Seeing the noble Lord the First Minister in his place, I beg to ask him a question relating to a correspondence which I have seen in one of to-day's newspapers, which correspondence comprises a letter bearing the signatures of certain right rev. Prelates of the Established Church, apparently interfering with the just prerogative of Her Majesty, as supreme head of the Established Church, and contains also a letter stated to be written in reply by the noble Lord. I beg to ask him whether that correspondence is authentic, and justly and correctly ascribed to the parties in question?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, I have to say, that, excepting an error of no great consequence in one of the paragraphs of my letter, that the copy of the letter written by some of the right rev. the Bishops and of my answer is correct. I did not insert that correspondence in the newspaper, but it is authentic.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex has given notice of a Motion, for which I believe no day is fixed, with respect to the defences of the country. I shall have shortly after the recess to state, on the part of the Government, both what has been done and what is proposed to be done upon that important matter; and it seems to me that it would be better for the public interest that the subject should come from a Member of the Government, than that it should be brought forward by an independent Member of this House. Of course, if the hon. Member is not satified with my statement, it will be in his power, at any time, to make his Motion; but I have to request of him that he will postpone it till he has heard that statement.

could have no hesitation in complying with the request.

wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had stated, a few days since, that the stipulation in the Government letter to the Bank for a participation in the profit to be derived from the measure sanctioned by that letter, was very much the suggestion of the Bank authorities. Would the right hon. Gentleman state who were the Bank authorities from whom it emanated?

thought it would be convenient if hon. Members would be kind enough to give previous notice of questions, especially when other persons out of the House were concerned. But he had no objection to answer the question. The Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank were with him frequently during the period alluded to, and in conversation they and he agreed-that it would be better that that condition should be inserted in the letter of the Government to the Bank.

had seen them that morning, and understood from them that they were no parties to this stipulation, and it was in consequence of that that he put his question.

said, it was not the intention of the Government to propose the further suspension of the Corn and Navigation Laws.

begged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question relative to our commercial relations with Buenos Ayres. The noble Lord would recollect that in the Speech from the Throne, on the 22nd of January, 1846, allusions were made to the difficulties that existed to the commerce of all nations by reason of the warfare that afflicted the States of the Rio de la Plata; and it was said that, in conjunction with the King of the French, this country was endeavouring to effect the pacification of these States. The British blockade had been removed; but the French blockade still continued, and had been the cause of great inconvenience and loss to those who were engaged in carrying on trade with Buenos Ayres. Ships destined to Buenos Ayres were obliged to unload their cargoes at Montevideo, and there pay ship dues amounting to several thousand pounds. In the month of August no less than 50,000l. had been levied chiefly on British goods destined to Buenos Ayres, besides paying export dues. What he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether he were prepared to state to the House, and through the House to the commercial community, the present position of the negotiations with France upon this subject, and whether there was any hope of a speedy removal of the French blockade?

In answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that Her Majesty's Government is quite aware of the great inconvenience sustained, not only by the commerce of this country, but by many other nations, by the continuance of that state of things which has so long existed in the River Plate. It is a subject which has attracted the anxious attention of Her Majesty's Government. We have been in communication with the Government of France on the subject of the blockade, and I am glad to feel it my duty to state that the Government of France has expressed and manifested the most sincere desire to co-operate with the British Government for the purpose of putting an end to that state of things; and recently it has been my duty to have communication with the Duke de Broglie, and arrangements have been come to between the two Governments to send out instructions to the British and French representatives at Buenos Ayres and Montevideo for the purpose of endeavouring to put an end to the present state of things in that country. I trust that when those instructions arrive in the River Plate, we shall have a fair prospect of seeing those hostilities terminated which have for so long a period impeded commerce in that part of the world. It will be satisfactory to the House to hear that France and England are perfectly agreed as to the course it would be advisable to adopt, should those instructions fail of effect.

rose to ask the noble Lord the questions of which he had given notice. The first question was whether the noble Lord had received official information of the decrees of the Provisional Governments of the Cantons of Friburg and Lucerne, banishing for ever the Jesuits, the Liguorians, the Brothers of the Christian Doctrine, the Ursuline Nuns, the Sisters of Providence, and other denominations of religion, male and female, under pretence of their being affiliated to the Jesuits; also, confiscating their entire property, and annulling any and every provi- sion which they might have made of it during nearly two months previous to the surrender of Friburg and Lucerne? The next question he would ask the noble Lord was whether he had also received official information of the enormous demands made upon the cantons of the Sonderbund for the expenses of the war, 1,000,000f. being demanded by the 20th inst., and 2,000,000f. more within a brief space afterwards, besides other charges and exactions? And, finally, he begged to ask the noble Lord—

here called the hon. Member to order, and informed him, that as the third question he was about to ask was one which involved the expression of an opinion, it was not competent for him to put it.

said, that with a view to conform to the rules of the House, and that he might be in order, he would move that the House do now adjourn, so that he might have an opportunity of putting the question to the noble Lord. There could be no doubt that the acts of the majority in Switzerland had been of a most tyrannous character. Insults and outrages had been offered to the clergy of the religion of the minority. There had been extreme persecution and plundering of individuals among that minority, whose only crime was to discharge faithfully the duties imposed upon them by their fellow-citizens. The third question, therefore, which he wished to ask the noble Lord was, whether, considering these acts, an urgent case had not arisen for the intervention of the Powers who guaranteed, in 1815, the cantonal independence of Switzerland?

In answer to the first question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state, that Her Majesty's Government have received official information of the decrees of the newly-established Government in the canton of Friburg, banishing the Jesuits and certain religious orders supposed to be in connexion with the Jesuits in that canton; but we have not received any official account of any similar decrees as to the canton of Lucerne, or any account of any of the proceedings referred to in the second question of the hon. Member. With respect to the concluding question of the hon. Gentleman, I beg to state that it has not appeared to Her Majesty's Government that in the present state of things in Switzerland there are sufficient grounds for the intervention of the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, or that they would be justified in interfering with the internal affairs of Switzerland.

wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state at what time he intended to propose the nomination of the Committee on Commercial Distress. He hoped his right hon. Friend would not leave the House in uncertainty as to the hour at which the question would be brought forward.

said, it was not in his power to declare at what hour the Motion would be made. He was anxious that the Committee should be nominated as soon as possible, in order that the Members composing it might agree upon the course they would pursue before the adjournment of the House. He would willingly propose the nomination of the Committee as soon as the Irish Crime and Outrage Bill should be read a third time, if the House would permit him.

was anxious, before the nomination of the Committee took place, to obtain the decision of the House as to the principles on which banking should hereafter be conducted. As it was intended that the House should adjourn on Monday next, he thought it would be advisable to postpone the appointment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Committee until after the House should meet again. There would then be time and opportunity for considering the whole question with greater coolness and calmness than could be looked for under the pressure of recent events, which had excited much alarm in the public mind. He was, unfortunately, unable to attend during the recent discussion; but, as far as he could perceive, the subject of free trade in banking was not enforced by any speaker. The subject was brought before the House by him in 1826 and 1839, and he was prepared to show that the Legislature would be obliged in the end, after all the experiments they had made, to adopt the principles which he then laid down.

said, the House had already decided that the Committee should be appointed, and therefore the only question which remained undecided respected the Members of the House of whom the Committee should be composed. It was very unusual to interpose with such a Motion as that of which the hon. Member for Montrose had given notice, on a proposal for nominating a Committee. The resolutions which the hon. Member had put upon the Paper that morning, were calculated to raise a discussion upon almost every debateable question in connexion with banking and the currency. In the first place, the hon. Member's resolutions would call for the opinion of the House relative to a silver standard. ["No, no!"] Well, the resolutions at least declared that the maintenance of the gold standard was essential, and that would call forth the opinions of all Members who entertained a contrary opinion. The resolutions also revived the question of the utility or otherwise of 1l. notes; in fact, each of the hon. Member's seven resolutions was calculated to give rise to a debate which would last a week. It was probable that, upon reflection, the hon. Member would see that it would be most inconvenient to propose such a string of resolutions on the question of nominating a Committee; and he did hope and trust that the hon. Member would not persevere in his Motion.

hoped that the indulgence of the House would be extended to him whilst he offered an explanation, which was called for by some remarks that had been applied to him by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. It would be in the recollection of the House, that on Friday week the right hon. Baronet complained that he (Mr. Urquhart) had stated, on a previous evening, that the banking system of Scotland had been legislated for without due notice, and the right hon. Baronet at the same time charged him with having suppressed a portion of the words which he had used on making his statement to the House on the 6th of May, 1844. The explanation which he wished to offer to the House was this—that he derived his knowledge of what occurred in the House on the occasion referred to from the Times—a newspaper which was generally accurate in its reports of all currency debates; and to the accuracy of which the right hon. Baronet had himself borne testimony. With the permission of the House, he would read from the report in the Times the passage to which he referred:—

"Of Ireland and Scotland I have said nothing, for I have thought that the task of dealing with this country was sufficiently extensive, and I do not wish it should be complicated by the arrangements which the condition and necessities of other parts of the United Kingdom might render neces- sary. Let us, in the first place, establish our system of banking and issue upon sound principles in England, and let us reserve the affairs of Ireland and Scotland as matters of separate consideration. We ought not to permit anything to complicate those interests. They should be dealt with by separate means, and I have, therefore, excluded them from the operation of the present measure. Allow me, in this place, to remind the House that I have not proposed to legalise any new banks of issue, nor to permit the formation of any new joint-stock banks generally for the improvement of the system of joint-stock banking. These regulations, I repeat, are to be confined to England and Wales. I believe that in Scotland the circulation is rather diminishing than increasing; but with that at present we have nothing to do."

Could there be a more formal, distinct, and public declaration that the Scotch system was not to be meddled with? and it is the right hon. Baronet who uttered these words on the 6th May, 1844, who declared the other evening that, on that very occasion, he gave, as Minister of the Crown, a formal, distinct and public notification to Scotland of his intention to interfere with its currency! My knowledge of the subject was, at the time, derived from the report in the Times; but the quotation I read in the House, and which had been furnished me by a friend, was not from the Times, and certainly there followed immediately on the passage I quoted, another which was a direct contradiction of it. This passage the right hon. Baronet quotes to the House, and on this he founds his charge of wilful suppression against me. Had I seen that passage, I should not have failed to use it. But that contradiction did not appear at the time: it appeared in Hansard's Debates, which is not in the hands of the public; and the speech of the right hon. Baronet is particularly marked as a "corrected" version. No doubt the right hon. Baronet had, in his speech of the 6th May, introduced ambiguous phrases; for the Times, in its summary, contradicts its report of the debate, and says that the measure was to extend to Scotland and Ireland; however, on the following day, and after due consultation, it wrote as follows:—

"The occasion of the present resolutions is purely English. A periodical opportunity offers for modifying the charter of the Bank of England. Accordingly, the Scottish and Irish banks are to be left wholly untouched."

On the 20th of the same month the debate was resumed, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer having referred to the Scotch banks as being about to be subjected to the same regulations as the English banks, the right hon. Member for Tamworth said, "I did not say so." In the same debate, Mr. P. Stewart used these words, as appears by the Times report:—

"The right hon. Baronet is entitled to the thanks of the public for not having included Scotland or Ireland in the proposed measure; great prudence was shown in not raising such a hornets' nest around him."

Those words were used in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, who had reproached the right hon. Member for Tamworth with not having included the banks of Scotland in his measure. The first direct and intelligible intimation was given on the 4th of July, 1844. In answer to a question from Mr. Patrick Stewart, the right hon. Baronet said that he had no intention to legislate with respect to the Scotch banks; but in the same breath he declared that the Parliament had already legislated with respect to them. Now, he submitted that, looking to what took place in that House, he was justified in stating on a former occasion that the right hon. Baronet had declared it was not his intention to interfere with the Scotch banks, and that the right hon. Baronet was not warranted in alleging that he (Mr. Urquhart) had misrepresented him. The contradiction which one passage from the right hon. Baronet's speeches offered to the statements contained in another, did not legitimately afford to the right hon. Baronet the occasion to allege misrepresentation against those whom he misled.

said, that there could be no doubt as to what the intentions of the Government really were on the occasion referred to; for it was necessary that resolutions should be moved previously to the introduction of the Bill. The resolutions were eight or nine in number; and, although none of them interfered with the existing Scotch banks, one resolution did contain a positive prohibition against the establishment of any new bank of issue in that country. The prohibition, indeed, applied to all parts of the United Kingdom. The resolutions were printed; he was in constant communication with the bankers of Scotland, and he undertook to state that they all distinctly understood that their banking privileges were not to be interfered with by the Legislature of 1844, but that 110 new bank of issue could be instituted after the passing of the Banking Act of that year. There was no doubt what- ever as to the intention of the Government, and the hon. Member's mistake in this matter arose from his confounding his (Sir R. Peel's) declared intention not to interfere with the privileges of the existing Scotch banks with a supposed intention on his part not to propose any legislation whatever with respect to banks in Scotland. The prohibitory resolution, however, applied equally to the whole of the United Kingdom, and it was so distinctly understood at the time.

said, that he would not detain the House many minutes; but he found it his duty to correct an error into which many persons had fallen. The House was extremely ready to listen to anything which reflected upon the character of the Catholic clergy. He would read a letter which had been published in some of the papers, from the parish priest of Strokestown, denying in the most emphatic manner the charge which had been laid against him of having instigated to the murder of Major Mahon. The hon. Gentleman then read the following:—

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE EVENING FREEMAN.

"Strokestown, December, 1847.

"If, as is gratuitously asserted, any Catholic clergyman has denounced any one of those obnoxious landlords from his altar previous to the fatal event in which he has fallen a victim to the wild justice of revenge, the legal process of rendering that clergyman amenable to the law, and responsible for his seditious preaching, is neither expensive nor difficult. May I ask why such steps are not taken by the afflicted relatives, or by the inheritor of the property? Oh! the informer will not come forward; his courage oozes through his fingers. He skulks into his lurking hole, and laughs at the credulity of those who employed him after he received the reward of his turpitude. There may be found in a Catholic congregation some hireling serf whose embarrassment tempts him to court the patronage of his landlord, and to offer his services as an officious whisperer, for the purpose of drawing a little grist to his mill. But why, I ask again, does not some such character come forward to substantiate the odious charge against the priests? No, he stands hack, because he knows his perfidy would be detected, and that he should then be held up to public scorn as a liar and calumniator. I have now to assure the public, by the most solemn asseverations a clergyman can utter, that the late Major Mahon was never denounced, nor even his name mentioned, from any chapel altar in Strokestown, or within twenty miles of Strokestown, in any direction, on any Sunday before his death. I can, under the same sacred pledge, declare that a single sentence was never spoken from the altar, which, by mis- construction or otherwise, could tend to stimulate the peasantry to the atrocious murder which has been perpetrated. The cruelties exercised against a tenantry whose feelings were already wound up to woful and vengeful exasperation by the loss of their exiled relatives, as well as by hunger and pestilence, which swept so many victims into an untimely grave—in my opinion, may be assigned as the solo exciting cause of the disastrous event which has occurred. I saw no necessity for the idle display of a large force of military and police surrounding the poor man's cabin, setting fire to the roof, while the half-starved, half-naked children were hastening away from the flames with yells of despair, while the mother lay prostrate on the threshold writhing in agony, and the heartbroken father remained supplicating on his knees. I saw no need for this demonstration of physical force; nor did I see any need for brutal triumph and exultation when returning after these feats were nobly performed. Nor can I conceive that the feelings of humanity should permit any man to send his bailiffs to revisit those scenes of horror and conflagration, with an order, if they found a but built or a fire lighted in the murky ruins, to demolish the one and extinguish the other, thus leaving the wretched outcasts no alternative but to perish in a ditch. In my opinion, these scenes, of which I can only draw a very inefficient portrait, had more to do with the murder of Major Mahon than all the thundering denunciations of the Vatican could effect, had they been rolled on his head. I tell, therefore, the Orange press, that their fabricated charge of denunciation against the Catholic clergy is a monstrous, outrageous, and flagitious calumny. It is not true that the exterminated tenants of the late Major Mahon have been all sent to America. There are hundreds as yet who survived their expulsion, after seeing their crops carried away from their doors and safely deposited within the landlord's haggard, left to subsist on the precarious alms of their neighbours, roving about as houseless wanderers, without a friend to console, or a resting-place whereon to lay their aching bones.—I am, Sir, your obedient and much obliged,

"MICHAEL M'DERMOTT, P.P., Strokestown."

The House ought to remember that the state of parties was such in Ireland, that partisans would make statements that they would not attempt to substantiate. A similar charge had been made against the Rev. Mr. Hughes, P.P. of Sligo. What would the House say, when he could assure them them that the words attributed to that rev. gentleman had never been uttered? The statement had been made in a Castlebar paper, whose interest it was to cast every slander upon the Roman Catholic clergy. Some reflections had been cast upon himself, to which he was not going to give a formal answer. Some Members had not the fairness to recollect that, on the first night of the discussion on the Coercion Bill, he had refused to pledge himself not to give opposition to that measure. He allowed the Bill to be read a first time, under an idea of its mildness, of which when he came to read it he was disabused, and under the impression by his so doing that he would be establishing some claim upon the Government to introduce some remedial measures, to pass pari passu with the Coercion Bill; and by repeated, questions he took care to bring out the fact distinctly that the Government did not intend to introduce these measures. He was quite willing to have given the Government any constitutional assistance in the repression of crime. He had not objected to give protection to life. The Irish Members had declared their willingness to assent to an increase in the police force, in order to support the ordinary law, which they thought quite sufficient to meet the emergency of the case. The Ministers had, however, now got their Coercion Bill. They had got that measure which they declared to be necessary for the prevention of crime in Ireland; they had got it by large majorities; and all he now asked of them was to turn their attention to modes for the relief of the people. The state of Ireland would not brook delay. They would rue it if they delayed. Delay would, only augment the difficulty. If they brought forward remedial measures, they would have the unanimous support of all the Irish Members. He would wish to impress upon them, that they would rely upon a broken reed if they depended upon the poor-law to save the people of Ireland, whose condition was becoming-more aggravating every succeeding day. Human life was being wasted by tens and twenties a day, by hundreds in the week. It was necessary that something should be done. He did implore them to employ the recess in preparing measures, which they should press on the meeting of Parliament with as much alacrity as they had pressed the measure of coercion. He implored them to give relief during the recess. They had stated that they had depots of food; he considered that they should administer relief from them; agitation would not stand in their way. The only way to strike down utterly those who possessed influence in Ireland, was by dealing justly towards the people, by administering measures for relief in an honest, resolute spirit, and not shrinking from a redress of their grievances. Then they would solve the problem of the peaceful and prosperous government of Ireland. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.

felt bound, even at that late stage of the Bill, to offer it his utmost opposition. He believed that a great portion of the recent outrages in Ireland might be truly attributed to the denunciations of the Irish landlords in that House in the previous Session. But the English Members who had joined in that outcry now found that their policy was a failure. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) did not seem to obtain popularity now-a-days by abusing the Irish landlords. He had now changed his tone, by charging the priests of Ireland, without any proof, of being the agitators of crime in Ireland. The most exaggerated and cruel charges had been brought, without evidence to support them, against the clergy of Ireland, a body of men whose noble conduct during the last year might at all events have secured them against these charges. He was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Limerick (Mr. Monsell) did not allow the charges which had been brought against Dr. Ryan, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Limerick, by the hon. Member for Bridport, to pass unanswered. He himself knew no clergyman whose character was more estimable than that of the prelate in question—and he felt convinced that had Ireland been deprived of the services of the Roman Catholic clergy during her recent calamities, she would have been in a state of insurrection. If that House wished to make the people of Ireland hate British connexion more than they now did, he was sure that they could not pursue a more effectual course than that which they had pursued since the opening of the Session, viz., abusing and calumniating the Roman Catholic clergy, and thus alienating the hearts of the Irish people from English legislation. He might probably be asked what measures, in his opinion, ought to be brought forward to give peace and prosperity to Ireland? In reply he would say, in the first place, that they should endeavour to provide employment for the people. It was utterly impossible that any country could be peaceable so long as there was an enormous mass of the population suffering the greatest privations, which arose from the want of employment. It was impossible to exaggerate the sufferings which the people of Ireland were at present undergoing for want of employment. It was the bounden duty of the Government to take measures without delay for providing employment for them. He knew that when a proposition of that kind was made by the Irish Members, they were met with some such observation as he heard fall from an English Member last Session, "Oh, you're howling again for English gold! But he contended that it was the duty of that House, so long as they professed to rule the destinies of Ireland, to see to it that her resources were developed, in order that her population might be employed. Let them do that, and, in the time of famine, Ireland would not have to come to this country in the character of a suppliant for relief. Another great means of putting an end to crime and outrage in Ireland was, by immediately settling that long-neglected question of the relation of landlord and tenant. Any one who had looked at the character of the recent outrages in Ireland must know that they were attributable to the disturbed relations between the landlord and his tenants. Indeed, they need never hope to see peace in Ireland until the tenant-right was sanctioned by the Legislature. There was not a man in Ireland who did not at once admit that the present mode of ejecting tenants without compensation for improvements was a grievous injustice. So long back as 1843, a report had been presented to that House, by a Commission whom they had appointed, setting forth the evils of Ireland, and pointing out the remedies; and yet, as Earl Grey had said in his place in the House of Lords in 1846, not a step had been taken to carry into effect the suggestions of that Commission, although, as regarded that great question of the relation of landlord and tenant, the Commission said that not a day, not an hour, should be lost before it was settled. The House now, for the first time, was told that the Government had a Bill on that question under consideration; but the probability was, that, like the Encumbered Estates Bill of last Session, it would be brought forward at an advanced period of the Session, and repeatedly postponed, and finally withdrawn at the close of the Session, because it had been found to be unsatisfactory to both landlords and tenants. Although a comprehensive measure of that nature was the only guarantee for the peace of Ireland, and this Coercion Bill was only a guarantee for increased outrage, yet the Government persisted in pushing it through the House, without giving the slightest intimation of the nature of the Landlord and Tenant Bill, which they professed to have under consideration. A measure should at once be introduced to improve the system of drain- age of land in Ireland. The evils resulting from the absence of such a measure had been fully detailed to them a few nights ago, by the hon. Member for Kinsale. In the next place, it was necessary, for the preservation of order throughout Ireland, that a comprehensive measure for facilitating the sale of encumbered estates should be at once brought forward. The want of such a measure was keeping a large portion of the Irish people unemployed, and they were consequently perishing by starvation. With regard to the recent outrages in Ireland, he believed that there was no class that suffered more than the middle-class-men, who were at all times subjected to the attacks of bands of lawless vagabonds. He believed that an effectual mode of putting an end to that reign of terror which those outlaws maintained, would be by instituting some species of rural guard amongst the small farmers, for the purposes of self-defence and the preservation of order. With respect to that portion of this Bill which related to the possession of firearms, he thought the complaints of the Irish Members were not unreasonable. He, with them, believed that the placing of the licensing right in the hands of a few of the police and military in Ireland, was most objectionable and unjust. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had said, he would not parley with the assassin. And so said he. He wanted not popularity amongst assassins. He would give his support to any measure calculated to dash the weapon from the hand of the assassin; he would give his support to any measure which would pursue the assassin through the land; but it was because he believed that this measure was utterly futile—because he believed that while it impugned all the principles of constitutional liberty, it, at the same time, gave no security whatever against the perpetration of crime—it was on those grounds that he gave all the opposition which he could give to this measure.

rose to correct a statement which had fallen from the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor) the other night, with reference to the number of distresses which had been issued at the instance of the National Bank of Ireland. The hon. Member had represented the number to have been 800; now the real number was only fifty-nine, and he did not think that that was by any means a large number, considering the state of affairs in Ireland.

asked for the indulgence of the House for a very few moments, as he felt himself bound, in justice to his own feelings, and to his position as an Irish Member, not to give a silent vote on this occasion. It was true that he voted the other night for an adjournment of the debate on a preliminary question in connexion with this Bill; but his reason for so doing was, not that a factious opposition might prevail against the measure, but that the Irish Members might have a full opportunity of making their statements before the measure was passed into a law. By voting for the Amendment the other night on this Bill, he by no means wished to give the go-by to the measure, nor had he shrunk from being present on this occasion, and he would briefly state the reasons why he differed with many of his friends in giving, as he conceived it to be his duty to give, his support to the third reading of this Bill. As to the charge of inconsistency on this question, he was not at all afraid to meet it. He had not shrunk on former occasions when the Arms Bill was before the House; but when they charged him with inconsistency for giving his support to this Bill, he thought his friends went too far. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had not failed to bring such a charge against the Irish Members who supported this Bill, and had opposed this measure in 1846. But it should be borne in mind that this Bill was not the Bill of 1846. If it had been, he should have felt it his duty to oppose it, no matter how numerous were the murders committed in Ireland. The Bill of 1846 contained two faults: one was that old, exploded system of Insurrection Acts, which had been tried and found wanting; it proposed in the most blundering fashion to prevent noonday assassination by shutting the people up at night. He really believed that this was such a measure as the hon. Member for Limerick city had himself said he was willing to support. He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) believed this was a moderate Bill. He believed it to be a Bill which would do what the hon. Member expressed himself ready to do, namely, limit the use of firearms to such districts as were not extremely disturbed. In that respect, therefore, it did not violate the common law, which only sanctioned the use of firearms as long as they were used for the porposes of self-defence, but no longer; and the Bill took away the right of licensing from magistrates, judges, and juries, at quarter-sessions. That was another reason why he gave the Bill his support. With regard to that part of the Bill which proposed to give extraordinary powers to the Executive in Ireland, which, were beyond the limits of the ordinary or constitutional law, he wished his hon. Friends to recollect that such powers had been granted to the Executive in England when the condition of the country required it. He believed that this was the first occasion on which a Bill for Ireland had been fashioned after an English precedent. He hailed the change with some joy, and he hoped that precedent would be followed up. Now, it was said that the powers to be given under this Bill had better be entrusted to the local magistracy than to a central authority like that of the Lord Lieutenant. In that opinion he could not concur. He did not wish to say anything disrespectful of Ireland; but, upon general principles, he thought it was desirable that, in giving unconstitutional operations, they should not give them to constitutional authorities. He believed it was much better to limit the jurisdiction of the magistracy to the exercise of their ordinary duties. He hoped that the magistrates of Ireland would not consider themselves insulted by the passing of this Bill. Duties were entrusted to them upon the performance of which the peace of the country depended. If they joined in the carrying out of this Bill, and worked it not rigorously but firmly, he believed that they would succeed in a great degree in restoring peace to Ireland. He hoped that the grievous evils of Ireland would be diminished by the future legislation of that House; but it was their first duty to put an end to a system of outrage which was bringing disgrace upon the well-disposed portions of Ireland. If it should be found that the juries of the disturbed districts did not co-operate with the Legislature in their attempts to punish the assassin, he, without any fear of being charged with inconsistency, would be quite prepared to support the Government in a more stringent measure than the present. One word more. It was said by some that this Bill would not answer the end for which it was introduced. He knew it did seem somewhat weak to many hon. Gentlemen; but he begged leave to remind them that, if strong repressive measures alone were what a Legislature ought to adopt to restore peace to a country, then Ireland ought to be a model of tranquillity to the world. But the result of former coercive laws was increased tumult. He hoped that a better spirit was springing up in the Legislature with regard to the mode in which Ireland should be governed. In giving his support to this measure, he wished to add one word of warning to the Government. When they had passed this Bill, and restored, as he hoped, some sort of tranquillity to a disturbed country, they should recollect that their duties were, in point of fact, only begun. He admitted that this or some similar measure was necessary; but he felt that it was the duty of the Government, after they had, by an unusual but wise course of treatment, restored some sort of case to their delirious patient, to treat Ireland in such a manner as her condition required. Let them enable the people of Ireland to develop the resources of their country. If they failed to do so, they might depend upon it that, although they might succeed by this measure in making outrage hide its head for a time, yet, so sure as the morning sun followed the darkness of night would outrage again desolate the country.

I feel very much in the position of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House, for I am in some degree compelled to speak before this Bill is read a third time. I have presented a petition against the Bill, signed by more than 20,000 persons, inhabitants of the borough of Manchester, and I am unwilling to vote without briefly giving the reasons which make it impossible for me to oppose this Bill. When I recollect the circumstances attending the rejection of the Bill of 1846, for the protection of life in Ireland, I am convinced that the Government would not have brought forward the present measure if it had not appeared to them absolutely necessary, and that, but for this supposed necessity, it would never have been heard of. The case of the Government, so far as the necessity for this Bill is concerned, seems to me to be as clear and as perfect as it can be. From the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Home Department, from the unanimous statements of all the newspapers, and from the evidence of all parties connected with Ireland, it is placed beyond a doubt, that in the disturbed districts of Ireland the ordinary law is utterly powerless. The reason why the law is carried into effect in England is, because the feeling of the people is in favour of it, and every man is willing to become and is in reality a peace officer, in order to further the ends of justice. But in Ireland this state of things does not exist. The public sentiment in certain districts is depraved and thoroughly vitiated. [Mr. J. O'CONNEL! NO!] The hon. Member cries "NO, no;" but I maintain that in the disturbed districts the public or popular feeling is as I have described it. I don't mean to assert that all that the newspapers contain is true, or that they contain all the truth; but I ask the hon. Gentleman if he has not read accounts which are not contradicted, from which we learn that on the occurrence of some recent cases of assassination, whole districts have been in a state of rejoicing and exultation? These assassinations are not looked upon as murders, but rather as executions. Take the case of Mr. Lloyd, a clergyman, who was recently assassinated. There was no show of vindictive feeling on the part of his murderers; there was little of the character of ordinary murders in it. The servant was allowed to depart unharmed; a boy, who was in the carriage, was removed that he might not be injured; and the unhappy gentleman was shot with all the deliberation and the calmness with which a man would be made to suffer the extreme penalty of the law. It is clear, then, that the ordinary law fails, and that the Government have a case for the demand they make for an extension of the present powers of the law. I don't say the present Bill will certainly be effective, but it is the less to be opposed because that it does not greatly exceed or infringe the ordinary law; and it is the duty of the Legislature, when called upon to strengthen the Executive, to do so by the smallest possible infringement of the law and the constitution. But to leave the particular measure now before us, I am bound to say that the case of the Government with respect to their Irish policy in general is not so good as could be wished. The Government has not shown the courage which is necessary to deal effectually with the difficulties of Ireland. They should remember what passed when the poor-law was proposed for that country. They were told it would be a failure—that it could not be worked; but disregarding these statements, they passed the Bill; and I believe, since the Act of 1829, no measure has passed this House of equal benefit to Ireland. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has said that all parties are to be blamed for the misgovernment of Ireland; but the noble Lord should remember the responsibility which is upon him, for he is now in the position of dictator on Irish questions, and whatever he proposes for that country, I verily believe, will find no successful opposition in this House. There is another fact to which I would call attention. The Irish Members complain, and very justly, of the past legislation of this House; but when we call to mind that there are 105 of them here, of whom 60 or 70 are of liberal politics or opinions, and that about 30 of them are repealers, and hold very strong views with regard to the mismanagement of Irish affairs in the Imperial Parliament, I think we have a right to complain that they have not laid on the table of the House any one measure which they believe to be necessary to the prosperity of their country. I have been in this House more than four years, and I have never yet seen the Irish Members bringing forward any proposition of a practical character—nor am I aware that they have supported any measure they deemed necessary for Ireland, with unanimity and earnestness, or with anything like perseverance and resolution. I am sure, that 105, or even 30 English Members, sitting in a Parliament in Dublin, and believing their country had suffered from the effects of bad legislation, would, by their knowledge of the case, their business habits, activity, union, and perseverance, have showed a powerful front, and, uniting together, and working manfully in favour of any proposition they might think necessary to remedy the evils of which they complained, would have forced it on the attention of the House. But the Irish Members have not done this. So far, then, they are and have been as much to blame as any other Member of this House for the absence of good government in Ireland. I will not, like them, complain of bad legislation, and propose no remedy. What is the condition of Ireland? Last year we voted millions to keep its population from starvation; and this year we have been asked for a further sum, but have not granted it. We maintain a large army in Ireland, and an armed police, which is an army in everything but in name, and yet we have in that country a condition of things not to be matched in any other civilised country on the face of the earth, and which is alike disgraceful to Ireland and to us. The great cause of Ireland's calamities is, that Ireland is idle. I be- lieve it would be found, on inquiry, that the population of Ireland, as compared with that of England, do not work more than two days per week. Wherever a people are not industrious and are not employed, there is the greatest danger of crane and outrage. Ireland is idle, and therefore she starves; Ireland starves, and therefore she rebels. We must choose between industry and anarchy: we must have one or the other in Ireland. This proposition I believe to be incontrovertible, and I defy the House to give peace and prosperity to that country until they set a going her industry, create and diffuse capital, and thus establish those gradations of rank and condition by which the whole social fabric can alone be held together. But the idleness of the people of Ireland is not wholly their fault. It is for the most part a forced idleness, for it is notorious that when the Irish come to England or remove to the United States or the Colonies, they are about the hardest working people in the world. We employ them down in Lancashire, and with the prospect of good pay they work about as well, and are as trustworthy, and quiet, and well-disposed to the law as the people of this country. The great secret of their idleness at home is, that there is little or no trade in Ireland; there are few flourishing towns to which the increasing population can resort for employment, so that there is a vast mass of people living on the land; and the land itself is not half so useful for their employment and sustentation as it might be. A great proportion of her skill, her strength, her sinews, and her labour, is useless to Ireland for the support of her population. Every year they have a large emigration, because there are a great number of persons with just enough of means to transport themselves to other countries, who, finding it impossible to live at home in comfort, carry themselves and their capital out of Ireland; so that, year after year, she loses a large portion of those between the very poorest and the more wealthy classes of society, and with them many of the opportunities for the employment of labour. I do not believe that the Bill for regulating the relations of landlord and tenant, as recommended by the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, will restore prosperity to Ireland. Such a measure may be passed with great advantage; but if it be intended by a Bill with this title to vest the ownership of the land in the present occupiers, I believe this House will never pass it, and if it did, it would prove most fatal to the best interests of the country. I think we have a right to blame the Government that as yet we have not seen the Bill for the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland. I wish to ask why such a Bill is not ready before this? [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: The Bill has been ready a long time.] The noble Lord says the Bill has been ready long ago; but that statement only makes the Government open to greater blame, for if the Bill were ready, why has it not been brought forward before this? Last Session the Bill was withdrawn, and the reason given was that landlords and mortgagees did not like it. If the Government wait till the landlords and mortgagees like it, it will never be brought forward at all. Had they waited till the Irish landlords asked for the poor-law, there would have been no poor-law in Ireland now. The Government should disregard the opposition of these parties, and should take their stand above all class interests. They must refuse to listen to the interested suggestions of one class or the other, and they must remember that they are the Executive Government of the country, and bound to act for the public good. There is an unanimous admission now that the misfortunes of Ireland are connected with the question of the management of the land. I have a theory that, in England as well as in Ireland, the proprietors of the soil are chiefly responsible for whatever of bad legislation has been inflicted upon us. The ownership of land confers more political power than the possession of any other description of property. The Irish landowners have been willing parties to the past legislation for Ireland, and they have also had the administration and execution of the laws in that country. The encumbered condition of landed property in Ireland is the question most pressing at this moment. I am informed by a gentleman in Dublin, of the best means of information and of undoubted veracity, that in the province of Connaught there is not five per cent of the land free from settlements of one kind or other, and that probably not one per cent is free from mortgages. I have asked Irish Members of all parties if this be true, and not one of them is disposed to deny it; and if it be true, I say it is idle to seek elsewhere for the source of the evils of Ireland; and every day, nay, every hour we allow to go by without taking instant measures to remedy this crying mis- chief, only adds to the criminality which rests on us for our past legislation. Patchwork legislation will not now succeed; speeches from the Lord Lieutenant—articles in the newspapers, or lending to the landowners at 3½ per cent money raised by taxation from the traders of England, who have recently been paying 8 per cent—all will fail to revive the industry of Ireland. I will now state what, in my opinion, is the remedy, and I beg to ask the attention of the Government to it, because, though now they may think it an extreme one, I am convinced the time will come when they will be compelled to adopt it. In the first place, it is their duty to bring in a Sale of Estates Bill, and make it easy for landowners who wish to dispose of their estates to do so. They should bring in a Bill to simplify the titles to land in Ireland. I understand that now it is almost impossible to transfer an estate, the difficulties in the way of a clear title being almost insurmountable. In the next place, they should diminish temporarily, if not permanently, all stamp duties which hinder the transfer of landed property, and they should pass a law by which the system of entailing estates should for the future be prevented. [Laughter.] I can assure hon. Gentlemen who laugh at this, that at some not distant day this must be done, and not in Ireland only, but in England also. It is an absurd and monstrous system, for it binds, as it were, the living under the power of the dead. The principle on which the law should proceed is this, that the owner of property should leave it to whomsoever he will, provided the individual is living when the will is made; but he should not be suffered, after he is dead, and buried, and forgotten, to speak, and still to direct the channel through which the estate should pass. I shall be told that the law of entail in Ireland is the same as in England, and that in Scotland it is even more strict. I admit it; but the evil is great in England, and in Scotland it has become intolerable, and must soon be relaxed if not abolished. Perhaps I shall be told that the laws of entail and primogeniture are necessary for the maintenance of our aristocratic institutions; but if the evils of Ireland spring from this source, I say, perish your aristocratic institutions rather than that a whole nation should be in this terrible condition. If your aristocratic families would rear up their children in habits of business, and with some notions of duty and prudence, these mischievous arrangements would not be required, and they would retain in their possession estates at least as large as is compatible with the interests of the rest of the community. If the laws of entail and primogeniture are sound and just, why not apply them to personal property as well as to freehold? Imagine them in force in the middle classes of the community, and it will be seen at once that the unnatural system, if universal, would produce confusion; and confusion would necessitate its total abolition. I am thoroughly convinced that everything the Government or Parliament can do for Ireland will be unavailing, unless the foundation of the work be laid well and deep, by clearing away the fetters under which land is now held, so that it may become the possession of real owners, and be made instrumental to the employment and sustentation of the people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may fancy themselves interested in maintaining the present system; but there is surely no interest they can have in it which they will weigh against the safety and prosperity of Ireland? I speak as a representative coming from a county which suffers extremely from the condition of Ireland. Lancashire is periodically overrun by the pauperism of Ireland, and for a year past it has suffered most seriously from the pestilence imported from Ireland; and many of the evils which in times past have been attributed to the extension of manufactures in that county have arisen from the enormous immigration of a suffering and pauperised people driven for sustenance from their own country. As a Lancashire representative, I protest most solemnly against a system which drives the Irish population to seek work and wages in this country and in other countries, when both might be afforded them at home. Parliament is bound to remedy this state of things. The present Parliament contains a larger number of men of business and Members representing the middle classes than any former Parliament. The present Government is essentially of the middle class—[A laugh]—and its Members have on many occasions shown their sympathy with it. Let the hon. Gentleman laugh; but he will not deny that no Government can long have a majority in this House which does not sympathise with the great middle class of this country. If the Government will manfully and courageously grapple with the question of the condition of land in Ireland, they will, I am convinced, be sup- ported by a majority of the Members of this House, and they will enable the strength and skill of Irishmen to be expended on their own soil, and lay the foundation of her certain prosperity by giving that stimulus and reward to industry which it cannot have in the present circumstances of that country. Sir, I feel it impossible to refuse my vote in favour of the Bill now before us; but I am compelled to say that unless the Government will zealously promote measures in the direction I have indicated, they cannot hope long to retain the confidence of this House or of the country.

wished to know, as the noble Lord had stated that a very important Bill relating to Ireland had been actually prepared, why it could not be introduced before the recess?

replied, that last year a Bill on the same subject had been introduced in the House of Lords; that the same course would be adopted this year; and that the time of that House would be sufficiently occupied prior to the recess with the discussion upon the present Bill.

said, no one was more anxious than he that this Bill should become law; but this was the last opportunity of addressing the House upon the subject. The hon. Member then proceeded, amidst signs of impatience which rendered his remarks nearly inaudible, to contend that it was obvious, from the letter read the other night by the hon. Member for Montrose, that the hon. Member for Limerick had intended orginally, not only not to oppose, but to give his cordial support to the Bill now before the House; and he (Sir B. Hall) read an extract to show that the Council of National Safety and Distress intended also to support it. He was most anxious to state, in reference to a letter recently read by an hon. and learned Member in reference to the murder of Mr. Roe, that he had received a letter from the brother of Mr. Roe, in which he said that the letter read by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, in palliation of the murder, dated the 17th of October, was contradicted three days afterwards by the brother of Mr. Roe in almost all the papers published in Ireland; and that he, Mr. Roe's brother, had reason to believe that that contradiction was known to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The writer of the letter road by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was an out agent to attorneys, a discharged steward on the public works, and the brother of the man charged with the murder of Mr. Roe.

said, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to this Bill; but before proceeding to the reception of the report—before proceeding to discuss the question of the adjudication on the claims of those who had been more or less injured by past railway legislation—before taking into consideration the claims of those who, forming of themselves a majority of the representatives in that House, were likely to assert those claims and to receive that attention which they merited, and perhaps rather more than they merited—it would not be amiss in them to consider the claims of those who had been most shamefully, he feared dangerously, neglected by the whole course of their railway legislation, and whom they were now about to dismiss at this period of the year without any consideration; and he was afraid, but for his advocacy, without a single word. When those who came after them looked at the gigantic schemes they had undertaken, and the gigantic works they had performed, they would naturally ask what, in an age professing popular feeling, and espousing, in theory at least, and loudly declaring the interests of the labouring classes—what had been their conduct in reference to them?—how they, having won from the labours of these parties their mighty wealth, had attended to their welfare?—how they had judged it expedient to promote their temporal and eternal welfare? They would naturally ask whether, in reference to medical cure, to their residences, to the instruction for the young, and the religious ministration for all, they had, in legislating for railways, borne the character which they had assumed to themselves of philanthrophic legislators and Christian men? In considering the hundreds and thousands of labourers whose interests were affected by railways—in considering the millions of money which had been embarked in these speculations, he had only been able to discover, among all the Acts of Parliament which had been passed on the subject, one solitary Act in reference to the labourer. He would read the preamble of that Act, to let the House see how far they had gone towards promoting the welfare and comfort of these men. The 1st and 2nd Victoria, to which he referred, recited—

"That whereas great mischiefs have arisen by the outrageous and unlawful behaviour of labourers and others employed on railroads, canals, and other public works, by reason whereof the appointment of special constables is often necessary for keeping the peace, and for the protection of the inhabitants, and the security of the property in the neighbourhood of such public works, whereby great expenses have been cast upon the public rates of counties and the districts chargeable with such expenses, directors and shareholders shall bear the expense," &c.

Of all the Acts which had been passed on the subject of railways, this was the only one relating to labourers themselves. In proceeding to show the House, as he felt it his duty to do, what had been the result of the negligence on the part of the Legislature—the evils which had been suffered, the crimes which had been permitted, and the risks which the labourer had run in consequence of their negligence—he must remind the House, that the case for which he was about to claim their attention was not the case of the old and decrepid, the sick and the infirm; but the case of those who were strong and healthy, and who were likely very soon to avenge upon society the injuries they had received at their hands. The House must be aware that, in dealing with this large body of labourers, they were dealing with a new nation—a nation because of their numbers and their power—and a new nation, because whatever difficulties the House might have in interfering with vested interests, there were no difficulties of that kind when they were at the commencement of a new system, and giving laws to a new state of society; so that, whether as regarded the question of residences, or the question of comfort, or the question of health, or the question of morals, he maintained that their responsibility in reference to those things was far greater than it would have been if they had to deal with existing usages and established rights. He would now take the liberty of quoting a few extracts in support of what he had to advance, from the important evidence given before the Committee appointed on the Motion of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), so early as July, 1846. He would not detain the House at any length, because he felt convinced that those who had the interest of that class at heart were fully aware of the danger impending over society by the course of conduct the Legislature had pursued and were pursuing towards them, and required only to have their attention directed to that report, and because he should consider it his duty to embody the suggestions of that report in a series of resolutions, and submit them to the consideration of the House soon after the recess. On the question of residences, the Rev. J. R. Thompson was asked:—

"'Are the huts at all equal to the class of houses which are generally occupied by the labouring population?' He answered, 'I never saw anything to be compared to them.' 'Will you describe them to the Committee?' he was asked. He said, 'I can only describe them as being built against a hedge or bank, the rafters sloping from this bank, and the sides and ends of turf. In some cases, I believe, they are just boarded inside, in some cases they are not; in some cases there is no partition; man, woman, and child all sleep exposed to one another. Sometimes a sort of temporary curtain may be thrown across, which divides the sleeping apartment from what they call the kitchen, where the fireplace is.'"

Mr. Rawlinson was asked—

"'What is the effect upon the habits and characters of the men, where there is a want of accommodation? Can you tell us from your experience?' He replied, 'I should say where the men are crowded together, as they were in that district, the work being carried on night and day, the beds in all the cottages were let double, and as soon as one set of men came out of them, after they had had their meals, another set were to take their place. The rooms were overcrowded, there could be no separation of the sexes; and demoralisation existed to a large extent among the native population. The women were corrupted many of them, and went away with the men, and lived amongst them in habits that civilised language will scarcely allow a description of."

With reference to drawbacks, the Rev. R. Wilson was asked—

"'Do you think generally men would be disposed to work for lower wages if they were sure of being paid weekly and in money?' He said, 'I think, undoubtedly, they would—no doubt they ought. There is another thing deducted from their wages, which is beer, whether they like it or not; by the rules on certain parts of the railroad, the labourers are compelled to take a certain quantity of beer.'"

Mr. Rawlinson said—

"These men were getting upon that work from 3s. 6d. to 4s. a-day, yet such was the excitement and lawless habits of the men in the district that it was no more to them than 2s. 6d. a-day, if they could have been comfortable and quiet, and could have lived rationally—the high wages were a curse rather than a blessing to them."

If the House only heard the statements of the carelessness and indifference of many of the undertakers of those works regarding the health and the lives of the men in their employment, he thought the House and those who read those discussions outside the House, notwithstanding their congratulations respecting the network of railways which was spread over the country, would feel very much pained by the description of what was suffered by their poorer fellow-subjects:—

"Mr. Pomfret, surgeon, Sheffield and Manchester Railway, was asked—'Did you ever think it your duty to suggest anything to the authorities of the company respecting these accidents?" He said—'I scarcely thought myself able to do that. I once mentioned the propriety of having copper instead of iron for stemming these holes, thinking the latter very dangerous; for instance, one man had drilled a hole vertically in the rock, and in putting the powder into this hole he used an iron stemmer, and this ignited the powder, and the stemmer was driven through a fellow-workman's head, and killed him on the spot.' 'Who provided the stemmer?' 'The contractors.' 'Was your suggestion attended to?' 'No; I was told that I was neither a contractor nor an engineer, and that it was not my province.'"

Who could wonder, in such a state of things, that fever and disease should prevail? Mr. Rawlinson said, that—

"Fever and the smallpox broke out amongst them; and I have seen the men walking about with the smallpox upon them as thick as possible, and no hospital to go to."

This was in the Summit Level Tunnel, where there were no hospitals; but he would call attention to how the railways acted where there was an hospital. In his own county of Northampton the infirmary received from the Birmingham line 852 cases, which were calculated to have cost 5971, and the hospital only received from the company 130l. 11s., of which the workmen contributed a considerable sum. With reference to provisions, the Rev. J. R. Thompson said—

"'I take it upon the average that a navigator or workman working on our line pays from 20 to 30 per cent for all his provisions more than I do.' Mr. Chadwick said—'I have been informed of one piece of work undertaken by a few contractors of a condition not much above the labourers they engage, who will lose by the work itself, but who will make upwards of 7,000l. by the truck of beer and inferior provisions to the workmen.'"

With regard to religious instruction, the Rev. J. Thompson was asked—

"'Am I to understand, from the experience you have had, you despair of improving the labourers in a religious and moral point of view?' He replied, 'Not if a regular spiritual instruction be adopted. Perhaps an individual is under my care for a month, and then he is off elsewhere; if there was a regular system kept up, so that he could go from spiritual instruction to spiritual instruction. I think it very likely the man might be reformed.'"

Mr. Pomfret was asked—

"'Was there any religious attendance on the part of any minister upon those men who were so injured?' He said, 'I have never heard of their being visited.'"

He feared that the case he was about to read could not be considered as a solitary instance. Mr. Chadwick said, that—

"A fine powerful workman had the spine fractured in such a manner as to preclude all hope of recovery. Although this man pleaded again and again to have the Scriptures read to him with religious counsel, the request was in vain; for, after remaining many days in a sinking condition, he was suffered to expire without having received the least attention of the nature he so earnestly craved."

They found, therefore, that in the accumulation of these works, in the outlay of so many millions of money, in passing so many Acts of Parliament, and in dealing with not fewer than 400,000 fellow-subjects, they had taken no single precaution during the whole of these works, supposing they regarded these men as an army, to establish and enforce discipline among them, to provide them with medical attendance, or even to set up a commissariat department; or, supposing they looked upon them as sons of peace and children of industry, they had not treated them as children of a civilised community, but had, year after year, suffered them to go from work to work uncared for and unwatched. It appeared that a system of false names had been adopted; that men who committed crimes in one district fled to another, where, in consequence of their strength and their general aptitude for working in tunnels and other laborious work, they were received without character, and that their large wages were spent in the most lavish manner, nothing being left behind but demoralised and improvident habits, and a waste of human strength, insomuch that the average age of these men had been ascertained not to exceed forty. They—the Legislature—had taken these men from their parish ministrations—from their home charities and local ties, which, however some hon. Members might be disposed to sneer at then, did tend to the morality and peaceful deportment of the lower orders; and they had asked nothing of them but brute strength, which the men gave, and for which they were paid; and when all this stimulus of commercial enterprise was about to be checked—when a loophole was about to be given to those who chose to use it to stop the works which they had contracted for—he had looked in vain for any mention in the Bill of the railway labourers. He asked the House how they intended to deal with them—whether they thought they could safely continue to neglect them when they remembered their numbers, their power, their strength, and their demoralisation? It was for these reasons that he determined not to permit the report to be received, nor to suffer the Bill to make further progress without at least raising his voice of protest as regarded the past, and his voice of warning in reference to the future. If he thought the Railway Bills were all over there would be room only for unavailing regret; but as this Bill showed that railway projects were still numerous, and that these evils were still to continue, he should feel it his duty to submit to the House, after the recess, in a substantive form, not his own suggestions, which would be of little value, but the suggestions which had been originated in and embodied in the report of as fair and impartial a Committee as ever set. We were behind France, behind Prussia, and even, as he believed, behind America upon this subject. The evidence given in reference to the Paris and Rouen Railway, the statement of Mr. Chadwick in reference to the Prussian railways, the evidence as to the drainage works in Tuscany and Lombardy, showed that those States had taken a more humane, and, it might be added, a more politic view of their duties than we had done. There were, in every one of those countries, minute arrangements as to the lodging and provisions for the men, and the numbers to be employed, from which we might well have learned better things. It was to be hoped that we should now learn better things, if only taught by the perils threatening us during the coming winter, in the dead of which it was proposed to permit these railway companies to turn so many men aloof without warning, without arrangement for their return to their former homes, and without the slightest evidence that they had saved money, the whole evidence going to show that the savings' banks even in the neighbourhood were a mere nullity, in consequence of the truck system, the ticket system, and the place where the men were paid, and that all their wages were spent improvidently, in dissipation and debauchery. It would have been far better for us, even taking the lowest and most selfish ground—more safe for the community at large—more satisfactory to the districts in which these labourers had been for some time congregated, and where they were to be turned off—if we had made some arrangements—compulsory arrangements he would say—in reference to the method and place of payment, and whereby habits of frugality and order would have been encouraged in them, and some means furnished to them for returning to their respective homes. We were now saying to them in effect, "It was by your labour and the strength of your hands that those works were constructed, but while we employed you, we never looked after either your bodies or your souls; like beasts of burden we used you, like beasts of burden we dismiss you, with no more concern than if you were the iron or the stone upon which you wrought." The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Peto), whose evidence redounded so greatly to his credit, and some other gentlemen, had mitigated and relieved the evil in some quarters; but while works so conducted had paid as well as, and probably upon the whole better than those where such cruel treatment had been practised, it only showed how in-noxiously we might have stepped in and rendered obligatory upon all what their own right feeling had led a small number of contractors and proprietors here and there to do of their own accord. Let us not say that it was the free spirit of our legislation in commercial matters to leave all these things to find their own level; it was the part of a paternal Government to remember that if we wished our poor to love the institutions of their country, and to love those who were above them, we must make them feel that we sympathised with them, and desired their temporal and eternal welfare.

felt that this subject was very important; but as the hon. Member had given notice of his intention to lay resolutions before the House, embodying his views of the matters which legislation should embrace with reference to the moral and physical care of the masses of men congregated upon the great undertakings to which allusion had been made, he should defer until then any observations that he might have to make. He would, however, just remark that he feared the hon. Member rather overrated the power of Parliament to effect the object in view, although, to a certain extent, perhaps, regulations might be made by authority of Parliament in conformity with the resolutions of the Committee which had collected so much valuable evidence. The hon. Member had cast rather too sweeping a censure upon railway companies, and made too general a charge of neglect. Lately, partly owing to the labours of that Committee, and partly owing to other causes, attention had been called to the moral and physical condition of these men; and through the interference of persons of property in the part of the country through which the lines were to run, seconded by directors of companies, and by contractors, who afforded the most valuable aid of all, means had been provided in many instances for obviating the evils pointed out in the report. The hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Peto) stated in his evidence that he had about 9,000 men in his employ, and that he provided a regular staff of religious instructors, one for a certain number of miles of railway, and that regulations were made with regard to the truck system and other points, and which in his hands were completely successful in preventing the evils existing in other cases, and in procuring a better class of labourers, securing the performance of a greater amount of labour. The same system had been followed on the Chester and Holyhead line; and, indeed, there were several cases in which the directors had provided means for this purpose liberally, gentlemen and clergymen in the district through which the line was to pass giving their assistance and co-operation. He had far greater reliance upon these voluntary exertions, the result of public attention being called to this subject, than upon any legislative enactment, because he believed it hardly practicable by any law to secure the choice of proper men, which was secured where gentlemen like the hon. Member for Norwich, having those persons in their employ, really laid themselves out for this object. At the same time, when the hon. Member (Mr. A. Stafford) should move his resolutions, he should come to the consideration of them with an earnest desire to co-operate with him in promoting the end he had in view.

I cannot quite allow my hon. Friend's general charges against railways to pass without some observations. I really think the devil is not quite so black as my hon. Friend has painted him. He says that railway labourers are treated like beasts of burden, and that no care is taken either of their bodies or souls. Now, it is only justice to the railways to say that it appears from the same report he has quoted, that the railway labourers, on an average, receive wages to the amount of 22s. 6d. per week. When they receive such wages as these it can hardly be said that they are treated like beasts of burden. I speak from memory; but I think I saw a statement, a short time back, to the effect that the railway companies in Great Britain and Ireland were at one time contributing at the rate of 400,000l. a year to the poor-rates; that is, one-sixteenth part of the entire poor-rate paid in England. And what is this upon? Why, upon 50,000 acres of land; for there are only about 5,000 miles of railway executed; and I believe it is calculated that a railway occupies ten acres to a mile. I think, therefore, it is hardly fair to say when railways employ at the rate of five-and-twenty men to a mile permanently, besides employing upwards of one hundred per mile in the construction—and when they contribute 400,000l. to the relief of the poor—I think it is hardly fair to say that railway labourers are turned adrift when their work is done; that they are treated like beasts, or like so much iron or stone, without any remorse or compassion whatever. My hon. Friend has quoted from the evidence of the hon. Member for Norwich. I think from the evidence Mr. Peto gave before that Committee, it appears that the railway labourers he employed in Cambridgeshire were a pattern of good conduct to all the labourers in the county. I could not quite let the strictures upon railways made by the hon. Gentleman pass without saying a word in their defence.

, in bringing forward certain clauses of which he had given notice, said that the first had reference to the extension of time for taking land. Hitherto it had been usual for companies requiring an extension of time to obtain it by means of an additional Act of Parliament; and in no one of those Acts so obtained had there been any clause inserted giving compensation to landowners on account of such extension of time. He had, however, considered that, as the Bill before the House was a general Bill for the extension of time, power of compensation should be given to the landowners who might really suffer loss from the extension of time. The manner of obtaining this compensation when the Bill was last before the House was to be by arbitration; that was, that where a contract for land had been made, and afterwards an extension of time for the construction of works had been obtained, the damage from such extension should be settled by arbitration. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that it was desirable that compensation should be afforded by another award being made for damage. To this he had a great objection, because he believed that such a second assessment of damage would be rendered inoperative, as the railway companies would refuse, being deterred by the prospect of this expense, to take advantage of this Bill, and they would either not apply at all for an extension of time, or they would go to Parliament for a separate Bill, as they formerly did. It was therefore desirable that there should be no additional assessment of damage in consequence of the extension of time. With the view of meeting this case, he proposed to alter the 5th Clause of the Bill. He also now proposed to exempt those persons from the operation of the Bill, who had entered into contracts for the sale of land for the construction of works. The operation of the Bill would not affect them, and they would have the same remedy in law or in equity as they now had, notwithstanding the passing of this Act. Wherever agreements for the purchase of land had been entered into, those agreements would re- main unaltered in effect by this Bill; and also in all cases where railway companies shall have given notice of taking land under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, the companies shall be bound to proceed, and take that land exactly in the same manner as though this Act had not passed. There was another case which required some provision to meet it, and that was where a contract having been entered into between a landowner and a railway company for the sale of land, in consequence of some special circumstances the landowner might be aggrieved by the extension of time. In that case, he proposed that power should be given to the Railway Commissioners to consider such cases, and to refuse or grant the required extension of time to the railway company, as they should think fit, after examining the cases of this sort that might be submitted to them. He proposed also to give the Commissioners the power of granting the required extension of time upon certain terms and conditions. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire, who had on a former occasion called his attention to these points, had also thought that there was not sufficient notice, under this Bill, given to the landowner. Under the present system, the law required that personal notices should be served on all landowners; but he thought that every person would be anxious that the great expense and trouble of personal service should be avoided, especially as this was a public general Act. Originally it was intended that there should be one notice in the Gazette, and one for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper published in the county through which the proposed line was to pass. In addition to those notices, he proposed to add notices on the church doors in the parishes affected by the line for which an extension of time was sought. By this means he thought that the fullest notice would be given to all parties concerned. He would not go into that part of the Bill which gave shareholders the power of suspending progress. The right hon. Gentleman brought up clauses to carry out these views.

was quite satisfied with the proposed amendments, but would be glad to have a perfect assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the Railway Board would have full jurisdiction in the manner proposed.

said, there was no doubt whatever of it. The Bill would provide that if the Railway Commissioners should think fit, they might refuse the extension of time sought by railway companies, or they might grant it upon certain terms and conditions.

had hoped that some power would be given to companies to dissolve. There were many of the lines of 1846 not yet commenced, and the parties were most anxious for the companies to be broken up. He had himself prepared a clause to meet this case.

said, that a clause was already under the consideration of the House. The hon. Member was therefore out of order in proposing another before the former one was disposed of.

said, that this was a subject of great importance, and one which the Committee of last Session had gone into. He thought it was highly important that the power of dissolution should be given.

said, that since the railway Members had meddled with this Bill, they had done nothing but spoil it. With regard to the question of arbitration, no person could be more ready than he should be to entrust that duty to the Board; but he doubted very much that they would have time to arbitrate, and he also doubted that they would in all cases have jurisdiction. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. When land was allowed to lie altogether waste without any owner, for, suppose, a period of four years, as it would, perhaps, in those cases, it might prove very dangerous to the farmers in the neighbourhood. If the thistles were not mown, and if the weeds were neglected on that piece of ground, the land for miles around might be completely destroyed by the seed. Although the right hon. Gentleman and the Attorney General might think that they could not legislate for thistles, he would say that they ought to put in some compensation for such a case as that. There ought to be some compulsion on those people who occupy land without using it to prevent its being a nuisance to their neighbours.

said, that when any person required an extension of time, he might come before the Railway Commissioners, and apply for such extension; and in granting that application they might impose it as a condition that the party should undertake to attend to the mowing of the this- tles in proper time, and before seeding time.

I rise, Sir, in pursuance of the notice I have given, to ask permission of the House to introduce a Bill for the purpose of suspending some of the most important provisions of the Act of Parliament which was passed in the last year—towards the close of the Session of 1846—to make provision for the government of the colony of New Zealand; and I shall endeavour to state to the House, as clearly and as shortly as I can, both the reasons which induce Her Majesty's Government to think it was their duty to recommend this course to the House, and an outline of the main provisions of the measure which I shall ask the House to agree to as a means of providing for the local government of that colony. Those Members of the House who have paid any attention to the affairs of this important colony, will recollect that there was in the year 1846 a very general concurrence of opinion on the part of those who had at all considered its concerns, that it was exceedingly desirable to introduce a constitutional government into that country. I think there were petitions from the inhabitants of that colony to that effect presented to this House; it was also urged upon us by the New Zealand Company, whose stake in that colony and whose attention to that colony are so great, and I think that in the discussions which took place, both in this House and the other House of Parliament, almost all the leading statesmen of the country expressed a desire that as soon as possible a beginning at least should be made with a view to introduce a constitutional and representative government into the colony of New Zealand. That was the state of things when Her Majesty's present advisers came into office; and my noble Friend who holds the seals of the Colonial Department immediately applied himself to the consideration of this important subject. I believe I am correct in stating that he found on record in his office the determination of the Government that preceded us to introduce some measure of this description for the government of New Zealand; at all events, he thought it to be his duty, with as little delay as possible, to mature such a scheme for the purpose as he thought on the whole would be suited to the circumstances of the case. The result was, that a Bill was introduced into Parliament towards the close of the Session of 1846, which passed, I believe, very nearly unanimously through this and the other House of Parliament, by which Her Majesty was empowered to give a charter to the colony, and issue instructions which were to regulate the future government of New Zealand. Sir, the main provisions of the Act of 1846, and the letters patent which issued under it, were to the following effect: The colony of New Zealand was divided into two provinces, which were designated by the names of New Ulster and New Munster. Municipal districts were constituted, or at least power was given to the Governor to constitute municipal districts, with town-councils, in all those parts of New Zealand where there was some considerable number of English colonists; and those municipal districts thus constituted were made the foundation and nucleus of the system of representative government which it was sought to rear upon them. Those districts were to elect representatives for two legislatures—one for each of the two provinces of New Zealand—and there was also to be a General Assembly of both provinces, to be elected by the two legislatures, which General Assembly was to take into consideration certain subjects of great interest to both districts, such as taxation, and questions of that sort. This Act was to come into effect as soon as the letters patent were proclaimed by the Government of New Zealand. This is the general outline of the plan of constitutional government that was adopted for that colony pursuant to the Act of Parliament. I should mention as to one other important and difficult point of this subject—I mean the position of the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand with reference to these institutions—that that part of the subject was proposed to be settled in the following manner: It was proposed that those municipal districts should only comprise those parts of New Zealand in which there was resident some considerable number of white inhabitants. With regard to that great tract of country occupied almost exclusively by the aboriginal inhabitants of the island, it was not proposed to bring it immediately within the scope or pale of these institutions. It was thought that the aboriginal inhabitants themselves were not properly ripe for institutions of this kind; and the difficulty and hazard were foreseen of subjecting them to the control of the white inhabitants. It was endeavoured to provide for that difficulty in this manner, by securing the enjoyment of their own laws and customs to all that great portion of New Zealand which was not included within the municipal districts, and taking care, as had been done in the instructions sent out, that the New Zealanders in those parts should be adequately secured, while the assemblies to be constituted should be prevented from interfering unduly with the rights, habits, or customs of the aboriginal inhabitants. This, Sir, is the outline of the scheme that was sent out to the Governor of New Zealand. The reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to propose now to suspend the operation of this constitution, are contained in despatches which have been received from the Governor of New Zealand; and when I mention the name of the present Governor of New Zealand, I think every person acquainted with the affairs of that colony will admit that any opinion expressed by him should have the greatest weight with this House and with Her Majesty's Government. And, as the result of his examination of the plan proposed by the Government, he states the greatest objection to be entertained by him to bringing this constitution at present into effect in New Zealand. We feel that the objections he makes are supported by the great weight of authority which naturally belongs to a person of his proved ability and diligence residing on the spot, and therefore much more able to judge of the local circumstances of the island, than we can at a distance of several thousands of miles. And any person who has perused the letter of Governor Grey on this plan of a constitution, will perceive that he gives very valid reasons for the alarm he feels at being called upon to promulgate this constitution. There is, however, one satisfaction at least in the difficulties that we experience in this island, and it is this, that the objections which Governor Grey states to the introduction of these institutions into New Zealand at present, rest upon a remarkable description he gives of the knowledge, improvement, and intelligence of the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand. Governor Grey says—

"It is quite true, you have attempted to protect them from injustice, by guaranteeing and fencing their rights from the English minority; but, after all, it comes to this—you have left to the English minority the power of making laws in the Legislative Assembly, and of imposing du- ties which will be mainly paid by the aboriginal inhabitants of this island."

He describes these islanders as possessing much property, as perfectly understanding the value of property—as exceedingly anxious to acquire and retain it—and, above all, as possessing intelligence to perceive that any duty thus levied would be paid by them. He says that great dissatisfaction under such a system would prevail in New Zealand; indeed, to such a degree, that he fears it would load to tumult and insurrection, if the whites had in this way the power of taxing the great body of the people. And this he says would more particularly take place in the northern province, in New Ulster. That is the main objection he has to the immediate introduction of this constitutional and representative government into the colony of New Zealand at present; and the expressions of Governor Grey on the point are so forcibly and clearly put, that perhaps the House will allow me to read them:—

"By the introduction (said Governor Grey) of the proposed constitution into the provinces of New Zealand, Her Majesty's Ministers would not confer, as it was intended, upon Her subjects the blessings of self-government, but would be giving power to a small minority. She would not be giving to Her subjects the right to manage their affairs as they might think proper, but would be giving to a small minority a power to raise taxes from the great majority. There was no reason to think (continued Governor Grey) that the majority of the aboriginal inhabitants would be satisfied with the rule of the minority; while there were many reasons for believing that they would resist to the uttermost. They were a people of strong natural sense and ability, but by nature jealous and suspicious. Many of them were owners of vessels, horses, and cattle, and had considerable sums of money at their disposal; and there was no people he was acquainted with less likely to sit down quietly under what they might regard as an injustice."

Sir, I think there is this satisfaction on reading this account, that the House must be convinced that in the aboriginal population of New Zealand there is a nation extremely deserving of the greatest care and attention of this House, and who, if they are treated with consideration, policy, and humanity, will, I hope, form an exception from that which I regret to say has been almost hitherto the undeviating fate of those savage nations who come in contact with their civilised fellow-men. We may hope, I trust, that the people of Mew Zealand will form an exception to that rule, and by care may be gradually but completely assimilated to us in habits and constitutional practice, and that they may amalgamate with Englishmen as one race, each enjoying British institutions, British religion, and British liberty. Sir, my noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office, as well as his Colleagues of Her Majesty's Government, on receiving this despatch containing an opinion so decided, and so strongly supported by such valid arguments, from so high an authority as Governor Grey, did not hesitate as to the course which they would adopt and recommend to the House. I think it would be the height of rashness, if, in contradiction to an opinion of this kind—if, in opposition to the representations of Governor Grey, we attempted to force institutions on the colony, which, however valuable they may be themselves, may at present prove objectionable. I trust those institutions will prove a blessing to that colony, when introduced with discretion and proper feeling; but I repeat it would be the height of rashness to risk the peace of that colony, by forcing, without due consideration and. preparation, those institutions upon its people. On a perusal of that despatch the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary thought it best at once to suspend the operation of a portion of the Act. It is proposed that only a portion of the Act should be suspended. It is not proposed to suspend that portion of the Act which provides municipal institutions—we think such a form of government may safely be allowed for local purposes. It would form a nucleus upon which to establish a representative government for the whole colony; we reserving to ourselves the right of laying down the details, and determining the qualifications and proportions of those representations. We shall leave that part of the Act which relates to municipal institutions untouched. In the Act of 1846 it was proposed that the qualification to vote in the election of representatives should be the possession of a house, and the ability to read and write in the English language. It was then supposed that in those parts of New Zealand to which the Act referred, there were very few aboriginal inhabitants possessed of the qualification, and that it would be extremely improper to exclude them. On inquiry it was found, however, that, although great numbers of the aborigines could read and write their own language, hardly any of them knew how either to read or write English. Now, we are of opinion that the possession of a house, and the capability of writing their own lan- guage, shows a sufficient capacity for business to entitle them to vote. In several places there are German and French settlers. These are men of education, intelligence, and respectability—they can read and write their own language perfectly well, but they cannot read and write the English language. We propose that the Governor shall give certificates to all respectable persons—whether foreigners or aborigines—so circumstanced, and that they shall have the power of voting in the municipal elections. The provisions of the Bill are shortly these: Firstly, it proposes to suspend the operation of the Act of 1846 for a period of five years. Secondly, it provides that the old Legislative Council of 1840, with power to add to their number, shall—with the Governor for the time being—be clothed with unlimited legislative power; that they shall nominate a resident governing power for New Ulster, or they shall order such governing power to be chosen by election. It is, in fact, intended to retain the old Charter of 1846, with the addition and alteration of the municipal franchise. It will at once be perceived that the very nature of the measure is to confer a large discretionary power on the Governor. And in so doing, I believe that we shall be pursuing the wisest and the safest course for the inhabitants of New Zealand, and for the interests of this country. It is extremely difficult in cases of this kind, when we are legislating for parties residing thousands of miles from us, to avoid falling into great and serious errors; and if this be taken as a general maxim, well to be acted upon in every case, how does it apply with a double force to the case of New Zealand! Here we have a large country, with a population but recently emerged from a state of complete barbarism to one of comparative civilisation; a population possessing an extreme aptitude for all the arts and comforts of civilised life—embracing voluntarily, and almost universally, the doctrines of the Christian religion. When we consider that there are scattered amid this numerous and interesting population but a small portion of our countrymen—a small portion of Europeans—I think we must confess that there is every reason for more than common caution in legislating with respect to New Zealand. Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that some very simple scheme—some temporary measure—leaving to the Governor and his Council large discretionary powers as to the course to be taken, would be the wisest policy at the present moment. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to trouble the House further at this stage. Those documents from which I have quoted contain a most substantial and complete narrative of the circumstances which led to the evils so clearly, ably, and lucidly stated by Governor Grey in his despatch. They are also very fully and with great ability stated by the noble Lord Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies. In those documents will be seen the reasons for partially retracing the steps which the House and Her Majesty's Government had previously come to. There is one part of Governor Grey's despatch which says that he feared there would be the greatest difficulty in promulgating the Charter in some parts of New Zealand, and that it was only in one portion of the island that he would recommend its promulgation for the present. Now we come to the conclusion that there would be more evil in establishing the Charter of 1846 in one part only than in its postponement altogether. We recommended that it should be suspended. According to the despatches of Governor Grey, it would seem that the preliminary steps for the promulgation of the Charter had only just commenced; the Act will therefore lead to no practical inconvenience. Governor Grey will soon hear of the intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers, and we may safely leave the matter to Governor Grey. I cannot sit down without expressing the gratification I feel at bearing my humble testimony to the private worth and public energy of His Excellency. Under his wise and temperate management, a great alteration in the social and trading position of the colony has been effected—good feeling and harmony have been restored—and I trust, we may confidently look forward to the time when New Zealand will become a most valuable and useful possession of the British Crown. I will conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to suspend the operation of part of the Act for making further provision for the government of the New Zealand Islands.

entirely agreed with many of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman; and he was more especially ready to re-echo the expressions which had been used by the right lion. Member with respect to the character and conduct of Governor Grey. He had been glad to hear the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the native inhabitants of New Zealand; because he did not think that, on all occasions, there had been an equal disposition to recognise the great capabilities and noble qualities of the aboriginal race. He considered that they had, in the case of the islands of New Zealand—with, perhaps, the single exception of their West India Islands—the most interesting and hopeful instance of juxtaposition between European civilisation and aboriginal races which the world could present; and he believed that if the House would exhibit towards the New Zealanders that paternal care and tenderness which it was their bounden duty to extend to them, they might witness a satisfactory, a peaceful, and glorious issue to the Christian, philanthropic, and enlightened labour which had been bestowed upon the colony. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that the late Government had left upon record proofs of their desire to grant free and representative institutions to New Zealand. The statement was perfectly true; but there had undoubtedly been a difference of opinion between the late and the present Governments as to the most speedy and effectual method of realising that great object. It was the opinion of the late Government that the best mode of attaining that end was to incur, in the first instance, the delay of a reference to Governor Grey. When he had the honour of holding the seals of the Colonial Office, the Government believed that any steps which would have the effect of binding the hands of Governor Grey, or of committing the authority of the Government or of Parliament to the particular form of the institutions to be adopted in New Zealand, would be ill-advised, and would be likely ultimately to lead to the loss of time which such measures were intended, in the first instance, to avoid. He readily gave the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department the greatest credit, not only for the motives by which he had been governed, but for the zeal and energy with which he had proceeded in the execution of this portion of his duties; but he must say, that he thought the noble Earl's zeal had in this particular instance a little outrun his discretion, and that he would have more effectually consulted the dignity of the Crown and the welfare of New Zealand, had the noble Earl been content to refer to Governor Grey, and to obtain his deliberate judgment on the subject, rather than to anticipate what that judgment might be, and send out instructions which, however ingeniously devised and plainly expressed, were almost certain to be ill suited to the actual circumstances of the moment in New Zealand. With regard to this Bill, he considered that the right hon. Gentleman by whom it had been brought forward, had made out a good case; but, at the same time, he must say that some of the provisions of the measure appeared to be of a peculiar nature. He did not make this observation with a view of impeaching its wisdom; but he thought it was a reason for abstaining from any detailed discussion of the provisions of the Bill until they had had an opportunity of giving it mature consideration. As far as he understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, his proposal almost amounted to placing the whole discretionary power with respect to representative institutions in the hands of the Governor; that certainly was, on the one hand, a very extraordinary demand; but, on the other hand, he was free to say that, according to his judgment, there never was a man in whose hands extraordinary powers could be more safely placed than in those of the present Governor of New Zealand. He considered that everything that could be done upon the principle of placing confidence in an individual, and in deference to the principle of allowing local knowledge and experience to prevail over speculations formed at a vast distance, ought to be done with respect to the Bill about to be laid upon the table. He would not on this occasion enter further into a discussion of the Bill; but he begged to say a few words on a portion of the subject which had been referred to by Earl Grey in his despatches—he alluded to the disposal of the public lands in New Zealand. At the commencement of the present Session he inquired whether it were the intention of the Government to lay upon the table the answer of Governor Grey to the despatch of Earl Grey, dated the 23rd of December, 1846, and particularly that portion of the answer which related to the disposal of public lands. He also asked whether the reply of Earl Grey to that answer would be presented to the House. In the papers which had been delivered that morning, he found the acknowledgment by Governor Grey of the arrival of Earl Grey's despatch; and also a second despatch of the same date from Governor Grey, referring to a protest of the Bishop of New Zealand; but he did not find any despatch referring to that por- tion of Earl Grey's despatch which related to the disposal of public lands. He concluded, however, that if such a despatch had arrived it would speedily be laid upon the table, and that if it had not arrived they would not have long to wait for it; but in the absence of the important information which he was anxious to obtain from the document to which he referred, he should occupy the time of the House unprofitably if he entered upon a discussion of this subject. The despatch of Earl Grey, which closed the papers that had to-day been laid on the table, referred to the protest of the Bishop of New Zealand, dated the 1st of July, 1847, in which the Bishop, assuming and believing that Earl Grey's despatch on the disposal of public lands asserted doctrines at variance with the Treaty of Waitangai, deemed it his duty to protest against such doctrines, and stated that he would think it proper to instruct the people committed to his charge in the rights which they had acquired as British subjects under that treaty. Of course the merits of that protest depended essentially on the main question, whether Earl Grey's despatch was really at variance with the Treaty of Waitangai—a question which at that time he would not discuss. But, passing by that question for a moment, he must say he hoped the House would recollect the peculiar position in which the Bishop stood with respect to the enforcement of that treaty. He confessed that at first sight a protest like this, with regard to a civil matter, had much the aspect of a gratuitous and wanton interference on the part of a spiritual person with civil and political affairs; but any attention to the course of events must convince hon. Gentlemen that there was no ground for such a charge in this case. He would also presume to say that the slightest knowledge of the character of the Bishop of New Zealand would convince any Gentleman that there was no person less disposed to mix in such matters, or more entirely and ardently and exclusively devoted to the duties of his sacred calling. Nay, he (Mr. Gladstone) would even say that the Bishop of New Zealand had a shrinking aversion to political affairs, and that he was most anxious to draw clearly and broadly the line of demarcation between his office and the functions of the civil magistrates. But in this particular instance the clergy were the chosen instruments of the Government for contracting the Treaty of Waitangai, and establishing the govern- ment of the Queen. That treaty was made known to the natives through the medium of the clergy, to whom its construction was in a great degree committed; and it therefore became the duty of the clergy, and of the Bishop at their head, to see that public faith, as conveyed through them, was carefully guarded and kept strictly inviolate. On the ground, therefore, of maintaining and vindicating the pledges given by the clergy to the native population, and not from any general disposition to interfere in civil matters, the Bishop had found it necessary to make himself a party to what he believed the Bishop would otherwise have gladly avoided. He did not anticipate that in that House this primâ facie objection to the proceeding of the Bishop would be taken by any one acquainted with the affair. There was, however, in the despatch of Earl Grey, one assumption which he thought was important on the one hand, as it was clearly erroneous on the other. The noble Earl said, that he did not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the assertions made by the Bishop; but he feared it was impossible that language such as that of the protest could be announced to a people who had so lately emerged from habits of the most savage barbarism, without producing very serious consequences. He confessed that he should have been disposed to agree in opinion with the noble Earl, if this document had been addressed by the Bishop to the natives; but he did not find in the protest any indication that it was intended for the cognizance of the natives. Although he knew nothing of the existence of the protest until that day, he could not believe that it had been intended to be made public in the colony; and he must continue to believe so in the absence of all direct information to the contrary. It was perfectly consistent with all the known circumstances to suppose that the Bishop had addressed the protest to Her Majesty's Representative at the head of the civil Government, as a person for whom he had the utmost respect, in whom he placed confidence, and whose authority he was desirous in every way to support, and to whom he thought it his duty to give the first notice of the appearance of any circumstance which seemed likely to divide the duties of the bishopric from the duties of the Government. If that should prove to be the case, he apprehended that the Bishop would not be open to the charge of having addressed language which was likely to operate on the feelings of a native race of excitable temperament under the circumstances which Lord Grey assumed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, when he should answer his inquiry relative to the despatch of Governor Grey with respect to public lands, would also state whether the Government were in possession of any information which showed that the protest was published by the Bishop in the colony, or whether—for anything the Government knew to the contrary—he might not be right in presuming that the protest was only a communication addressed to the Governor himself by the Bishop, in which the latter expressed his strong and conscientious feeling with regard to what he deemed the breach of a solemn treaty between Her Majesty and the native chiefs? If the despatch of Lord Grey could be reconciled with the Treaty of Waitangi—if it were conceived in the spirit of that treaty—it was an unfortunate circumstance that the despatch should have been misapprehended by an individual possessing such weight—derived both from his own personal character and the sacred office which he filled—as the Bishop. All who were acquainted with the character of the Bishop must be aware that he was not less distinguished for the sobriety of his disposition than for the prudence and practical bearing of every step he took, as well as for his ardent enthusiasm in the discharge of the duties of his calling. Nothing could be more improbable than that the Bishop should have gratuitously addressed to the native population language which, he must admit, it would be most unwise to use in appealing to them. He earnestly hoped that, for the sake of the Bishop himself, and for the sake of the individual charged with the responsibility of maintaining the peace of the colony and the authority of the Crown, the supposition on which Lord Grey had proceeded with respect to the protest would prove to be erroneous—that the introduction of the Bill would meet with general assent—and that after the recess it would obtain from the House a degree of consideration proportionate to its importance.

had listened with sorrow to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who proposed to introduce this Bill; because he had hoped, after all that had been done with respect to New Zealand, that the colony would at last be allowed a little repose. He concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in looking upon New Zea- land as being the colony most congenial in feeling and interest to the mother country of any we possessed. It resembled England in soil and climate, and the aborigines possessed much of the energy, enterprise, and intelligence, which distinguished the Saxon race. These circumstances gave the colony a peculiar interest in the eyes of the people of this country. He suggested that when they were about to suspend the political constitution of the colony, it would be as well to suspend its territorial constitution also. There was no person to whom he would be more disposed to intrust ample discretion than Governor Grey; and he hoped that henceforth the Government would endeavour to select colonial governors like him, who owed his advancement to no party feeling or family connexions. It was, he admitted, difficult to determine beforehand what man would make a good colonial governor; for, however well fitted for the office an individual might appear to the authorities at the Colonial Office, it not unfrequently happened that when he established himself in his colonial government, the parading of troops, beating of drums, and salvos of artillery, turned his head. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the Government was, the necessity of not crippling too much the power of the Governor in any colony. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a very elaborate defence of the Bishop of New Zealand. He entertained great respect for the character of that right rev. Gentleman; but if he were to judge of him only by this protest, he must say that he was the most agitating bishop he had ever heard of. Hon. Members had that morning seen evidence of what agitating bishops could do; but this right rev. Gentleman went further than any of them. He said, in reference to the doctrine propounded by Earl Grey in his despatch, "Against this doctrine I am called on to protest, as the head of the missionary body." It would be observed that he did not say, "as the head of the clergy of New Zealand," but "as the head of the missionary body;" and he (Mr. V. Smith) could not help recollecting how often the zeal of the missionaries in New Zealand had overstepped their discretion, and injured the cause, and retarded the prosperity of the colony. The Bishop also said in his protest, "It is my duty, and I am determined, God being my helper, to inform the natives of their rights and privileges." It was evident, therefore, that the Bishop intended to agitate on the subject; and he (Mr. V. Smith) thought that the phrase "God being my helper," was one of the strongest expressions which he ever recollected to have been used by a bishop when speaking of civil or political rights. He could not help thinking that the right rev. Gentleman would be more likely to impede than to assist Governor Grey in New Zealand; and he trusted his right hon. Friend would not be scrupulous in entrusting Governor Grey with ample powers, and that he would also be very careful how he fettered his discretion, by obliging him to consult others in the colony.

said, that though he was a Member who had but lately entered the House, it was impossible for him to sit in any assembly of Englishmen where, humble as he was, he had to represent important interests, and silently hear assailed a man whose virtues and abilities he believed to be of the highest order that ever honoured the character of a Christian bishop; a man who had done, not merely to the advancement of the religion of that Church which it was his duty to maintain and uphold, but also of those political institutions which were the subject of the deliberations of the House, more genuine service than had been done, or could be done, by anybody in New Zealand—services which he (Mr. Palmer) knew would be appreciated hereafter in this country, and which were now appreciated and understood in the country which was the subject of debate. He had heard with great satisfaction the whole, he might say, of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, but most particularly that part of it which referred to the native aboriginal population of New Zealand, because he had shared that feeling which he was sure all students of modern history must have entertained, with reference to the events which had attended the march of civilisation. The conduct of Spain towards the natives of the countries which she overran was marked by bloodshed, cruelty, and rapine; she trampled upon men, treated them with utter contempt, dispossessed them of their land, made their persons her property, and finally exterminated them from the face of the earth. He believed he might say, that, though this country had some crimes of this nature to answer for, we had less than many other nations; and certainly, when we come to New Zealand, our coming there was not an alarming circumstance for the friends of humanity to contemplate. Those missionaries who had been spoken of, and of whom he should have a word to say by and by, long before any pretensions to the territory of New Zealand had been made on the part of the British Crown, had left all they valued in the world to carry knowledge, virtue, and civilisation among a people, to go among whom was to encounter persecutions scarcely less serious than those which the early Christians had to endure. They were the pioneers of civilisation; they taught those people to know something of a higher life, beyond this world, and in it too; they laid the foundation on which a promising superstructure had since been raised; and it was to them that we owed this great fact, that Ministers were now enabled to come forward and say that there was a just ground for hoping that the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand might be incorporated as British subjects, and admitted to participate in the benefit of our political institutions. If the natives were found to be intelligent, possessed of cultivated minds, and imbued with the principles of religion, all this was owing to the missionaries, who had been spoken of with so little respect. It might be that there had been some in whom zeal had outrun discretion; not that he should accept as conclusive the dictum of every hon. Gentleman who spoke on this subject, because the hon. Gentleman and the missionaries might be impreased by different ideas. The missionary looked beyond the present, he had higher principles, higher objects in view. Even if he expressed himself too warmly, he (Mr. Palmer) was persuaded that it would be far more for the interests of the colony that the voice of the missionary should be lifted up for the instruction of the natives, because he knew in what way the moral feelings of the natives were touched. Not only did we hear from the missionaries the most satisfactory testimony to the qualities of the native race, but even the history of the collisions which had taken place, afforded, he would venture to say, corroborative evidence of what noble materials these people were made. Even their rebellion, though it might be a question how far that term could be applied in all its strictness to their proceedings, was conducted in the most humane manner, and in accordance with the spirit of civilised warfare. They acted in the rebellion as well as men could do who were rebels. He had de- tained the House too long; but he wished to say one word with respect to the protest of the Bishop of New Zealand. The Bishop of New Zealand thought, and he confessed that, on reading Earl Grey's despatch he thought also, that the despatch was intended to inculcate a certain principle in dealing with all questions that could arise with respect to the title of the natives to the land. As he read the despatch, it amounted to this:—"You have recognised certain territorial rights in the natives already; do not go beyond that; and take this principle as your guide in future, that they have no territorial rights at all." Now, it should be recollected that the missionaries and the Bishop of New Zealand were the persons through whom the Government of this country had dealt with the natives. The missionaries carried on the negotiations; they understood the sense in which the natives understood the transaction with them; and could it be otherwise than the duty of these men to protest, in the most public and emphatic manner, against an act which appeared to them to be, not a mere abstract enunciation of a formal principle, but one which practically altered the whole course of our policy on questions connected with the possession of land, and which was directly opposed to those principles which the Bishop and the natives understood to be the basis of the treaty? With regard to the language of the protest, he thought that it had been somewhat misunderstood. All that the Bishop said was, that he would, in a manner consistent with the dignity of his station, by all the lawful means in his power, teach the natives in what way they should exercise their undoubted rights and privileges. All depended upon the way in which the Bishop acted upon that announcement, which was not made public to the natives. It seemed to him that the Bishop had done no more than state, very clearly and plainly, what was the course which he should pursue, and that his language did not tend in the slightest degree to agitation or disturbance. He knew, and every body who was acquainted with the Bishop of New Zealand knew also, that the words with which he had accompanied the declaration of his intentions were not mere words of hollow qualifications in his mouth. He would speak strongly to the Governor, by whom, if he were open to censure, he would be censured; and to the natives, if he said that he would speak as a bishop ought to speak, he knew he would do so; and that he had done so, he (Mr. Palmer) was as firmly convinced as any one could be.

considered the reasons assigned by Governor Grey so clear and satisfactory, that he entirely concurred in the Motion. He confessed that he, for one, deeply regretted what appeared to have been the conduct of the Bishop of New Zealand. He also regretted to hear the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; for, allowing everything which the hon. Gentleman had said of that Bishop to be perfectly true, still he, when that Bishop was sent to New Zealand, could only judge of him by his conduct there. Of all the documents connected with the colonies, he could find none in which there was such a manifestation as in those connected with New Zealand, of any bishop or clergyman so standing up and bearding the Government, and declaring that he would dispute the orders, not merely of the Governor, but of the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. What did the Bishop find fault with? Lord Grey, with a view very properly to close the disputes connected with land, which placed the colony of New Zealand in an unsatisfactory state, endeavoured to point out to the Governor what ought to be the principle in reference to that subject; and one of the rules was, that the savages in New Zealand were to have no right to the land which was unoccupied or unsubdued for the purposes of cultivation. The Bishop referred to this as a doctrine which he was determined to resist; and he was prepared to teach the inhabitants of New Zealand that they had a right to all the land in the colony, and that any attempt to displace them was a violation of their rights. That was the way he construed the language of the Bishop. He, therefore, considered that this document, proceeding from the Bishop, only showed that that venerable Prelate, who was described as being so amiable until he left this country, must have had his head turned the moment he landed in New Zealand by the salvos of artillery which announced his landing. Yet this was an individual, whom the people of England were paying—600l. was the amount of the salary charged in the last estimates. When the Bishop was sent out, he objected to any expense; and he would now ask, were they to pay a man to become a firebrand in the colony? If the Bishop differed from the Secretary of State, was it becoming in him, being next in rank to the Governor, to take on himself to proclaim to the inhabitants that the authorities at home were exercising arbitrary and unjust authority? After reading the papers laid before Parliament, he came to the conclusion that it was the duty of the Government to remove the Bishop to a better climate and a more favourable station. At any rate, that House could stop his salary at once. The House had been told that these missionaries had taught the people of New Zealand Christianity; that they had reformed the cannibal habits and barbarous usages of the natives; and that it was through them that the colony had been brought to peace. The hon. Member who last spoke, had told the House that these missionaries had sacrificed everything to promote the cause they professed. And yet, he asked, what had been the result? If he recollected aright, the Church Missionary Society, and other bodies from whom they received money, had written out to these missionaries to say that they were forgetting their mission. They represented that they had not sent them out to become great proprietors of large estates and jobbers in land, but to be the propagators of Christianity. It did not appear, however, that these missionaries had exercised the virtues of self-denial, because they had absorbed 96,000 acres of land, holding out to the natives that because of their sacred calling they were privileged to buy land, but inducing the natives to resist every other person doing so. So that the authorities at home were obliged to send out positive orders that they should not proceed in a way which was disgraceful to their calling. One missionary, of the name of Williams, was said to be in possession of 30,000 or 40,000 acres. He considered it to be a great misfortune that the colony from the first had been in the hands of these intriguing missionaries. From them had proceeded the distrust and hatred of the British Government, and the unfortunate collision which had taken place. On this ground he was sorry to hear any one commending men who had caused such results; and he also regretted that any language should have been held to the effect that the ecclesiastical power should be predominant in the colony of New Zealand. If that were to be the case, where were they to end? He had always been accustomed to regard the ecclesiastical power as subordinate and obedient to the civil power. Were they now to have a Bishop and his clergy bearding the Governor of a colony? He hoped the Government would make Governor Grey dictator until he was free from such meddling and dangerous interference. And he also hoped that this would be a lesson to the present Secretary of State for the Colonies not to send out more bishops. He was not sorry that the Ministers had got a lesson on this point, and he hoped it would teach them to be more prudent in future.

said, that the present Bill was one step proposed to be taken in respect to that difficult problem which they were endeavouring to solve—the government of New Zealand. He hoped that it would not be made the occasion of manifesting any other spirit or feeling than a sincere desire on all parts to promote so desirable an object. It must in candour be admitted that their progress towards the desired end was not very great. Two years ago they differed upon many matters; but there was one point upon which they were even then agreed—the extension of municipal institutions to New Zealand. As far as he could collect from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, they were now called on to cancel all that had been done since, with the exception of the municipal institutions; and to make, also, some alterations in those municipal institutions, in respect to the exercise of the privileges. ["No!"] He said yes; for if the Governor were to have the power to give a certificate, constituting the qualification of the elector, that was an important alteration. He only referred to this matter for the purpose of showing how difficult was the experiment they were making, in applying the constitutional forms of European government to a mixed population, consisting partly of European immigrants and partly of aboriginal inhabitants. In solving this problem, he hoped that the Government would not be guided by the advice of the hon. Member for Montrose. He must say, that if the learned and most estimable Prelate in New Zealand, forming an opinion for himself on a matter in respect to which he believed he had contracted a solemn responsibility, were not to be allowed to send to the constituted authorities, and to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, his firm and steadfast remonstrances, then constitutional liberty and freedom of discussion must be considered at an end. He would not consent to the abolition of constitutional liberty and popular dis- cussion; and whether it should turn out that the Bishop of New Zealand was right or wrong in his opinion, which they would know more about when they came to a deliberate discussion of this matter, he said it was intolerable to hear in the House of Commons a man called a turbulent priest, and such other terms as the hon. Member for Montrose had used, because, in firm language, he had addressed a remonstrance to the Secretary of State through the Governor of New Zealand. [Mr. HUME had not used the terms mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.] He was sorry if he had mistaken the effect of the hon. Gentleman's observations. [Mr. HUME: But I have no objection to calling the Bishop a turbulent priest.] Then he was in the judgment of the House; and those who heard the hon. Gentleman would form for themselves an opinion whether the language the hon. Gentleman had applied to the Bishop of New Zealand was such as was justified in its application to a person making a firm remonstrance through the constituted authorities to the responsible Government The hon. Gentleman said he did not know much about the Bishop, and thought that his having landed in New Zealand under a salute of guns had turned his head. He was exceedingly sorry for the hon. Gentleman, for if he had read the despatches that had been laid on the table of that House with respect to the conduct of the Bishop when he was amid the sound of artillery, when he was amid the din and smoke, not of a salute, but of actual battle; and had found that the dangers he then saw, did not turn his head or discourage him from being in the thickest of the danger, and rendering to the sufferers that assistance which became his situation; he thought the hon. Gentleman would be of opinion that the head of the Bishop was not easily turned by the sound of a salute. Then the hon. Gentleman expressed his hope that, at all events, the salary of the Bishop would be stopped; and, pursuing his idiosyncracy, he recollected that in the last miscellaneous estimates there was an entry of 600l. for the salary of the Bishop. He had not the honour of being in the confidence of the Bishop, with respect to his salary; but he did know his character, and he ventured to tell the hon. Gentleman, that if there were a living man upon whom the fear of losing a stipend of 600l. a year, allowed to him by that House, would be utterly inoperative to deter him from what he believed to be his duty, that man was the Bishop of New Zealand. He had been drawn into these observations because he thought it was intolerable that language of such a nature as they had heard that evening should be addressed to a person of great respectability and eminence for what he believed to be the discharge of his duty. He had purposely forborne to enter upon the question whether the Bishop was right or wrong in this matter; but he had yet to learn that a person's being right or wrong in the precise opinions he had formed, was to be the measure of his liberty to express them. The Bishop of New Zealand represented a body of persons of whom all the authorities who had filled the Colonial Office had spoken in terms of the highest respect. He held in his hand a document showing the language in which the noble Lord at the head of the Government, when he filled the office of Colonial Secretary, spoke of the clergy and missionaries. He spoke of them, as all others had, in terms of the highest respect. We had obtained possession of New Zealand by treaty. We had formally, studiously, and ostentatiously disclaimed all right of sovereignty by the title of discovery; wisely or unwisely, we had obtained possession of it by treaty. We chose the missionaries as the negotiators of that treaty; and there was a remarkable scene, which had been described before in that House, in which the New Zealanders debated whether they should or should not make a treaty. The argument used by those who would have dissuaded them from it was this—"Your land will be taken from you." The argument of the missionaries, on behalf of Great Britain, was—"Your land shall not be taken from you;" and the New Zealanders then, in their own figurative language, said—"We quite understand it. The shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria—the substance remains with us." He did not think that that was an occasion for entering upon a long discussion as to the true interpretation and right application of the Treaty of Waitangi; but it was impossible to deny that responsibility in regard to it rested on the missionaries we had employed to conduct it; and it was also impossible to deny that it was right to respect their sense of their responsibility. If the Bishop had been guilty of acts as an agitator, he would be deeply culpable, and seriously responsible; but they had no evidence whatever that he had done anything except addressing the Governor, and, through the Governor, the Secretary of State. He knew no right more inherent than that of an Englishman, in any situation, to state to the Government in firm and temperate language, his opinion on a matter for which he was responsible; and he begged to enter his protest against the censure which was now sought to be cast upon the Bishop of New Zealand for having done so.

regretted very much that during the course of this debate many remarks had been introduced which had caused irritation; but he must confess that it was not the fault of the Government or of the right hon. Gentleman who had brought this subject before the House. He regretted also that the protest which had been referred to, should have been made by the Bishop of New Zealand; but he hoped and trusted, that further reflection might have induced the Bishop to be contented with having made it, without anything more. With respect to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, that hon. and learned Member surely never could have read many of the Parliamentary papers with respect to the conduct of the missionaries and the Treaty of Waitangi. It had been stated in that House, and had never been refuted, that the missionaries were not all of that high character which some might suppose clergymen who were sent out of this country should be. No doubt there were many most excellent men amongst them; but others, from personal motives, had allowed political feelings to interfere with the performance of their duty. It would be recollected, that when the treaty was made, the missionaries became purchasers of land. That was contrary to the rule of the Society, and if he mistook not, he had seen a resolution of the Church Society condemning such a practice. He regretted to say, that too many of those connected with this matter had used their utmost endeavours to prevent the colonisation of New Zealand. In the course of the present discussion the House had heard many and warm praises of the natives of the colony; but he could not help saying that he thought the aborigines had been praised rather too much—they certainly were a fine people, an acute race; they readily received the habits of civilisation: that they easily assimilated to Englishmen there could be no doubt; that as labourers they kept their time; that they were sober— nay, that they had sufficient of the principle of union in them to form a sort of joint-stock company for the purpose of carrying on a water-mill; but still they were quite overpraised. No doubt they would progress if they were let alone, and that the Governor was let alone; but to talk of their humane qualities, and of their humanity in war, was going too far. Ought it not to have been well known to Gentlemen who spoke in that strain that the body of a British officer killed in the war had been mutilated for the purposes of cannibalism? He had in his hand a communication, on the authority and accuracy of which he placed full reliance, stating that a woman and four children had been barbarously murdered by natives of New Zealand; that her body also had been mutilated for the purposes of cannibalism; and that a portion of it had been eaten. Still he did not deny that, all things considered, they were a fine set of people; and, if left to the management of Governor Grey, he had no doubt that the colony would be of great advantage to this country. He was rejoiced, then, to find a Bill introduced for the purpose of giving municipal charters to the settlers in New Zealand. He hailed it as an improvement, and he yielded freely to the arguments and reasonings of Governor Grey. As to the New Zealand Company, he could not help saying, as he had done upon former occasions, that their proceedings had been very much misconceived. No Bill designed for the purpose of making them legislators had ever been introduced—at least as far as his knowledge went, he could say that nothing of the sort had been attempted. The Company never had assumed, or wished to assume, the character of legislators, or that of governors; and as to the Commissioner, he was not to go to New Zealand—he was to sit in London and nowhere else, and his functions were to continue so long as any debt remained due by the Company to the Government. He had heard it said that strong powers were given to the Governor; but he contended that that confidence was not misplaced. For his part, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was right in giving that power.

rose for the single purpose of saying that, in his opinion, the Bishop of New Zealand, whether he were a good or a sensible man, or the direct contrary, as had been represented by the hon. Member for Montrose, had, at all events, in this instance, done his duty, and nothing but his duty. It appeared to him that the Bishop of New Zealand, whether he were right in judgment or not, had evidently come to the conclusion that Her Majesty's Ministry had an intention of doing something which would injure the people of New Zealand, and practically trample upon the great treaty with that island. He quite agreed with the Bishop that that treaty should be maintained. It could not be denied that the New Zealand Company was opposed to the independence of the people of New Zealand. It could not be denied that they had done all in their power to violate the Treaty of New Zealand; but a good Providence had hitherto prevented from from doing so. He thanked God that the Bishop of New Zealand was in that country, and that they had grounds for hoping that, by his exertions and exhortations, the New Zealand Company would be prevented from having it all their own way. He would express no opinion as to whether the Bishop had acted too hastily. The Bishop might have formed his opinion upon erroneous grounds; but that was not the point on which he had been arraigned that evening. He had been arraigned for interfering, whether rightly or wrongly, in the political affairs of New Zealand. He was convinced that the Bishop was right; he was quite satified that he had done no more than a Christian bishop should do, viz., tell his people that they had rights—that those rights were about to be taken from them—and that they ought to prevent such taking place by every mode which the constitution allowed them to avail themselves of. If a bishop in England had acted in similar circumstances as had the Bishop of New Zealand, he would not have been blamed.

did not think that it was right to cast such severe censure as had been that night cast indiscriminately upon such a deserving body of men as the missionaries of New Zealand. Hon. Members had complained as to their having taken too many acres of land; but it should be recollected that those excellent men had large families growing up around them whom they had to maintain; they were far removed from their friends and native home, and it was, therefore, necessary that they should have farms for the support of themselves and families. [An Hon. MEMBER: Six thousand acres.] It should be recollected that 6,000 acres of New Zealand land would not be worth as many acres of land in England. He thought that the missionaries were entitled to some consideration, when they took into consideration the many sacrifices which they had willingly borne for the purpose of benefiting their fellow-creatures.

, in reply, was called upon to advert to one or two questions which had been adverted to in the course of the debate, and to which he had not alluded in his opening address. The first of these he approached with the utmost regret—it was the conduct of the Bishop of New Zealand. He had not the honour of having any personal acquaintance with that right rev. Prelate; but from all he had heard of him he could assure the House that there was no personal friend of his, and no Gentleman who had spoken to-night in commendation of the right rev. Prelate, who was more firmly persuaded than he was that the right rev. Prelate was incapable of doing anything which in his opinion was contrary to the dictates of religion; and that if he were in fault now it must be ascribed to a mistake, and not to any improper motives. But he begged to remind the House of the way in which this question had come before them. The Bishop of New Zealand had addressed a formal communication to the Governor of the colony, with the expression of a desire that it should be transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and in that communication he announced his intention, in consequence of what he believed to be a diversity of sentiment between him and the Executive Government of the colony on that which was the nicest and most delicate of all possible subjects, and which had already produced bloodshed enough, namely, the possession of land, "God being his helper," to use all legal and constitutional measures befitting his station to inform the natives of New Zealand of their rights and privileges as British subjects, and to assist them in asserting and maintaining those rights and privileges, whether by petition to the Imperial Parliament, or by other legal and desirable means. The Bishop added, that he had further to request that this communication should be transmitted to the Colonial Secretary. Now, this was obviously an announcement, a warning to the Government, that he was about to inform the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand that he differed from the Executive Government upon this subject, and that he should excite them to petition the Crown or the Parliament. He (Mr. Labouchere) must say that he entirely agreed with his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office, that this was a most unfortunate step on the part of the Bishop; and being responsible for the peace, welfare, and prosperity of the colony, he conceived that it would have been impossible for his noble Friend to refrain from expressing, as he had done, in temperate and respectful, but at the same time firm and decided language, such as was due to himself and the station he held, his deep concern and regret that the Bishop should have made that announcement. For his part, he was ready and willing to share the responsibility with his noble Friend. He had come to the same conclusion that his noble Friend had arrived at, and he thought it had been expressed in firm and proper language. He thought, also, that the communication was a formal announcement on the part of the Bishop that he was about to begin a course of agitation among the natives of New Zealand. Now, really when a man, engaged in the performance of the sacred functions of a bishop, went among the natives of New Zealand, exhorting them to petition the Crown on the subject, what was that, he should like to know, but agitation? He could only say that it appeared to him to be a most ill-advised course on the part of the Bishop, and that Earl Grey could not have done otherwise than state his disapprobation of such conduct. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had asked whether any other documents had arrived from the colony in regard to this subject; and especially if Governor Grey had expressed any opinion on his communication of the Bishop in transmitting it homo? In reply, he begged to say that the whole of the communications from New Zealand to the Colonial Office had been laid upon the table of the House; that, in fact, there was no other paper upon the subject. Another point to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had adverted was the abstract opinion expressed by Earl Grey, and on which the Bishop commented, relative to the tenure of land in the colony. The Bishop referred to this opinion as if it had been given in the most unqualified manner, and without any restriction whatever. But if the right hon. Gentleman looked at the papers, he would find that it was scarcely possible to have guarded any acquired rights of the natives more scrupulously than his noble Friend had done. His noble Friend distinctly said, that whilst he laid down what he considered the better principle, he endeavoured carefully to guard against being supposed to enforce it as applicable to the present state of New Zealand; and he believed that he had succeeded in doing so; that he expressly stated that he was not in a position to act on that principle; that from past transactions a state of things had arisen in which its strict application could not be enforced; and that he had directed in the strongest language that the rights of the natives in lands already recognised should be maintained. He did not think that the Bishop was justified in the conduct which he had pursued. There was only one more subject to which he wished to advert. The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell) seemed to say that he regretted to find that even the approach to municipal institutions in New Zealand had been retarded. Now, so far was this from being the fact, that municipal institutions had been put into operation; and the only change which had been made was in the sense of an enlargement of the principle. It was intended to increase the municipal franchise to the aboriginal natives within the precincts of these districts, by empowering the Governor to give certificates of the parties to enjoy this right. He had been asked whether he should propose any further matters connected with this question till after the recess. He certainly thought that no time should be lost; he thought that these details might lead to a protracted discussion; but it would be better, perhaps, to have no discussion now. He could not doubt that the suspension for a limited period of the constitution of New Zealand was a principle which would generally be affirmed. He proposed that that Bill should be read a second time on Monday next, by which time the Bill would be printed, and sent out to the colonies as having received the sanction of the House of Commons. He hoped this would meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman.

did not think that any Member had a right to say that the Bishop of New Zealand had agitated the people of New Zealand, because there was no paper to show that this was the fact. With regard to the question of land, the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth showed a great difference in his domestic and colonial policy. In the case of enclosing lands in England, the hon. Member evinced the most profound respect and solicitude for the rights of the people; but when, in a colony, the question was as to a new company coming into the country, and taking possession of the land, and any dispute arising between them and the natives, then the hon. Gentleman held that it was a great pity that the Bishop should have informed these natives of what were their rights as British subjects. Now he thought it was but fair to the natives that the Bishop, as the representative of the Clergy, not being a paid servant of the Crown, should act as the Bishop had acted.

could not see why a bishop, when he thought that a portion of his flock were about to be or were likely to be oppressed, should not petition the Government in defence of their rights.

said, he rose to move that the Committee to inquire into the causes of the late commercial pressure and distress, should consist of twenty-six Members. There were reasons, perhaps, why he should name a smaller number; but as it was necessary to constitute a Committee of persons of different opinions, he must ask permission of the House to allow the number to be increased to twenty-six. That was the number of the Committee on the Bank Charter, &c, in 1841. He therefore proposed that the Committee should consist of the following twenty-six Members:—The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Lord George Bentinck, Mr. Herries, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Labouchere, Sir James Graham, Mr. Francis Baring, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. Cob-den, Mr. Spooner, Mr. William Beckett, Mr. Cayley, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Glyn, Sir William Clay, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Thornely, Mr. James Wilson, Mr. Home Drummond, and Mr. Tennant.

had hoped to have had time to show the reasons why the House ought to dispense with this Committee altogether. He believed there was not a man in the City who had seen what was passing elsewhere, who did not think that the appointment of this Committee would be a mere cloak; and as there was no chance of the Committee sitting till after the recess, he hoped the House would consent to postpone the nomination of the Committee. He thought it wrong to have more than fifteen Members to elucidate the question at issue. There was no reason to appoint the Committee—they had ample information on the subject, as had been stated by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth on a former occasion. They had had Committees in 1832 and 1836, both of which went fully into the subject. There were about 8,000 questions contained in the reports of the Committees of the last years; in 1840 and 1841 there were 6,700 questions; making between 13,000 and 14,000 questions and answers. The question itself was exhausted. The decision of a Committee would not alter the general wrong in attempting to carry on a monetary system, which system was based on the Bank carrying on its business without capital. The Bank, as the first and largest institution, was supposed to discount for other bankers and for the commercial world, when they had not a shilling to do it with—when they had nothing but credit, as dealing with deposits. This country was worse off by 250,000,000l. in the value of property than it was in the beginning of the year. All the evils which had arisen were owing to our having the Bank founded on wrong principles. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving as an Amendment that the debate be adjourned.

begged to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, with whom it certainly did not often fall to his lot to agree. This was a piece of what he would call Government deception. To have twenty-six on a Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted was an unprecedented number. Whenever this Committee should be nominated and commence its deliberations—whenever that occasion should arise—it would only show the total unfitness of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the subject. He was sorry he must include under that category his own relative. Therefore he could not be accused of being actuated by any partial feelings, for he did not spare his relative when he thought he was wrong, however honestly he might be inclined, if he were incapable of discharging the duties which he undertook. They were to adjourn on Monday next, until the 3rd of February. Why should they adjourn at all, if called at an unusual period? He said let them remain. He said that the Government was afraid to meet the difficulty. It was a packed jury that was prepared to do the business of the Government; and for himself he said that he objected to several of the six-and-twenty names.

said, that what he proposed was to name the Committee now; that the Committee should then meet and determine what documents should be called for; and having so determined they might be in possession of these documents when they did meet after the recess.

observed, that the question of a free trade in banking was not then before them. The question was, what was to be done at the present moment; and this, he said, might be determined without referring to a Committee. He believed that the practical result of their inquiry would be the appointment of two additional Directors of the Bank, one of them having a seat in that House.

remarked, that there was a strong feeling amongst the Scotch Members that their country was not fairly treated in this matter. He wished that the Member for Glasgow should be appointed on the Committee; and, if the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were carried, he should propose that the Committee should consist of twenty-seven Members.

concurred with the hon. Member for Montrose that the proposed Committee would not answer the objects for which it was professedly designed. He thought that, so far as inquiry was concerned, the subject had been exhausted by former Committees on similar subjects. It was now proposed that the Committee of Inquiry should consist of twenty-six Members. It was an unfortunate example they had selected. It was undoubtedly the Committee which had put the largest number of questions, and elicited the largest number of answers, and that was the best that could be said of it. But what did that Committee produce? There was no report—no statement—no, not an opinion. Perhaps they had not time. Well, they sat for two years. What, then, did that Committee, selected as a model for this one, in reality produce? Why a mere registry of questions and answers. It was apparently appointed, no doubt, like this, for the purpose of devising some scheme; but, if so, it proved utterly and entirely abortive. At the close of two years, he repeated, that Committee gravely proceeded to lay before the House a series of questions and answers, without offering the slightest opinion. Was the result to be the same in this instance? and was the House really prepared, after all their experience, after witnessing the results of these different Committees on banking affairs, to engage again in the same endless and unprofitable inquiry? And, above all, was the House prepared, in such an emergency as the present—without offering any opinion, without adopting any measure to relieve the public apprehension, without suggesting any course calculated to be useful, or even to allay the fears of the public mind—to launch again into the sea of inquiry? He could not avoid saying that he thought it would appear to the public as if Government and the House wished, by the appointment of this Committee, to evade the question—that they were indisposed to come to a decision upon this most important subject. Well, but it might be said that they had already agreed to go into a Committee of Inquiry: he admitted the fact; but he might add that it was not with his consent. The House could not now negative the course it had resolved upon, and therefore he supposed hon. Gentlemen opposite would say the time was past for discussion. But in his opinion, it was a very proper time for any Member to discuss the utility of such a Committee. At all events, he would not shrink from the expression of his opinion; and he avowed his conviction that the appointment of this Committee would lead to no satisfactory result. What was more, he did not think the Committee was so constituted as to give satisfaction either to the House or to the public. When he saw the various names of which a majority of that Committee was composed, he did not think there would be that confidence amongst men of different opinions as to its impartiality. Upon this latter ground he would recommend the Government to postpone the consideration of this question. He would not now have them fix upon twenty-six as the number of which the Committee should be composed, or that all the individuals nominated should remain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had done him the honour of putting his name upon it. He begged to be excused from the difficult, onerous, and, as he believed, useless task, and would be glad to see any person more competent put in nomination. If the hon. Member for Montrose would persist in his Motion, and if the Government refused to postpone the appointment of the Com- mittee, he must say he would vote with the hon. Gentleman against the Government.

said: Sir, I am not disposed to resist the feeling of the House; but on this occasion, I am confident I speak the sentiments not only of a great many commercial Members in this House, but of the whole commercial country out of it, when I say that the constitution of this Committee will not be satisfactory to the House or to the country. It has been observed—and, perhaps, justly—that the Committee is already very large in point of numbers. Perhaps it might be better constituted upon a more reduced scale. But it is an invidious thing to strike out the names of any Gentlemen already put forward; and as I do not wish to do anything in any degree invidious, or which might prove hurtful to the feelings of any hon. Member, the only recourse I have is to propose that other names should be added in order to equalise the Committee. Now, in the first instance, there stand upon it the names of no less than eight Members of the present and late Governments. It is perfectly well known, both in this House and out of it, that those eight Members will be banded together as one man, in order to maintain their opinions upon the Bank Charter Act. On a former occasion I observed that there is one most remarkable exclusion in the nomination of this Committee, and that is, that every Member who opposed the Bill in 1844 has been carefully omitted. Now, Sir, if any Member more than another ought to be nominated on this Committee, it should be those who, in 1844, when opposing the Bill then passed, predicted that every circumstance would arise which has arisen—that every consequence would follow that has followed the passing of that Bill. All those predictions have been fulfilled within the last six months; but the men who had the foresight to predict them, are assiduously excluded. I might particularly remark upon the exclusion of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), to whom all sides of the House will be ready to give credit for strong-minded views of every measure which comes before him. My hon. Friend predicted the consequences which would follow from the working of this Bill. I must also observe of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Hastie), who, with almost prophetic vision, foretold exactly the events which have come to pass: he said that upon the very first occasion of a drain of gold by a demand for foreign corn, that the Bill would fail. The hon. Gentleman is not of my party: I cannot number him among my friends; but it must be admitted that there is no Gentleman in the House who pays more attention to commercial questions, or who has been instrumental in procuring more valuable returns on all commercial subjects, than the hon. Member for Paisley. And how is Scotland represented? Scotland, which feels so deep an interest in this question, is represented in this Committee by two Members only. The West Riding of Yorkshire has three Members upon it; Scotland two. I must express my surprise that not a single commercial Member connected with Scotland is placed on the Committee. The hon. Member for Montrose is one of the Scotch Members so nominated, and the hon. Member for Perthshire the other. The hon. Member for Perthshire in connected with the Charter Bank in Scotland; but there is no Member in any way connected with the joint-stock banks in Scotland, and none with the commercial interest. Therefore, I must say that Scotland has just reason to be discontented with the constitution of this Committee. How is Ireland treated? Ireland, with 105 Members, is only permitted to have one Member on this Committee; and though, I doubt not, the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Tennant) is perfectly competent, and that he represents the commercial interests of the North of Ireland, I believe he has had no practical knowledge of banking in that country, and that, if he represents any banking interest at all, it is the existing monopoly in Belfast. I think, therefore, that Ireland is ill represented on this Committee, and has a just demand for additional Members. There is one hon. Gentleman, the Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), who is perfectly conversant with this question. He has been put upon his defence by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth, and I think it only reasonable that that hon. Gentleman should have a seat on the Committee. But, at all events, a large number of the Members of the House are of opinion that neither Ireland nor Scotland are sufficiently represented. Many think that Lancashire ought to have been better represented; and there are those, too, who are of opinion that the Bank of England has also been overlooked. The Bank of England is to be put upon its defence; and, with the exception of the hon. Member for Westmoreland, it is not represented. I observe that the hon. Member for Finsbury proposes to add the name of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz). Well, I must say, that that Gentleman has been long distinguished for the prominent part he has taken in those matters. He is also well known to those who have been members of previous Committees for the shrewdness with which he can cross-examine a bullionist theorist. But perhaps that is the reason why he has been excluded. If we permit the Committee to be constituted in this way, the whole country will say that they can write the report of the Committee before it is adopted. Under these circumstances, and not wishing, as I twice already stated, to make any invidious distinctions by leaving out any of the present number, all I can do is to propose that the word "twenty-six" be omitted from the proposition, and that "thirty" be substituted in its stead.

said, he felt bound to resist the Motion of his noble Friend, because if they added to the number of the Committee, they would go far to verify the prediction of those who said no good could result from its appointment. The smaller the number forming a Committee the more likely was it to do good; and he had very reluctantly acquiesced in so large a number as twenty-six; but the importance of the case demanded it—nor was he without precedent for it. He would not go into the question of names, the only question before the House being the number which should constitute the Committee. He could assure his noble Friend and the House that he had had no wish to prevent any great interest from being properly represented in the Committee; and on looking at the names proposed he was sure no one would say that the opponents of the measure of 1844 were not adequately and fully represented.

said, if he understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, Her Majesty's Government had no plan of their own to lay before the House, and, therefore, they wished to throw the whole of their proper responsibility upon the labours of the Committee. Now what result could be expected from a Committee of twenty-six, who were not at all likely to agree to any report? The only result would be, that a great mass of evidence would be taken and presented to the House. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether a smaller Committee might be named, say of the eight Members on the list who belonged to the late and present Government, and who supported the Act of 1844. He would have them inquire into the working of that Act, and be responsible for the evidence taken, and the report they might make. He believed the examination of witnesses would be more practical by such a Committee—their report would be more speedily made—and the House would have an opportunity before the end of the Session of proposing a remedy if the Government should fail to propose one.

objected to the Committee, and moved that the debate be now adjourned.

reminded the hon. Member for Stirlingshire that his objections were to the names of individuals, while the question before them was simply whether the Committee should consist of twenty-six Members? He trusted, therefore, the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion of adjournment.

apprehended that by the forms of the House no new names could be inserted without notice; and that, unless the debate were adjourned, it would not be competent to the House to reconstitute the Committee.

You may propose any names you choose.

would have preferred a smaller number, if the Committee had been fairly constituted. It was, as he had said before, to the constitution of the Committee which he objected. He objected to such a great number of placemen and ex-placemen being upon it. The city of London was not fairly represented in the list of names before the House. It was true the name of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets, were upon it; but when it was considered that so much difference of opinion existed in the City on this question, surely some other Members, whose opinions differed from those entertained by the noble Lord and the hon. Member, ought also to be included in the Committee. He would support the Motion for an adjournment.

said, the question before the House was, that the Committee should consist of twenty-six Members. When that question was decided, it would be competent for the noble Lord to move the substitution of any other names for those which he already suggested. The most convenient course would be to take the questions in their order.

would certainly vote for the adjournment of the debate. He thought that the House and the Government were at present placed in a very unfortunate position. Parliament had been called together on the 23rd of November, for the purpose, as it was stated, of taking into consideration the question of commercial distress; and they were now, at the end of three weeks, told that a Committee was to be appointed to examine into the subject, and that all legislation was to be postponed till February. Now, he thought that in such an emergency the Government ought to have been prepared to take a more decided and a more active course. But if the proposed plan was to be acted upon, there was, in his opinion, not the slightest chance of having any measures of relief in this or even in the next Session of Parliament. He complained that there was only one manufacturer's name on the list of the Committee—the name of Mr. Alderman Thompson. [Cries of "Mr. Cobden."] Mr. Cobden was no longer in business; and he believed that Mr. Alderman Thompson's name was proposed, not because he was a manufacturer, but because he was a Bank Director. It was plain to him that the Government knew no more of the condition of the small tradesmen and the middle classes of the country than they did of what was taking place in Siberia, else they would act differently. They did not propose the name of any Member connected with the silk trade, the cotton trade, or the woollen trade; and yet the Committee was to inquire into the cause of the commercial distress in the country. The conduct of the Government appeared to be absurd in that respect; he was sure that they could not have reflected before they put forward the names proposed to be placed on the Committee. He should be glad to know why Mr. Muntz's name was excluded? He had a thorough practical knowledge of the subject; he had spoken upon it in 1844 and in 1846; and what he then prophesied as the result of the Banking Act had actually come to pass. It was an invidious thing for the House to be called upon to exclude a name which the Government had proposed; but he must say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consent to the postponement suggested, in order that he should have an opportunity of reconsidering the subject, and seeing if he could not replace some of the names with others in which the working millions of this country had more confidence. He had lately been considering the question of the currency, and his opinions with respect to it had undergone a change. He was now convinced that the present system could not last, and that if it was not soon altered, great confusion would be the consequence. It was not right, nor was it natural, that we should have free trade in everything except money. Eighteen out of the twenty-six whose names were proposed to serve on the Committee had, it was well known, their minds made up on the question. That was extremely objectionable, and he trusted, therefore, that the Government would give way, and defer the appointment of the Committee to another night.

believed that he did not state clearly what he intended before he last sat down. He was anxious not to say anything calculated to excite angry feelings. The House had already decided that a Committee should be appointed, and that it should consist of twenty-six members. He did not wish to proceed with the naming of the Committee to-night: he proposed to name the members to-morrow; and, in the meantime, the noble Lord or any other hon. Member might give notice of their intention to propose the substitution of other names.

wished that Scotland should be fairly represented in the Committee; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury that it would be invidious to exclude any name which had been placed on the list by the Government. He conceived that a Committee constituted as the present one would not give satisfaction to the people of Scotland, as the report which they would be likely to give might be of a partial character.

expressed his opinion that the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury ought to be supported, because all the different views entertained on the present subject, of which no less than five or six existed in this country, were not sufficiently represented in the proposed Committee,

could see no advantage that could be gained by an adjournment of the debate, inasmuch as the House had already decided that the number of the Committee was to be twenty-six. They might discuss the question of any nomination of members on a future day.

agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Lynn that Ireland, which had suffered so much from ill-regulated systems of banking, was not properly represented on the proposed Committee; but at the same time he thought they might agree to the number without naming the Committee. If the Motion for adjournment, however, were pressed, he would vote for it.

said, the difference between them was not so trifling as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think. He agreed with the noble Lord that it was inexpedient to dispose of such a question at the fag-end of a debate, and at an unexpected moment, when many hon. Gentlemen had left the House, thinking that no decision would have been come to, as it had not been come to at an earlier period on that which was, in fact, the main point of the Bill. The point in question had not been settled, and he wished to impress that fact upon the Government.

begged to move that the name of Mr. Hume be omitted from the Committee, and that of Mr. Reynolds substituted for it.

said, the real question at issue was, whether the Committee was to be a fair one or not? for it should be borne in mind that there never had been a fair Committee on this subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in point of fact, moved the appointment of the Committee who sat in 1841 on the Bank Charter. The present was not a Bank Charter question. It was, he apprehended, intended to be an inquiry into the commercial distress. He considered the proper plan to adopt would be to follow the usual judicial course, and reject the Committee of 1841 as the very last persons who ought to be nominated to sit in judgment on their own delinquencies. The composition of the Committee appeared to him to be this. There were twelve or thirteen Members of it in favour of the Government, six or seven followers of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel), and six adherents of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. This was making the question one of party. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated dissent.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was not; and if it was not, surely the whole question resolved itself into this—"who did or who did not support the Act of 1844?" In his opinion, the fair way would be to let one-half of the Committee be nominated by those who approved of the Act of 1844, and the other half by those who opposed it. Let it be remembered that this was a question upon which the leaders of both parties expressed the greatest confidence; but they showed that confidence by never proposing a committee of inquiry until they had two to one in favour of their own views. He believed the Committee was not fairly nominated, and he would support the Motion for adjournment in order that other names might be proposed.

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the debate being adjourned for the purpose of considering the reconstruction of the Committee.

said, he thought he had stated before that he did not intend to press the nomination of the Committee to-night. He had already said that it would be perfectly open to any hon. Gentleman to propose any Member he pleased to serve on it. He declared most solemnly that the names he had mentioned to sit on that Committee, as far as he could form an opinion, were as fairly selected as possible. As well as he could judge their probable opinions upon the question, he believed if they were selected they would be as fairly balanced as the House could desire. He had to the best of his judgment named those who he thought were the most competent persons to conduct this important investigation. It would be utterly impossible to put representatives of every interest on that Committee. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment, and the names of the Members of the Committee could then be left open for nomination on another night.

wished to understand distinctly whether the number was to be twenty-six, and whether the nomination of the members was to be postponed until Wednesday? He also wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to allow any alterations that might be suggested, without requiring the usual notice to be given? He knew that this latter proposition was not consistent with the general usage of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman, if he pleased, could acquiesce in this understanding, as it was impossible that any notice could be given to-night upon the subject.

said, he was only anxious that this matter should be amicably settled. If the House should prefer the discussion upon this subject to take place on Wednesday, instead of to-morrow, he should have no objection. Though it was usual to give notice of any alterations that it was intended to propose, there was no rule of the House that rendered such notice necessary.