoint officers and to give salaries; that, too, was contrary to the British constitution; but the people of Rochdale had lately experienced an exercise of that power, for the Commissioners had recently appointed there an officer with a salary of 150l. a year. In fact, the guardians were hackneys to be ridden by the Commissioners, and made to sanction that taxation which they had no power in themselves to control. The petition then went on to remark, that it was one of those great and glorious principles of civil liberty which constituted the Commons of England the great bulwark against dictatorial and tyrannic sway, without whose consent not even the Monarch on the throne could levy one penny of a tax upon the people; and yet the Commissioners had assumed that power. Another unconstitutional part of this system was, that the Commissioners combined both the legislative and executive power in themselves. Parliament, by creating those Commissioners and giving them the authority they had, were doing that which they were not entitled to do. They were by such a proceeding not making laws, but legislators; but Parliament had no right to surrender its rights to other persons. Parliament was constituted to make laws, but had no power to transfer their authority to any other quarter. He had heard it remarked in that House, not very long since, that it was dangerous for Parliament to transfer its authority to other bodies. He had heard it said that if Parliament did transfer its authority to other bodies, it would soon become nothing but a debating club, and that they would lose their character as the representatives of the people and the guardians of the rights of the people. He said, then, that Parliament endangered their weight with the people by surrendering their authority to any body; but why was this transfer of authority made to the Commissioners? Because it was intended that they should do what Parliament did not choose to do. The object for which, beyond all doubt, Parliament created the Commissioners, was to abolish all out-door relief, and with that to abolish the right of the working man of England to that support to which he was entitled. That was what the people of Rochdale believed, and that was the reason why they had such an aversion to this law. The right of the working man of England he conceived to be this:—Every working man was entitled to offer his labour to those who might be in the occupation of the soil; and if he could not obtain labour, he was entitled to subsistence. That right originated in the dispossessment of the working man of the soil; but it was a right higher than any law could give; it was a right from above, that the working man should be supported by the soil, and if the soil were withheld from him, then those who possessed the soil should support him. The working man of England had a right either to have work or a subsistence, and that right had been acknowledged by every Act of Parliament, particularly by the Act of 1790. That Act was a most kind act to the poor, as it enabled the overseers to give outdoor relief. But the object of the present law was to exclude out-door relief. It was stated that five-sixths of the paupers in England were supported by external relief. He did not deny that; but he said that that was contrary to the intention of the Act, and was contrary to the existing rules. There was a very important observation of the Commissioners upon that part of the Bill. In their Second Report they said—

"In the Poor Law Amendment Act first submitted to the consideration of Parliament, a clause was inserted which directed that all relief to able-bodied paupers out of workhouse should cease on the 1st of July, 1835. In the progress of the Bill the clause was withdrawn, and the Commissioners were charged with the important duty of fixing the time when in each Union that provision, which formed the first recommendation of the Poor Law Commissioners, and is in fact the main object of the Poor Law Amendment Act, should be carried into effect. We have not ceased to bear in mind this very important part of our duties; and we have carefully watched the progress of the districts first formed into Unions for the purpose of ascertaining at what time, and to what extent, this provision might be enforced in them."

They then stated that the rule had been applied to certain Unions mentioned, in all sixty-four (in one year), and went on to say—

"No doubt can be entertained that it was the deliberate intention of Parliament, in framing the Poor Law Amendment Act, that all out-door relief to the able-bodied should cease at the earliest period that it could safely and with propriety be put an end to, and the question which we have successively to decide as to each Union is, whether the time may be fairly deemed to have arrived."

But there was another paper which sank deep in the minds of his constituents. It was a paper of secret instructions, which was at a former period mentioned in that House by Mr. Walter, then Member for Nottingham. The various rules of the Commissioners contained in those Suggestions had since been carried cut in the fullest manner—they still existed in full force—that no able-bodied person should be relieved except in the walls of the poor-house. The Commissioners had published their rules in their Eight Annual Report, and had there acknowledged that principle. That rule which was originally proposed, had been since carried out consistently and regularly by the Commissioners; and, although it was true it had not been entirely adhered to, still there was every reason to believe that, if it were not for the force of public opinion, it would still be carried out with all the severity of which it was capable. Then, again, the Commissioners had the power to reduce allowances, but not to enlarge them; so that the poor man had no court to appeal to for an increase of his allowance. Another cause which led his constituents to wish for inquiry was the poverty of the diet given to the poor under the Poor Law. From the Cirencester Dietary Tables which were dated March, 1844, and were laid on the Table on the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe), it appeared that the allowance for an able-bodied man for five days in the week was as follows:—"Breakfast, seven ounces of bread, and one pint of gruel; dinner, one pound potatoes; supper, seven ounces bread, and one ounce cheese. On Sunday he was allowed an addition of five ounces bacon; and on Thursday his one pound of potatoes for dinner was withdrawn, and in place of it one quart of soup given. One pound of potatoes for a working man's dinner! Why, one good-sized potatoe would almost weigh a pound, yet not a drop of milk or a morsel of meat was added to his meal. He could tell the House that in Ireland an able-bodied man would eat seven pounds of potatoes for his dinner. Yet the diet he had named was what was prescribed for the able-bodied Englishman. It was a starvation diet, and yet, with the exception of five ounces of bacon in two days, that was all he got for dinner. Nor had his constituents forgotten the diet in the Bridgewater Union. In May, 1836, the new system of diet commenced there. In August the dietary and other comforts of the poor were reduced. In September disease commenced, as appeared by the reports of the medical men, and for nearly six years this House exhibited proofs of the most grievous ill treatment as exhibited in the following characteristics:—1. spare and unwholesome diet; 2. rooms crowded to pestilence; 3. wilful exposure of the healthy to fatal contagion; 4. consequent fevers, inflammations, and deaths; and all this was continued notwithstanding the remonstrances of the medical men. Not till the close of six years did the Commisssioners take means to alleviate this suffering by giving a greater latitude for out-door relief. His constituents had observed all these things as they happened at Bridgewater, and they, therefore, commissioned him to appeal to the House. There could, he apprehended, be no doubt that any extension of out-door relief to the able-bodied poor was contrary to the laws of the Commissioners. Yet what did Mr. Clements say in his Report, of November, 1844, at page 184. He said—

"But I have yet to learn that there is anything in the regulations issued by your Board, or in the advice given under your instructions, which would ever cause the guardians to oblige respectable married couples who require relief to enter a workhouse."

How could he assert this? He (Mr. S. Crawford) on the contrary challenged Mr. Clements to show that the rules of the Commissioners did not provide the direct reverse of what he stated to be the practice. There might, perhaps, have been a mitigation of the rule in practice, but there was no real change of the rule itself. The principles of the system were what he had already declared them to be, and such also were the proceedings by which it was attempted to be carried out in the first year of the government of the Commissioners. Since then public opinion had forced a mitigation of the severity of the system; but was there any real change in the system or its objects? He denied that there was. In the Eighth Annual Report the Commissioners republished their general rules:—

"Article 1 — Every able-bodied person, male or female, requiring relief from any parish within any of the said Unions, shall be relieved wholly in the workhouse of the Union, together with such of the family of every such able-bodied persons as may be resident with him or her, and may not be in employment, and together with the wife of every such able-bodied male person, if he be a married man, and if she be resident with him, save and except in the following cases."

And the exceptions referred to sickness and accidents, funeral expenses, the cases of widows under certain circumstances, persons in gaol, soldiers and sailors' wives and children, and other cases. Again, in the Tenth Annual Report, p. 1, the Commissioners said—

"The regulations respecting out-door relief of the able-bodied, which were in force in the several Unions, were generally observed, and we were not required by special circumstances to modify our general orders on this subject."

Therefore, he contended, if the rules of the Commissioners had been relaxed, that relaxation had arisen from acts of indulgence wholly independent of any power which the boards of guardians were authorized to exercise. Another point arose out of the power of the justices to order out-door relief to infirm paupers. That power was given by the 27th clause of the Poor Law Amendment Act. What said the Commissioners with respect to the relief given to infirm persons? Why, in the Second Annual Report, they say—

"They have hitherto applied the prohibitory scale, with few exceptions, to able-bodied male paupers; but the guardians of many boards have been induced to investigate the claims under which widows and old persons have been for a length of time relieved; and to put to the proof the actual destitution of many long-established pensioners on the rates. Persons struck off by the guardians have appealed to the magistrates under the 27th clause, which gives them a limited jurisdiction with regard to paupers whom they can certify as wholly unable to work. The Commissioners say they have been called upon to explain the nature and extent of this power. They say it can go no further than to the extent that relief shall be given in the workhouse; but the amount and quality of the relief which is to be assigned to the individual is to be decided on and awarded solely by the guardians, by whom alone the power of doing and regulating the relief to the poor is (subject to our orders and regulations) to be exercised."

So that it was in the power of the guardians to neutralize altogether the power given by the Act to the Justices of the Peace. But if any evidence were still wanting as to the spirit in which the Poor Law Amendment Act was conceived, it would be supplied by what fell from the most distinguished promoter of it—Lord Brougham — when moving the second reading. The noble Lord said—

"For most certain it is that anything more mischievous—anything more fatal to the country—anything more calculated to multiply indefinitely the numbers of the poor, cannot be conceived than the application to them of any regular fixed provision, be it tithe or be it tax, which they can claim at the hands of the rich, except by the force of that duty of imperfect obligation—private charity—which is imposed upon all men. Every permanent fund set apart for their support, from whomsoever proceeding, and by whomsoever administered, must needs multiply the evils it is destined to remedy. The real question is,—whether your Lordships shall retain your property or not. The Commissioners appear to be of opinion that unless some measure of this kind be adopted the property of the country must shortly be confiscated."

There the secret was let out. But a more unwise principle never was adopted as the ground of legislation. That was the way really to make the property of the country change hands. Let property afford the people the relief they were entitled to. Depend upon it if that relief were withdrawn or withheld it would lead to a much greater danger than that which was here put forward by Lord Brougham as a reason for passing the Act. Another evil in the present law as compared with the old one was, that the right of appeal was taken away from the poor. Formerly there was an appeal to the magistrates from the acts of the overseers. He did not mean to say that the magistrates were the best body to whom to allow the appeal; but still he could not help thinking that the gentlemen of England, as a body, entertained feelings which would be more likely to lead to kindness to the poor than could be expected from boards of guardians. Another most grievous operation of the law was the manner in which it mixed up the industrious poor and their families with the most abandoned persons. This would effectually prevent the industrious and well-conducted poor from availing themselves of the provisions of the Act. It was of no use to say that the poor had the right to relief, so long as the relief was to be administered within the walls of a workhouse. There were two kinds of poor. All the poor were not "paupers." That kind of poor were not to be classed with the industrious working men of England—those who had, when in better circumstances, contributed to the support of others, and who had thereby established a claim to the same support in their turn. The difference between the New Poor Law, and the old Select Vestry Act, was that destitution was now the only ground of claim, while the workhouse test was the only proof of that destitution. This was a miserable position in which to place the working men. The right given to them by the Law and the Constitution was for the purpose of preventing them from coming to that state of destitution which was now made the only ground on which they could claim relief. The effects of this law had also claimed the attention of his constituents. They were shown in the general reduction of wages; in the cases of starvation to death that had occurred; in the increase of crime; and in the startling fact that the poor would commit crimes and go to prison, only to prevent their being forced into the workhouses. He maintained that the right of the poor man to relief was as sacred as any other kind of right recognized by the Law or the Constitution—it was his birthright, and was quite as sacred as the right of property itself. The New Poor Law had abrogated this right. That law had perhaps never been more accurately described than by a celebrated public man now living, when he said that the "pith and marrow" of the enactment ought to be comprised in two sentences—'1st. Be it enacted that the Poor Law Commissioners shall have unbounded dominion over the rich and poor of the land;" to which should be added a proviso, "provided always, and be it enacted, that they shall invariably exercise that dominion in the most insulting manner." He had now endeavoured to explain the reasons why his constituents were so opposed to the law—he had endeavoured to do so fully and fairly, and without the use of any aggravated expressions. They were, however, most anxious that Parliament should take some means to prevent them from being brought under the influence of the law. They desired that there should be some inquiry into the means by which the Commissioners had administered the law. They were not conscious that the old law had been abused in their hands. He (Mr. S. Crawford) would not press for an inquiry into the operation of the existing law if they would send a Commissioner down to Rochdale to inquire how the affairs of the poor had been administered there. He wished for inquiry. If no malpractices should be found, his constituents would have a right to complain that the law should be forced upon them. Their Select Vestry Act directed relief with a distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor—terms entirely alien from the principles of the New Poor Law, but carrying out a humane, charitable, and useful principle. His constituents were anxious not to get into collision with the constituted authorities, nor to show any disrespect to them; but they were united as one man in the determination not to be made the instruments of bringing into that district of the country a law they so highly disapproved; and they would be ready to risk the penalties of an attachment, rather than be made to do that from which their consciences revolted, and which was so contrary to their feeling of duty towards their fellow men. He would vary the terms of his Notice of Motion, and conclude by moving—

"That the Petition of the Ratepayers and Inhabitants of Rochdale, presented on the 25th day of February last, be referred to a Select Committee of this House, to inquire into the administration of the relief to the Poor in that district."

But if the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would state that he would institute an inquiry, he would be quite satisfied.

I rejoice, Sir, that I have caught your eye, for I am anxious to bear my testimony to the unanimity of that vast meeting at which this petition was agreed to, and the determined spirit which the inhabitants of Rochdale then exhibited, to stand by the principles which they on that occasion asserted. I also rejoice to have the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the solemn pledges given by those who introduced this law, and the manner in which those pledges have been broken, as well as the fearful results which have accrued to the country by the enforcement of this law. I will prove that the inhabitants of Rochdale are justified in resisting the extension of the system into their neighbourhood; and that obedience, on their part, would be a crime, while resistance is a virtue. There were the most solemn pledges given when this law was introduced; this House was deceived by those pledges, and so was the country; and what can Parliament say now, when I prove that those pledges have been most unblushingly broken? Will it assert that the people of Rochdale are not justified in resisting a law which was carried by unjust and unconstitutional means; or will it aid the Poor Law Commissioners in enforcing it upon them? Sir, when this measure was first introduced by Lord Althorp, he distinctly said, on the 17th of April, 1834:—

"As to the observation of the hon. Member for Marylebone, who hoped that the Commissioners would not interfere with parishes that were well regulated, he had to say, that he hoped they would not; the only mode in which, he trusted, they would deal with such parishes would be by following their example. When a parish was really well regulated, it need not entertain the slightest apprehension of interference upon the part of the Commissioners."

Upon this pledge, given by the mouthpiece of the Government in this House, the House of Commons gave its consent to the Bill, and the country did not offer that opposition to it, which it would otherwise have done. Afterwards, on the same day, Lord Althorp said, "he need not say that an immense advantage would be obtained by an uniformity of system throughout the country;" and on the 27th of June, he observed, "The proposed amendment would destroy one of the principal advantages of the measure, namely, uniformity of practice." The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) said, on a later occasion, on the 20th of July, 1839, that "the law contemplated that on a given day the refusal of out-door relief throughout England and Wales should be general." Lord Althorp said, on the 1st of July, 1834, "the object of the Bill was to put a stop to the allowance system." On the 12th of June, 1834, the same noble Lord stated "that it was not intended as a general rule, that a man should be separated from his wife, or children from their mother, or that paupers should have their heads shaved, or be compelled to wear badges." On the 9th of June, 1834, Lord Althorp said, "it would prove of the greatest possible benefit to the labourer;" and on the 27th of that month, "the farmer and his labourer would both be benefited; the latter being made independent by increased wages, and the former, in consequence of that increase, would have his work much more effectually and zealously done and performed." He asserted, that at that very time the average rate of wages in the north of Nottinghamshire was 13s. a-week; in Northamptonshire, 9s. But there were also most solemn pledges given by a noble Lord, who has been quoted to-night, I allude to Lord Brougham, who, in moving the second reading, said:—

"Such a system (that is, the old Poor Law) deadens all sense of shame, all sense of real dignity; erases from the mind every feeling of honourable independence, and fits its victims only for acts of outrage or of fraud. Look at that volume (the Poor Law Commissioners' Report,) the record of idleness and her sister guilt, which now stalk over the land. Look at the Calendar, which they have filled to overflowing, notwithstanding the improvement of our jurisprudence, and the progress of education."

He then called the attention of the House of Lords to the state of the country, and spoke of it as

"That which I could not bear to think of, did I not know that the same hand which lays it bare to your eyes, and makes its naked deformity horrible in your sight, will be enabled by your assistance to apply to the foul disease a safe and effectual remedy; restoring to industry its due reward, and visiting idleness with its appropriate punishment; reinstating property in security, and lifting up once more—God be praised!—the character of that noble English peasantry to the proud eminence where, but for the Poor Laws, it would still have shone untarnished, the admiration of mankind, and the glory of the country which boasts it as its brightest ornament."

Now, I ask the House of Commons — I ask England — have these pledges been redeemed? What, let me ask, has been the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners? — an open defiance of those solemn pledges. Have they refused to enforce this law in "well-regulated parishes?" Have they taken well-regulated parishes as "their example" in enforcing the law elsewhere. No; but they have trampled under foot the rights, the liberties, and the privileges of the people of England. How has your "uniformity of practice" been carried out? Has that been enforced throughout the country? Why, I want no other evidence than that of the hon. Baronet himself (Sir J. Graham), who, in this House, after this law had been five years in existence, was obliged to bear testimony to its utter failure, and to the breaking down of all "uniformity of practice" in the granting of out-door relief, and in the allowance system. On the 20th of July, 1839, the right hon. Baronet said:—

"He had been Chairman of a Board of Guardians. He had seen the practical working of this measure, having for four years watched it with the greatest possible anxiety. In the Union with which he was connected, there was a large body of handloom weavers, and he did not hesitate to say, during the last winter it would have been utterly impossible to have conducted the affairs of that Union without relief, though sparingly administered, and with great caution, to the able-bodied labourer. The noble Lord said what was true, that there was very great danger lest the administration of relief, even in such special circumstances, and in kind, should relapse into all the evils of the former system."

He said also,

"The law contemplated that on a given day the refusal of out-door relief throughout England and Wales should be general. … This rule prohibiting out-door relief, so far from being general throughout England, was, he must say, somewhat capriciously applied. It was applied to certain Unions in the south, but in the north the rule was not in operation. In Cumberland, in the Union of which he was chairman, they were bound by no such regulation. An ample discretion was left them; they were not fettered in the least; and if they had not been left to the exercise of this unfettered discretion, he was bound to say that he should not have held himself responsible for the conduct of that Union."

Here is a wholesale breaking of the pledges given when this blessed New Poor Law was introduced into the House of Commons. And what said Sir Robert Peel on the 8th of February, 1841. He said,—

"It was in the hope and in the belief that a new test would improve the condition of the labourer himself, and that it would teach him the happiness and pride of an independent position, that he had consented to the alteration in the law."

The "independent position" of the labourer of the present day! Why, Sir, the "independent position" of the labourer of the present day is beggary, starvation, and a gaol. I see in the House the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell), and I wish to bear to his face the testimony which I have borne behind his back, that the way in which he adhered to the New Poor Law, previous to the last general election, was both manly and honourable. There is no doubt but that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government sits on that Bench, placed there by the New Poor Law cry throughout the country. Ay, it was fanned into a blaze by the Conservative party at the last general election, and fanned too by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. I have not forgotten reading the speech of that right hon. Baronet, and the First Lord of the Treasury, when they abused the Poor Law Commissioners for their disgraceful language, in declaring that the New Poor Law was to put a stop to alms-giving in this country. The First Lord of the Treasury raised his hands in horror at such inhumanity, and appealed to Heaven if such language ought to have been used; and these sentiments were re-echoed by his Colleague, and widely circulated in the north of England. But what said the noble Lord the Member for London, when he saw these right hon. Gentlemen breaking their pledges which they had privately and publicly given, to stand by the New Poor Law, whichever party was in power. On the Motion of the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Darby) to allow out-door relief to persons who had married before the passing of the Act, and had families, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) said,—

"He considered it to be at variance with every other clause in the New Poor Law Act. It was a renewal of the worst part of the old system — the allowance system. It would expose the new law to universal relaxation, and would in that respect alone be productive of the most pernicious consequences. It would create great dissatisfaction among the labourers, as it would divide them into two distinct classes, one of which would be entitled to relief out of the workhouse, and the other not, and that, too, without the slightest reference either to the goodness or the worthlessness of their character. By the cogency of such arguments, and by the want of uniformity thus created in the system of Poor Laws, the House would be compelled to break down by degrees all the efficiency of the present law."

Sir, the House has "by degrees broken down all the efficiency" of that law. The New Poor Law is a dead letter; there is not such a thing in existence. There is one law in the north, another law in the south, another in the east, and another in the west. There is one law carried out in one Union by the Duke of This, and another in the next Union by Lord That; and the practice varies with the extent to which the Commissioners have ground the guardians into submission. The whole law is a farce. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord G. Somerset), hearing that speech of the noble Member for London, jumped up and—

"Expressed his intention to support the Clause. So far was he from being willing to extend the authority of the Commissioners, that he had every desire to abridge it; for he would tell the noble Lord that he had no confidence whatever in the Poor Law Commissioners."

There were other Cabinet Ministers not then within these walls who have expressed themselves to be adverse to this law; and I remember being in this House during the last Session of Parliament when there were either eight or nine Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, who had either obtained their seats by violently abusing this law upon the hustings, or had spoken strongly against it in this House. I ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) whether Lord Althorp's solemn pledge has been kept, that as a general rule a man was not to be separated from his wife, or a child from its mother, nor paupers to have their heads shaved, or be compelled to wear badges? And I know that these indignities and insults have done more to arouse the spirit of disloyalty and dissaffection among the masses in this country, than all the other evils put together which have been heaped upon them under the administration of this law. Have you not continued the allowance system?—You have; in the north of England you have been compelled to do it. You are enforcing the out-door labour test at Bradford; but the day will come when you will bitterly repent it; and you are not enforcing it at Leeds, a few miles off. Well might the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) say, that this difference of treatment would "create great dissatisfaction among the labourers." Is it not disgusting that a law is now in force in England, which on one side of a brook treats the labourer with apparent consideration, and on the other with cold-blooded inhumanity? But Lord Althorp assured the country, when he introduced the measure, that wages would rise. What are the wages in the country now? Why, your labouring man in the agricultural districts is well off, if he obtain 7s. a week! Has the Poor Law raised wages, and redeemed that pledge? But I come to more startling facts. We were told by Lord Brougham that the New Poor Law was to eradicate poverty, to reduce the poor rates! I find by a Return I hold in my hand (the Poor Law Commissioners' Tenth Report) that the population of England and Wales in 1841 was 15,906,829. And now let the House listen to the following Returns, remembering that 1842 and 1843 have been good years in the manufacturing districts. The numbers relieved were—In 1842, in-door, 222,642; out-door, 1,204,545. Total, 1,427,187. The cost—Of the in-door, 934,158l.; of the out-door, 3,090,884l. Total, 4,025,042l. In 1843 — In-door, 238,560; out-door, 1,300,930. Total, 1,539,490. Cost—In-door, 958,057l.; out-door, 3,321,508l. Total, 4,279,565l. The increase of 1843 over 1844 being—In-door, 15,918 in number, and 23,899l. in cost; out-door, 96,385 in number, and 230,624l. in cost. Total, 112,303 in number, and 254,523l. in cost. Again, the parochial rates levied were—In 1834, 8,338,079l.; in 1837, being the minimum expenditure under the New Poor Law, 5,294,566l.; in 1843, 7,085,595l.; showing an increase in 1843 over 1837, of 1,891,029l., and a decrease of 1843, as compared with 1834, of 1,252,484l. There was expended in relief—in 1834, 6,317,255l.; in 1837, 4,044,741l.; in 1843, 5,208,027l.; showing an increase in 1843 over 1837 of 1,163,286l. and a decrease of 1843, as compared with 1834, of 1,109,228l. I now wish to call the attention of the House to the expenditure of parochial rates otherwise than for the relief of the poor. In 1834 the expenditure otherwise than for the relief of the poor was 2,020,714l.; in 1837, it was 1,249,852l.; in 1843, it was 1,877,568l.; giving an increase of such expenditure in 1843 over 1837 of 627,716l., whilst the decrease in 1843 over 1834 is only 143,146l. That is the result of your attempt to save the poor-rates of this country! Sir, I call the attention of the House to the price at which you have obtained this result. Lord Brougham, in moving the second reading of the Poor Law Amendment Bill in the House of Lords, gave a picture of the blessings which were to flow from this law. It would eradicate crime, it would put down poverty and pauperism, and prevent the noble Lord himself from becoming a Cumberland pauper. What is now the state of crime in England and Wales? I will read to the House an extract from the statistics compiled by Mr. Redgrave, from the Records of the Home Office, where the right hon. Baronet may see them tomorrow if he pleases. I have extracted them from the British Almanack for 1845, of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Lord Brougham Chairman of the Committee. The amount of crime as evidenced by the commitments in 1836, was 20,984; in 1837, it was 23,612; in 1838, 23,094; in 1839, 24,443; in 1840, 27,187; in 1841, 27,760; in 1842, 31,309; in 1843, 29,591. The result is, that the increase of crime in 1842 over 1836 is 10,325, being six years after the New Poor Law came into operation. The increase in 1843 over 1836 is 8,607. I ask, again, has the New Poor Law diminished crime? This is a startling result, and must enforce conviction. I have made an extract from this book of the nature of the crimes, and there is a long catalogue of attempts to murder, unnatural crimes, rapes, robberies with violence, robberies attended with wounds, arsons, and other frightful offences; with a long enumeration of commitments for cattle stealing, horse stealing, sheep stealing, larceny in dwelling-houses, coining, forgery, and housebreaking, subsequent to the repeal, in 1832, of capital punishment for those offences. For the years 1830, 1831, 1832, the average was 1,444 commitments for offences of this description; in 1843, the total number of commitments was 1,735, making an increase in 1843 over the average of those three years, of 291. This increase has wholly taken place since the New Poor Law came into operation. In 1838, the repeal of capital punishment for attempts to murder and maim, for burglary, robbery, and arson, took place. The average number of commitments for those offences in the three years 1835, 1836, and 1837, was 807; in 1843, the total number of commitments was 1,696, or an increase of 889 over the average of those three years; that is to say, more than double the average of those three years were committed for these offences in 1843. But is that all that has occurred under the operation of the Law? Why, instead of a decrease, there is a frightful increase of crime; so much so, that you are obliged to have an extra winter assize to sweep off from the face of the public the monstrous mass. At the last York winter assizes, on the 29th of November ult., hear what Judge Coleridge said in his charge to the grand jury:—

"Another cause for a winter assize, he lamented to say, must be considered to be the steady increase of crime throughout the country and in their own county; that increase, too, being not so much observable in crimes of a petty nature, as in those of a more serious character. Within the last eight years, the number of prisoners had nearly doubled in their own county; and, though it was true that the population had increased, that the police were more efficient than formerly, and that capital punishment had in a great measure been removed, yet he did not think that it was possible, by the application of those facts, satisfactorily to explain away the great incubus which seemed to hang over them."

Here, then, we have this fact, that crime in the county of York has doubled during the last eight years. That is the period during which the New Poor Law has been in operation in Yorkshire. That is the result which the law which was to put a stop to crime has produced in my native county! Good God! what can the right hon. Baronet say in justification of this frightful state of things? Have you one word to say? You have rebellion in the north — you have incendiarism in the south — and rebellion again in Wales, Staring you in the face, as the result of this law; and how are you to justify this state of things to the people of Rochdale? They will tell you that if, in spite of all this evidence against your law, you will persist in forcing it on them, you will have to take the same course as you adopted in Bradford—you will have to draw the bayonet and cut down the populace; but the feeling of the people of England, depend upon it, will be raised against any attempt to force this law upon the people of Rochdale in defiance of every constitutional principle, and in defiance of every feeling of justice. The right hon. Baronet declared the other night that there are 1,500,000 paupers, in England and Wales, existing on the poor rates. The right hon. Baronet also declared that the agricultural labourers are in a state of poverty which we can no longer with safety neglect. Sir, Lord Brougham said, in the speech to which I have alluded, that the time was when the English peasant dreaded the word "pauper" next to that of "felon." Sir, now the time is come when the British peasant flies from the precincts of an Union workhouse, exclaiming in wild despair—

"The workhouse! No!

A gaol, a gaol for me!"

I told you that, under the operation of this law, you had wrapped the south in flames; that you had produced a rebellion in the north; and the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) has himself declared that it produced the rebellion in Wales. But this is not all; infanticide has frightfully increased wherever the New Poor Law is enforced, and there is scarcely a week passes but the hon. Gentleman opposite, as Coroner for Middlesex, has to hold an inquest on some poor victim of the system, who has died of famine. That crime is steadily on the increase: you have the evidence of a Judge on the Bench; and the extra winter assize which you have established shows that you admit this to be the case. I would quote the language of Lords Brougham and Grey in support of the conduct of the people of Rochdale, but I am unwilling to detain the House at this very late hour; but if the House will permit me, I will read to them from a speech of the First Lord of the Treasury what he said on the attempts to introduce this law into well-regulated parishes. This was just before a general election, when the right hon. Baronet was courting popular favour. On the 26th of March, 1841, the right hon. Baronet said—"He had always thought, that where there were immense masses of population well governed under Local Acts, it would not be found expedient to place them under the control of the Commissioners." That was just before the general election; but now that he is firmly seated on the Treasury Bench, with his majority at his back, what can be say to justify his present course? Sir, he must eat his words. It will not be the first time he has done so. I will also read to the House the opinion entertained of this law by Lord Chief Baron Pollock, who was an ornament to this House whilst he was in it, and now graces the Bench on which he sits. I hope, therefore, the House will allow me to repeat to them what Lord Chief Baron Pollock has said on this subject; and he was a man whom all the inducements of the Government could not drag up to the Table to say one word in favour of this law. He said, at the same time that the speech of the right hon. Baronet was delivered — "Great complaints had been made of the Poor Law generally."…."A Bill which might be good for the north might be injurious to the south. The evil which he and others complained of was, the attempt made by the Commissioners to introduce the same law into every parish in the kingdom, without reference to local circumstances which might act in modifying the operation of that law." That was the opinion of Sir F. Pollock. You must prove what I have this night asserted to be incorrect; if you do not, how can you dare to introduce this law into Rochdale, with all the frightful evils which it has produced? You have sown the wind, and more than once you have reaped the whirlwind. A foreign foe may come: if you appeal to the people of England, will they answer you? At the bidding of their Sovereign, when England was threatened with invasion by a foreign foe during the French Revolution, the people rose in one mighty phalanx, bristling with bayonets ready to be turned against the foe, and formed an impregnable barrier on the shore of their native land, Appeal again to them, and you will find them disaffected and disloyal. ["No, no."] You have made them so. I repeat—appeal to them in your perils, and you will find them disaffected and disloyal. Are the agricultural labourers distressed? What makes them so but your tyranny? Treat them as your forefathers did, and so raise them to what they were before the introduction of the New Poor Law, and they will return to their ancient nature and their wonted loyalty,—they will easily forget and forgive, and be again a loyal people.

said: I have now listened to the addresses of the hon. Member for Rochdale on this subject several times, and on all those occasions I never failed to testify the respect for him which I have always felt; but on this occasion I perhaps may be permitted to advert to a practice—in order to prevent its being made a precedent — which the hon. Member has adopted, and which is very inconvenient,—I allude to the practice of deliberately putting upon the Order Book of the House the form of a Motion which an hon. Member gives notice he shall submit, and then at the last moment varying materially his terms of the Motion which he actually makes to the House. I certainly came down to the House thinking that we were to discuss the question whether we should hear counsel at the Bar on behalf of the people of Rochdale, according to the Notice of Motion of the hon. Gentleman; but now I find that the hon. Gentleman has altered his Motion and asks for a Select Committee. Sir, the hon. Member has shown very great industry in the elaborate speech he has made to the House; I have given it all the attention which is due to the hon. Member's station and to the importance of the borough he represents; but he must permit me to say that I have not heard, in the whole of that speech, one new argument or one new topic. I must be permitted further to observe, that the hon. Gentleman's speech is a speech against the existing Poor Law; it was well calculated to preface a Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal that law, or at all events to introduce some Motion for a substantial Amendment of the existing law. The hon. Member said, this was not a local question; but he must pardon me for observing that his speech and his Motion owe their origin altogether to a dispute of a local nature. The hon. Gentleman made many injurious remarks, but it is evident that he has no practical acquaintance with the law. He talks of the Bill of Rights—of the rights of the people of England, and says, that the able-bodied poor are entitled to some relief in aid of their wages; yet the hon. Gentleman's experience on this claim of right in his own part of the country amounts to nothing. There destitution does not entitle the labourer to relief in aid of wages; there property is not compelled to pay the slightest dole by way of rate in aid of wages. Here, it is true, we live under a different law; but when the hon. Gentleman lectures us on our law, it would be well if he understood and attended to those habits of the people which modify the law. But to come to the subject of the Motion: as early as the year 1837, the Poor Law was first began to be carried into operation at Rochdale, and a Board of Guardians was constituted; they exercised various rights; they appointed a clerk, a surgeon, a registrar of births and marriages, and fixed the salaries to those situations; they have dismissed officers they thought not altogether worthy, and they have exercised several acts of power as a Board of Guardians from 1837 down to the present time. A general law was passed for the administration of relief throughout the whole of England and Wales. There are some exceptions in the Gilbert Unions and Local Acts, where the provisions of the Poor Law are not carried into effect; but Rochdale is not one of these cases. In Rochdale there is neither a Gilbert Union nor a Local Act. The hon. Member asked me if I would consent to any particular inquiry with reference to the poor of Rochdale. I have already told the hon. Member that the provisions of the New Poor Law have been partially carried into execution there for five years. At present, the course of the administration of his Poor Law at Roch- dale is a question for adjudication in the Courts of Law. A mandamus has been moved for to compel the Board of Guardians to execute the law and be responsible for the relief of the poor. In that district the law is now inoperative from the resistance of the Board of Guardians. The Guardians are bound to execute the law, and it is my duty to see the law carried into execution. There has been resistance to the law; an appeal has been made to the Commissioners, and a mandamus has been issued and served on the Rochdale Board of Guardians to compel their obedience. They have refused submission, and made a return to that mandamus. At this moment the Crown has traversed to that return, and an issue is to be tried at the Liverpool Assizes. That issue being about to be tried within a fortnight, it would be unbecoming in the House, under such circumstances, to enter into the question. Certainly, at this hour of the morning I do not wish to detain the House further on a question which is purely a local one, and which is awaiting the judgment of the proper tribunal.

said, he was a ratepayer of the parish, and was acquainted with the circumstances under which this memorial had been raised. He could bear the fullest testimony to what had been said by the hon. Member for Rochdale, that there was a common dislike to the introduction of the New Poor Law. The right hon. Baronet said quite truly that there was no Poor Law in operation there, save the general law for the relief of the poor, and that law was in abeyance at this time; ninety-nine persons out of every one hundred in that parish were more or less hostile to the introduction of the law: and more than that, there was a general feeling among those who paid the rates, that the interests of the poor and of the ratepayers had been very well and wisely attended to by the vestries under which the old law was carried out. He said this with perfect impartiality, for he was one of fourteen who did not sign the petition presented to the House, and he had not in any way encouraged the opposition to the law. But he was bound to say, that among all classes of the people there was but one feeling with regard to its introduction; all had a very excusable attachment to the old forms of local government and a dislike to the government of the Commissioners. They had some occasion to be afraid of the Commissioners; for, although in some cases their authority had been useful, never was any law of great importance carried into execution with a more total disregard of the feelings of the people and of the circumstances under which the law was to be applied, than had been shown by the Poor Law Commissioners who had the direction of this great measure.

regretted that the right hon. Baronet had almost repeated the same words as he had used when the hon. Member for Rochdale opposed the second reading of the Poor Law Bill. The law proceedings which were going on, gave no ground for rejecting the Motion. These parties had now come before the House to state the grievances they complained of. Although a local question, it was one in which all places not under the power of the Commissioners had a right to join, because it would not be very long after the wedge was introduced before every place now under Local Acts would be placed under the power of the Poor Law Commissioners. In all these places, wherever the New Poor Law had been attempted to be introduced, the people were united in resisting it. The people actually preferred going to prison rather than be detained in the workhouses. What a lamentable picture did the Report of the visiting justices of the town of Devizes present! Paupers had been sent to that prison not decent as to their clothing, or in a fit state of health; and the visiting Justices had made a report by their chief magistrate, that people were sent to prison in a state of destitution, and that they committed crime in order to get into prison. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt thought it right to give no reason for the refusal of the Motion, because a mandamus had been issued. But the Guardians would resist that mandamus, and there was not a Guardian who was not prepared to go to gaol rather than give way. He appealed to any Gentleman from that part of the country if that was not the feeling. He had no doubt they would be able to pay their way, and defeat the Poor Law Commissioners in the Court of Queen's Bench.

supported the Motion. He had always considered this a most oppressive law, and interfering unnecessarily with the rights of the poor. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Knaresborough in one expression which he had used with regard to the disloyalty of the people. He was one who thought that Englishmen would be Englishmen under every trial, and that the poor would suffer any hardships rather than be disloyal. He hoped that the Poor Law Commission would be done away with altogether, and a vast amount of useless expense be saved.

said: If the hon. Member for Rochdale divided the House on the Motion, he would vote in its favour. He was convinced that the feelings of the people of this country had been very materially changed by the Poor Law; and the longer it was continued, oppressive as it was in its operation, the more extensive would be the evils it produced. It could not be denied that the New Poor Law had failed to effect every object for which it was intended. Had it increased the rate of wages?—had it improved the condition of the labourer?—had it raised the morality of the country?—had it reduced the amount of rates? He was not aware that it had benefited any one, except the officers of the Unions, who absorbed a very considerable portion of the money which ought to be applied to the relief of the poor. He thought it must be evident to the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), that whatever evils existed under the old law, the New Poor Law had effected no improvement; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would turn their attention to the subject, and remove the administration of the Poor Law from the rule of the Commissioners. The law was daily becoming more unpopular mong all classes; it had long been obnaoxiousto the poor, and now it was becoming equally obnoxious to the ratepayers themselves. He hoped some alteration might be made which would reconcile the poor to the operation of the law.

would not detain the House longer than to state his reasons for voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had said tonight—what he was in the habit of telling them when questions of this nature were under discussion—that, after all the labour and attention devoted to the subject by the hon. Member for Rochdale, he had not said anything new. He would admit that the speeches of the right hon. Baro- net and his Friends did not possess this characteristic; for the grounds on which they defended this law were most variable and diverse. He would remind the right hon. Baronet that truth was ever old, and altogether unchangeable, and that those who were her advocates—if really and truly her advocates—must repeat the same things year after year. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would vote for this Motion; he certainly ought to do so, and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman why. The right hon. Baronet asserted that the old law did not work so well as the New Poor Law. Then, let them have the Report of the Committee proposed by his hon. Friend opposite, on the working of the simple old Poor Law in Rochdale; and let them compare the condition of that place with those districts of England where the New Poor Law had been introduced, and was in operation.

thought the petition of the inhabitants of Rochdale scarcely received proper respect when it was considered in so thin a House, and treated so lightly. He would give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale; for the instances adduced in that House had fully evidenced the hardship of the Poor Law, and the horror with which it was regarded by the great mass of the people. He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet whether so strong a feeling of opposition and dislike, exhibited by so large a proportion of the population, ought to be disregarded.