wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the subject of the Post Office. It had been the custom, since facilities had been given by the penny postage, for London tradesmen to send down small parcels by post to their customers in the country, and it had become a constant and extensive practice. He had understood that, in consequence of an order which had been lately issued, various parcels of this description had been opened. He did not believe that it was the intention of the order to give any such authority to the Post Office officials. A case had occurred in Regent-street, which had come under his cognizance, in which a parcel had been opened. He, however, felt convinced that it was not the intention of the Government to sanction such a practice; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give him an answer to that effect, so that it might be conveyed to the public. There was another question upon, the subject of the Post Office, which he wished to bring under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. If newspapers, sent from one party to another in London happened to have the names of the persons who sent them written on the outside, they were charged, instead of the usual sum of 1d., about 3s. 1d. This was not the case with papers sent into the country with a name written upon them, and he did not think it reasonable that an additional charge should be made in London.

was not aware of any such order having emanated from the Post Office Department as that alluded to. With respect to the other subject to which the hon. Member referred of packets sent by post being opened in the Post Office, he rather suspected that the hon. Gentleman had been led into error by the account which he had received. It was certainly true that in consequence of a pair of scissors, and also a part of a deceased body in preparation, having been forwarded through the Post Office, it became necessary to make an order that articles such as bottles, and flesh, and fish, by which other parcels going in the same bags might be injured, should not be allowed to pass through the Post Office. He had given a copy of that order to the hon. Gentleman, and it might happen that under it parcels, containing such articles as scissors, might, when necessary, be opened, but there had been no other order whatever authorising the opening of parcels issued from the Post Office. He had heard of but one complaint of any other description of parcels being opened, and that was under investigation.

rose to move, pursuant to notice,

"That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the present mode of assessing, levying, and collecting the Window Duties in Great Britain, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House."

He said, he was fully aware of the difficulties of the situation in which he was placed. He stood there an untried, unpractised debater, but, at the same time, when he reflected that he stood there as the Representative of a large constituency—a constituency which, next to London and Liverpool, contributed the largest amount to the window tax of any town in the kingdom—he felt that he had some right to claim the attention of the House whilst he endeavoured to the utmost of his humble ability to do justice to the subject which he had undertaken to bring before them. He brought forward the Motion with no ambition on his part to excite party feelings, and no wish to harass or embarrass Her Ma- jesty's Government. He introduced it to the notice of the House solely from a strong conviction of the injustice, inequality, and impolicy of the tax, and with an ardent hope that, even should his Motion have no other good result, it might, at least, direct public inquiry to the matter, and thus lead, either sooner or later, to a redress of some of the crying grievances of which at present he felt he had just cause to complain. It was with surprise that he had heard a remark which fell from the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, on the occasion of his introducing his financial measures at the early part of the present Session, that while there were 3,400,000 houses in Great Britain which would be benefited by a repeal of the glass duty, only 450,000 houses out of that number contributed to the window tax. From this statement it would appear that there were 3,000,000 houses exempt from the window tax, and that this number would be benefited by the repeal of the glass duty beyond the proportion which would obtain any benefit from a repeal of the window duties. But what were the facts? Why were such a number of houses exempted from the window tax? Some were exempt because they were occupied by tenants who paid less than 200l. a year, and which houses were therefore the property of wealthy proprietors; some where the edifices were used as warehouses by wealthy merchants; and others because various plans were adopted for evading the tax. Many of the exempted houses, too, were old edifices inhabited by the poorer classes, who evaded payment of the tax by building up the windows necessary for the purposes of light and ventilation. This was not his opinion alone, but it was the opinion of Mr. Biers, the President of the Carpenters' Society of London. That gentleman, in a letter addressed to him (Lord Duncan), made the following remarks:—

"I beg to inform you that in almost all the poorer description of houses in the metropolis and large towns, owing to the window tax, there are sure to be some of the appurtenances left unlighted and unventilated. These appurtenances are, for the most part, the privies and; the wash-houses, the very places most requiring air and ventilation. In every old street in London, built before the tax was heavy, it will invariably be found there are a much larger number of windows than in the new ones, which have been built with a view to evade the tax. In every one of the houses that I have built since the re-survey in 1840 and 1841, I have, most reluctantly, been forced to give up three out of every four of the apertures for ventilation which ought to be placed, as a matter of course, in the outbuildings of every dwelling-house."

He had also received a letter on the same subject from Dr. Southwood Smith, which he would beg leave to read to the House:—

seconded the Motion. In doing so he had no wish to embarrass the Government in their financial arrangements for the present year. He was satisfied that a tax producing 1,700,000l., could not be at once removed in the present state of the Revenue; but still steps could be taken greatly to modify it, and get rid of much of its oppressiveness. At present it operated as a very great hardship on mechanics and artisans living in cities and towns, and it occasioned very great distress, and, therefore, it became the duty of the Representatives of such places to state the complaints of their constituents on this subject to Parliament, and endeavour to obtain redress. He was sure that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government must, as a statesman, wish at any rate so far to modify this tax as to get rid of its vexatious hardships upon such a large number of the inhabitants of towns. This tax, when it was proposed by Mr. Pitt, was distinctly declared to be intended only as a war tax; and succeeding Administrations had repeatedly promised that it should not be continued in time of peace. Every succeeding Government, however, since the Peace, had kept it on; but each had promised that it should be greatly modified; but the only material modification that had taken place in it was one with a vengeance, namely, the additional 10 per cent., imposed by the late Government. It operated extremely oppressively in many parts of Westminster, and was levied with extreme severity on the habitations of the poorer classes. He knew some parts of Westminster where this tax was charged equivalent to 26 per cent. on the rental, while in Regent's-park it was only 2 per cent. on the rental. He found also that the charge for the window tax on the Reform and Carlton Clubs was about 2½ per cent. on the rental. It operated also most unequally on different parts of the country, and on different classes of persons. It appeared from the last census, that there were 3,600,000 houses in England and Wales, while only 444,000 were rated to this tax. It did not affect the agricultural labourers as it did the artisans and those engaged in trade and manufactures, who resided in towns. For these reasons, he only considered it to be a duty which he owed to his constituents to give his support to the Motion of the noble Lord.

said, that of the many duties which devolved on the individual who filled the situation which he had the honour to fill, none were more disagreeable than to be called upon to defend the continuance of a tax which gentlemen wished to have modified or repealed. It was impossible to deny that every tax in itself, however wisely apportioned, was an evil; and pictures might be drawn of the operation of any tax upon some particular class of the community, which would induce Gentlemen in that House, as well as those out of doors, to wish that such a tax should no longer exist. This applied more particularly to direct taxation, as a direct demand of money by the tax-gatherer always added to the aggravation of the tax in the minds of the parties upon whom it was levied. He could readily state reasons against the imposition of any specific tax, and among others against a window tax; but the House must consider the necessities of the country, and that a certain amount must be raised by taxation: the question will be whether this tax has larger claims than others to be repealed. The noble Lord who brought this Motion before the House, stated in detail many cases of evil arising from the operation of the tax. He had no doubt that cases of inconvenience might arise from the fair operation of the tax. Other cases of a similar character might arise from the misunderstanding, and, consequently, the misadministration of the law on the part of certain parties, and, perhaps, such cases of inconvenience were not rare. But whatever power the Government had to prevent cases of grievance in the collection of the tax would always be exercised for that purpose, and afford a remedy as far as possible. He believed that this had been the case with all Governments; but he could speak with perfect confidence as to the course pursued by the present Government. It often happened that statements were made in that House with respect to this tax, which were either not exact or greatly exaggerated. He did not wish to throw doubt as to the desire of hon. Gentlemen to state facts as correctly as possible to the House; but in particular instances parties giving information on such subjects were, from excited feelings, led into errors, which on inquiry would be admitted to the errors. In consequence of this having in some cases come to his knowledge, and in consequence of hearing some statements from the noble Lord, of cases of grievance when the subject was last before the House, he had ordered inquiry to be made into the complaints respecting some particular houses at Bath. He would now state the result of his inquiry in two of these cases, and he could state several others if it were necessary. The first case was that of No. 10, Galloway-street, with respect to which it was stated that in this house there were originally fifty-seven windows, and that so many had been closed as to reduce the number to twenty. The next was the adjoining house No. 9, in which it was alleged that a considerable number of windows had been closed also. The result of the inquiry that he had directed to be instituted respecting the former house, stated that the assessment for the window tax for the year 1843–4 was on thirty-four windows, and for the year 1844–5 was thirty-five, showing an increase of one in the number of windows in the latter year and of fifteen beyond the number stated. With respect to No. 9, Galloway-street, he was informed that it was a house of ill-fame, and, therefore, perhaps it might have been found advisable to stop up some of the windows for other reasons in cidental to the occupancy, quite irrespective of the window tax. Another grievance to which the noble Lord alluded, and which had not been mentioned then for the first time, related to a supposed breach of faith on the part of one of his predecessors deduced from some expressions which he had used. It was stated that parties had been told some years ago that if they opened additional windows they should be relieved from the tax on them, and notwithstanding this the tax had been charged. Whoever had the slightest knowledge of the noble Lord to whom allusion, was made, must be fully aware that nothing was more foreign to his nature, than even an approach to a breach of faith. But if any one would take the trouble to look into the matter, they would acquit Lord Althorp of anything of the kind. It had been said that in 1834 that noble Lord had distinctly stated that persons might open additional windows without any additional duty; and that having made this statement, in the course of the progress of the Assessed Taxes Composition Bill through the House, he inserted a clause in which it was stated that persons duly assessed should be so exempted. The breach of faith is charged upon the insertion of the words "duly assessed." The House should remember the circumstances under which this, which was now regarded as a grievance occurred: 1834 was the period at which the Act for the composition of assessed taxes for five years expired. On renewing it the noble Lord said that those who availed themselves of the composition might open new windows in their residences without additional charge. Therefore, what the noble Lord promised was personal to the individual, and was not attached to the house itself. At that time, all these houses were open to a new assessment, so that it might be seen that they were duly assessed. It had been stated, however, as the expectation of the parties, that these houses for which a composition for five years had been made, were not to be assessed under any circumstances for new windows. Could any rational man suppose, that under such circumstances there was to be a permanent relaxation, even after the tenant who had made the composition had left the house? This would be giving an additional value to the particular house, and would be a most unjust proceeding towards other holders of house property. Such was the nature of the charge against the noble Lord; and he need hardly add that there was no sense or justice in alleging that there was any breach of faith. Another objection to Lord Althorp was, that those who availed themselves of the benefits of composition, were re-assessed. Why, one of the conditions of the composition was, that the parties should be duly assessed at the time of making it. It was not for a man who had previously stated that he had ten windows, when he had twenty, to complain that he was improperly assessed. If such a case had been allowed to pass, it would have been composition indeed, not for a tax, but for an offence, and one which neither the noble Lord contemplated nor the law allowed. With respect to the Motion of the noble Lord, he did not feel that it was consistent with his duty to consent to go into a Committee to inquire into the mode of assessing and levying this tax. He knew what was the meaning of such a Committee; it was, in fact, nothing more than to express such an opinion on the part of the House on the subject that the window tax must be removed; and thus embarrass the Government, by imposing on them the necessity of raising by some other tax, an amount of money equivalent to it. The noble Lord said that the amount of this tax was about a million and a half; but was that House, in the present state of the finances of the country, able to give relief to the amount of a million and a half? The hon. Member for Montrose had suggested that it should be for the Committee to inquire whether it would not be advisable to sub- stitute a house tax for the window tax. This was not a new proposition. A few years ago the House had before it both the window and the house tax, and it determined, after considerable deliberation, that the house tax should be removed, and the window tax retained. Whether this proceeding was right or wrong was another question to determine; having to raise a million and a half, you decided that it should be raised on windows and not on the assessment of the value of houses, and it was not right to excite a feeling that you were now about to change those taxes. The change of a tax of this kind would be a very unwise proceeding. It would embarrass the proceedings of many parties who had made calculations as to the taxes they would have to pay. It would excite the hopes of those who thought that they should benefit by a change; but it would rouse the feelings of those who would have to pay an additional tax in the shape of the house tax. It was stated that out of upwards of 3,000,000 of houses in England and Wales, 444,000 only paid the window tax. In the exceptions from the payment of the tax were the habitations of the lower classes of the people. All those, however, who occupied the smaller class of houses and the lower class of farms did not pay it. His own conviction was, that the lower classes of the community were not particularly burdened by this tax. It should be remembered that this tax was only applicable to one eighth of the house-occupiers of the country, while the house tax formerly operated on one-seventh. Therefore, the substitution of one tax for another would naturally bring under assessment for the house tax not less than 27,000 more than now paid the window tax. Therefore, when a wish was expressed to relieve a particular class of persons paying the window tax by the substitution of another tax, the hon. Member would include with those paying that tax a set of persons who were now exempt from it. If this were the result, the House might depend upon it that they would be called upon more loudly than ever to return to the former tax. He was aware that the window tax operated on large houses let out in separate apartments as dwellings for the poor; but he was ready to maintain that this tax acted upon the landlords of these houses, and not on the individuals who occupied them. He asked what effect the taking the window tax off would have on the poor classes occupying such houses? He was ready to show that it would be attended with no remission of rent. The fact was, that the rent did not so much depend on the taxation of the house, as on the demand for houses of a particular description in particular localities. The taking off this tax would not lower the rents of apartments for which two or three shillings a week were charged. The amount of remission would go into the pockets of the landlord. It should be remembered that the Legislature, by widening and making new streets, produced an enhancement of the rent of this class of houses. Many men engaged in occupations in town had been by this means driven to Portland-town and other similar localities; but in consequence of the great distance they had to walk to their work, there was an increased demand for apartments in those large houses let out to the poorer classes. Many men consequently lived in such places rather than walk to a great distance when they could get habitations better ventilated, and with less rent. As long, therefore, as a great demand took place for lodgings in a particular locality, they might depend upon it that the remission of the window tax would not afford relief to the inhabitants of such places, but would merely add to the incomes of the landlords, whom it was not intended to benefit. He did not admit that any possible advantage could arise from going into Committee. It was no doubt the duty of the Government, as the noble Lord had stated, to look into any abuses, and their attention had been so directed, and wherever complaints were made the cases were investigated, and this would continue to be the case. To go into the Committee in question would only be exciting expectations which it would not be possible to satisfy, as it would give rise to the belief that the window tax would be repealed. He therefore felt bound to resist inquiry. There was another point adverted to by the noble Lord, namely, that the window tax affected the health of the people. If this could be proved, it would be undoubtedly an additional reason for the House to consider the subject; but he believed, and all his experience had confirmed this belief, that the poorer class of persons look more in their dwellings to warmth than to freedom of ventilation, and that they suffered more from cold than from the exclusion of air. It would be found that those employed in manufactures entertained strong prejudices against the ventilation of their dwellings, as not consistent with their health, and that they constantly closed every aperture which would increase the supplies of air. He was not disposed to give so much weight to the statement made by the noble Lord as some gave it. He found in the Report on the Health of Towns, which went into the examination of all the causes which excited fever in the metropolis and other towns, that there was not an observation in it which tended to show that the window tax in any way operated to affect the health of the inhabitants of towns. They would find it stated in that Report, that one of the chief causes of fever was the building small houses back to back, so that there could not be a free ventilation through them, and having filthy courts and open drains surrounding their dwellings. He was sure if the authors of that Report believed that the window tax was the cause of fever, they would have stated it. Much might be stated to prove the contrary. It was a fact that houses which paid no window tax were not more healthy than those which paid it. He admitted, however, that if it could be shown that the continuance of this tax affected the health of the inhabitants of towns, it would be an argument with that House to get rid of it. He believed that that could not be shown, and he, therefore, in conclusion, begged the House not to take upon itself what was the duty of the Executive Government, and excite expectations which could not be satisfied.

said, whatever doubt they might have as to the policy of agreeing to this Motion, there could be no doubt whatevever that it had been introduced by a most talented and excellent speech by the noble Lord. A more convincing argument he had never heard, and the facts which the noble Lord had brought forward with such diligence showed very clearly the injustice and iniquity of this tax. He thought that there could be no difference of opinion as to the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had replied to it. The principal topic of the noble Lord's speech was in respect to the vexatious way in which this tax was levied and assessed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, wholly avoided grappling with that part of the subject. He should wish to refresh his memory in regard to those Papers which had been laid upon the Table of the House, and he must at the same time refer to the difficulty that existed in getting information as to those surcharges. These cases had never been reported to the public, nor had these returns ever been printed. They were told that in case of a surcharge they might go before the surveyor and look for a precedent. He did not consider it at all fair to send the aggrieved party before the prosecutor in his case. Let them look to the number of window appeals which they had had since the additional 10 per cent. was put on. It appeared that in England and Wales, out of 506 cases of appeal against the window duties, which were decided by the Judges, not one tenth of them was made to the Commissioners. In Scotland 738 cases had been decided by the Judges. They had no means of ascertaining how many cases of appeal had been brought before the Commissioners. This was the disadvantage they laboured under; for the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to give the Return, which would have elucidated this subject. He was, therefore, obliged to make use of those materials only which he could obtain to support the Motion of the noble Lord. It appeared that in one Welsh case alone there were forty-five other cases included, so that it was impossible to give an opinion as to the exact number of such cases. In order to clear up this discrepancy, he would consider the state of the window duties in the year 1841, compared with what they were in 1844; and he submitted that the facts which were thus disclosed would be quite sufficient to demand an inquiry. In 1842, the Judges decided against local claims in thirty cases out of sixty cases. He was bound to show that in four years, up to the year 1835, there were 532 cases of appeal, 472 of which related to the window duties. In 1840 there were 115 cases decided by the Judges on appeal from the Commissioners, on which sixty-eight were on the window duty; and in 1842 the number of appeals was 123, and sixty of these were on the window duty. Altogether there were, from 1831 to 1844, 1,138 cases of appeal decided by the Judges, 412 of which related to the window duties. These details were sufficient to justify this demand for an inquiry. Again, he would mention the fact, that the year following the imposition of the additional duties, the new assessments in the twelve principal towns of England showed a falling off in the number of assessments; which could be accounted for only by a decline in the wealth of those towns, or a determination of the people to cheat the Chancellor of the Exchequer by stopping up their windows. In Scotland, where the several floors of a house were let out to the poor, it was a gross injustice to make a poor man, who had only four or five windows, liable for the duty on the whole house. The duty was of course charged to the proprietor of the house, and, being so charged, it was clear that it was a tax upon property, and not upon light. From the Returns before the House it appeared that the number of persons imprisoned for the non-payment of the assessed taxes in the year 1844 was 216, the lowest sum being 4s. 4½d., and the duration of the imprisonment varying from one day to fifteen or eighteen months. How much longer it might be in some cases these Returns did not show. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the imprisonment would cease on the payment of the penalty, and that imprisonment also followed the non-payment of game duties. There was, however, this difference between the two cases—that no person could be imprisoned under the game laws for any sum under 5l. for a longer time than three months; but when once a man was thrown into the Exchequer, no matter how trifling the amount might be, he might remain in prison for an indefinite number of months. It was monstrous that a man should be imprisoned for months on account of a few shillings, and that the county rates should be burdened in his absence from his family with their support. There was also another injustice about it, that a man might be imprisoned through the fault of the surveyor, who was the servant of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for nine out of every ten cases of imprisonment were found to rise from improper assessments. He thought this was a question which the agricultural Gentlemen, or, as they called themselves, the farmers' friends, would do well to inquire into. It might be said that this was not a burden peculiarly affecting land, but it was a grievance of which farmers especially had great reason to complain; and he believed the Central Protection Society would accomplish more good by sending their Members to sup- port a Motion of this kind, than by bringing forward motions which had no distinct practical object. In the evidence given before the Committee which sat on this subject, he found that a farmer had been charged for a window in his dairy, on the ground that he occasionally used it as a larder. He dared say the whole extent of its use in that way was that he had occasionally put a hare or a pheasant there. Another farmer in Wales was charged 15s. for a fox hound, which he kept for the protection of his sheep. Another farmer was charged for a man-servant, because he occasionally employed a ploughboy to clean his boots. Another farmer was charged 12l. 10s., the amount of a horse dealer's license, because he had sold the produce of his stock. He could assure hon. Members opposite that this Blue Book would furnish them with ample materials for making out a code of grievances affecting the occupiers of land, when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton brought forward his Motion on the Corn Laws. He believed that there was no justice in this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a very good official speech in favour of the tax; but it was evident he saw that the tax could not continue. The handwriting was on the wall, and he believed that very soon the demand for the repeal of the tax would cause itself to be heard. He must, in conclusion, say that were it not for the excellent gentlemen who presided at Somerset-house, it would have long since proved a burden utterly intolerable to the people.

would not have interfered in this debate, if he did not represent a large body of constituents who were deeply interested in this question. The noble Lord who had brought forward this question had shown great industry and ability in the statement of the case, and had clearly shown that the tax was unequal—that it pressed more heavily upon the poor than upon the rich. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had reminded the noble Lord that when persons were making inquiries as to particular measures, it often happened that the persons who furnished them with the information misled them. Now the noble Lord had stated several instances of houses being shut up in consequence of the operation of this tax; and there were only two cases in which it appeared he had been mistaken; and even in these cases, it was as likely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been misinformed as the noble Lord. [The gallant Officer then read from a paper a statement to show the unequal pressure of the tax, from which it appeared that houses with a rent of from 35l. to 50l. a year were charged window duty about 10 per cent. on the rental, while the houses of the nobility, with rentals of from 700l. to 2,000l. a year were only charged about 2 per cent. The paper, he said, had been given him by a Commissioner, who was accustomed to make these rates; and if it was not correct, it could be contradicted.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite correct in saying that all taxes were unpleasant; but the mischief of this tax was, that it pressed so severely upon the poor. Another objection to the duty was, that it was, in reality, a tax upon air and light. What was the use of a Committee upon the sanatory condition of the poor, if they were to pass an Act of Parliament excluding them from the light of heaven? The whole matter was a burlesque. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made an assertion which certainly did astonish him. He said that the poor were exempt from this tax. In the country they certainly were; hat in large towns, the poor must pay. They lived several families together in large houses; and, though the tax might, in the first instance, be charged upon the proprietor, yet was it not clear that he would charge the poor with a higher rent than if there were no tax? Then the right hon. Gentleman said the poor were glad to shut up every airhole they could to exclude the cold—that in fact they preferred warmth to ventilation. If the poor did so, it was certain, according to the opinions of the ablest medical men, that that had a tendency to bring on disease. But suppose they did so for the sake of warmth in winter, still in summer they wished a little fresh air. Look at the dark holes in which their children slept, without the slightest means of ventilation; for if they made a hole large enough to let a cat in to catch a mouse they would be brought in for the window tax. Then take the case of persons when they were sick. When a rich person was unwell, he was taken to the Continent, where he could obtain not warmth merely, but air and light; but the sick among the poor had no such advantages; and, few as their privileges in this respect were, legislation made them less. In this town they seldom saw the sun, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing what he could to assist the climate; for even when the sun did shine out, the poor, by the operation of this tax, were not permitted to see it.

rose to bring before the House a practical grievance which pressed hard upon the linen weavers in Scotland. Their manufacture was generally carried on in buildings adjoining to and communicating with their own houses, and in each of these places there were from one to five looms; and as each loom required a window, they were brought within the operation of the tax. Manufactories were certainly entitled to exemption; but, as these buildings communicated with the dwelling-houses, they were brought within its operation. The weavers had tried to evade the tax by opening their shops to the public road, which certainly exempted them. But it was found that, from the dust blown into their shops from the road side, it was impossible to carry on their trade with the cleanliness which was requisite, and they had therefore been obliged to stop up the communication with the highway, and were thus again brought within the operation of the tax. He was assured, from his personal knowledge, that these were the facts of the case; and he left the case in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman would afford them relief, he would confer a great boon upon a very industrious class of persons.

was sorry to see the House so inattentive to a subject of such great importance. It seemed to be the opinion of some parties that the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) had acted injudiciously in bringing forward this question at the present moment; but he (Mr. Hume) thought, on the contrary, that this was the very best time at which it could be brought under discussion, and for this reason—the right hon. First Lord of the Treasury was now engaged in the very laudable task of revising and altering the system of taxation in this country; and as an hon. and learned Member had last night stated in his (Mr. Hume's)opinion most correctly, that the right hon. Gentleman was carrying out alterations which would conduce most materially to the welfare of the country. Taking it for granted that the present amount of taxation must be raised, the question for their consideration was, could they render that taxation in any degree less oppressive than it was at present? To the tax now under consideration very strong and well-grounded objections seemed to him to exist. It prevented the great mass of the people from earning their bread; for, by excluding them from the enjoyment of light and air, their constitutions were debilitated, and their health and strength were impaired. It was evident, from the testimony of the very able and eminent medical men examined before the Health of Towns Commission, that the unhealthy and feeble condition of the poor was principally ocpally occasioned by the want of air and light, and by their being compelled to sleep in apartments where they could only breathe a contaminated atmosphere. He thought it was most important that the Government should inquire whether these representations were or were not correct; for if the Government would undertake such an investigation they could conduct it far more satisfactorily and efficiently than any Committee of that House. If, however, the Government refused to institute that investigation, the noble Lord (Lord Duncan) was fully justified in the course he had adopted; for the only means by which any hon. Members could press the evils of existing systems on that House was by calling for inquiry. They were distinctly told by Dr. Arnott, Dr. Guy, and other men of high talent, that by their fiscal regulations they were rendering the labouring population a feeble and debilitated class. He would ask hon. Gentlemen whether, as Englishmen, they could now look with pride on the sallow countenances and attenuated forms of the artisans and labourers they encountered in large towns? He believed it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to bring forward a measure carrying out the recommendations of the Health of Towns Commission; and he might take this opportunity of reminding the right hon. Gentleman that no recommendations could be more important than those which related to the necessity of light and air, as conducing to the health of the labouring classes. The window tax was, he considered, most unequal in its operation—pressing most heavily upon those who were least able to bear such a burden—and its collection was also at- tended with great difficulties. He regarded it as a species of property tax, but levied in the most injudicious and unequal mode; for it precluded that portion of the population whose food and clothing were not of the best description from avoiding the contaminated atmosphere in which they were compelled to live, and enjoying comparatively pure and healthy air. He (Mr. Hume) considered that if it was necessary to continne the present amount of taxation, it might be levied more equally upon capital than was done under the present system. To show the inequality now existing, be might state, that the house, No. 16 Poland-street, containing 35 windows, rental 80l., paid a window duty of 16½ per cent.; while the house, No. 234 Regent-street, containing 20 windows, on a rental of 335l., was only taxed at the rate of 2 per cent.; and No. 270 Regent-street, with 112 windows, and paying a rental of 180l., paid a window tax of only l½ per cent.; the house, No. 8 Cross-street, at a rental of 45l., was charged with a window tax of 10l. 6s. 9d., or 22½ per cent.; and if he wished to prove more clearly the inequality of this impost he might refer to the Reform Club, the Carlton Club, and other public buildings. It had been said that Parliament, some years ago, removed the house tax instead of the window tax; but the intention at that time was that both those taxes should be repealed. The late hungry Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, never had any money to spare. That right hon. Gentleman spent his money in Syria, and elsewhere, in shot and shells. He found from the assessment for the Property Tax, that the rental of houses in England amounted to 35,500,000l., and in Scotland, to 3,000,000l., making a total of 38,500,000l.; and by a tax of 5 per cent., they would be able to raise 1,950,000l. It might be said, however, that if this plan were adopted, many houses which were exempted from the window duty would be exposed to taxation; but they might exempt a large portion of the smaller houses—all those, he had no doubt, which were now free from the window tax, and yet raise a revenue of 1,600,000l. He believed, that if the right hon. Baronet imposed a tax of 10d. in the pound, or 4 per cent., on the rental of houses on which the Income Tax for last year was assessed, it would raise an ample sum to compensate him for relinquishing the window tax. A witness stated before the Health of Towns Commission, that,—

"The window duties, as now assessed, operate as a premium upon defective construction. The Legislature now says to the builder, plan your houses with as few openings as possible; let every house be ill-ventilated by shutting out the light and air; and as a reward for your ingenuity you shall be subject to a less amount of taxation than your neighbours. The Board is, of course, aware that windows are now charged by a scale—the tax increasing at an average rate of about 8s. 3d. for every window, whether large or small. Hence the number of windows in a house becomes, to builders of second and third-class houses, a very serious consideration. Supposing a house to contain twelve rooms; if, to make these rooms cheerful and pleasant, I have put two windows in each room, and thereby insured a current of air passing from front to back, the window tax for that house amounts to 7l. 5s. 9d; but if I have put but one window to each room, the window tax is but 2l. 4s. 9d., showing a difference of 5l. 1s. per annum; and I need scarcely say, that a difference of only 10s. per annum, is quite enough to influence builders of cheap houses in trying to save such a sum."

Light, alone, every one knew, produced most beneficial effects upon the health of a population; and, for this, amongst other reasons, he contended that it was very important that these matters should be looked into by Her Majesty's Government. These were the times of "changes;" and he thought that few more advantageous changes could be made than that which he had the honour of submitting to the House. He had, however, another claim for the remission of the window tax, and that was a solemn pledge, which, as he contended, had been given by Lord Althorp—a pledge which had been broken—not, indeed, by Lord Althorp, but by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. On July 17, 1834, he (Mr. Hume) said,—

"I hope there is no occasion to remind the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the pledge he gave us some time ago relative to the tax on windows. I am quite sure, that the noble Lord is desirous of rendering it as little oppressive as possible; and that if he cannot reduce its amount now, he will endeavour to do so next Session. If the noble Lord would limit the tax to its present amount, and allow every man who has paid the window rate for an entire year to continue to pay the same composition, and to open additional windows, it would be a very great relief. It is not at all uncommon in old-fashioned houses, which contain a greater number of windows than modern buildings, to see many windows bricked up for the purpose of avoiding the tax. If the noble Lord would redeem his pledge, he would confer a very great boon upon those parties."

To that the noble Lord said, that he should be prepared to discuss the question when the Bill went into Committee; and then, on the 30th of July, Lord Althorp said,—

"I have now to beg leave to bring up a clause which was suggested to me by the hon. Member for Oxford, enabling persons to open fresh windows in houses at present existing without any additional charge. As I apprehend there will be no objection to the clause, it will be unnecessary for me to trouble the Committee with any observations upon it. I will, therefore, only say, that it cannot occasion any loss to the Revenue; its only effect is to prevent an increase of the Revenue in the case of houses already existing."

The consequence of that pledge was, that those who had shut up their windows, understanding that there would be no increase in the duties if they opened them again, re-opened a great number of windows; and then, a few years afterwards, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer considered it to be his duly to re-assess all those windows. Hence arose very great and general dissatisfaction throughout the country—the windows were again shut up, and a large number of persons closed their houses in consequence. For all these reasons he believed that this was a tax which called for immediate remission; and he was sure that the House would submit to an uniform rate of taxation on house rent, if the Government would bring forward any plan for the purpose. He was sorry that he should not have an opportunity of proposing his Amendment; for if the Government refused an inquiry he should have no chance of carrying it; but he did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give the subject his best consideration, and would see whether he could not incorporate his (Mr. Hume's) proposal with the measures which he intended to introduce for the improvement of the condition of the population.

feared, after what had been said by his hon. Friend who had just sat down, that he must trouble the House with a few observations, though he had hoped that he should not have been obliged to address them. His hon. Friend had charged him with a breach of faith in not enforcing a pledge which he stated had been given by Lord Althorp. He must at once beg to deny that he had ever committed any such breach of faith. His notion of the duty of a public servant would lead him to say, that if a pledge had been given, under any circumstances, it would be his duty to redeem that pledge. He could conceive no course that could be pursued with the view of obtaining money that would be satisfactory to the country, if that money were procured by the breaking of a pledge. But he denied altogether that any pledge had been given by Lord Althorp. The hon. Gentleman had read his own speech, and then fixed Lord Althorp with it. But what was Lord Althorp's reply to the hon. Gentleman? Why, he said,—

"I perfectly recollect having stated that I would bring the subject before the House; but I do not recollect saying, and I am pretty sure that I did not say, that I should concur in the proposition."

[Mr. Hume: That was on the 17th of July; read what he said on the 30th.] He had not got his Lordship's observations upon the 30th in his hand; but he knew that his noble Friend did bring in a clause, which clause was worded as it now stood. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that his noble Friend had been deceived by the officers of the Customs; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that no one was less likely to be deceived than his noble Friend; and that he was perfectly aware of the construction put upon the clause. The hon. Gentleman stated that that construction was never put upon it till a hungry Chancellor of the Exchequer who wanted money, for the first time did so, and applied the clause in a manner different from what it had been acted upon before. That, however, was not the case. That clause had always been construed in the same way, and acted upon in the same way. What was the construction given to the clause by the hon. Gentleman? By the old law there was a power of composition. His noble Friend put an end to composition; but in compensation he introduced a clause by which those who had paid their duties fairly might open fresh windows without additional tax. It was those only who had not been fairly assessed before who were not entitled to this privilege—persons who having twenty windows returned only fifteen, and paid only for fifteen. But the hon. Gentleman seemed to contend, if the parties had opened an additional window, and had then twenty-one instead of twenty, that they were to be quite sacred, and that no law could touch them. If they had not opened a new window they would be subject to be recharged; and it never could be contended that by such opening they should be screened from being called upon to pay their just quota. His noble Friend never had such an intention; and when he (Mr. Baring) issued his instruction for a new survey, he believed that his noble Friend never had had the intention which the hon. Gentleman had constantly imputed to him; and he believed that his noble Friend was right in saying that he had never given the pledge to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. In 1840, when he (Mr. Baring) issued those instructions, he thought that he was fully justified in doing so, in consequence of information which he had received, that a Very large number of persons had not made fair returns of the windows in their houses; and he contended that he did right in seeing that those persons—whole streets of them—who were evading the tax, paid their fair and proper shares, before he called upon others, as he was obliged to do, to pay an additional amount. That he believed to be a just principle; and he then ordered a general and a new survey to be made. His hon. Friend was wrong in supposing that those surveys had not been going on. It was the habit to survey at different times different parts of the country. He had ordered surveys to be made through the whole country at once. This was all that was new, but as regarded the construction given to the clause, no alteration was made. He was anxious to show his hon. Friend, also, in what manner that survey had been undertaken, and the spirit which pervaded his instructions. His noble Friend (Lord Duncan), who had brought his case very fairly before the House, had moved for those instructions. For those instructions he was answerable; they had been issued in his time, and he believed that he had seen them at the time of their issue. The House would observe that those instructions were dated in May, 1840, and that in the first place the surveyor was cautioned not to charge those persons who had enjoyed any privilege of exemption under the 7th Section of the Act—the clause in question. Those instructions were of a confidential nature, and had not been prepared with the view of being brought before the House; but, to show the spirit in which they were framed, he would just read one line, which was as follows:—

"The Board relies upon your discrimination in not making any charges which may reasonably be considered by the public in the light of vexatious taxation."

With regard, then, to the breach of faith, he would say, if the pledge had been given by any public officer, that he should have acted upon it; but knowing and believing that it never had been given, he did not feel that he was called upon to sacrifice his own opinion and belief, and to take the hon. Gentleman's construction of what Lord Althorp had said. With reference to the grievances of the tax, he knew perfectly well that there was not a tax that could be mentioned against which a list of grievances could not be made out. It was very difficult indeed to answer particular cases of grievance. It was, in fact, impossible for those not in the Government to know the details or to answer them. But he must be permitted to warn the House against trusting every case of grievance that was brought before it. He never knew the case of a grievance which was not remarkably good until the other side was heard; and he believed that many cases which had been mentioned that evening as great grievances, would bear a very different aspect if the other side were known. The tax now under discussion was a direct tax; he must say that he was greatly surprised when he heard so much said of the advantages of direct over indirect taxation; and when he considered, in addition, how productive a source of taxation this was, that his hon. Friend should be one of the first to get up and oppose it. Let them look at the house tax. His hon. Friend has suggested a house tax as an equivalent in lieu of the Window tax. He did not know whether his hon. Friend had ever made a speech on the grievances of the house tax; but he remembered that a great many grievances were stated when the question of the house tax was discussed in that House. The house tax was on the rental, and it was always argued that the rental was an unfair mode of assessment. The hon. Gentleman, whatever he had done before, however, now said, "Take the rental; tax that; nothing can be fairer;" and he said, "I'll go as low as you please, down even to the man who pays but 1l. per annum for his cottage." Why, when the house tax was in force, it was found that some of the largest houses in England contributed scarcely a fraction towards the house tax. Knowle Mouse was a notable instance of this sort. It was charged at a rental, he believed, of 50l. a-year; and that was in fact proved to be a high charge. It was too perfectly notorious that the inn of a country town paid more than the country seats of the neighbouring gentry. He was not contending that that was not fair; but he did say, that such cases produced an effect upon the public mind; and he dared to say that his hon. Friend would not be amongst the last to regard them. The house tax, at any rate, was considered at that time so unfair, a tax that it was taken off in preference to the window duty. He did not say that the window tax was a fairer tax than the house tax; but he did say, that it was one which made the rich contribute more to the Exchequer in proportion than the house tax did; and his impression was, that if the House re-imposed the house tax, and remitted the window tax, they would impose one which would make the poor contribute more in proportion than they did at present. With regard to the particular question before the House—viz., the appointment of a Select Committee, he looked upon it as his noble Friend seemed to have done when he gave the Notice of his Motion—which was for the repeal of the window tax. That was no doubt the practical effect of this Motion—that was what was aimed at, and to that his (Mr. Baring's) answer was, that he was not prepared to assist them, in the present state of the Revenue, in getting rid of that tax; and if they appointed a Committee merely for the sake of inquiry, they would be only raising expectations in the public mind which were not likely to be carried out. He was far from saying that it was not a fair subject for the consideration of the Government; and if the Government should be enabled to alter the tax by combining a modification of the old house and window tax, he believed that some of the disadvantages and grievances at present complained of might perhaps be got over, but this proposition had been more than once considered, and was very difficult to carry into practical effect. Under these circumstances, he could not support the Motion.

asked whether they were to understand the tax was to be given up? On that subject the most extraordinary silence prevailed on both sides of the House—a silence which appeared perfectly inexplicable. Was the tax aban- doned? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made the lamest defence of it that it was possible for any man to make. Two speeches had been made on the Ministerial side—one strongly in favour of it; and upon the other side there had been five speeches, four of which were strongly against it, whilst the ex-Chancellor as strongly supported the tax. Ex-Chancellors usually spoke in the same way as Chancellors. It appeared to be their invariable rule—"If you will support me when I am in, I will support you when I am out." The window tax was universally condemned. Everybody admitted it to be assessed most unequally, and that the poorer portions of society who paid to it paid much heavier, in proportion to the rents of their houses, than the richer. It was also admitted to be injurious to health, opposed to comfort, and pregnant with nothing but mischief; yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House it was not to be given up, and that there was no hope of its relinquishment. If the proposition of the noble Lord had been to get rid of the tax at once, he could not have voted for it, because, the Budget of the right hon. Baronet and his financial statement having been affirmed by the House, it would be preposterous and most unjust to vote for its immediate repeal. And if all the evils of the tax were admitted by Her Majesty's Government, there was no necessity for the Committee. The hon. Member for Montrose had asked whether, if Ministers held out no prospect that it should be repealed, they would consent to take the matter into serious consideration. He did not know what Government was disposed to do; but, having observed the silence on that side of the House, there appeared to him no hope that it could be sustained by reason or argument; and he was inclined to believe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury Was prepared to abandon it in another year, and that its remission would be included in one of those great schemes of relief. In a few years there would be a general election; and, whether the Government took up the matter in the mean time, he entreated the electors to do so. An Anti-Window-Tax League should be formed. Its remission, he knew, would not be made willingly by Chancellors of the Exchequer; but if the electors took the question into their hands, it would be settled at the next election, because it was a tax upon property, which be assured the Government they did not like. It was an unjust tax, and its operation was unequal. In every way it was injurious. No tax was more injurious to health and comfort. Darkness was the parent of crime, vice, filth, and pestilential disease. By shutting out the light from the people, you absolutely deprived them of the means of ventilation. Only yesterday, in his own parish of Marylebone, in his official capacity, he had to go into a very curious place, which he entered by a high staircase, into which no window whatever opened; then a room-door was opened, and there was plenty of light in the room, but a human being lay upon the floor denuded of any covering. There was neither a chair nor a table in the room, nor any article of furniture worth sixpence, the body having no covering upon it of any kind: it was that of an unfortunate woman, 78 years of age, who had died in this wretched condition. Her husband, he understood, was once the captain of a man-of-war. In these dark abodes, what was going on upon one floor of the habitation was entirely unknown to the persons who inhabited another; they were as much strangers to each other as if they lived twenty or thirty miles apart. But he ventured to say, if that and every House were lighted and ventilated as they ought to be, it was next to impossible that such scenes as this could occur. He trusted, therefore, that upon the other side there would be no attempt to sustain this tax by argument. If there was a division, he should divide with the noble Lord; but if Her Majesty's Government would allow the House to infer from their silence that they were not opposed in sentiment to the remission of the tax, he sincerely hoped the noble Lord would not divide.

said: I consider, Sir, it is the duty of every Government, before coming down to this House to propose the remission or alteration of any particular tax, to take a general view of the bearing of the whole system of taxation, and upon that to submit to the House those measures which it appears to them that the circumstances of the country require. That is the course we have pursued during the present year, and we have every reason to believe that that course has been satisfactory to the people. We did not come down to this House to propose the scheme of finance which I had the honour to submit, without revising the window tax most carefully—we did not do so without revising all the other taxes—and we determined, on the whole, that, under the present circumstances of the country, the remissions we proposed would confer the greatest advantage on the community. But it is quite consistent in us to take the course which we have done, and also to admit that there are other taxes, the nature and operation of which are objectionable and injurious. And if the noble Lord the Member for Bath should succeed in his Motion, and if another hon. Member should come forward, cheered by his success and say, "I will state such circumstances to the House as will justify me in moving the repeal of the soap tax," I have no doubt he would be able to show that tax to be a grievous evil; and then some other hon. Gentleman would find another impost equally injurious, and the removal of which is equally desirable. I have no doubt, in all these cases, and in many more, hon. Members might by their arguments and statements make a very great impression upon the House. And then an hon. Member gets up and says, is this tax to be remitted—what means this silence on the part of the Government—will they give us an intimation that our silence may be inferred as signifying our intention to give up the window tax? Why, exactly that course might—and I have very little doubt would—be pursued in respect to the other taxes against which a case should be made out. I say again, what I have frequently said before in this House, that I do not think it is consistent with the duty of the Government of this country to give any specific pledge as to what taxes are to be repealed—or are likely to be repealed—until the proper time arrives at which they can actually be taken off. It is the duty of the First Lord of the Treasury, and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to propose a reduction of no tax whatever but under the circumstances I have previously named; and then to make their proposal at once to the House to carry it into effect without any delay whatever that can properly be avoided. But it would be a most unjust and improper course on our part to allow a year before the proper time any inference to be drawn as to the remission of a tax, in order to escape from the inconveniences of a Committee. Now, I must be permitted to say to those who have introduced and supported this Motion for a Committee, that I am not defending any portion of the window tax. I am only contending that, under the circumstances of the country, it would be most inexpedient and unwarrantable in me to give any pledges as to our future intentions. And, let me tell you, you are making the remission of taxation a much more difficult task by asking the Government for those pledges you now seek. Now I will just say one word as to the proposition before the House. I must say the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, bad as it is, is better than that of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, for he goes at once to excite the hope of a certain reduction of taxation to the amount of 1,700,000l. [Lord Duncan: No; I ask for a Committee to inquire into the feasibility of such reduction.] Which Committee would only end in disappointment. I do not believe a Committee of the House of Commons is a good tribunal for the purpose of suggesting the means of relieving the community from any particular burden it may desire relief from. Well, but the hon. Member for Montrose contends that a substitute for the window tax might be advantageously found in a general house tax. Now, recollect, we have relieved incomes of 150l. a year from the operation of the Property and Income Tax, and he now proposes to apply a new tax to the very parties that this House thought—and most properly thought—should be as lightly taxed as possible. And what is the amount of this new tax that the hon. Gentleman suggests should be levied? Not 7d. in the pound, the amount of our income levy (all incomes under 150l. being exempted); but 10d., yes 10d. in the pound. And this is his substitute for the window tax. Now, from a Return I hold in my hand, and which was moved by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume), I find the amount of the annual value of houses assessed to the Property and Income Tax in 1842—the total value of house property in Great Britain, is 38,500,000l.; and he says, impose on this a tax of 10d. in the pound, and there is at once for you the sum of 1,900,000l., and a substitute for the window tax. But now this tax is to extend to every income. It is to visit every house in every town—every house rented at 2l. a year—it is to visit every farm-house; yes, and not a few of your cottages too. It is to visit all manufactories, all shops, and all those many houses now exempt from window duty. Now, think of the House of Commons doing this just after passing the Property and Income Tax Bill, which, with maledictory words from some, and valedictory words from others—only left our House this very week for the other House. Returning, however, to the question of the window tax, I am perfectly willing to admit to the noble Lord (Lord Duncan) that there are many inequalities in its operation; but where will you find a tax without inequalities? Now, do not let me deceive the noble Lord in what I am about to say. In order to induce him not to proceed to a division, I am not going to delude him by holding out any false expectations; but this far I will go—I will assure him that this tax shall, along with other taxes, when the opportunity again arrives for the consideration of our financial schemes—I say, I will assure him that when the time for undergoing the usual revision shall have come, this tax shall have a full, a fair, and a frank consideration from us. But, I repeat, I cannot, and will not, a year before the proper time, give him any positive assurance of a remission of it. I will not do so with any tax. I am willing to do so far as I have stated, in order to induce the noble Lord to avoid the necessity of a division, and also to mark my opinion of the ability which he undoubtedly displayed in laying his case before the House. The noble Lord introduced his Motion with very great fairness, and with considerable ability. I wish him a better fate than to have to sit on a Committee which can do no good; but while I give him an assurance of this tax having, at the proper season, the fullest and fairest consideration from us, I will give no specific pledge of conduct in order to induce him not to take the sense of the House on his Motion.

observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that an inquiry would lead to no practical results, but would only raise unfounded expectations, and on that ground he refused the Committee. Now, would the right hon. Gentleman permit him to recall to his recollection instances in which Committees of inquiry had been granted, and which had been followed by great practical results? The longest ago to which he would refer was the Committee upon the timber duties, and that led to alterations of the tax. He remembered, also, the Committee on the tea duties, which led to a modification of the tax. The Committee upon the import duties likewise led to modifications. He did not hesitate to say that the window lax was one into which the House might inquire, and that the Government might derive great advantage from such an inquiry. He could refer to Committees which had led not to a repeal of taxes, but to an improved mode of levying and collecting them. He did not know that the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, relative to a commutation of the window tax into a house tax, free from the evils of the old house tax, was impracticable. The fault of the old house tax was that a house was rated at its value in the market, and of course it was impossible that the country houses referred to should have a rated value in the market; but that injustice was not inseparable from a tax of that description. If the Motion had been for an immediate repeal of the tax he would have voted against it, but he should vote in favour of inquiry.

said, that however anxious he was to vote for the remission of any tax, he did not think that in this case a Committee was desirable, as it would only tend to excite false hopes. If a proper duty could be laid by the square yard upon those enormous plate glass windows which were used only for show, and a proportionate relief given to the poor occupiers of small houses, he thought that would be the best way in which the inequalities of the tax could be remedied.

hoped that his noble Friend was about to divide—and on the ground upon which the question was put by Her Majesty's Ministers—namely, that the Motion was tantamount to a repeal of the window tax. It was upon that account he regretted that his noble Friend had changed his former Motion for a repeal of the tax into a Motion for an inquiry. His constituents wanted no inquiry on the subject. They had had sufficient experience of the tax already, and their wish, as expressed to him was, that it should be repealed as soon as possible: and, therefore, when he heard that this Motion was tantamount to a Motion for a repeal of the tax, it was an additional reason with him to vote for it.

knew no tax more objectionable than a tax upon light and air. There was no tax which interfered so much with the comforts and the health of the inhabitants of towns especially as the window tax. It operated most oppressively, and if a Committee were granted for inquiry into its operation, he had no doubt that cases would be made out which would induce the House to make material changes. For instance, his constituents suffered extraordinary hardships from the tax. It was imposed upon houses and buildings generally—those houses, however, which were used for manufactures being exempt from it; whereas if a manufacture were curried on in the same building which was used for a dwelling-house, all the windows in the dwelling-house as well as in the manufactory were charged. It happened that his constituents carried on an extensive trade in weaving. They required a great deal of light, and the upper part of the house was devoted to their manufacture. The consequence was, that they were liable for every window in the house. This was a great hardship and injustice, and if an inquiry were granted, he was sure the Government would be inclined to consent to the removal of such a grievance.

said, in consequence of the eagerness of the House to come to the New Zealand debate, he would only trespass upon its attention with a few words. The right hon. Baronet opposite had said he preferred the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose to his. He would only say that he (Lord Duncan) had humbly endeavoured to imitate the example of the right hon. Baronet when he sat at that side of the House: he would agree to nothing, but objected to everything. He was glad this discussion had taken place, as he thought it would do much good. As to his Motion necessarily leading to a repeal of the window tax, that was not the case; because there had been Committees upon the timber duties, tobacco, tea, and the import duties, none of which had been repealed in consequence. He could not follow the advice of the right hon. Baronet, but must take the sense of the House upon the Motion.

then said, that he believed it was fully understood in the course of the discussion the other night, that the general question respecting New Zealand and the affairs of the Company, should be left untouched until after the recess. He therefore, proposed to himself on the present occasion, to abstain entirely from entering upon it; and he hoped other Gentlemen would follow his example, and reserve the discussion of the question, to a future opportunity, of the state and condition of the Colony, and the measures which had been adopted in reference to it. He would make no apology for trespassing on the present occasion upon the attention of the House, as he thought it his duty to give the explanations which he now proposed to give relative to the personal charges as regarded the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, and under whom he had the honour to act. And in giving these explanations he was most anxious to begin the discussion, because he believed that on the occasion on which he had recently addressed the House upon the subject of New Zealand, he had certainly addressed the House with some feeling and warmth; nor was it at all extraordinary that he had done so, understanding at that time, as he did, that a charge of a personal character was made against the honour and conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On the present occasion, feeling convinced, as he did, that the explanations which he was about to give would satisfy the House, not even excepting the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), of the impossibility of any deception having been practised by the noble Lord, he was led to the determination to avoid every irritating topic, and to confine himself strictly to his explanations, trusting, as the noble Lord the Member for London said, that they would be able to approach the discussion of the general question unembarrassed with personal questions, and with the disagreeable misunderstanding which was almost certain to attend them. He would now come to the charge made against the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), and he thought he stated it fairly when he stated it thus. It was urged that the noble Lord, having come to an arrangement with the New Zealand Company, in May, 1843, and having undertaken to give instructions to the Governor of New Zealand in accordance with that arrangement, had, in fact, given instructions inconsistent with the arrangement, and had produced one set of instructions to the Company, and had given another, an inconsistent, a different, and a secret set of instructions to the Governor of the Colony. That, he believed, was the charge preferred against the noble Lord; and he was certain of being able to show to the House that the statement was founded in error. He really believed that it was in error the statement had been made. He must now, he was afraid, assume on the part of the House, a knowledge of many of the facts of the case. Were he to undertake to explain all the circumstances connected with the subject, he would be led, perhaps, into that very discussion which, for the present, he deprecated, and was anxious to avoid. At all events, he would be led into a lengthened statement of very numerous and very complicated facts. He felt that, as in the explanation to which he intended to confine himself, he would be compelled to have such frequent reference to the correspondence, and as there was so much confusion in the transactions therein recorded, he would labour under considerable difficulty, without going at length, and in detail, into the subject; and therefore it was that he must assume some knowledge respecting the matter on the part of the House. There were two questions which arose between the parties in this case, and which originated with the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), then at the head of the Colonial Department. The first was with reference to the titles to land on the part of the Government within a certain district, claimed to be purchased from the natives, being the districts on the two sides of Cook's Straits, between the two principal islands of the group; the second regarded the discretion placed in the then Governor to go without these districts, and in exchange for lands in them to form settlements in other parts of the island. The House would be pleased to keep these two points in recollection. The principal personal communication on this subject, originated with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller), and the noble Lord at the head of that Department to which he (Mr. G. W. Hope) belonged. He would therefore come at once to that which they had in writing upon the subject; and in doing so, he would first apply himself to the letter which was referred to the other night, the letter of the 8th of May. He readily admitted that that letter had been written, after consultation with, and after having been in anxious consultation with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley.) The letter referred to certain proposals for the purchase of land by the Company, at the capital of the island. The letter in which those proposals were embodied, after making the proposal to which he had just referred, then proceeded to request the appointment of a Judge with independent jurisdiction for the Colony, and the appointment of a resident agent, and then proceeded with the paragraph, the very important one, which related to the means to be adopted for effectually settling the question of the Company's titles to the lands within the districts within which they had claimed to have purchased. He would now draw the attention of the House to what were the terms of the instructions proposed to be sent to the Governor of the Colony. In reference to these points:—

"For the purpose of effectually settling the question of the Company's title, and of quieting the minds of the 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 districts 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 land 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 navties, 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."

The House would perceive that the arrangement proposed was, that a conditional title should be granted in case it was asked for, and spots to be selected; giving over in these spots whatever rights the Crown had to give. As regarded the natives in all other parts, compensation was to be given, the Crown giving its assistance in making bargains with them and in giving compensation. In reference to this he had not the slightest difficulty in saying, that the noble Lord assented at once to these proposals. The proposals were precisely similar to what the noble Lord himself was willing to make long before the hon. Member for Liskeard on a former occasion had commented upon the distinction which he was supposed to draw between an agreement and a promise—a distinction whereby he was supposed to hold that a promise need not be kept, but that an agreement should. Whether the reply might be construed into a promise or agreement, if any distinction really existed between them, the reply of the noble Lord, or rather the reply sent by him (Mr. G. W. Hope), under the directions of the noble Lord, was, that he had assented "to these proposals; and 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." The remainder of the letter assented to the other two points suggested—the appointment of a judge with independent jurisdiction, and the appointment of a resident agent at Auckland for the purposes of carrying out the terms of the agreement. Both these appointments were afterwards made. The next correspondence which took place was the letter of the 19th of May: in consequence of the decease of Governor Hobson, the government was then in the hands of a temporary administrator. By the letter of the date just mentioned, he was directed to take steps, with reference to the purchase by the Company of land at Auck- land; but he was directed to take no steps with reference to the subsequent heads of the arrangement, it being stated to him that the remaining questions were to be reserved for the newly-appointed Governor. He had no instructions on any subject but the first. The noble Lord was to grant a conditional title to land selected by the Company's agents, and directions were to be given to the officers in the Colony to do what they could to facilitate compensation to the natives. The terms of the compensation were, that there was to be a credit established of 50,000l., and that that credit of 50,000l. should be paid for by the exchange of so many acres of land. The land was to be taken from the Company by the Government, at 1l. per acre. He would have a further opportunity of explaining this matter more fully. The arrangement, therefore, referred to the three points already adverted to, and only to them. On the 15th of June, 1843, that was some time after these letters had been written, a letter was sent to Lord Stanley, from Captain Fitzroy, containing five questions. Three of these referred to the arrangements to which he had already directed the attention of the House; the remaining two referred to a separate and independent arrangement. The letter stated that "doubts were expressed with regard to your Lordship's arrangement." He might as well say that the doubts there referred to were not doubts in reference to the arrangements lately made, but with reference, and mainly so, to the anticipated and incomplete arrangement. The questions put to the noble Lord by Captain Fitzroy were to solve his own doubts. With reference to these matters he said in the letter referred to—

"My views of the existing arrangements are chiefly, that out of a certain extent of land in New Zealand, said to have been purchased by the New Zealand Company, the Government will confirm their title to as many acres as they have expended crowns in purchase and emigration, &c., provided that they prove the validity of their purchases."

Now the question involved in the paragraph he had just read, which was the first of the letters, referred exclusively to the arrangement made; and in stating his own view of the effect of the arrangement, Captain Fitzroy undoubtedly committed an error in adding the words "provided they proved the validity of their purchase." In answering Captain Fitzroy, he was referred to the correspondence which had already taken place on the subject; and whatever doubt there might be was to be construed in the sense most favourable to the Company after a careful and thorough reference to the correspondence. He would now trouble the House with a short extract from the reply of Lord Stanley to the letter of Captain Fitzroy. It was dated the 26th of June, 1843; and, after recapitulating the various points on which Captain Fitzroy had stated his views, and what he (Lord Stanley) supposed those views were, the despatch goes on to say:—

"On the first point I have to refer you to the correspondence with the New Zealand Company, enclosed in my despatch to the acting Governor of New Zealand of the 19th ult., No. 35. You will there perceive that Her Majesty's Government have conceded to the Company, as regards the district included in the original agreement, that with a view to facilitate the adjustment of their titles the local Government of New Zealand should be directed to make to the Company's agents a conditional grant of the lands selected by them on the terms definitely stated in that correspondence; the principle of that concession being to allow to the Company a primâ facie title to such lands, under the condition that the validity of their purchases shall not be successfully impugned by other parties. Subject to this qualification, I concur in the view taken by you on this point."

But let the House observe to what that applied. It applied to Captain Fitzroy's incorrect construction of the correspondence—by which he conceived that the validity of the Company's title to the lands was to be proved as a preliminary matter. He was told that he was wrong in that respect; and he was instructed to refer to the correspondence as his guide, and his only guide. He need not dwell further on this part of the subject. The Governor stated his doubts, upon which he was told to take his instructions and the correspondence as his guide. On the single point on which he had stated anything inconsistent with his instructions, he was expressly corrected, and referred back to the correspondence, as he had already stated, as his sole and only guide. The second question was, whether the Government was not bound to assist the Company in making good their claim. On that no discussion could arise. That was a question included in the correspondence which had been referred to, and in which the Governor had been referred to the correspondence as his guide. The despatch further proceeded to say:—

"On the second point, I have certainly no difficulty in authorising you to assist the Company in making good their claims so far as may be consistent with a regard to the interests of other parties and of the community at large, on which point also I must refer you to the correspondence already referred to."

The third and fifth points in the letter of Captain Fitzroy were connected together, and he would pass from them for the moment, and take the fourth, which was,

"That the Company are to have 50,000l. of Government land, at and about Auckland, in exchange for 50,000 acres of land, to which it is assumed, they can prove a valid title, elsewhere."

It was said, as he had before referred to, that an exchange was to be made between the Company and the Government. On that point they found that Captain Fitzroy was again referred to the correspondence. On the three points, therefore, concerning the correspondence, the correspondence, and that alone, was referred to as his guide. He had said that the instructions given to the Governor were given in accordance with the correspondence, and the noble Lord thought it impossible to give such more completely than by simply referring the Governor to the correspondence. He would now come to the third and fifth points, and he would explain to the House in what way they arose. In doing so, he must refer to unwritten and verbal communications in the first instance, which he would afterwards confirm by written documents. Captain Fitzroy, and the agent of the Company, and the Land and Emigration Commissioners, had been and were, at the time of this correspondence, in communication with reference to permission to be given to found a Colony elsewhere. The hon. Member for Liskeard admitted that to be the case. That proposition was not reduced to any definite shape, or submitted to the noble Lord for his approval. Captain Fitzroy was about to sail for New Zealand. The question turned upon the original instructions issued by the noble Lord the Member for London, giving power to take land in exchange out of the districts claimed by the Company. On this question, Captain Fitzroy requested to be put in possession of the views of the noble Lord. They would see in a moment how the third and fifth points were joined together. The question in the third point was as to finding the Company land for another settlement, out of the district in which the Company claimed. The fifth was, as to whether the Crown was indebted to the Company, and bound to make them compensation. If the Crown was indebted in so many acres of land, there could be no question as to who was to find them the land. If the Crown was indebted to the Company for its expenditure, it would behove the Crown to make compensation. Captain Fitzroy being about to sail, he had written his letters to the Colonial Office, and had received the answer to them of the 26th of June; but a day or two before the day on which he left London, for he finally sailed on the 29th. It would be seen, by reference to the answer, that the third question was not raised in the correspondence at all. The answer on the third point was—

"On the third point, I would refer you to Lord John Russell's instructions to Captain Hobson of the 22nd of April, 1841."

And on the fifth—

"I quite concur with you, that there is no reason for saying that the Government is indebted to the Company for any given quantity of land, or that any specified quantity of land is due to them from the Government (unless under direct purchases from itself), or that the Government is bound to make compensation to the Company for its expenditure."

The Government was not under any obligation to find the Company, out of their original jurisdiction, a specified amount of land. The letter of instructions, which, it was complained, had not been communicated to the Company, could not be so communicated, because it referred to an incomplete transaction. That transaction was not included in the correspondence before referred to. He was able, as he said before, to confirm all the circumstances connected with it by reference to a document which he had in his possession—he meant a letter written by the hon. Member for Guildford. The point to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was, that the transaction to which the letter of instruction referred was an incomplete transaction, in regard to which opinions had been given in anticipation and in confidence. He would state, before reading the letter of the hon. Member for Guildford, after the draft of the letter to Captain Fitzroy was prepared, that the noble Lord did receive a proposal on the very subject from Mr. Somes, dated the 23rd of June. The letter to Captain Fitzroy was prepared, not on any definite proposal. He mentioned so much about this letter, in order to show the House how impossible it was that the instructions given in that letter could have been then communicated to the Company. The letter of the hon. Member for Guildford was dated the 6th of July, and was received at a time which precluded any answer being returned to it before the departure of Captain Fitzroy. There were particular reasons why no answer was immediately returned to it; and before an answer was returned the letter was withdrawn. The letter stated that a proposal for a new settlement had been sent to the Colonial Office. It was drafted and prepared by the directors whilst in communication with the land and emigration commissioners and Captain Fitzroy. Owing, however, to the turn which the discussion had taken, it was not intended to send it, and it would oblige the Company if the Colonial Department would allow them to withdraw their letter of the 23rd of June. These are the words of the letter written by the hon. Member for Guildford,—

"I told you last evening, I think, when speaking of our new Colony, that I had just received a note from Mr. Elliot, urging us to submit our intended letter explaining our intentions respecting Auckland, as the answer to that already submitted with regard to the new Colony was waiting for the other communication, and could not be much longer delayed. I find, on coming here to-day, that it was through a misapprehension of our Secretary that a proposal for a now settlement was sent to your office at all. It was a draught prepared and approved conditionally by our Directors whilst we were in actual communication with the Land and Emigration Commissioners and Captain Fitzroy; but, owing to the turn which our discussion took, was not intended to be sent. We shall to-day send a letter to the Land and Emigration Commissioners, embracing both subjects, written at the suggestion of Mr. Duller, after seeing Lord Stanley; and we shall be much obliged if your Department will allow us to withdraw our letter of the 22nd of June."

Captain Fitzroy had asked for instructions in confidence; and an answer had been given in confidence; and it was clear from the withdrawal of the proposal after it had been received, that the noble Lord was strictly correct in making it confidential, as it could not with propriety be communicated to the Company. It was asked why were not the other paragraphs communicated? They made but a simple reference to the correspondence — they were complete in themselves. To expect that such correspondence as that should be communicated was rather singular, as the communication of it was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. As regarded those points in which the correspondence had been followed, communication was unnecessary; and as regarded the other points, it would have been improper. He trusted that he had shown that the instructions given to the Governor of the Colony had been in strict accordance with the arrangement made with the Company, as might be seen from a reference to the correspondence. He now came to a statement which was of a most important character—the statement that one set of instructions had been given to Captain Fitzroy, and that another set had been shown to the Company. The only instruction communicated contained the following passage:—

"Although I have thought it best to communicate to you this correspondence entire, it is not necessary that you should adopt measures with reference to any, except the first point to which I have adverted. The remaining questions will be reserved for the newly-appointed Governor, who will shortly proceed to the Colony; but I should wish you in the meantime to afford every facility to the agent of the Company for giving immediate effect to the arrangement which has been entered into for the acquisition of them by land in Auckland and its vicinity."

The fact was, no other instructions ever were given — no instructions were ever shown to the Company at all. The charge was really a most important one. It was a simple contradiction on his part to deny the existence of any other instructions; but none other did exist. The instructions were never asked for till January by the Company, when they wrote and asked if his Lordship would communicate the instructions to them. Fault had been found that the correspondence, or copies of it, which had been sent to New Zealand had not been marked "confidential." The reason was, that it had ceased to be confidential, and it was forwarded for the purpose (as we understood) of publication in the newspapers. As to the letter to Captain Fitzroy, which it was stated had not been shown to the Company, he had already proved to the House that it referred to an incomplete transaction; and he submitted that the New Zealand Company was not justified in charging Lord Stanley with any breach of faith, He had endeavoured to avoid all irritating topics; and now, before he concluded, he must remind the members of the New Zealand Company, that when the correspondence was first commmunicated to them, that their impression, their first impression, was not, with regard to the noble Lord's conduct, what they afterwards adopted, when misunderstandings arose between them and his noble Friend, as would appear conclusively by the following extract of a letter from Mr. Somes:—

"We should have failed in our duty to the public, as well as to your Lordship, had we not laid the truth fully before you; and, having done so, we leave the matter entirely in your Lordship's hands, with entire reliance"—[I beg the attention of the House to these words]—"We leave the matter entirely in your Lordship's hands, with entire reliance in the benevolence and justice which will influence your decision on the fate of the Company and its settlements."

Now, this letter, expressing such entire reliance on the good faith and justice of his noble Friend, is dated the 29th of February, one month after they had had the copies of the Correspondence already referred to from my noble Friend—the correspondence itself having taken place a year ago; and the question is now brought forward as one affecting the character and good faith of the noble Lord. He now trusted that he had avoided all topics likely to produce irritation, and he hoped that what he had said would induce Gentlemen opposite to withdraw the charges made against the noble Lord. Such charges were now made against the noble Lord for the first time in his life; for, let his noble Friend's faults or failings be what they may, until now, no man had ever charged him with duplicity. He concluded by moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that there might be laid on the Table of the House Copies of Correspondence between the Colonial Office and the New Zealand Company.

said, the House, in justice to him, would perhaps believe that it was with feelings of the greatest pain he rose to answer the defence of the noble Lord that had been made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It had been far from his wish that any personal attack should have been made on the character of the noble Lord. The complaints of Members of Parliament respecting the conduct of public men could not be regarded in that light. He was, however, whatever pain the occasion might cause him, compelled to pursue the subject, injustice to the New Zealand Company, and from the regard which he had to his own character and standing in that House. Before he proceeded, he must observe that great pain had, unintentionally on his part, been caused to the friends of Captain Fitzroy by some remarks which had fallen from him, with reference to that gentleman, on a former evening. He said, unintentionally, for it was far from his design to inflict any pain upon that gentleman, or his friends and connexions, by any remarks on his part; and therefore he took that opportunity of saying, that he was extremely sorry such had been the case, and sincerely apologised for having done so. He was not standing there for the purpose of asking the opinion of the House, or to use any strong language, or to call for a vote of censure on the conduct of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department; but he was there to defend certain statements that had been made by the New Zealand Company, who complained that substantial wrong had been done to them, with respect to those matters to which the hon. Gentleman had adverted. The statement of the New Zealand Company had now been before the public for a whole year. It was not to be supposed that they now came forward for the first time to prejudice public opinion, nor to endeavour to cast personal obloquy on the noble Lord. The charge had been made public by the New Zealand Company a year ago. It had been made when the noble Lord, the head of the Colonial Department, was a Member of that House, and when he might have brought it before that House. The noble Lord could have brought it before the Committee. The noble Lord had thought proper to send his answer—a formal answer to that statement. The Committee was never asked to give in a decision upon the point; and he thought the Committee had acted very wisely in avoiding to mix themselves up with what was a personal question. He only adverted to this to show that they had stated the charge publicly long since; and that charge they were ready to abide by. It had certainly been brought forward with some heat of language on a late occasion; but then it had been elicited by the tone of remark adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in commenting upon a letter from the New Zealand Company, which the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to use in such a manner as to turn it against the statement put forward by the New Zealand Company. The whole matter had thus been brought forward. It was so on account of the use that had been attempted to be made of the New Zealand Company writing the letter that had been so commented upon. It was not the fault, then, of the Company this matter coming forward before that House. At the same time he must say, that he was exceedingly glad that the hon. Gentleman had brought it forward, because it would be most unpleasant that a personal question should be mixed up with a very important public question. He should be exceedingly glad if the decision of that evening would enable them to clear the public question of all bitter, acrimonious, and personal feelings. He felt, with the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, placed in a situation of very great difficulty, without the specific proofs of the minutiae of the charges that were made. Supposing him, then, to be the only person in the House who was conversant with the details of this subject, he determined, for the purpose of having the advantage of the whole of the original statement before them, to close with moving for copies of all the Correspondence that had taken place between Lord Stanley and the present Governor of New Zealand. The com-plaint which he had to make on the present occasion was this—that in the transactions to which the hon. Gentleman adverted, the New Zealand Company had suffered substantial wrong. He did not mean—he did not intend to take advantage of any slip in conduct to cast dirt upon any public functionary—that he did not come there to do; but he came to prefer a complaint that a substantial wrong had been done by the irregularity in the noble Lord's conduct, and he thought he could show the House that he had grounds so to complain. It would be necessary for him in doing this to call the attention of the House to the agreement of the 12th of May, 1843, and to point out the difference between that and the agreement for which it had been substituted—the agreement made with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. He would not then enter into the question of the original disputes between the New Zealand Company and Lord Stanley. It was only necessary to state that the point in dispute between Lord John Russell's agreement with the New Zealand Company, and Lord Stanley's agreement with the New Zealand Company, was one of which the latter complained. The larger complaint was, as to the violation of Lord John Russell's agreement; upon that question the opinion of the House would be asked when bringing forward the main question. For the present, it was only necessary to state that the subject matter of the agreement between Lord John Russell and the New Zealand Company was placed on this footing: that the Company, having acquired a title to lands in New Zealand by purchase from the natives, prior to the assertion of Her Majesty's authority in New Zealand, that when the Government came to assert its authority, it was necessary that a settlement should be made as to those lands. There never was any dispute as to the principle on which they were to be settled. It was agreed that the amount was to be in proportion to the expenditure in the Colony—that the terms were to be the same as regarded them as they were with other Colonists. The difference that first arose between them and Lord Stanley was this:—They imagined, that by their agreement with Lord John Russell, the only one thing they had to inquire into was before an accountant as to the money that had been expended by the Company. They imagined that when they had done that the Government would make them a grant of lands. The difference between Lord Stanley and the Company was this: that when they came with the award of Mr. Pennington, Lord Stanley contended that the agreement was not as they had supposed—that they had a prior thing to do—that was, to show the validity of the purchases of lands they had made from the inhabitants—that a court had been established to inquire into the validity of the purchases—and that there they would be required to prove their validity. That was denied by the New Zealand Company; and he said that if they looked to the documents they would find that Lord John Russell's Government engaged to give them lands on their proving what they had expended. He stated the grounds of dispute, but he did not ask them then to go into the inquiry. He pointed to those facts for the purpose of showing what had been going on. Whilst these things were occurring, great mischief was done to the Company and to others: their operations were suspended; their disputes with the Government involved them in great trouble; they brought discredit upon them, prevented the sale of lands; and far greater disasters than were entailed upon themselves, happened to the Colonists; and all this because it was not thought proper to settle the claims of the Company on the ground on which they had originally been based. They ought to recollect that 14,000 persons were then in New Zealand—that the Company had taken out 10,000 of them—that their sole title depended upon the faith placed in the Company — that on the recognizing of their title depended the whole security of these 10,000 persons. It was not then upon mere personal grounds they complained: the whole weight and responsibility rested on this—he repeated it, on the execution or non-execution of the agreement made by the New Zealand Company with Lord John Russell. The disputes went on, and matters were becoming worse in the Colony. He was bound, however, to say, that Lord Stanley made one or two offers, which the Company did not accept. It seemed to them that they had no other alternative but to bring the matter before Parliament, until the death of Mr. Hobson, the Governor of New Zealand, occurred. Then it was supposed that as a new Governor was about to be sent out, a new arrangement might be made. On these grounds, they then thought of proceeding. A negotiation was commenced. It began in private interviews. They wished something to be done, in order that a settlement might be made. The Government desired them to take land at Auckland. The Company objected to that; but as it appeared to be the only chance of getting better terms from the Government than they were willing otherwise to concede, they at length assented to it. The New Zealand Company then proposed—and the suggestion, he admitted, came from them—to accept the proposal of the Government, and to colonise in the neighbourhood of Auckland. They agreed to the proposal of the noble Lord, which they had before rejected; and, instead of a positive, they consented to take a conditional title, and doing so, they asked for the assistance of the noble Lord in the extinction of native claims as against them. The conversations that took place between the Company and Lord Stanley, and the notes that passed, at length ended in a formal manner. On the 8th of May, a letter was transmitted by Mr. Somes to Lord Stanley. That letter contained the proposal of the New Zealand Company. The House must not understand that the letter was one simply emanating from the Company; but it was, as the hon. Gentleman had candidly stated, a document emanating from both parties, the matter of which had been corrected, and was at last reduced to writing according to the understanding of both parties. Now, whatever difference might arise as to a mode of expression, he must still persist in calling that "an agreement;" and if hon. Gentlemen would look to page 97, they would find Mr. Hope, in his letter dated 7th August, 1843, and also in a second letter, referring to the letter, as the "agreement" of May last. He called it, therefore, an "agreement." He stated it to be so distinctly, and they would find it so treated in other documents. There were the two letters, the first of the 8th and the second of the 12th May, constituting that first as an agreement. On the 8th May, the New Zealand Company sent that letter, and on the 12th came the answer of the hon. Gentleman opposite. And he must say that when he looked at that note, and when he compared it with the large blue book before them, that if the rest of the correspondence had been dictated by the same spirit in which that letter had been written, there would have been no necessity for that blue book. The proposal had been accepted in a handsome spirit, and if the proposal had been carried out in that spirit, the Company would have had no matter for complaint. What he complained of was this—that from that hour to the present the spirit of that letter had been deviated from. It was hard to explain to a large assembly—it was hard to explain to any one, what was the deviation that had taken place, or how it was that it happened at different times. He thought it right to say, that the letter of the 12th May, and the letter of Captain Fitzroy, were actuated by a totally different spirit. Everything depended upon the spirit in which a Government acted. It was not bound by the same rules as others. Every- thing depended upon the spirit of a Government in a transaction like this. The Company believed—they confided in the spirit that animated the letter of the 12th of May; they relied upon that. It was a sufficient matter of complaint for them to find, that in subsequent letters that spirit was changed, and that the agreement, for the carrying out of which they trusted to the Government, was, when it came to be put in execution, carried out in a spirit wholly inconsistent with that, which first seemed to actuate them. He was not going to confine himself to the objection as to the spirit in which the letters were written. There was one fact, which the hon. Gentleman had not clearly stated, but with regard to which he did not think the hon. Gentleman would differ from him. In the agreement concluded on the 12th May, these words were used:—

"Lord Stanley directs me to state his assent to these proposals, and to intimate farther, 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,"

Now, he was anxious to know what these instructions were. He went to the hon. Gentleman, he thought early in June; the hon. Gentleman showed him the letter of the 19th May; it was to be found in page 92. He would not read a word of it; but the substance was, that the letter inclosed what he must call the agreement, and that was given as the instructions to the Governor of New Zealand. He did not complain on the present occasion of his not having been shown the letter that was sent as instructions to Captain Fitzroy. They were not told of them until subsequently. It was only on the 1st February in the year following, that the Colonial Office sent them the letter of June 26—the letter that was sent as instructions to the Governor of New Zealand as to this agreement. This was a very painful matter to intrude upon the attention of the House; but as the occasion was presented for doing so, he could not avoid it. The first objection that he made was as to the land of Auckland. The New Zealand Company regarded it as a distinct violation of the letter of the agreement. The New Zealand Company considered, by obtaining land in the neighbourhood of Auckland, they should have 50,000 acres, and that they should not be troubled as to the title; because they did not pretend to have purchased land there, but to have purchased it in the neighbourhood of Wellington. The language of the agreement was entirely in accordance with that view. They said, that they had purchased 50,000 acres of land in one place, and credit was to be given for 50,000 acres in another, in consideration of the New Zealand Company abandoning the whole claim to those other 50,000 acres. They were to "abandon," not to "establish" their claim. They were to abandon no specific 50,000 acres, but they were to abandon them out of their whole quantity. There never was any dispute as to the quantity of land to which they were entitled. There never was any dispute as to that, and, therefore, the terms of the agreement fully bore out their meaning. Let it be supposed that their claim was, by the award of Mr. Pennington, to be a million of acres, then they were to have 950,000 acres, and only 50,000 acres in the neighbourhood of Auckland. They were to give up their claim to 50,000 acres out of the million, and to get 50,000 acres in the neighbourhood of Auckland. The Company was bound by the proposal made to the Government; and then they had Lord Stanley saying that it would be for the general interest of the Colony, as well as of the Company, if they were allowed to select land in the nearest vicinity to Auckland. Instead of being allowed to select land in the southern district, where they only had a right to land, they were to be allowed to select it in the neighbourhood of Auckland, where there could be no question they had no right of themselves, but on which a claim was given them by Government. That claim had been effectually set aside by Lord Stanley and Captain Fitzroy. The agreement said they were to have a valid claim elsewhere. There could be no doubt as to what the question referred, and as little doubt as to the answer of Lord Stanley. The noble Lord said the claim was to be admitted "so far as it could be satisfactorily proved." He charged that as a distinct protection of the agreement. They were entitled to a quantity of land in the south: they abandoned that claim on condition that they were to get 50,000 acres in Auckland. They were entrapped into an agreement, and then it was sought to turn them into the Commissioners' Court, to prove their title to lands which they had never claimed. It was of great importance to the Company that the Government should interfere in this matter, and put an end to disputes with the natives. As long as the natives in New Zealand knew that the Company was in disfavour with the Government, it induced them to rise in their demands. The feeling of the Company was that the Government would undertake to make the arrangement with the natives, and to settle, as they could do, their claims for a reasonable sum; but when they asked the Government to do its best, to aid the Company to make the necessary arrangements with the natives—to have the Government act for them as for itself—it refused. He had read the answer of Lord Stanley—it was frank, cordial, and unreserved. But it seemed that on the 15th of June, the Governor began to have doubts as to Lord Stanley's arrangements. He (Mr. Buller) did not know who had expressed these doubts. Captain Fitzroy, who had constant communications with the Company, had never to them expressed any doubt on the subject. The consequence of these doubts however, was, that one said these claims were to be aided so far "as it could be done with propriety," and then it was also siad that it was to be done so far as was "consistent with the interests of parties and of the community at large." Did not, he asked, these qualifications nullify the promise that had been made? Would the Company have asked the Government to aid them, as far as it could be done with propriety? And was it to be supposed that they would be satisfied if the Government told them that they would do so so far as regarded the interests of the rest of the community? [Mr. Hope: The correspondence was referred to at the same time.] Yes; but it was with that qualification—a qualification such as was given when a person meant to say he did not intend to do what he was asked. Lord Stanley justified his refusal; but in point of good faith it could not be so justified. The spirit of the answer was in total violation of the agreement that had been made. He now came to the third point, and the most important one of the complaint he had to make against the conduct of the Colonial Office—that with regard to the conditional title to the land; and upon this point Captain Fitzroy writes in terms which showed that he had totally misconceived the intention of the noble Lord, and had not understood the point of difference between Lord Stanley's second agreement with the Company, and the original agreement of Lord J. Russell; and that he supposed he was going out to New Zealand to carry into effect the instructions of Lord J. Russell (as they were understood in the Colonial Office), and not those he had received from Lord Stanley. It appeared that he understood the Government was to confirm the title of the Company to as many acres as they had expended crowns, provided they proved the validity of their purchase from the natives. That was all that had ever been asked of the Company; and it was clear that the new Governor did not understand the second arrangement, but supposed he was, in respect to the title of the land, sent precisely on the old agreement. Now, it was extremely hard upon the New Zealand Company, that being obliged to trust to the honour of the Government officer, and of his views of the instructions under which he was to act in carrying out the agreement entered into between them and the Government, that they had not been in time informed of this most fatal misconception on the part of the Government officer; and if the Government concurred in his view, they should have stated that they had discovered some ambiguity in the original agreement of such a nature as to lead to a total misconception of the arrangement, and had done their best to correct it. That was the course which a Colonial Secretary, anxious for the good of the Colony, and actuated by a desire to fulfil in a spirit of fairness the arrangements which had been entered into between him and other parties who had trusted him. That was the course he might have been expected to take; and his language to the Governor should have been clear and explicit. He should have said to him, You have totally and altogether misunderstood the arrangement you were called upon to execute. He would, of course, have said so in the civil est manner possible; but he should have told him distinctly, You have totally mistaken the object and intention of the second agreement for what is our view of the old agreement, and I must set you right. He granted that the noble Lord had set Captain Fitzroy right substantially; but he had done so in so obscure and unsatisfactory a manner that to that circumstance only was it owing that the arrangement had not been acted on. Now, what was the course the noble Lord took in order to set Captain Fitzroy right? He first referred him to that original correspondence which he must have seen at least fifty times before, and had totally and altogether misunderstood, and said, "You will then perceive that the Government have conceded to the Company, as regards the districts included in the original grant, the fullest adjustment of the title—the principle of concession being to give the Company a primâ facie title to the land." He admitted this was perfectly clear—nothing could be more so; but the following words, as it appeared to him, made all the difference: "under the condition they were not liable to prove the validity of the claim in the first instance." Was not this, in effect, to raise again the whole question? There was a doubt on this part of the instructions. In giving these instructions, it should not have been forgotten that the Colonial Office was dealing with a man who had shown that he was capable of misunderstanding to a great extent. He had misunderstood in the first instance, and therefore those subsequent instructions of the noble Lord should have been perfectly clear and unambiguous; and what he here complained of, was, that without communicating with the Company, who were the other parties to the agreement, the noble Lord had replied to the communication of Captain Fitzroy in a manner that still left the point of difference in doubt. Could anything be more calculated than the words the noble Lord added to make this unhappy Governor, who was already officially confined, perfectly bewildered. He tells him that he is totally wrong in the interpretation he had put on the agreement, and then how does he proceed to set him right? By adding: "That, subject to this qualification, I confirm the view taken by by you on this point." Subject to this qualification, Lord Stanley stated, that he perfectly agreed with Captain Fitzroy. Why, the qualification was the whole matter. The noble Lord, acting as the Minister of the Crown, and being influenced by a desire to carry out, in its true spirit, the arrangement into which he had entered, and to avoid all further misconception in the matter, should have said to Captain Fitzroy: "You are wholly wrong in the view you take of the arrangement, and I will now tell you what is right," But what the noble Lord said was in effect this: "Subject to the qualification of the right view, I concur in your wrong view." If the noble Lord had consulted the New Zealand Company as to the answer he was about to send in explanation of the intentions of the agreement, they would have said: "If the Governor now misunderstands the arrangements entered into, your letter will but further confuse him. Make the matter clear to him at once, and prevent all further question and difficulty." But did the Company complain of this without practical consequences having resulted? or did they complain of it as a mere breach of form, on the part of the Colonial Office, in their dealings with the New Zealand Company—a breach of those ordinary observances of good faith, not of substance, but of those ordinary observances between the several parties to an agreement, by which no alteration is made, even in matters of form, without the previous consent and knowledge of the other? On the contrary, the practical effect of the course which the noble Lord had taken was, that the conditional title to the land which the Company were to have had immediately on Captain Fitzroy's arrival, had not yet been granted; and the second agreement of the noble Lord, the present Colonial Secretary, had been to this hour as perfect waste paper as the first agreement of Lord J. Russell. The hon. Gentleman the Under Colonial Secretary had said, that there was to be in the first place a selection of the land, and until that was made, the Government could not grant the conditional title. Now, what he had understood was, that under the arrangement entered into by the noble Lord, the Company were to be—and those Gentlemen in the House who were connected with the legal profession would at once understand and see the great importance of this point—that they were to be put in the position of defendants in a Court of Law in respect to the title, to be ousted only on proof shown, by those who might dispute it, that they had no right to the possession; and not that they should be placed in the position of plaintiffs to go into the Court of Commissioners to prove their case. He contended that, by the terms of the agreement, the Government were bound to give the New Zealand Company a conditional title in the first place, leaving those who objected to it to prove their case against the Company. That was the sense of the agreement. The Company were forthwith to have been put in possession of the conditional grant, and be at once placed in the condition of defendants in respect to the title, leaving those who claimed against them to prove their claims as plaintiffs. But instead of this, the Government have, by withholding the conditional title, left them to sue as plaintiffs in the Commissioners' Court. And this was not all. The Government were to aid the Company in effecting their purchases from the natives. He would not speak of the transactions at Wellington, where the Governor did attempt—and he gave him full credit for his intentions—to aid them in effecting some purchases from the natives, but which was of little avail, as he had never given them the conditional title, which was to be their safeguard, but had left them to prove their title before the Court of Commissioners. But in Wellington, it was true, Captain Fitzroy attempted to make purchases of land from the natives; and anything more weak than his proceedings in this respect he could not well conceive; and the results of his interference might be gathered from the fact that the Company had not got possession of the land at this very hour. Then Captain Fitzroy went on to Nelson, and there he leaves the agent of the Company no alternative but to pursue the negotiations for the land which they had already purchased. And this was the man who was to have given the Company the conditional title without delay! In another settlement they were still worse off. The Commission made the inquiry, and awarded the land; and then came the Governor, who set aside the award, and refused to give the title to the land. He contended, then, that Captain Fitzroy had not fulfilled the intentions of the Government to give the Company a conditional title forthwith; and the effect of this breach of agreement on his part had been, to keep the Company out of their property nine months. And this injustice, and the consequent injury to the colonists, had arisen from the noble Secretary for the Colonies not having sufficiently corrected the Governor's gross, complete, and entire error, and total misapprehension of the whole tenor and object of the most important part of the noble Lord's letter of instructions. The fourth point of his complaint was the last to which he would direct the attention of the House. As he had said, it had been always assumed in the disputes, that the difference in respect to the claims of the New Zealand Company was not as to the quantity of the land, but as to the locality. The Government had always said, You are no doubt entitled to a certain quantity of land to be determined by award, and we would give it to you if we had it; but as you cannot prove the extinction of the native title, we cannot give it to you in the district in which you claim it. Now, they were most anxious upon this point; and the noble Lord had admitted, as was shown in the Blue Book, their right to the grant to the extent awarded. And the feeling was, that as soon as the Govern- ment got the land they would respect the Company's title. Nothing else could be understood from the Government instructions until the private instructions were given. They considered that their claim would override every other, and that as soon as the Crown got the title, it would give it to the Company; and they felt if Captain Fitzroy went out with this understanding, it was as much to the interest of the Crown as it was to that of the Company that the matter should be settled—they felt that he would be in earnest to make the agreement with the natives, and that no difficulty would result. The Governor said—and he was confirmed by the noble Lord,—

"That the Company may take land without the districts now claimed by them in exchange for an equal quantity of land claimed by them within those districts, provided that their purchase be satisfactorily proved. That the Company are to have 50,000l. worth of Government land at and about Auckland, in exchange for 50,000 acres of land, to which it is assumed that they can prove a valid claim elsewhere. And," said the noble Lord, "I fully concur with you that there is no reason for saying that the Government is indebted to the Company so many acres of land, or that so many acres of land are due to the Company from the Government; or that the Government is bound to make compensation to the Company for its expenditure."

Now what he said was, that the difficulty arose from the old arrangement for the first time having been departed from, after it had been claimed by the Company, and never denied by the Colonial Office. It had been admitted over and over again, and there was no doubt as to the extent of the land to which the Company were entitled; and it was not fair, without notice to the Company in their private instruction to the Governor, that the agreement should be encumbered with this new difficulty. And was this a mere barren breach of compact, or was it one that had been productive of serious evil and inconvenience? What the Company complained of was, that when the Governor made the agreement of the 10th May, the Company wished to feel confident that Captain Fitzroy would go out to fulfil its spirit; and that sailing in June, and arriving in New Zealand in December, his first act would be—that was, his first act in reference to the Company—to set at rest all these questions as to the title to the land, and that in June they would have had a conditional title from Government that would have secured to them not only a bonâ fide pos- session, but a title they could maintain in the courts of the Colony and of England. The Company looked to have this in June; but what was the fact? In consequence of the interpretation which had been put on the agreement, Captain Fitzroy had been nine months in the Colony, and had not yet executed this simplest stipulation to which the good faith of the Government was pledged. It was in this that, to repeat the word used the other night, the Company had been deceived. They had made an arrangement, expecting it would be executed in one sense, when it had been executed in another. And that they had been so deceived, whose fault was it? Was it their own fault, or that of Lord Stanley? Could it be said that the Company had not taken due precautions? The agreement was made so clear that no Gentleman who had pledged himself to one view or the other could have any doubt as to its meaning. The difficulty had arisen from a breach of faith on the part of the Government in one of the most common rules of ordinary dealing between man and man in all civilised countries; viz., that when an agreement was made between two parties, to be executed by a third, neither of the two parties should offer to that third person any gloss, or comment, or addition, as to the mode in which he should execute his instructions in carrying the agreement into effect; and the opinion of the Company that the agreement had been sent out without gloss or comment, was strengthened by the communication of the letter of the 19th of May. It was said that Captain Fitzroy was a Government officer, and they had a right to communicate with him. He said, the fact of his being a Government officer made the matter worse, because when the Company confided so much in the honour of the Government as to leave the agreement to be carried out by their officer, they should be doubly scrupulous not to use their influence with him to alter the terms of the agreement in its execution. He had now shown what he thought a substantial deviation from the letter and spirit of the first agreement, in the sense in which it was made. It would be said, perhaps, that the instructions given were not of such great importance; but, important or not, it would be admitted, he thought, that it was the duty of one party altering the terms of an agreement to communicate the terms of such alteration to the other. But it was evident that the Colonial Office did not think the alteration of no importance, or why was it put in writ- ing? why were not the instructions given orally to Captain Fitzroy? In not communicating that alteration, the noble Lord had rendered himself liable to the charge of having violated those observances which should be adhered to between contracting parties, and had most seriously impaired the spirit and the efficacy of the agreement. Nine months ago the question should have been settled and put at rest; but not only had the instructions for that purpose not been executed, but every act Captain Fitzroy had performed since the noble Lord's explanatory letter had been under the original misapprehension, and in contradiction to the spirit of the agreement. He trusted he had so far adapted himself to the temper of the House, and to that of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, as to have stated these matters without either exaggeration or anger. He had found it to be his duty, partly in his own defence, as having agreed to the Report of the Directors of the New Zealand Company, to attempt to make out that the charge which they had brought forward had not been made without ground; but he did feel, moreover, that they had been unhandsomely treated in the matter, and he thought that he had proved to the House that there was a sufficient degree of irregularity in the transaction, and that it had led to consequences sufficiently mischievous, to make it natural that there should have been grave suspicions entertained and loud complaints uttered on one part. He would not affect to disregard his own position on this occasion; he would not affect to say, that he was so devoid of unselfish feeling that he should not be mortified if it should be proved that they had been making charges without foundation. But he did say, that he would much rather have it believed, and proved, that they had been intemperate in their suspicions, than that a Secretary of State had acted in such a manner as would make it appear that he had forgotten his duty to them and to himself. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving,—

"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 the Correspondence relating to the Manakon New Zealand Company."

Adding that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had expressed his willingness to give every information on the subject, and he therefore trusted that the full Correspondence would be produced.

thought that the House would not expect the production of those Despatches which had passed between the Colonial Office and the Governor of New Zealand, at and from the beginning of February. He could not consent to the production of Papers of such recent date. It would not be fair to Captain Fitzroy were they to be made public; and he trusted that the Motion would be modified in compliance with these views. He apprehended that the object of the hon. Member in proposing his Motion, he having gone at length into the entire case, was to enable him to make what further statements he might think necessary. Now, in the first place, he regretted that the hon. Member had not followed the course which he had himself adopted, and confined himself strictly to the subject before the House. The hon. Member had thought it necessary to refer to the original arrangement and consequent proceedings of Government, and to cast reflections upon the course pursued by the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office, as having evinced a disregard for the interests of a large body of Her Majesty's subjects inhabiting New Zealand. Now, the hon. Member ought to have stated that which he had not stated—namely, the difficulties which stood in Lord Stanley's way, and why it was that he had refused to grant what would avail as a title to the lands claimed by the New Zealand Company. He regretted that the hon. Member had only stated the question by halves. After mentioning what he had mentioned, on one hand, he ought to have stated, on the other, that the difficulties which stood in Lord Stanley's way were the claims of third parties—the natives and aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand. The House should recollect what the circumstances I were of the settlement of New Zealand, I and should bear in mind what the condition of these parties was at the time when Lord Stanley undertook his administration. New Zealand was settled contrary to the wishes and intentions of Government. The Company in 1839 sent out an agent to purchase lands, and, concurrently with this, sent out a large body of settlers to take possession of them. In consequence of that expedition, Lord Normanby sent a Consul out to treat for the sovereignty of the island, giving him at the same time instructions that when he obtained it he should recognise no title acquired by Europeans, and that he should guarantee to the natives the possession of their lands. The Consul in due time obtained a cession of the island, and concluded a treaty with the natives, in which it was stipulated that Her Majesty should and did guarantee to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand full and exclusive possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties they possessed, so long as they wished to keep them. The Treaty then proceeded to reserve to Her Majesty the right of pre-emption of lands belonging to the natives in case of parties being disposed to sell. Now the difficulty experienced by Lord Stanley was this—he could not grant to the New Zealand Company a complete title to the lands, without consideration of the claims of the native inhabitants, whose rights were guaranteed by Treaty, and upon that difficulty turned the delay in granting the title to the lands. It was not his intention to argue this part of the question further; and he only alluded to it because the hon. Member for Liskeard had only taken up the case from the time when the difficulty commenced to be felt, but omitted any mention of its origin. He now came to other points. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt at great length upon what he (Mr. Hope) had not previously known had been made a ground of complaint against the Government—namely, that the land which was to be taken in exchange for the 50,000 acres, was expected to be land to which the Company had a title. Now he thought that it had been understood—in giving a credit of money to the extent of 50,000l.—he thought that it had been understood that a value was to be given in return; that it was not to be a mere waste paper claim but that the Government were to receive something in return. The hon. Member, in reference to this matter, adopted a different interpretation to that put on it by Government, which, he contended, was the fair and natural one. He never, indeed, thought of the point being raised, until it had actually been urged by the Company. There was another point on which the hon. Member had also dwelt at some length. He said that he had gone to see the instructions issued by the Colonial Office; that they had been shown to him, but that some portions had been suppressed. The fact was, that there were certain questions to be reserved for the consideration of the new Governor who was shortly to proceed to the Colony. The acting Governor could not entertain them at all; nothing could be done on the sub- ject until his successor had arrived. As to any instructions which had been kept back, the reason for adopting that course of proceeding was that they alluded to circumstances then in the course of occurrence; that the communications were of the nature of private communications, and, therefore, could not properly be made public. Now, the hon. Gentleman complained of the reservation of the rights of third parties. He wished to know whether or not they were not bound, in carrying out their policy, to do so with that fairness which only a due regard for the rights of all parties could constitute? But, then, the hon. Member mentioned an important part of the instructions, in which the officer for whose benefit they were issued, was referred to the correspondence. He was told to do all he could, and referred with respect to difficult points to the correspondence which had already taken place. He now came to a point more satisfactory to himself than any he had yet glanced at. He had heard with pleasure that the hon. Member did not now charge them with trying to deceive the Company, but contented himself with alleging that the instructions were issued in such a manner as to be liable to be mistaken; that they had been so mistaken by Captain Fitzroy, but that every effort had been made to correct the misapprehension. Now at first it had been stated that after Captain Fitzroy had fallen into this misapprehension, not only had no efforts been made to remove it, but that means had been taken to strengthen in his mind the erroneous impression. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had not meant, when he spoke the other night upon the subject, to imply this; but such was the way in which his observations had been taken up by the House and the country. Now, it was admitted that although the instructions had not perhaps been stated very clearly, yet they were in substance in accordance with the original arrangement. But the hon. Gentleman stated that there were subsequently certain modifications made in them, which threw doubt upon certain particulars; but he did not pretend to say that in these modifications Lord Stanley had not referred to the construction of the arrangement as originally intended. The hon. Member had not maintained that these modifications were not issued with an honest desire to correct the erroneous impressions into which the officers of the Government might have fallen. But, said the hon. Gentleman, why had the original grant not been made? He could only state that, so far as his information went, he did not find that any demand had been made by the agent of the Company of Captain Fitzroy, which had been refused by him. As to the manner in which the instructions issued had been carried out, they had only the report of their own officer, it was true; but whatever observation had been made or might be made upon Captain Fitzroy, his honour and truth were perfectly undoubted, and implicitly to be relied on. He wrote, then, that on the 29th of January a conference had been held with Colonel Wakefield, and that it was his pleasing duty to inform them that the result was quite satisfactory, and the prospect of the adjustment of the Company's claims was fairly opened by the agent agreeing to make a reasonable payment for the land. The hon. Member charged the Colonial Office, in having directed its officer to assist the agent in making compensation to the natives, with not having instructed him to make it fairly and honestly. But here they had the officer writing that he had assisted the agent, and had done so satisfactorily to both parties. That was the very point in dispute. It was said that our officer, in consequence of instructions from us, would not lend the necessary assistance; yet here they had it in evidence that no demand had been made upon him which he had refused, and that no difference in the Colony had arisen in consequence of the instructions committed to him to carry out. It did seem to him that a more complete answer to the charges of the hon. Member could not be given. He contended that there was no intention, or the least manifestation of an intention, upon the part of the Government to deceive. To errors of judgment and differences in the construction of articles they were all liable; but the question was, had the Government wished or attempted to mislead the Company. Now, in what way had their instructions been given? They had been given with reference to the correspondence itself. Then a doubt arose. Had that doubt been solved in a manner unfavourable to the Company? On the contrary, it had been corrected in a sense favourable to the Company. The real question was the alleged intention to deceive. Now, according to the admission of the hon. Member, there had not only existed no such intention, but on the contrary the existence had been proved of a desire to correct as far as possible Captain Fitzroy's misapprehension, and in showing that such had been the case, he thought he had made it clear that there was no ground for stating that his noble Friend had been guilty of any dereliction of duty, much less anything like breach of faith. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "of" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "or extracts from all the Correspondence between Lord Stanley and the Governor of New Zealand."

rose merely to acknowledge that the hon. Member for Liskeard had frankly stated his regret for having applied to Captain Fitzroy the expression which he had used with respect to that gentleman, during the discussion upon the subject which took place the other night. A communication to that effect had been made to a mutual friend immediately after the debate. He was happy, on the part of his friend Captain Fitzroy, to have this opportunity of acknowledging the hon. Gentleman's courtesy; and he thought that he might congratulate both the hon. Gentleman and the House upon the improved tone in which this discussion was now carried on.

Nothing has been said in relation to Captain Fitzroy in this debate tending to affect his reputation. He appears to me, after perusing the Papers laid on the Table of the House, to be a most appropriate representative of the Colonial Office. It has been justly observed, that my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, has said nothing of Lord Stanley's intentions—of his intentions the noble Lord has the best, and almost the only cognizance; but it must be remembered that with good intentions a consummate unfitness for Government may be combined. This case lies within a very narrow compass. The first document to which I shall call the attention of the House is an extract from a letter of Lord John Russell, dated May 20, 1841. He says,—

"The Company are entitled to receive 531,929 acres of land at present, and they are hereafter entitled to receive 400,000 or 500,000 acres more."

The House will observe that, in this letter, it is distinctly stated that the Company had a title to a certain quantity of land. That title to a certain quantity of land being admitted, the Chairman of the New Zealand Company, addressed a letter to Lord Stanley, of the 8th of May, 1843, making certain proposals to Lord Stanley, and among the rest, proposing

"That credit be given to the Company for 50,000 acres of land, in consideration of their abandoning their claims to 50,000 acres out of the quantity to which they were already entitled."

Lord Stanley, in reply, agreed to the proposal by a letter of May the 12th. This was a complete and perfect agreement; not an assumpsit as it was called a few evenings since, when practice exceedingly sharp was defended by pleading excessively special. On the 15th of June, 1843, Captain Fitzroy, the Governor of New Zealand, who was to carry the agreement of both parties into effect, writes to Lord Stanley, and says that doubts had been raised regarding the meaning of the contract. Was it not Lord Stanley's obvious duty to communicate those doubts to the Company, and to construe the contract in their presence, and with their cognizance? There were two parties to the agreement, which Captain Fitzroy was to carry into effect on behalf of both. Why should one of the parties not inform the other of the interpretation to be put on the contract, and on which the agent of both was to act? But Lord Stanley, not contented with not consulting the Company, gives an interpretation of his own, and then attaches the word "confidential" to his instructions. Confidential! That is a word of great significance and potency. It comes to this—that a clandestine, a surreptitious interpretation was put on a public contract entered into by the Government and the New Zealand Company, of which the New Zealand Company were not apprised. Is this fair, and open, and upright dealing? Had not the Company a right to know what Lord Stanley was about, and the construction he had put upon the compact? For several months the Company were kept in the dark regarding these secret instructions, and when at length they were conjectured to have existence, and called for by the Company, what course does Lord Stanley take? He sends a copy of the instructions, and erases the word "confidential." This erasure is most remarkable. The word was originally written on the copy sent to the Company, as I am informed by the hon. Member for Cockermouth; but it was erased with a studious, but most unhappy care, a deliberate, but most infelicitous solicitude. The fact of secrecy was a most important incident in the case. The backstairs character of the business was most characteristic and most essential; yet Lord Stanley kept back that portion of the leading circumstances of the case, and erased—erasures are always suspicious—a word, of all other the most illustrative of his proceedings. Even supposing that Lord Stanley's interpretation was the right one, still this mode of proceeding was most censurable; but in point of fact Lord Stanley's instructions were a clear departure from the agreement. The agreement took the burden of proof of title off the shoulders of the Company; the instructions put that burden upon them. The instructions inverted the order of proof in the Court of Claims, making the Company claimants and not defendants. Thus the position of the Company was wholly changed with regard to the 50,000 acres, to which they were to "relinquish their claims." But Lord Stanley, instead of being satisfied with a relinquishment, of claim, required a proof of title, a clear deviation from the contract. But the Under Secretary for the Colonies tells us, that the Company relieved Lord Stanley from all imputation by their letter of the 29th of February, 1844. I was astonished at his saying this, for if he had read a little further he would have found that they complain bitterly that Lord Stanley had given a different construction to the agreement, and from that on which they insisted. [Mr. Hope: Read on.] I will. Why did not you read on? Did you read it before you came down to the House? Why is there this hiatus valde deflendus? What comes next?

"We hope that no practical evil will result from this misunderstanding." [Hear, hear. I will read on:] "But it is not the less fatal to our utility that there should be any possibility of their occurring. It is alike destructive of our energy and prejudicial to the policy of the Government, that in the infancy of a Colony we should carry on the all-important work of providing it with inhabitants, without concerting beforehand everything that relates not only to the carrying out of the emigrants, but to the policy to be adopted towards them after the establishment in their new homes."

Sir, the rest of the passage relates to the state of the Colony—a question into which I will not enter; but I cannot refrain from observing, that in one particular the New Zealanders have made great progress in civilization, for I find among the papers published by the Government an account of a most interesting meeting of chiefs, one of whom, Napera, says to the representative of Lord Stanley, "Speak your words openly; speak as you mean to act: do not say one thing and mean another." These are words in which so admirable an injunction is contained, that it ought to be written in characters of gold in the Colonial Office.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had talked with great fervour, but had not added much to the enlightenment of the House on the subject under its consideration. He would admit that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. C. Buller) had temperately and fairly brought this question before the House, and he was quite sure that the House felt the propriety of entering on a debate of this nature, which was likely to involve so much personality, in the spirit in which the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had opened it. He wished to call the attention of the House to the real question before them, and he trusted he should be able to show that there was no foundation whatever for the charge which had been made against the noble Lord—a want of good faith in sending out instructions not in the spirit of an agreement he had previously entered into with the New Zealand Company. He trusted he was able to show that the noble Lord had strictly pursued the terms of the agreement entered into between him and the Company, and that his Lordship had openly and candidly communicated everything that it was necessary the Company should know in connexion with this transaction. It was necessary to go back a little to the origin of the dispute, which arose upon the construction of an agreement entered into by the noble Lord then at the head of the Colonial Department (Lord J. Russell) and the New Zealand Company. Prior to the cession of the sovereignty, the Company, although not recognized by the Government, had become the purchasers of land from the natives to a very considerable extent. A question arose whether under their agreement with the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, then the Secretary for the Colonies, the Company was bound to make out their title to this land before they could receive a grant of it from the Crown. That continued an open question; and it was important that the House should bear this in mind, because it would afford a clue and an interpretation to many of the expressions in the correspondence upon which observations had been made; the question between the Colonial Office and the New Zealand Company, after the sovereignty had been ceded to the Crown, being in what manner the original agreement was to be carried out. Lord Stanley, at a very early period of the correspondence with the New Zealand Company, proposed to give them a primâ facie title, which would have afforded them a very great advantage over other purchasers of land. In answer to a letter, dated the 21st of December, 1842, from the Company, Lord Stanley made an order for granting a primâ facie title; and in a letter dated the 8th of June, 1843, wherein the probability that much of the land might be waste was admitted, it was announced that his Lordship was ready to place it at the disposal of the Company, but that he would not undertake to over-ride all prior titles, or define what constituted a native claim. The offer of primâ facie title was again made in that letter; and it was stated that should the Company assent to the views taken by Lord Stanley, he would not object to instruct the Government to make it subject to prior titles, to be established as by law provided. The terms then offered were not adopted; but it appeared that subsequently the Company thought better of the matter, and they themselves proposed to Lord Stanley the very offer which he had twice before proposed to them, and they had twice before rejected. Their letter of the 8th of May, 1843, would bring the House to the very point in dispute. In that letter a distinct proposal was made by the Company to Lord Stanley upon the very terms they had previously rejected. In that letter the Company proposed,—

"1. To purchase 50,000l. worth of land in Auckland and its vicinity, 10,000l. worth at least to be in the town, and 25,000l. worth at least to be in the country; the Company taking the remaining 15,000l. worth of land in town, suburban, or country lots, provided they do not take more altogether in suburban than in town lots.

"2. That the town lots be purchased by auction, and that they be offered at the upset price of 100l. per acre. As far as practicable, however, such lots to be put up together in parcels often acres each, and the whole lands applied for in the town by the Company, at any one time, to be sold on the same day, unless otherwise settled at the request of their agent, and with the assent of the Governor.

"3. The suburban lots to be sold by auction. If the Company apply at one and the same time for 100 acres or upwards, the whole to be put up together at one general upset price of 5l. per acre.

"4. The country lots to follow the rule established by the Land Sales Act.

"5. That credit be given to the Company by the Land and Emigration Commissioners, for the sum of 50,000l., in consideration of their abandoning their claim to 50,000 acres of land out of the whole quantity to which they are already entitled,"

They went on further to say,—

"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 pre-emption enjoyed by the Crown."

In that letter, then, was a very clear and distinct statement by the Company of the terms upon which they were to have a conditional title conferred upon them; and he would ask any hon. Member to look at that letter and say whether it was not perfectly apparent that the Company assumed at that time that they would have to clear the title themselves, in order that they might be in possession of lands to which he admitted they were to have a primâ facie title. They claimed to have acquired a title to 20,000,000 of acres extending over five degrees of latitude; and their agreement with the Crown was that they were to be entitled out of that particular district to a certain number of acres, corresponding to the extent of their outlay in the proportion of four acres to 1l. sterling. They were to select their land, and to make good their claim before an accountant, Mr. Pennington. Now, it must be borne in mind, that Auckland was not within their district at all. That was very important, because the whole of the argument with respect to the arrangement turned materially upon that point. They were, however, desirous of establishing a settlement at Auckland, and in the letter of the 8th of May, 1843, they made a proposal to the Colonial Office to purchase 50,000 acres of land in Auckland and its vicinity, for which they were willing to give up 50,000 acres of their land, to which they would be bound to establish a complete title having by reason of their outlay that primâ facie title in their favour to which the right hon. and learned Member for Dungarvon had alluded; but still being compellable in case there was any adverse title against them to clear their title. When, therefore, they used the term, "abandoning their claim," they did not mean to say abandoning their claim to that to which they had a settled right, but a claim which they would have, to select out of their particular district any number of acres, and give in exchange for other land in Auckland. In the letter of the 12th of May, 1843, Lord Stanley assented to the proposal of the Company, and intimated that he was prepared to issue to Governor Fitzroy instructions to the effect proposed in the Company's letter. And then began the first dispute between the Colonial Office and the Company. The Company were to have 90,000l. of land about Auckland, in exchange for 50,000 acres of the land to which they could establish their claim elsewhere. It was important that the House should understand that the question of clearing the title was from the commencement to the end an open question between the Colonial Office and the Company. What did the Company contend for in this case? They said,—

"We are to have 50,000l. worth of land at Auckland, and in exchange for that we are to give—what?—some imperfect unascertained right, which we may have to 50,000 acres of land, which according to the original produce must be taken at 5s. an acre, and we are to have credit at 1l. an acre, and, not to say anything whatever as to right or complete title, that is to remain for the Crown to satisfy itself upon."

He said that the instructions pursued the very spirit and letter of the agreement. In the letter of the 8th of May, 1843, the Company showed that they were to clear the title to the lands, and were not to be entitled to any, except by that conditional title which was to be conferred upon them, and which might be opposed by a stronger title which they themselves were to get rid of: and that was the understanding between them and the Colonial Office. There was not the slightest ground for imputing to the noble Lord any want of faith respecting that part of the subject. But then the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard objected so certain terms used by Lord Stanley in his answer to Governor Fitzroy. Now, it was quite clear that Governor Fitzroy had mistaken the position of the Company and the Colonial Office with respect to the arrangement between them. Lord Stanley, in his letter to Governor Fitzroy of the 26th of June, 1843, said,—

"You will there perceive, that Her Majesty's Government have conceded to the Company, as regards the district included in the original agreement, that with a view to facilitate the adjustment of their titles, the Local Government of New Zealand should be directed to make to the Company's agents a conditional grant of the lands selected by them on the terms definitely stated in that correspondence, the principle of that concession being to allow to the Company a primâ facie title to such lands, under the condition that the validity of their purchases shall not be successfully impugned by other parties. Subject to this qualification, I concur in the view taken by you on this point."

Why did he not say, "I differ from you entirely; you have taken an erroneous view of the whole matter?" Why? Because he had not; he had only taken an erroneous view of this: they were to be put in the position of persons who had a primâ facie title. But it was said, that in the last part of the instructions Lord Stanley adopted Governor Fitzroy's view—

"That there was no reason for saying Government was indebted to the Company for any given quantity of land, or that any specified quantity of land was due to them from the Government (unless under direct purchases from itself), or that the Government was bound to make a compensation to the Company for its expenditure."

That was the whole question. Lord Stanley denied from the beginning that the Crown was bound to make good any title to the Company by clearing the way for them; there was merely conceded to the Company a right to select out of the district in which they asserted a claim; and therefore, of course, Lord Stanley adopted the view of Captain Fitzroy, who was right in saying that "the Crown was not indebted to the Company," and so on. There were, then, five points submitted for the consideration of Lord Stanley by Captain Fitzroy; and upon three of those points the correspondence of the 8th and 12th of May gave a distinct and definite answer. Was there any objection to Lord Stanley having referred Captain Fitzroy to that correspondence upon those points? What, then, was alleged against Lord Stanley? What was this "breach of faith," asserted so strongly on former occasions, but so moderately that night? Why, the two other points—the third and the fifth—turned upon questions still under negotiation between the Colonial Office and the Company. "On the third point his Lordship referred the Governor to Lord J. Russell's instructions to Captain Hobson of 22nd of April, 1841;" that was the modified agreement upon which the whole question arose. The fifth point also left an open question,—"whether the Government was indebted to the Company for any given quantity of land, or bound to make compensation for the Company's expenditure?" But Lord Stanley was charged with having written "confidential" on his letter to his own Agent, the Governor of the Colony, expressing his opinion as to open questions still under discussion. Then there was the grave charge, that the letter having been originally written with that word upon it, it was somehow or other imperfectly erased, and in that way the letter was presented to the Company. Now, how came that letter to Captain Fitzroy to be communicated to the Company at all? On the 18th of January, 1844, the Company wrote to Lord Stanley,—

"We rely on the satisfactory arrangement of every subject connected with our own land claims, as soon as Captain Fitzroy's arrival in New Zealand shall enable him to carry into effect your Lordship's instructions; but, at the same time, it appears essential that the public should be apprised of the nature of those instructions; and we should feel most thankful if your Lordship would communicate those instructions to us, and thus enable us to inform the public of the grounds on which we feel assured of the prompt and satisfactory arrangement of these land claims."

If the instructions were communicated with the word "confidential" on them, the Company might feel precluded from showing them to the public; and, therefore, the word was erased. He trusted that phantom was laid. But Lord Stanley was charged with "a breach of faith" by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) while the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) in more measured terms imputed a misapprehension or misconstruction and violation of the agreement, inducing very serious consequences to the Company. When were these instructions communi- cated to the Company? On the 1st of February, 1844. There was no want of ingenuity among the members of the Company—they were acute and subtle enough to perceive distinctions, and to put proper or improper constructions upon agreements. He did not mean to say wilfully improper—he imputed no wilful misinterpretation—he only meant to contend that their construction was, in fact, an improper construction. Clearly, however, they were persons who perfectly understood their rights, and were capable of comprehending the instructions. Now, what was the mode in which they spoke of the noble Lord whom they charged with all this guilt? Why, on the 29th of February 1844 they wrote,—

"We offer these suggestions in full reliance on their being entertained by your Lordship in the spirit of candour, confidence, and anxiety for the well-being of the Colony. In whatever course may seem best to you for attaining the object we must equally have at heart, your Lordship may depend upon our cordial co-operation. Having laid the truth before you, we leave the matter in your Lordship's hands, with entire reliance in the benevolence and justice which will influence your decision."

Now, if they really believed Lord Stanley guilty of what they were at present pretending, would they have written in these terms? Would they have negotiated with Lord Stanley? Would they have laid open to him the state of their affairs? The noble Lord sat in that House for a whole Session afterwards; according to the statement on the other side he had been guilty of this want of faith, and they must have discovered it in February, 1844; why did they let the matter remain for a whole Session, and bring forward the charge for the first time when the noble Lord was gone to another House—when his back was turned? The Committee was not moved for till June, 1844; the House sat in February, 1844; March, April, and May passed away, and this charge was not brought forward. Was that fair? But Lord Stanley acted according to the view he had invariably taken of the agreement between him and the Company, and gave those instructions which alone, according to his understanding of the spirit and letter of the agreement, he could give.

wished to correct one misstatement, which had just procured for the hon. and learned Gentleman the cheers of his party. At an early period of the year, the New Zealand Company laid the facts before their proprietors; and on the 26th of April, and not in June, the noble Lord consented to a Committee to inquire, specially stipulating that when the Committee was moved for, not one word should be said upon the subject of the dispute between the Company and the Government. He, if the hour were not so late, could correct at least half a dozen mis-statements of this kind.

would pledge himself that, when the facts were investigated, Lord Stanley should be acquitted in the opinion of every impartial man in the House. If the advice of the New Zealand Company had been taken, at this moment a war of extermination would have been going on between the red man and the white man. All these evils had been prevented by the moral courage shown by the noble Lord. He had been at New Zealand himself, and knew the character of the New Zealanders; and the Company had formed a most erroneous estimate of it. They had estimated the character of the New Zealanders as similar to that of the people of New Holland; but they were as different to the people of New Holland as the high-bred Hindoo was to the Negro. Lord Goderich had allowed the independence of the country, and had given the people a flag. In 1839, the independence of the country had been acknowledged by England; but because certain gentlemen chose to speculate in land, in open defiance of what had been done, it became necessary to send out a Captain of the Navy there, to protect the people and keep order; and because one party had done an illegal act, the Company at once took possession of the land of New Zealand, of its forests and its minerals, and held the land of the Crown. He looked on the whole transaction as most unprincipled. The New Zealanders had just as much right to their property as any one in England. They spoke of the dispute between the Company and the Colonial Secretary, but entirely forgot the lords of the soil. They went on the good old principle, that

"He should take who has the power,

And he should keep who can."

They wanted Captain Fitzroy to act as a spoliator. When the subject was fully entered into, he would prove that every step which had been taken with regard to New Zealand was wrong in principle and in equity.

totally differed with his hon. and gallant Friend. Having been for some years connected with the New Zealand Company, he rose for the purpose of saying that he had given his perfect acquiescence to all the acts of that Company; and he would further state, that their acts had been guided solely with the view of promoting the general good of the Colony; and the more that question was gone into the more that would be apparent. He could not, however, agree in the words of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies had been guilty of fraud and deception. No one who knew the noble Lord would ever attribute such motives to him.

said, that having been frequently alluded to in the course of the debate, he felt called upon to offer a few observations to the House. It was true that he had said that there was a breach of faith and want of candour on the part of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies; and how far he was justified in making that charge would appear by the facts he would state to the House. He had no fault to find with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. G. W. Hope); but he could not say so much for the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, who appeared to him to have assumed the character of an advocate. When the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Ingestre) declared himself to be connected with the New Zealand Company, there was a laugh. ["No, no."] There was a cheer, at any rate; but he (Mr. Aglionby) begged to say, that there were persons belonging to that Company as honourable in station, as high-minded, and as well known, as any of those who sat on the Ministerial Bench. The Solicitor General had totally and entirely misrepresented the wishes and intentions of the New Zealand Company. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Company were anxious to go to Auckland and colonize it; but that was entirely a mistake. On the contrary, it was only when it was represented to the Company that Auckland was in a state of distress, that they were induced to go and deal with the circumstances in the best way they could. It was not a proposition emanating from the Company. It was a compromise and an agreement by which the Company acceded to the request of the Government. The Solicitor General was mistaken in supposing that the terms entered into by the Company were offered by them; they were dictated by the Colonial Office; the terms of which were discussed over and over again. The Solicitor General was not only wrong in his dates, but he was wrong in his facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that if Lord Stanley were present in the House, he (Mr. Aglionby) and those who entertained the same opinions with him, would not dare to make this charge against the noble Lord. But did he or his hon. Friends make the noble Lord go to the Upper House? On the contrary, he (Mr. Aglionby) felt himself to labour under the greatest possible disadvantage from the absence of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord had been present, he (Mr. Aglionby) would have had nothing to contend against except the noble Lord's powers of mind and powers of debate. But in his absence, he had to contend against minds prejudiced and uninformed. He, therefore, sustained a great disadvantage from the absence of the noble Lord. It was stated that on the 29th of February, 1844, a knowledge of the letter of Lord Stanley to Captain Fitzroy came to the Company, who, for the first time, made some remarks upon it. The fact was, that the knowledge of such a letter having been written came to the Company on the 1st of February, but it did not come till after the Committee of Inquiry. On the 1st of February, the Company received a letter from Mr. Hope (the Under Secretary for the Colonies), with inclosures; and one of those incisures was Lord Stanley's letter of the 26th of June, 1843, being an answer to Captain Fitzroy's letter, which was dated the 15th of June; but the latter was not inclosed. It was only fair to say that the noble Lord had made the same assertion as that which his Under Secretary had made to-night. He believed Captain Fitzroy to be an honourable man; he was, however, obliged to act in accordance with his instructions. Lord Stanley said there was no difference at all between the agreements; but they (the New Zealand Company) felt that there was such a difference, that they made known their com- plaint as publicly as they could, at a meeting of the shareholders on the 26th of April. He went down in June to take leave of Captain Fitzroy at Gravesend, and until that day he never heard that any doubt had been expressed, and the Company had entirely and explicitly confided in the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He could not understand the explanation which had been given by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies. The word "confidential" first appeared upon the Paper when it was laid before the Committee. When he looked at the copy sent to the New Zealand Company, he could not at first see the word, but at last he found that it had been minutely erased. It appeared to him at the time, as it did now, that there had been a premeditated intention to keep the communication from the Company. He would not detain the House further, but would leave the question with hon. Members and the public to determine. He hoped he had endeavoured to keep clear of raising the main question with regard to New Zealand, which it had been his anxious desire to do.

said, that the impression which had been left on his mind as the result of the discussion was one which he thought must be shared generally by the House—namely, that his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was entirely acquitted, either of any intention to deceive, or of any actual deception. He inferred that to be the impression of the House, because all those hon. Members who were present when the debate commenced, and who heard the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, had, with very few exceptions, left the House; and he thought they would have remained and taken an opportunity of stating their opinions, if they had entertained sentiments adverse to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman. He now saw on the first Bench opposite, out of the four hon. Gentlemen who were occupying it, three members of the New Zealand Company. There were four Gentlemen on the second bench, and they were all members of that Company. There were eight Gentlemen, therefore, on the opposite benches, and seven out of the eight were members of the New Zealand Company. [Mr. Mangles: Your bench opposite is chiefly occupied by Members of the Govern- ment.] The hon. and learned Member said that the Company were in possession of the letter marked "confidential," which had been written to Captain Fitzroy; but they had not seen the letter from that gentleman to which the letter marked "confidential" was an answer. The letter which the Company were in possession of, after stating "I have had the honour of receiving your communication of the 15th instant," proceeded to enter into a recapitulation of the whole of the circumstances set forth in the letter from Captain Fitzroy [the right hon. Baronet here read the portion of the letter to which he referred]. Now, how the hon. Gentleman could labour under any disadvantage in consequence of not being in possession of the letter of his noble Friend, after that statement, he could not possibly conceive. But the hon. Gentleman said he laboured under a great disadvantage in consequence of the absence of the noble Lord, as he would have spoken with much more freedom if his noble Friend were present.

was sure the right hon. Baronet did not wish to misrepresent him; but he certainly had never stated that he would speak with more freedom if the noble Lord were present. What he had said was, that he spoke with the feeling which noble minds always express when referring to the absent.

said, that was all he meant to convey in the construction which he put upon the hon. Gentleman's words. But he begged to ask whether the hon. Gentleman had not the whole of last Session to make any charge he liked in the presence of the noble Lord? From the 1st of February, when the New Zealand Company were put in possession of the letter which his noble Friend had written to Captain Fitzroy, until the close of the Session, he had a full opportunity of challenging Lord Stanley in his presence; and yet he did not avail himself of it. Another hon. Gentleman said that the contents of that letter were not known to the Company until June; but the Committee did not examine any evidence until that month. The first witness was examined on the 23rd of May, and the second day of examination was in the month of June, so that there was, after all, no ground for that objection of the hon. Member. But why, he would beg to ask, in moving for the appointment of the Committee, was not the conduct of the noble Lord referred to? [Mr. Hutt; The Company were not at the time aware of the charge which they now brought against Lord Stanley.] The Company had Lord Stanley's letter to Captain Fitzroy in the month of February; and if, after perusing that letter, they thought his noble Friend chargeable with want of good faith, and considered that he had prejudiced the interests of the Company by his misconduct, why did they allow, if they wished to have the advantage of his presence in that House, the entire Session to elapse without bringing forward any accusation against him? Surely the duty of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the Company should have led them, in the face of the House of Commons, and in the presence of his noble Friend, to demand some explanation of his conduct from him. But the hon. Gentleman said that the Company wished to use civil expressions towards Captain Fitzroy; that the doctrine which they adopted was to let bygones be bygones; and that they wished to put as favourable a construction as possible on his conduct. He was quite willing to give the hon. Gentleman the full advantage of that explanation, but he would maintain that no explanation could clear the Company in this respect. They say now, that so gross a breach of faith was committed by his noble Friend, that if they had been aware of it, they would have refused to hold personal communication with the noble Lord on the subject of New Zealand. But he certainly could not reconcile that declaration, and their present unfavourable impressions with regard to Lord Stanley, with the declarations made by them to him, after they were cognizant of the facts of which they now complained. He found that on the 29th of February—the letter to Captain Fitzroy being then in their possession—they used these words in addressing Lord Stanley,—

"We should have failed in our duty to the public as well as your Lordship, had we not laid the truth fully before you; and having done so, we leave the matter in your Lordship's hands, with entire reliance in the benevolence and justice which will influence your decision on the fate of the Company and its settlements."

Was that, he would ask, language to use towards a man with whom they would not now enter into any communication? But they might depend upon it that the House and the country would not forget the peculiar position in which his noble Friend was placed. His noble Friend was the natural protector of those who had rights which he thought it was incumbent upon him to protect. His noble Friend acted from the first under the impression that those natives of New Zealand—illiterate as they might be, and inferior to Europeans in civilization—were yet not to be altogether overlooked by the Government. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that the members of the New Zealand Company in that House were entitled to great respect — that they were Gentlemen holding high stations and were of high characters in that House and in the country, and that they were therefore entitled to great respect. His noble Friend, therefore, risked much in offending them in the execution of his public duty, but still he did not shrink from his task; and in proof that the noble Lord was right in what he had done, he might refer to the principles laid down by the Company themselves in speaking of the Treaty of Waitangi. They say,—

"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."

That was the language used by that powerful Company. They thought the law of property was a fiction, and they had serious doubts whether a treaty "made with naked savages by a Consul invested with no plenipotentary 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." If his noble Friend put a different construction from that adopted by the Company, on treaties entered into even with naked savages, he believed the sense of justice in that House and in the country would put a favourable construction upon expres- sions in letters of his noble Friend, who had no other object in view than to see justice done between a powerful and influential Company, and savages, whom his noble Friend thought ought not to be deceived by treaties, even when made for the purpose of pacifying and amusing them. He would confidently leave it to the country to decide whether his noble Friend could be justly charged with a breach of faith in his transactions with the New Zealand Company.

begged to explain. He denied having spoken in the name of the Company when he accused Lord Stanley of a breach of faith. The Company never said that the noble Lord had been guilty of such a gross breach of faith that they would hold no further communication with him; and he did not think the right hon. Baronet was justified in putting such a construction upon what had fallen from him. What he stated was, that he would, individually, hold no communication, or would not discuss with Lord Stanley matters which required plain dealing or good faith.

expressed his regret that so much acid had been thrown into the debate by the Solicitor General. He was quite satisfied to let the matter go before the country on the debate of that night.

wished merely to state the impression on his mind, from what had been said on this and on the former occasion. It had been complained that Captain Fitzroy had not communicated the contents of certain letters he had received from Lord Stanley. The letter of Captain Fitzroy, expressing his doubts, was written on the 15th of June, and the reply of Lord Stanley was on the 26th of June; but Captain Fitzroy could not mention the private letter he had received from Lord Stanley conveying his Lordship's advice. Whether he was right or wrong in withholding it, it was quite clear that he could only have communicated it on the 26th, 27th, or 28th of June. He noticed this fact merely to show that there could have been no clandestine correspondence purposely concealed.

put it to the right hon. Baronet whether he thought it quite fair to quote the passage he had read to the House? In order to raise a feeling in the House against the New Zealand Company, he had gone into matter which he apprehended would show that the New Zealand Company were inclined to act unjustly towards the natives. This course was hardly consistent with the understanding entered into regarding the debate, especially when the right hon. Baronet must be aware that there would be no opportunity to answer it. The right hon. Baronet had quoted one passage out of the correspondence of the New Zealand Company; but the House would not fail to recollect that the whole matter must be brought forward again on the larger question after Easter. He would undertake to prove on that occasion that that passage, which he admitted had been written and sent, did not afford a full and fair view of the feeling of the New Zealand Company towards the natives, and that, coupling it with the context, the object was to do more for the natives than even the Treaty of Waitangi secured to them. The complaint was that on the 1st of February, the Company became cognizant of the violation of the agreement by Lord Stanley, and that on the 29th of February, the Company had nevertheless expressed its confidence in the benevolence and justice of Lord Stanley. He admitted that at the moment they had not formed so unfavourable an opinion of his Lordship; he would take it for granted that they were at that moment still in treaty with Lord Stanley; but they were anxious that Government should step forward to arrest the great calamity with which New Zealand was then threatened. The 26th of April was the first opportunity the New Zealand Company had to come forward and state their views. The Report was before the noble Lord, and from the 26th of April to the end of the Session, their lips were closed by this fact—that in moving for a Committee it was a stipulation that nothing should be said. The Committee was then appointed; and it would not have been decent nor tolerable, when the whole matter was referred to a Committee, that any part of it should be brought before the House. The Committee did not conclude its labours until near the end of the last Session, and early in the present the subject had been introduced.

had only a sentence to utter, and that sentence was not his own. It was a passage from the lectures of Professor Merivale, who declared,—

"That never had there been a commercial undertaking in which the love of gain was more completely subordinated to every higher impulse; and that never had there been a commercial undertaking more continually guided by the highest laws of justice and humanity, than the New Zealand Company."

said: I consider that I was perfectly justified in referring to the document alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. The hon. Gentleman tried to justify his charge of want of faith against my noble Friend by saying that my noble Friend, in his letter to Governor Fitzroy, had used the expression that he (the Governor) should aid the objects and claims of the Company "as far as was consistent with the interests of other parties and with those of the community at large." The hon. Member stated that this construction was a breach of the original agreement with the Company. I conceive, therefore, that I was justified in showing that there existed good reason for an instruction, which, after all, is only in conformity with the terms of a letter of the 8th of May, from Mr. Somes, on the part of the Company, and which asked Government to do its best to help the Company in their purchases of lands. My noble Friend directed the Government to do so; but to do so in the manner that should be most consistent with the rights of other parties—of the natives and the community at large. How far, after the previous expression of the Company's views, these words can be construed into a breach of faith I will cheerfully leave the good sense of the country to judge.