said, that he thought it was a bad thing to enact one set of laws for Ireland with respect to the police, and another for England. He did not wish to impede the progress of the Bill, but he would just point out, that if they paid the police from the Consolidated Fund, the profit would go into the pockets of the landed gentry. He would warn the Government that next Session they would have to bring in another Bill to amend it.

would also raise his voice in reprobation of the principle of this Bill, for he could not see why the landed gentry of Ireland should be relieved from the expense of the constabulary force—a force which was rendered necessary by the conduct of these gentry themselves. He had listened with approbation for five years to the cry of those who now occupied the Treasury bench for equal law between England and Ireland; but was this equal law? Certainly not; it was neither more nor less than relieving the gentry of Ireland, not the people of Ireland, at the expense of the people of this country.

said, that when Sir Robert Peel brought in his great measure for the repeal of the Corn Laws, he had expressly stated that Ireland was entitled to some compensation.

had objected to this Bill in its previous steps, on account of its unconstitutional character, as giving, in fact, the command of a standing army to the Lord Lieutenant. He did hope, however, that there would be no necessity for the use of the extraordinary powers; but that Her Majesty's Ministers would now take an altogether new course. He believed that they would do so, and that the public would hear no more of Coercion Bills, and the exasperation arising from them. He saw an earnest of that new line of conduct in the restoration of those gentlemen to the commission of the peace who had been deprived of that office by the late Lord Chancellor. He trusted also that in Ireland, where this measure was duly appreciated, that the landed gentry would be induced so to act as to render those on their estates an honour and an advantage, instead of, as they too often were, a mischief and a disgrace.

said, that this Bill was brought in on what the present Government considered a pledge on the part of their predecessors; at the same time they did themselves conceive it to be a good, and wise, and necessary measure. So far from its being an unconstitutional measure, it was precisely constitutional; for it gave the Lord Lieutenant the power to protect the lives and properties of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland, through the aid of the police force of that country, obviating the necessity of employing the military power.

thought that the Irish Members had behaved so generously, so justly, so fairly, and so nobly on the repeal of the Corn Laws, that Ireland was entitled to any relief that could be afforded her. It was but right that every advantage should be given that could be given to the Irish gentry; yet he must say that the people of this country would rather see money spent in Ireland for any other object, than that for which this grant was to be made.

rose to call the attention of the House to the petition of Thomas Mitchell, late sub-sorter in the General Post Office (presented on the 6th day of August), complaining that his dismissal was occasioned by proving in evidence certain malversations and corruptions on behalf of his superior officers, and to move for inquiry therein. This was not a question merely affecting an individual, but involved the character of the establishment. It would be recollected that he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had pointed out many abuses in the Post Office, and amongst others that connected with the Post Office Directory. An investigation was instituted, and Mr. Mitchell, who had been in the Post Office for ten years without having a complaint preferred against him, was called before Mr. Peacock, the solicitor to the Post Office, who conducted the inquiry, to be examined. Mr. Mitchell inquired whether he should receive protection if he spoke the truth, and being assured of that, he made an unreserved statement of mal-practices on the part of Mr. Kelly. Copies of these statements were furnished to Mr. Kelly, and it was soon afterwards whispered about that Mitchell was a marked man. On a second inquiry taking place, Mitchell was again called up and again assured of protection. Afterwards, being a weak man, and feeling himself fatigued, he asked for leave of absence; but to this request his superior officer demurred. Mitchell then left the office, but on his way home he was taken ill, and requested a brother officer to inform the proper authorities at the Post Office that he was too ill to attend to his work; and in this respect he acted strictly in conformity with the regulations of the Post Office, which required notice to be given in case of absence. However, greatly to Mitchell's surprise, he received a communication to the effect that absence from duty, without permission, had led to his dismissal. Since then a new ground had been taken up, and it was alleged that he was dismissed for insolent conduct; but it was too late to come forward with such a plea, for it was posted up in the establishment that Mitchell was guilty of absenting himself without leave; and, as a proof of the weakness of the new allegation, he might mention that a letter was sent to Mitchell, offering him some mitigation of the punishment, that was to say, offering him a lower situation than he had previously held in the establishment, on the ground that he might not possibly have seen a certain order. Why, if the man was guilty, he ought to be dismissed entirely; and if not, he ought to be fully reinstated. The question was, would this man have been dismissed at all, if he had not given certain evidence? The tendency of such a proceeding was to deter other parties from giving evidence displeasing to their superiors; and it had had that effect. Five or six other sub-sorters had been called on to give evidence; but they said that in consequence of the treatment which Mitchell had received, it was quite impossible for them to open their lips. Consequently the inquiry which had been commenced was stopped by intimidation. He did not believe that there would be any peace in the Post Office as long as Colonel Maberly and Messrs. Kelly and Bokenham were connected with it. The inquiry to which he had alluded ought to be proceeded with by commission, where the evidence should be taken on oath and the men protected. He should therefore conclude by moving—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission, to inquire into the administration of the General Post Office, especially into the complaint of Thomas Mitchell, as well as into the causes of dissatisfaction alleged to exist among the officers of that establishment, and whether a private speculation, carried on therein by the aid of public servants, known as the Post Office Directory, ought to continue."

seconded the Motion. He did not think the man had been properly treated. A dismissal for one day's absence, seeing that he had been ten years in the service of the Post Office, was most harsh and unjust. Whatever was the nature of the charge, whether true or false, he did not think the Post Office authorities had conducted the inquiry in a creditable manner. He would conclude by seconding the Motion.

, on behalf of the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office department, said, he had to explain and defend the act which was complained of. When the present noble Lord who presided over that establishment came into office, he found, from the discussions that had taken place in this House, that a very unsatisfactory feeling existed among those engaged there. In fact the whole establishment was in a most unsatisfactory condition. In regard to the getting up of the Post Office Directory, while some sorters thought they were benefited, others considered themselves aggrieved, and in consequence a most uncomfortable feeling existed. He was, however, happy to say that arrangements were in progress which would tend in a great degree to allay the spirit that existed. Several papers had been already presented on the subject, and others were yet to be presented, before they could have the whole facts of the case before them. It was said that this man was dismissed on account of his giving evidence before the Commission appointed to inquire into the Management of the Post Office; but it should be recollected that fifty other witnesses were examined, while only one was dismissed. It could not therefore be for giving the evidence in question that the party was dismissed. The whole truth of the allegation depended on the authority of two persons, whose evidence, from the circumstances under which they were placed, should be looked on with great caution. He would sugget that the Motion be withdrawn, as the Postmaster General was undertaking an investigation into all the matters relating to the management of the Post Office.

thought an inquiry was necessary, as the House was bound to defend witnesses who were called on to give evidence of the abuses that existed in any department of the public service. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would take the matter into his most serious consideration, and allow an inquiry to be made. If improvement was to be looked for in the Post Office, it could only be looked for by the introduction of a system best calculated to effect that object; and, being of that opinion, he would ask why was Rowland Hill not employed? Why was not a man employed who was instrumental in effecting one of the greatest social reforms that had taken place in his time? Why was not Mr. Hill employed, that he might carry all his plans into effect? He supposed the reason was, that certain parties in the Post Office were not favourable to that gentleman. Had Mr. Hill's plans been carried out, the revenue would have increased, the expenses diminished, and the public would have been better accommodated. Why not now employ Mr. Hill? Why not now avail themselves of his services? The public cried out shame on the Government who dismissed so useful a man as Mr. Hill.

stated, that as regarded Mitchell, having the fullest confidence in the discrimination and in the impartiality of the Postmaster General, he was sure no act of injustice had been done by him. He was certain also that if the Postmaster General were of opinion that any act of injustice had been done to the petitioner, an inquiry would be instituted and redress afforded. It was very difficult for those who presided over public departments to satisfy those under them: they frequently became dissatisfied if they were not promoted according to their expectations: they often imagined that their merits were intentionally overlooked, and from that feeling they became discontented; they made complaints when they supposed anything was carried on wrong in the office where they were connected; they became impudent to their superintendents, and they often acted in such a manner that no business could satisfactorily go on. As for himself he did not wish to pronounce any opinion one way or the other on the conduct of the individual in question. With respect to the Motion for a Commission, he could not see what good it could effect even if granted. As there was one individual responsible for carrying on the whole duties of the Post Office, he was of opinion, although there had been grounds of complaint, which attracted the attention of the late Government, and respecting which a great deal of correspondence had taken place, that it would be better to leave the whole matter in the hands of the Government, whose attention was directed to the working of the Post Office, with a view to its more efficient management. And the plan now being adopted would remove, he had no doubt, those grounds of complaint to which the hon. Member referred. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would leave the subject in the hands of the Government. He would however say, that he was by no means satisfied with the state of the Post Office, nor did he think the plans of reform, instituted by Mr. Hill, had been sufficiently carried out.

said, that the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, and the comment made on those observations by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had given to the present discussion far greater interest and importance than belonged to the original question. The hon. Member for Montrose had advised the Government, if really intent on a good administration of Post Office affairs, to do as they did before, and to appoint Mr. Rowland Hill to some office that would enable him to see his own plan properly carried out. He joined with his hon. Friend in pressing that advice upon Government. When Lord Melbourne's Cabinet had decided on giving their sanction to Mr. Hill's plan, he and several other Members who had sat on Mr. Wallace's Committee, had, in concert with Mr. Wallace, given similar advice to the then First Lord of the Treasury, and they brought the following precedent under Lord Melbourne's notice. A Committee which sat to consider Mr. Palmer's claims (the Mr. Palmer who substituted mail-coaches for horse mails) had called before them, and examined as a witness, Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt stated, that fearing, from the opposition given to the proposals of Mr. Palmer by the Post Office authorities, they might obstruct the plan they were directed to execute, he appointed Mr. Palmer to an office in that department, himself to direct the execution of his own scheme. Lord Melbourne adopted and acted on this precedent. Mr. Hill was appointed to an office to act under the immediate direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he was thus invested with as full authority as he could desire, under the straightforward rule of the present Member for Portsmouth. His tenure of office was not made permanent; but a long term could not at that time be secured to him, because it remained, by the working of the plan, to demonstrate its efficacy. The hon. Member for Montrose said that Mr. Hill's conduct, while in office, was never the subject of complaint. Not only was there no complaint of the kind, but Mr. Hill's conduct was exemplary. The Minister under whose direction Mr. Hill served, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, had again and again assured him (Mr. Warburton) that Mr. Hill conducted himself admirably as a public servant, and that the right hon. Gentleman had formed a high opinion of Mr. Hill's moral worth and sterling character. In the official correspondence relating to Mr. Hill's dismissal from office by the successors of Lord Melbourne, ample testimony was borne by them to Mr. Hill's good conduct during the interval (a short interval, it was true) for which he retained his office under them; and to this it might be added, that the late First Minister of the Crown had, in his private capacity, paid a tribute of respect to Mr. Hill, by joining with the public in a subscription, intended by them as a testimonial of the sense they entertained of his great and singular merits. What was formerly matter of anticipation had now been practically demonstrated. Mr. Hill's plan had succeeded financially, and the uniform penny rate had rendered the Post Office the most thriving branch of the revenue, as they saw by the increase in that branch last year to the extent of 115,000l. If such had been the results with the present defective administration of Post Office affairs, what increase to that branch of revenue might not be expected, if Mr. Hill's plans for saving expense and increasing the returns were carried out, and were Mr. Hill in a position to see his plans properly executed? He had listened with great satisfaction to the declaration made by the noble Lord, that in his opinion Mr. Hill's plans had been imperfectly executed, and that the present administration of Post Office affairs was unsatisfactory. If Mr. Hill were called to perform those duties, for the discharge of which his talents appeared to have peculiarly fitted him, it would be most satisfactory to him (Mr. Warburton) and to many other Members of the House; to Mr. Wallace, the former chairman of the Committee, and to a large body of the public, composed of men of every political party, who had their eye on Mr. Hill, and, with the hon. Member for Montrose, asked the question why Mr. Hill was not employed to execute his own plans?

would ask what, after all that was said, was to be done with Mitchell? For ten years that man held a situation in the Post Office, with credit to himself and with advantage to the public; and because he gave evidence not very agreeable to certain parties, he was dismissed. If there was one thing more than another which should excite the vigilance of that House, it was in affording protection to persons who held subordinate situations, when they had the honesty and the courage to expose official malpractices. Instead of punishing them, they ought to be rewarded. He would show the heads of departments, that there was an authority to which they were accountable, and that if the persons under them were subject to their vigilance, they should remember they would be made to know there was an authority above them which could make them also vigilant. When an investigation was to be held, an individual should be appointed totally independent of the department which was the subject of inquiry—an individual who could not be damaged by the discovery of the whole truth. In the Post Office investigation, while the inferior officers were giving their testimony, the superior officers were present. Under such circumstances, the whole was a mockery. Could it be expected that those men would state all they knew, standing in the presence of those who might on the following day dismiss them? No good could come from such an investigation. But what was to be done with poor Mitchell was the question which still recurred? Here was a man dismissed from his situation, because he gave an honest testimony: was there any effort made to get him a situation elsewhere? Was it just—after ten years' faithful service—to turn him on the world—to reduce him to beggary? To permit such conduct would be unworthy of the heads of the Post Office. If before the next Session of Parliament a situation was not provided for Mitchell, his conviction was, that there was very little justice to be expected either from the Government or from the heads of the Post Office.

, considering that the subject was under the consideration of the Treasury, would withdraw his Motion.

suggested that the leases of land should extend from fourteen to twenty-one years.

could not accede to his hon. Friend's views, and hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment.

said: I fully concur in what has fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose; and I rejoice that he has given notice of a Motion, for next Session, of inquiring into those Colonies which have not representative assemblies. I only wish that the hon. Member had carried the scope of his Motion a little further, with a view to the enlargement of the powers granted to the legislative assemblies in some Colonies which already have representative bodies. With respect to the measure before the House, I cheerfully and gratefully admit that the present Bill is far superior to any that has hitherto been proposed; and I am bound to state, that in all the intercourse which I have had with the Colonial Office during the last two years, since I have had, in some sense, entrusted to my care the interest of the Colony of New South Wales, I have at no former period experienced so much courtesy as from the present Government, or observed so great a disposition fairly and liberally to consider the interest of the Australian Colonies, with a view to their advancement and their welfare. My only regret is, that when they found the former system so faulty, they have not made a bolder and a wider stride in the road which they have taken to improve it. The system of land tenure in Australia has been bad in itself, and has had the additional fault of being in a state of constant change. We have seen free grants, sales at a fixed price, sales by auction; the minimum price once fixed at 5s. an acre, then raised to 12s., then without reason raised to the minimum price of 20s.; occupation of lands without the boundaries, first a mere tenancy at will, then annual licenses depending on the will of the Governor. The merits of this Bill are, that it enables the Government to grant leases of land beyond the boundaries of location of fourteen years' duration; that it concedes renewal of the lease to the same occupier while the land is unsold; that it bestows the right of preemption without competition when the land is sold. That which I regret is, that it does not extend the duration of the lease to the sufficient period of twenty-one years; that it does not reduce the present minimum price of 1l. per acre; and that the vast powers which it confers upon the Crown are not conferred upon the Colonial Legislature. If you seek to attach and not to detach the Colonies from the mother country, give them as much as possible the management of their own concerns. You have given to New South Wales a representative body. Do not make a mockery of your gift—do not make it a bauble, a plaything Parliament. Nothing tends more to create discontent than to invest a body with the power to complain, but without the ability to redress—the means of making their grievances heard, but not the power to get them removed. The powers granted to the Crown are large, I might almost say arbitrary; for, though the Orders in Council are to be submitted to Parliament, yet this day of the month (the 22nd of August), on which we are discussing these matters, the period of the Session, the appearance of the House, shows that in colonial matters the Government can do just what it pleases. No individual Member ever commands any attention on colonial subjects; and even this Bill itself receives rather the sanction of the Executive than the Legislature. But this Colony is one of such magnitude and importance as to entitle it to more consideration. It has a population of 170,000. Its exports in one year amounted to 1,399,692l.—its imports to 3,000,000l. — and the quantity of wool sent to this country to nearly 14,000,000 lbs.—the tonnage of shipping inwards to 183,778 tons, outwards to 172,118 tons. The importation of wool affords employment to half the operatives engaged in the manufacture of wool imported into this country. The Colony, then, is great and valuable; but you say, it is unfit to govern itself. You go further; and practically you say that no one shall own an acre of land in the Continent of New Holland. The noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies lately stated, and stated truly, that the proceeds of the land sold from 1832 to 1844 had amounted to 1,116,000l.; and he inferred from thence that the Land Sales Act was beneficial; but in order to prove that, it should be shown that the land sales had continued to increase since the Act came into operation. But how stands the fact? Why, that the land sales have uniformly diminished, till now the land fund is almost annihilated. The noble Lord referred to 1844. If 1844 had produced its proportionate amount, the proceeds of that year would have been 1–13th of the whole. It was little more than 1–130th. It should have been 85,850l., it did not amount to 8,820l. In like manner the trade, the shipping, the exports, and the imports, have all uniformly declined since the imposition of the arbitrary minimum price of 1l. per acre on the lands of New South Wales. And let the House observe, that this arbitrary price was neither expected nor intended to be beneficial to that Colony. The Colony was sacrificed to a company—the old settlers to the new speculators—the Colony of New South Wales to the Colony of South Australia. The history of the affair is well known, and can be proved by documents. In 1836, Colonel Torrens and the South Australian Company complained that land could be bought cheaper in New South Wales than in South Australia, and begged that the price might be raised in the former. Sir George Grey, then at the Colonial Office, wrote that "it cannot be supposed that they who went to South Australia were unprepared," meaning for such a fact, and "that they should not complain." Colonel Torrens was shortly afterwards, however, made a member of the Colonial Land and Emigration Board, which sits in the same place as the South Australian Board in Westminster. A Committee of the House of Commons sat upon the affairs of South Australia, and the consequence of these events was the unfortunate measure of raising the price of land from 5s. to 20s. per acre, which, like too many colonial matters, passed through Parliament unobserved, and which is ruining the Australian Colonies by the entire cessation it has caused to emigration. This measure can in no sense be called a well-advised one. There is not a single Australian Governor who did not predict mischief or pronounce a verdict against the Land Sales Act, when first proposed. There are high authorities; Sir R. Bourke, Governor of New South Wales, wrote to Lord Glenelg, 6th September, 1837, "An augmentation of the minimum price would have the injurious effect of checking the immigration of persons possessed of small capital." Sir George Gipps himself, in a speech to the Legislative Council in September 1842, said—"It was well known that he had never been favourable to a high minimum price of land; what he contended for, had been a distinction between the upset and the selling price." Sir John Franklin, the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, to Lord Glenelg, said—"This instruction (the instruction to raise the price) is in effect an instruction virtually abolishing sales of land in Van Diemen's Land, and must accordingly put an end to the already delining land revenue." Mr. Latrobe, Lieutenant Governor of Port Philip, wrote to the same effect. Captain M'Arthur, commandant at Port Essington, said, "The present object of Government, to realize a certain value for land, is on such a scale as will surely prove fatal to the hopes of an introduction of labour." All other colonial authorities were equally opposed to raising the minimum price of land. I am therefore fully justified in saying that this was an ill-advised measure, and ever since it has passed there has been report upon report, year after year, from various committees of legislative council of New South Wales, all uniformly complaining, and convincingly exhibiting the evil effects of the high price. The best and briefest mode of showing its results will be, to take two periods free from undue speculation, one during the existence of the 5s. minimum, the other under the operation of the 1l. minimum. I have therefore omitted the years of 1840 and 1841, and taken one period of four years ending with 1839, and another like period ending with 1845, and I find as follows:—

Years.	Minim. Price.	Amount Sold.	Price Obtained.	Emigrants.
Four years ending 1839	5s.	1,303,902	500,000l.	40,000
Omit 1840 & 1841.
Four years ending 1845	20s.	24,000	45,600l.	6,500

Trade and shipping exhibit an absolute, wool shows a comparative, decrease; for whereas the latter used in former periods to double its amount once in four years, in later periods its rate of increase is to double once in about six years. Of what immense importance is this! New South Wales asks to be allowed to supply your manufacturers yet more abundantly and more cheaply. In our race of competition with the world, we cannot spare one half hour to the weary limbs of our operatives, lest foreigners should undersell us. Of what vast consequence, then, is a cheap supply of raw produce to our manufacturers? Here we have abundant capital and plentiful labour, but are limited in space. There the space is boundless, but capital and labour are wanting. Supply the deficiency of the one from the superfluity of the other. Take the workman to his work, and, as has been truly said, your loss will be a gain, and every shepherd there will move a loom here. Unhappily, a favourite theory possessed statesmen that the road of colonial prosperity in the Antipodes was the reverse of what it is here, viz., to raise the price of a commodity in proportion to its abundance, not in proportion to its scarcity; to make money cheap where money was scarce, and land dear where land was plentiful. But you have carried the paradox still further: you gave away the best land for nearly nothing—you place a high price upon the worst; you sold wheat at 1s. a bushel—you put 20s. on the chaff. The Government of New South Wales declares that the Government was never guilty of the absurdity of estimating the land as worth 20s. an acre, but merely that it will sell no land that is under that value. What is that, but virtually shutting up the country? There is, however, certain proof that the Government did expect that the sale of land would continue with a minimum price of 20s. an acre, as it had done before. In a despatch from Lord Stanley to Sir George Gipps, 18th October, 1841, an assurance is expressed that the imposition of—

"A price at least up to 20s. an acre, would not check the purchase of land; and if not, would tend, of course, materially to increase the amount realized for the land fund, on the extension and application of which, at this juncture, so much of the prosperity of New South Wales may probably depend."

What miserable patchwork is this method of legislation! You should advance with new vigour in the now and liberal career you have now begun, and proceed on a principle where justice and reason go hand in hand. There is no instinct more strongly implanted in the human breast than the desire to possess something which a man can call his own. There is no ruling passion more powerful or more prevalent; it is a fact which all writers have remarked, which no observing man can overlook, that there is no feeling more strong than to possess a portion of the solid globe. In this country it is universal. Every man who makes a fortune in trade straightway seeks to invest it in land; if you encourage that feeling in an old settled country, how much more desirable is it in one that requires advancement, cultivation, and civilization. Arthur Young, in his Tour in France, observes—

"Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden; give him a nine years' lease of a garden, and he will convert it into a desert."

It is admitted, that where the landlord is resident and the estate not over large, that there the land is best managed. Now, here, at a distance of 16,000 miles from hence, the Colonial Office farms out an estate of 1,600 miles in length, by 300 in breadth, and refuses to part with one single acre of it. I would ask any man of plain common sense whether this retention of such an immense tract is more calculated to advance or retard the development of the resources of the country? Such a system may be adapted to the climate of Egypt, or the latitude of Turkey, but it is far too repugnant to British feelings to be tolerated in a free Colony of Great Britain. Downing Street retains in its hands an estate twice as large as Great Britain, 16,000 miles from its own door; and though the estate is double the size of the kingdom, they will only award to the tenants half the duration of lease granted in the best farming districts at home; it refuses to grant ownership, and at the same time stints the occupancy. You say you will sell it at a sufficient price. So would I. An excessive price is not a sufficient price; and whether it be excessively high or excessively low, the term is equally misapplied. Your "sufficient price" is absolute prohibition. Is it not monstrous to say, that we will keep the land till you have improved it, and then make you pay not only for the land, but for your improvements too? The land may become worth 1l. per acre by the application of labour, but that labour must be paid for; and is the purchaser to pay a second time for the labour he has applied, as well as the land on which he applied it? You allow me to expend my money and my labour on your land, and when I have expended enough to make it worth your figure, you then charge me with my own outlay on your land, and make me pay a second time the price I have paid before. Where is the justice, the morality, or the sound policy of such a proceeding? It would be making the Government of each Colony the steward of the Crown estate, and farming British subjects as farmers do their stock—keeping them to fertilise the ground, and then disposing of them at the best bargain. By such a course England would treat her own subjects in a way adopted by no other country. The consequence of all this is, that the tide of emigration from this country has been completely changed, and now flows into the United States. Thus by far the greater proportion of those who quit these shores go to enrich the lands of foreigners, and instead of adding to our strength, in many instances, I fear, tend to embitter the feeling which may exist towards this country. In twenty years 628,171 out of the 1,349,000 persons who emigrated from Great Britain have gone to the United States. That is, on an average, 46 per cent of the whole emigration has gone thither. Now how has that proportion been affected by the Australian Land Sales Act? Why, since 1842, when the Act passed, the proportion has not only been 46 per cent, but 60 per cent of the whole number; and during the last year, 1845, out of 93,500 emigrants, 58,538, or 62 per cent have gone to the United States; while, owing to our mismanagement, only 830, or not 1 per cent, have gone to the whole Australian Colonies altogether. If we include Canada, &c. with the United States, it appears that 89,000 out of 93,000 went where land could be bought for 4s., 5s. or 6s. an acre, and only 830 went where no land could be purchased under 20s. per acre. I have thus viewed the question as one affording a vent for an annually increasing population; but if we look at it in another point of view, as extending the market for British manufactures, we shall find that the policy is equally ruinous. The 58,000 who last year emigrated to New York, consume at the rate of 5s. per head of British manufactures—that is, they take 14,600l. of British goods—if the same persons had gone to New South Wales, at the low average consumption of 7l. per head in that Colony, they would have taken 409,500l. worth of manufactures. The 628,000, who in twenty-one years have gone to foreign North America, consume 157,000l. of British goods; if, by our policy, they had been induced to emigrate to New South Wales, they would, on the same calculation, have taken annually 4,396,000l. worth. Is it not then both madness and injustice to divert our own subjects from our own territory?—madness as regards those who stay at home, injustice as regards those who seek their fortunes abroad. It is to the energy, enterprise, and perseverance of the stockholders of New South Wales that we owe a considerable increase to our national wealth. The employment afforded to our factories by the large supplies of wool, the influence their exports exercise upon our native industry, the numbers engaged in the woollen trade, the increasing difficulties that beset our operatives in consequence of Continental rivalry, the decreasing supplies from European countries, the altered state of foreign markets, the benefits which British wool-growers derive from encouragement being given to the colonial prices rising and falling simultaneously, appear many and strong reasons for favouring our colonists. They have extended onr limits, developed our resources, and increased our wealth. They are the forerunners of civilization; for to them, as possessed of education, intellect, and cultivated feeling, you naturally look for the civilization of the natives and the morality of the settlers. These appear so many and sufficient reasons for advancing to the uttermost the welfare of the Australian Colonies; but if you are still unsatisfied, and seek for additional reasons, turn to the state of commerce with foreign Powers; remember the 3d. per head of British manufactures consumed in the northern States of Europe, and the 7l. to 10l. sterling per head in New South Wales. See foreign Powers closing their ports as we open ours, raising duties as we lower them. Then consider our opening commerce in the East. If Indian cotton traverses 15,000 miles of ocean to return with profit when manufactured here, why should not the produce of Australian wool return to China with similar advantages to that Colony, to British wool-growers, mariners, and manufactures? In our Colonies are to be found the real sources of our strength; our true policy is to give them encouragement, to afford a vent to the increasing numbers of the people, to extend a market for our manufacturing industry in quarters where we need dread no rivalry to the Empire. Their success is the surest test of our prosperity, their strength the best proof of our power, their wealth the certain evidence of our riches. But it will not do to pretend to fix a settlement where you allow none to settle—to establish a plantation where you suffer nothing to take root—to place a Colony where you permit none to cultivate. To act thus is to make a practical contradiction. Treat your Colonies in practice, as you admit them to be in theory, as integral and important portions of the Empire, and you will cement your strength and enlarge your limits. Favour them, and you will really and essentially favour yourselves; retard their prosperity, and you will retard your own; by neglecting or injuring your colonial possessions, we will show that we have too large an Empire, and they who ought to be our firmest support will be our greatest source of weakness. Upon these grounds I conjure my hon. Friend not to halt on the good course which he has commenced to tread; and as after so short a tenure of office he has reason to extend the limits of a lease to a longer period than any hitherto assigned, so will I engage to say, that his good sense and liberal spirit will, during the recess, induce him to come forward next Session with a Bill to repeal the Land Sales Act—an Act repugnant to reason and common sense, and which imposes harder terms upon our own subjects in our own Colonies than they meet with when they emigrate to foreign States. I trust he will then include New South Wales in the same category with New Zealand and Van Diemen's Land; and as they have already been exempted from the hardships of the Act, so New South Wales, which has the poorer soil, and therefore the more requires reduction, will ere long meet with the same measure of consideration and of justice.

said, that he should make a few observations upon what had fallen from the hon. Member for Roxburghshire, whose position with regard to the Colony of New South Wales entitled his remarks to some consideration. He would only state, that the Bill was very similar in its provisions to that which had been introduced at the close of last Session, and which was then postponed in order that it might be sent out to the Colony for consideration—that it had been sent out, and had come home so much approved of there that very few alterations had been suggested. In what the hon. Member said with regard to the decline of the land sales, the trade, commerce, and shipping, in New South Wales of late years, he was wrong in attributing these effects to the Land Sales Act, and seemed to have forgotten the extravagant spirit of speculation which prevailed five or six years ago. With regard to the minimum price of 1l. per acre, he should not have referred to the authority of Sir George Gipps, unless it had been expressly alluded to by the hon. Member; but, since his opinion had been quoted by the hon. Member, from a speech to the Legislative Council, he must be allowed to quote from a despatch from Sir George Gipps to Lord Stanley, dated 17th January, 1844, where he said—

"The high price of land and the squatting system seem to me naturally to go together—the one supports the other; and either would be indefensible without the other. Together they form, as far as I can judge, the best system in which the domain of the Crown can, under existing circumstances, be administered. Sheep increase with great rapidity; and consequently new lands are occupied to a vast extent every year. If it be once admitted that the price of the fee-simple of these lands is to be fixed with reference only to the profit they yield to the owners of the sheep, the price must, and especially as we recede from the sea coast, rapidly decline, until it becomes less per acre than the smallest coin in use in the country."

And therefore you impose the largest coin in the realm.

concluded by saying, that he hoped the hon. Member would not cause any delay at this stage of public business, but would allow the Bill to proceed through the Committee.

rejoined, that it was not his intention to interpose any impediment to a Bill of itself beneficial, nor any delay on this the last Saturday of the Session; but he must be permitted briefly to make one or two observations in reply. It was said, this Bill had gone out and been approved of in the Colony. Now, first, he was happy to say, that he did not think this Bill the same as that of last year. It was a much better Bill. Next, so far from the Bill having been approved, it had not received the approbation of the Legislative Council, to whom in courtesy and justice it ought to have been referred, for that was not sitting. It had not received the approval of the Executive Council; for the paper entitled the Opinion of the Executive Council, contained only the opinion of the Governor and the Bishop, whose opinions were always unanimous. In fact, it was not approved by any body or bodies of men in the Colony, but quite the reverse; for so far as any expression of opinion had been collected on the subject, it was entirely adverse to the measure of last year. With regard to the decline in the land sales, he had by no means forgotten the extravagant spirit of speculation during the years 1840 and 1841, for he had purposely omitted those years from his calculations; and, moreover, he was justified in saying, that the Governor had stimulated the speculation which he ought to have checked. It was said he had carried the Colony through a difficult crisis. He thought he had encountered a difficulty which was greatly of his own creation. At the dangerous time, he had encouraged the appetite for purchase, and rejoiced at having drained the treasury, which he found full. He felt he was quite right in stating, that it was the Land Sales Act that continued to depress the Colony. Had it been otherwise, the sales and emigration would have recovered themselves; but he had shown, that so far from this being the case, the year 1845, the last year, had been the worst year of all. The fact was, that there was no reason why the plain simple rule of selling land by so many years' purchase of its present worth, which prevailed over the whole civilized world, should not hold good in Australia. He should offer no opposition to the Bill; but he felt himself bound to make these few observations.