brought up the report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the petition of F. H. Goldsmid and others, against the return of the hon. Arthur Lennox, commonly called Lord Arthur Lennox, and Octavius Edward Coope, Esq., for the borough of Great Yarmouth. The hon. Member said, he had to inform the House that the Committee had determined that Lord Arthur Lennox and Octavius Edward Coope, Esq., were not duly elected to sit in Parliament for the borough of Great Yarmouth; that the late election for that borough was a void election; that Lord Arthur Lennox and Octavius Edward Coope, Esq., were, through their agents, guilty of bribery at the last election for the borough of Great Yarmouth; that it was proved before the Committee that various electors had been bribed, but that there was no evidence to show that those acts of bribery were committed with the knowledge and consent of either the said Lord Arthur Lennox or Octavius Edward Coope, Esq.; and that the Committee were of opinion, from the evidence given before them, that gross, systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed at the last election among the freemen of Great Yarmouth; and the Committee, therefore, considered it their duty to express to the House their unanimous opinion that the freemen of that borough should be disfranchised, and that no writ should be issued for the said borough till the necessary measures had been taken for the purpose of such disfranchisement.

moved that the report be printed; and that the issue of a new writ for the borough of Great Yarmouth be suspended till the House had taken into consideration the recommendations contained in the report of the Committee.

On Friday evening the hon. Member for Cockermouth gave notice of his intention to ask me this evening whether the Government would undertake to inform the person who may be appointed to the vacant see of Canterbury that he must accept it subject to any alteration which Parliament might make relative to the mode of fixing the income of the see. The hon. Member stated that a similar course had been followed in the case of the Bishop of Durham; and he might have referred to other instances in which a notice of that kind was given. I am of opinion that the present mode of fixing the income is not satisfactory; and I think that Parliament may make a better arrangement with respect both to the payment by the Commissioners to the Archbishops and Bishops, and to the payment of those right rev. Prelates back to the Commissioners; and, therefore, I think it perfectly right that any person who may be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury should be informed that he must accept the appointment subject to any new arrangement which Parliament may make. To prevent any misconception I may state, that it is not the intention of the Government to propose any alteration with respect to the amount of the Archbishop of Canterbury's income, which is fixed at 15,000l

moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into Committee upon the New Zealand Government Bill.

said, that under ordinary circumstances he should have hesitated before venturing to move an Amendment on an Order of the Day; but he thought that the subject which he was about to bring under the attention of the House fully justified him in deviating from the usual course. After the ingenuous but extraordinary statement made on a former evening by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests—to the effect that they would not make themselves responsible for the expenditure of the architect—the House would betray its duty as guardian of the public purse if it refrained from coming to a distinct understanding on the subject with the Government. The course taken with respect to the new Houses furnished a remarkable illustration of the aphorism, "what is everybody's business is nobody's business." When he made some inquiries the other evening with the view of ascertaining what the Government were doing in the matter, the First Lord of the Treasury said in so many words that he was doing nothing; and the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests declared that he was assisting his Colleague. The replies which he then received reminded him of the Joe Miller dialogue—"What are you doing, Jack?" "Nothing, Sir." "And what are you about, Tom?" "Helping of Jack, Sir." He thought, if the House took that very peculiar answer into consideration, they would be anxious to make inquiry into the subject. He was not about to make any attack upon or bring any charge against Mr. Barry. He was free to confess that he believed, from all the accounts he could hear of that gentleman, that he was a man of as strict honour and propriety as any Member of that House. Neither did he think that Mr. Barry was so much to blame in this business. Considering the total want of control over the whole of these proceedings on the part of the Government or of Parliament, nobody could wonder that that gentleman should not be very anxious to conclude the job. Since the days of the celebrated architect Amphion, who was said to have moved the stones and raised the walls of Thebes at the sound of his lyre, there had not been a name more bruited about by the voice of fame than that of Mr. Barry. But there was this remarkable difference between the Theban architect and the Christian, that whereas the works of the former were finished in an inconceivably short space of time, the works of the latter had been spread over a period which was not yet brought to a close; and he ventured to predict, unless the House took them into their own hands, never would be brought to a close in the lifetime of the present generation. What he was anxious to establish on the present occasion was, first, that there had been a most reckless expenditure of the public money, without a due exercise of public control, in the building of the New Houses of Parliament; and, secondly, that there had been a most unnecessary delay in carrying on the works. In the month of October, 1834, the Old Houses of Parliament were burnt down; and the first thing done on the subject was in the Session of 1835, when a Committee of the House of Commons sat, and came to certain resolutions as to building New Houses of Parliament. He had not any great fault to find with their proceedings. They might have chosen a more plain, simple, and less expensive style; but they had chosen a most florid style, thereby materially increasing the expense, In 1836, a conjoint Committee of both Houses of Parliament were appointed, which he believed was an unusual thing. That Committee approved of the design sent in by Mr. Barry, and sanctioned the estimated cost of the new building, which was 707,104l. He had experienced great difficulty in ascertaining the facts involved in this case, in consequence of the very slovenly manner in which the whole business had been conducted. He might mention, as an instance, the fact that the clerk of the works had not made any note of the time when the foundation of the new building was laid. But to return to the proceedings of the joint Committee—they sanctioned the plan and the estimate, and the period for completing the building, as named by Mr. Barry himself, was six years. In 1848 the country bad expended no less than 1,401,036l., as appeared by an estimate which was acknowledged to be incomplete, and supposed to be imaginary; and yet the building was as far from being inhabited as in 1836. In fact, the New Houses of Parliament were considered among the architects to be a sort of Mrs. Harris, Whose real existence was problematical. He would now call the attention of the House to some of the charges which he had selected from the returns before Parliament. The first item was a charge of 22,000l. for change of stone. Now, in 1839 a roving Commission of geologists was appointed, who went through England and Wales to examine the different qualities of stone. On the 16th of March, 1839, that Commission made its report. The expense of that tour of inspection, mixed up with some other items, was 4,902l. 3s. l0d. It was natural to suppose that, having the benefit of this Commission, a stone would have been selected such as was applicable to all purposes. But this was not the case; the stone originally adopted was not at all suited to endure the weather, and consequently a charge of no less than 22,000l. had been incurred for changing it. Then there was an item of 48,4877. 11s. 9d. for carving stone—an arrangement authorised by the Woods and Forests in 1841. He should have something to say on this subject of arrangement by the Woods and Forests by and by. Another most expensive item was that of ventilating, warming, and fire-proofing the New Houses. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in 1841 a Committee inquired into these subjects, and the estimated expense laid before the Committee, for ventilating, warming, and fireproofing the New Houses, was 86,000?. Dr. Reid proposed to erect a tower, as a portion of the works necessary to ventilation. That might be supposed to cause some increased delay in the time for completing the building; but when Lord Palmerston, in Committee, asked Mr. Barry whether it would cause any delay, Mr. Barry answered, "Not the least." Preparations were then taken for ventilating and warming the building. One would have hoped that this expense would have been all. Lord Besborough, when at the head of the Woods and Forests, and who appeared to be the only commissioner who was at all able to resist the fascinations of Mr. Barry, on the 27th of August, 1841, wrote a letter on the subject of ventilation and fire-proofing of the Houses, in which he said—

"From the prices at which contracts have been taken for the works already in progress, there can be no doubt with care and attention that a considerable saving will take place on the original estimate that was sanctioned by the first Committee of both Houses."

But what was the fact? By the last return there was already expended on ventilation and warming 96,326l. 13s. 3d., and they had no security against being saddled with another 90,000l. for the same object. But this sum of 96,327l. did not include fire-proofing; for that item there was an additional charge of 15,600l.; then there was another charge under the miscellaneous works, under the general authority of the architect, amounting in the whole to 21,000l. He thought the House would feel it its duty to inquire what was the nature of this general authority of Mr. Barry to put his hand into the public pocket; and he trusted the House would also consider it its duty to put an end to this lavish expenditure of the public money. There had been at least 100,000l. expended under this general authority of the Woods and Forests, and of the architect. It was necessary the House should be informed of the reason that had been given for the architect not going on faster with the works. It appeared to have originated entirely in the unfortunate difference that had arisen between Dr. Reid and Mr. Barry. This difference, so far as he could trace it, occurred about the year 1844. It was impossible for him to enter into the nature of the quarrel; but the House should be informed that the quarrel was made a subject of inquiry before a Select Committee in 1846, which Committee on the 5th of August of that year reported—

"That the practical effect of the differences between those gentlemen was a delay in the building of the House of Lords for nine months, and generally delayed the construction of the whole building. This occasioned great inconvenience and expense, especially as regarded the hiring of Committee-rooms."

When it was considered that the total loss incurred in the hiring of houses was not less than 200,000l., he thought it would be owing to the patience of the House alone that it did not step in and dismiss both architect and ventilator. Dr. Reid, in answer to a question before the Committee, said—

"That for nearly a twelvemonth he had no communication with Mr. Barry, except of a nature that was more likely to be productive of disagreement than to facilitate the progress of the work."

Ever since 1846 this unfortunate squabble had been going on between these two gentlemen; and he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests (Lord Morpeth) would consider it his duty to inquire into these differences. If he did not, then it would be right for Parliament to step in and decide that the quarrel should not any longer continue. Unless this were speedily done, he was confident the country would ultimately lose upwards of half a million of money. The hired houses cost not less than 203,052l.; the allowance for rent to officials was 36,545l. 17s. 10d.; and yet they were nevertheless very uncomfortably provided for. The Speaker was obliged to live in a most inconvenient house; and Mr. Ley their Clerk, whom he saw sitting at the table, and whose health was positively affected for want of a proper house to live in, had been peculiarly ill-treated, for he (Mr. Os-borne) found this very remarkable fact in connexion with that gentleman's case:—On the 7th of July, 1842, the Speaker called the attention of Lord Lincoln to the propriety of building a house for the clerk. The report stated—

"That such a residence may be provided for at an additional expense of not more than 2,600l.; and as the present Clerk receives 500l. a year for house-rent, which payment would cease, on a house being built, your Committee consider it would be no less a measure of conomy than public convenience to authorise the building of the house as proposed by Mr. Barry."

That was five years and a half ago. Mr. Barry said that the house would be ready in eighteen months; and that he only waited for an order to finish it. Now, 500l. a year was allowed to Mr. Ley for rent. This sum had been paid for seven years, which made the whole amount paid on that gentleman's account 3,500l.; and yet, in 1842, it was stated that the house could have been built for 2,600l. Why was not the necessary order issued by the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (Lord Lincoln), who in 1842, was the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests? Had that been done the country would have been saved a great expense, and Mr. Ley would have been spared a considerable portion of inconvenience. There was a charge of 508l. for frescoes in the House of Lords. Now, he was not a man of taste, and, therefore, was not capable of judging of the merits of these frescoes; but he thought it would be difficult to get any future Commission of Fine Arts to approve of those which had as yet been exhibited in the House of Lords. The Fine Arts Commission that now existed—whoever might have appointed it—was evidently careless of the public money. Not, however, being competent himself to speak on this matter, he would quote the opinion of one who was quite as good a judge on the subject as Mr. Barry. A Committee of the House of Lords sat in 1844, of which Lord Sudeley was a Member. In answer to some observation made by Mr. Barry, as to the necessity of ventilation, and respecting the introduction of frescoes, Lord Sudeley said—

"If the buildings of the Houses of Parliament are meant for the fine arts, Mr. Barry may be correct in his observation; but I consider the Houses of Parliament built for no such object; that the fine arts ought to be called in to embellish, but that no necessary architectural arrangement should be sacrificed for their display These plans ought to have been settled years ago. It is nine years since we made our report; from that hour till lately I have never seen the plan."

What had been the consequence? The country had been put to a very extraordinary expense; but what was or would be the exact amount it was impossible to ascertain. There was no getting at the doings of this Fine Arts Commission. As a proof that there had never been any control exercised over Mr. Barry since the lamented death of Lord Besborough, that Gentleman, in reply to questions put to him before the Lords' Committee, said, that the alterations made during the nine years were upon his own judgment, without any authority; that they were described to no person, neither to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, nor to the Government; that he had delivered no plans to the Government, showing the alterations. He further stated that the Commissioners of Fine Arts ordered alterations to be made in the designs, to make room for "larger pictures." In the Committee of the House of Commons, on the 4th of July, 1844, Mr. Barry was asked—

"Have the Woods and Forests ever called upon you for any plans?—Never. Can you tell what the estimate is likely to be for the whole building, when completed?—I am unable to guess even at what the ultimate cost of the building will be."

If this matter was not attended with a very serious outlay, it would, indeed, be perfectly ridiculous. Judging from the answers given by Mr. Barry, might be not ask of what use Was the office of the Woods and Forests to the country? [Mr. HUME: Or any Minister?] His hon. Friend said, "or any Minister," but he (Mr. Osborne) could not go So far as that; but certainly the sooner the House abolished the Woods and Forests the better it would be for the country. When Lord Besborough was at the head of the Woods and Forests he told the architects that he considered himself responsible for what was done by them, and that they were under his control. But this responsibility appeared now to have almost ceased. He was surprised that the House had not taken up the subject before this. He should have thought that the Committee of the House of Commons, having eulogised the report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, would have had their attention most particularly drawn to the necessity of some effective measure being adopted. The Lords' Committee of the 13th of May, 1844, passed the following resolution:—

"That it appears from the evidence of C. Barry, Esq., that during the progress of the building of the Houses of Parliament certain departures have taken place from the original plans, approved by Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and ordered to be executed under direction of the Boards of Treasury and of Works, which alterations have been made by Mr. Barry without any authority from either of those boards; to which circumstance they think it right to call the particular attention of this House."

He called upon this new Parliament, which professed to contain so many men of business, not to suffer a sneer from the Treasury bench to discourage them, and to insist that the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests should do his duty, and make Mr. Barry do his duty also. So much, then, for the expense which had been incurred. His next proposition was, that there had been unnecessary delay in the completion of the building. How stood the case in 1836? The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford asked Mr. Barry in 1836 this question—

"How long do you think it will take to complete the building?" and the answer given was, "I imagine about six years for the entire completion. It will be possible, however, to complete the houses and the committee-rooms long before that period, perhaps about two years after the foundations have been laid."

Now, the House would observe, that it had been hitherto found impossible to fix the time at which the foundations were laid. Mr. Barry always professed to be unable to say when the foundations of the building were laid, no diary having been kept of the progress of the works. Now, he would ask, would any private gentleman sit down patiently under such an answer as this? Well, after this a running fire of questions was kept up, and ever and anon some Gentleman got up and asked, "When are we to get into the New Houses of Parliament?" There was also a stereotyped question and a stereotyped answer. The House would recollect that Mr. Barry's original computation, in 1836, was that the Houses would be completed in six years at the furthest; and on the 13th of July, 1842, his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose put a question on the subject to the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, who replied that he had seen the architect that morning, and that Mr. Barry had informed him that the Session of 1845 would beheld in the New Houses. Well, 1845 came, but no New Houses of Parliament were ready. On the 5th of March, 1845, his hon. Friend the Member for the city of York again asked the noble Member for Falkirk when the New Houses of Parliament would be ready; and the noble Lord again replied that he had seen the architect that morning, who saw no reason why both Houses should not be ready in 1847. In July, 1847, Mr. Barry was examined before a Select Committee of the House of Lords, and the following question was put to him—"Have you any idea when the House of Commons will be ready?" The answer was, "None whatever." Again, in December, 1847, when at the end of the last extraordinary Session the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Duncan) asked, "When shall we get into the House of Commons?" he found the noble Lord, now the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, stated that he had seen the architect that morning, and that Mr. Barry had given him every possible assurance that the House of Commons would be completed; but he did not mention the time when. Unless Parliament took the matter into its own hands he feared that the House of Commons never would be completed. There was another remarkable circumstance, to which he thought the House would do well to attend, and that was the rate of remuneration to be paid to the architect. The amount of "commission to be paid to the architect" was left blank in the account; and he wished to call the attention of the House to a very important doubt which had been raised on this subject. A Trea- sury Minute of 1839 directed "25,000l. to be paid to the architect, in conformity with the agreement for the original design;" but to this was appended the following note, "It is but right to state that this has never been acceded to by Mr. Barry." Now, he (Mr. Osborne) was prepared to assert that 25,000l. was the maximum agreed to be paid for Mr. Barry's services. He had in his hand Lord Besborough's evidence given before the Committee in July, 1844, which was to the following effect:—

"I think Mr. Barry has no claim beyond 25,000l. for the work he has to complete under the plan approved of by the conjoint Committee of both Houses of Parliament."

The House would find, also, from a correspondence which took place between the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the architect, that on the 22nd of April, 1839, Mr. Barry himself assented to receive this amount of remuneration. He said, in a letter of that date—

"I make no doubt that the proposed amount, although far short of the customary remuneration which has hitherto been paid to architects for extensive public works, is considered by the Board to be liberal, and therefore, with this impression, I have no wish to do otherwise than bow to its decision."

He had brought these matters before the House, hoping that they would be taken up by other hon. Members, and not suffered to fall still-born to the ground; for he thought that Parliament might be more usefully employed in controlling public expenditure, and legislating in accordance with the spirit of the age, than in founding magnificent palaces of Gothic architecture.

must preface the few observations he had to offer to the House by stating that he really thought his hon. Friend had entirely mis-stated the answers given the other night from the Treasury benches, by the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury and himself. In the first place, he thought he might safely appeal to the House whether there was anything like a sneer in the answer which he gave. The answer given by his noble Friend could not be taken as indicating that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests or the Treasury would exercise no control over the expenditure that was annually incurred in the construction of the two Houses of Parliament; but when he was asked if he would guarantee that the sum to be spent upon the entire works when finished should not amount to more than 1,400,000l., he stated that he cer- tainly could give no such guarantee. His hon. Friend had been rather severe upon him (Lord Morpeth), and had said that if he, as head of his department, did not interfere in this matter, his office ought to be abolished. Now he would state to his hon. Friend, that since he had had the honour of holding a place in that department, he had made it his particular business to inquire and ascertain what was the understanding of their duty entertained by that department with respect to the construction of the two Houses of Parliament, as it was understood by his predecessors, by the late Earl of Besborough, by the Earl of Lincoln, Lord Canning, and by those gentlemen who permanently retained their seats at the board. All those Gentlemen conceived that they acted ministerially, as a subordinate department of the Treasury, and that as such it was not their duty as a department to settle what annual amount of expenditure was to be incurred, any more than it was their duty to settle the details of the architectural arrangements. He must say, without disparagement to his Colleagues or himself, that he thought it very lucky that such was not the case; for if they had been called upon to interfere in the details of the architectural plans, they would probably have made but very indifferent work of it. But the duty of this department was to exercise a control similar to that of an accountant—to see that the sums annually voted by Parliament were applied to the service for which they were voted, after having obtained the sanction of the Treasury—to see that the contracts were entered into with proper and responsible persons, and upon proper terms—to examine all the accounts—to see that the contracts were faithfully performed according to the rates of measurement, and to provide for the bills being paid accordingly. That office, he believed, was a very laborious one, and he was convinced that it was discharged with great zeal and ability by the officers of the department; and he might especially mention the name of a gentleman who, for a long period of the years, had been especially called upon to transact this business—he alluded to Mr. Milne. Further, it was certainly the duty of the Woods and Forests to report any deviation from the original design to the Treasury, for their sanction or disallowance; and this rule, he believed, had been regularly acted upon by that department. But when his hon. Friend threw blame on the department of Woods and Forests, and said he wished that a Parliamentary Commission had been appointed, he must remind him that one of the chief sources of expense had been, that this building had been carried on under the special direction and superintendence of Committees of the two Houses of Parliament, which had sat on the subject, conducted their investigations, and made their reports. He wished to state to the House what, up to the present day, the actual expenditure had been, and what was the excess of expenditure over the original estimate. The original estimate was 707,000l. The sum advanced upon the works and buildings, including the architect's commission, and salaries of clerks, up to the present time, was 808,000l., a sum certainly exceeding the orginal estimate; but of that sum of 808,000l. a sum of 307,000l. had been paid for the improvement of the river walls, for the warming and ventilating arrangements, for official residences, sewers, decorations, extra foundations, and various modifications, alterations and additions suggested by Committees of Parliament, and the decorations of the House of Lords, all of which formed no part of the original estimate; so that of the 808,000l., only 430,000l. had been expended on the original plans. The hon. Gentleman had said that a different style of architecture ought to have been selected; of course there would be a variety of opinions as to the original style of architecture to be selected. It must be remembered that the style selected was a highly decorated one, and no doubt was an expensive one; but as such it was adopted and sanctioned. He would not now enter into a discussion on the Commission of the Fine Arts. Her Majesty's present Government were not responsible for the appointment of that Commission; but he must say that he did not think the country at large would at all sympathise with the attempt of his hon. Friend to throw discredit upon the efforts that had been made for giving encouragement to the rising talent of the country. He, of course, agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that any material arrangement, or special accommodation in the Houses of Parliament, ought not to be postponed for the purpose of mere decoration; but where they had bare walls, he thought the country would be pleased to see them covered with the designs and finished pictures of our rising artists. He thought his hon. Friend was unduly severe on the frescoes already completed in the House of Lords. They were not said to be instances of perfection in that branch of art; but they were very creditable as specimens of a mode of decorative art new to this country; and he believed that more practised judges would amply confirm the verdict which he now with great diffidence ventured to give in their behalf. Of course it was impossible for him to deny that this had been a most expensive building, and that it had considerably exceeded the original sum contemplated. But he would fairly put it to the House whether anything else could have been expected under the circumstances of the building. The original design of a building of such vast magnitude and such various uses could necessarily only include the leading principles of the arrangement and the general character of the style of architecture to be employed. Well, then, owing to the shortness of time given to the architect for making the original design, and the imperfect information which he possessed, it must necessarily have included many defects. Now, these defects could only be corrected as the architect became familiar with the requirements made upon him, and after he had time to consider and mature his details. The modifications which had been required had been endless, proceeding from Committees of that House, and from the heads of departments connected with the public service. Since the first stone was laid, the increase in the business of the country had been immense, and required proportionate accommodation. He need only instance that splendid corridor where their Committees on private business assembled; and in which it must be admitted that whatever its cost of construction, it bore no proportion to the cost of the transactions there carried on. Then among other things which the architect could not have been prepared for, were the warming and ventilating arrangements. These were not considered in the original estimates. His hon. Friend had spoken with great deference of the late Lord Besborough; but he remembered that at the request specially made by Lord Besborough, Dr. Reid was employed for the purpose of providing the ventilating and warming machinery, and for that Mr. Barry could not be responsible. Nor did he think that any part of the Executive Government could nave taken upon itself to put an end to the arrangement. He might say that, fortified by their happy experi- ence, a Committee had recommended that the arrangements of Dr. Reid should have full scope; and when it was announced that it was intended that his plan should be applied to the New House of Commons, the information was received with an expression of applause by the House. He hardly felt prepared to enter into any minute details with regard to matters which occurred long before he came into office. But his hon, Friend had specially alluded to one item in the return which had been presented, and that was with reference to the exchange of stone. It was a matter of great difficulty where to find stone for a building so vast as this. At first stone from quarries in Nottinghamshire and at Bolsover was obtained, but not in sufficient quantities, and therefore another quarry at Anston, Yorkshire, had been made use of at a greater distance, which added to the whole percentage. His hon. Friend had also alluded to the non-completion of the official residences; and he agreed with him that it was a great pity that they had not been spared the necessity of voting annually sums of money for the hire of these residences. However, the architect felt that it would be better in the first instance that those parts of the buildings specially intended for the transaction of public business should be finished: it was hardly fair to the gentlemen to be accommodated to place them in their residences while the masonry of the other portions of the building was going on. He was happy to think when his hon. Friend had specially referred to their respected Clerk, that, to judge from his appearance, he was not a subject for his (Lord Morpeth's) Sanitary Bill. The amount of money which had been voted for this building was very great, he admitted; but let them consider the object to which it had been applied; and to do justice to the architect, the House ought to remember the special circumstances of the case. Where was there a building at all comparable to it? It covered between eight and nine acres of land. It was, in fact, more like a whole town than a building. This was all according to the plans. [Sir, OSBORNE: Not the original plans.] The original plans, in the main as approved and selected. How many rooms did his hon. Friend think there were? Between five and six hundred rooms, and one hundred and fifty staircases; and he believed he might say that no such building could be found in Europe, except the Vatican and St. Peter's, that took not ten years, but two hundred years in building. The architect was ready to contend that this building would stand the test of comparison with any building erected in modern times in this country, either with reference to cost of construction, to rapidity of construction, or to the effect of its appearance. The architect felt that he could make that challenge; and he, for one, believed that he would come without shame out of it. Mr. Barry had felt, undoubtedly, from all the circumstances of the case, that he had had himself to sustain nearly all the responsibility of this vast undertaking; and he (Viscount Morpeth) believed that he had been actuated by a single desire to make the work a credit and glory to the country, and of course, derivatively, to his own reputation. The devotion of his time and talent to the subject had been most unremitting; and the many anxieties which it had brought upon him. had been most harassing to his mind to support. On the question of expenditure, he did not wish to enter into contention with the hon. Member for Middlesex, or with those who, like him, very properly took in charge the economical application of the public funds. He was not disposed to deny that the mind of the architect might have been sometimes more intent on the credit of the building he was commissioned to construct, than on the credit of the Exchequer; and he did not hesitate to admit, that it was very proper that the Parliament of the country should devote especial attention to the last-named consideration; and he had much pleasure in being able to assure the hon. Member for Middlesex, that it was a consideration which had not escaped the notice of Her Majesty's Government, who were determined, and had, in fact, already taken measures to contract as much as possible the annual sums to be voted for that service in the coming years. Of course that would have to be done at the cost of the slower completion of the building; but Government would make it their duty to require that the more essential portions of the building—as, for instance, the House of Commons, and the rooms for the accommodation of Committees, should be put out of hand with as much expedition as possible, and that until those departments were completely finished, all works of a merely ornamental or decorative character should be postponed. Care should also be taken that the sum to be devoted to works of that description should be curtailed for the future as far as might be practicable. He should deeply regret any delay in the more rapid completion of the building; but the increasing expenditure on account of the works, and the state of the national finances, rendered it necessary to use some curb in future years. With regard to the understanding that had been come to between the Government and the architect, as to the amount of money to be awarded to the latter as compensation for his services, it was very true that Mr. Barry had always represented that the remuneration proposed to be given to him was inadequate, and below the rate usually charged by gentlemen of his own profession; but nevertheless the undertaking of the Government remained to this day unchanged and undisputed, namely, that he was to get 25,000l. for his services, as also did the fact that he did not refuse to undertake the works on those terms. Whatever additional sums Parliament might, in the exercise of its discretion, hereafter think fit to allot him, was altogether a different question; but Mr. Barry was fully sensible that even though that House were to refuse to grant one shilling more than the sum originally stipulated for, he would have no cause of complaint against them, so far as the good faith of the original understanding was concerned. It was not to be expected of Mr. Barry that he should be wholly indifferent to considerations of a pecuniary character; but of this he had not the slightest doubt that the paramount feeling in his mind had all along been that of anxiety for the credit of the building with which his name was for all time to be connected. And while he could not deny that the expenditure had been very great, and that it had very considerably exceeded the original calculation of the cost, he nevertheless was most decidedly of opinion that the building would be an honour and an ornament to the country; and with respect to Mr. Barry, he must take leave to say, that as a man he knew him to be regarded by those who knew him best with feelings of the highest respect and the sincerest attachment. As an architect he united the most brilliant conceptions with the most consummate skill; and amidst all the classes of excellence for which this era had been distinguished, he believed that a prominent and most honourable place would be assigned by those who came after them to the genius of Barry.

was not disposed to lessen the force of the eulogy which the noble Lord had just pronounced upon Mr. Barry; on the contrary, he was disposed to coincide most fully with the noble Lord in his expressions of praise; but he thought it right that he should call the attention of the House to the items comprising the expenditure on the new buildings somewhat more fully than his noble Friend had done. Many matters had escaped the notice of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, which ought to have entered into his consideration. It was very true that the original estimate was stated in one page of the report from which the hon. Member had quoted to amount to 707,000l., and that in a subsequent page were to be found items which in the aggregate amounted to 1,400,000l. If the items which were contained in the latter page, and which had caused the overcharge, had been represented in the original estimate, the conclusion would be clear that the architect had yielded more to his desire to promote the credit of the building than was consistent with his duty to his employers; but he begged leave to call the particular attention of the House to this fact, that the items which made up the enormous aggregate in page 3 were not at all represented in the pages which contained the original estimate. They were a different class of items altogether. The first of them amounted to no less a sum than 82,000l., and represented a circumstance which had not at all entered into the original estimate. It was clear, therefore, the excess of expenditure under the head of that item ought not to be set against Mr. Barry. The next item represented monies expended on wharfings, terracings, and foundations of the building; but that item also should be excepted from the charge against Mr. Barry, for there was no provision made for it in the original estimate. These two items amounted together to 220,000l. which ought in justice to be deducted from the amount charged against Mr. Barry, who was on his trial for having exceeded his original estimate. With respect, moreover, to the embellishing of the interior, and the general finishing of the buildings, the works that were done in that branch of the undertaking might be right, or they might be wrong, but nothing corresponding to them was to be found in the original estimate; and it would be therefore manifestly unfair to include in the case against Mr. Barry any allusion to the sums expended on any such account. Such items had not entered into his calculation, nor was it required that they should when he drew up his first statement; and any-excess or outlay in respect of works not originally contemplated could not fairly he confronted with that statement. The expense of the Commission and the cost of decorating the House of Lords amounted in the aggregate to 300,000l.; but for that expenditure also Mr. Barry was wholly irresponsible, not having originally contemplated it. The hon. Member for Middlesex not only blamed the Government and the architect, but had severely censured the Commission of Fine Arts, and had held them up to the indignant animadversion of the gallant Member for Lincoln, as though, instead of being unsalaried, they were very highly paid; but the fact was not so. Ministerially, the appointment of that Commission originated with the right hon. Baronet opposite; but it was, moreover, in entire accordance with his own views with respect to the promotion of the fine arts. The right hon. Baronet was moved to the issuing of that Commission by the recommendation of a Committee of that House. Of that Committee the two leading Members were Messrs. Hawes and Wyse, two Gentlemen who, he grieved to say, had no longer scats in Parliament. He had often differed from each of them on political questions; but in the present instance he mentioned their names with honour. For years they used their influence most zealously and perseveringly to induce each successive Government to devote a portion of the public patronage to the encouragement of the fine arts. In no country of Europe was so little money given from the public funds for the promotion of the fine arts as in this, the richest of all countries. They had been told that the two specimens of fresco painting in the House of Lords were not the perfection of art; but he would take leave to remind the House that they were almost the first specimens in that particular branch of art that had been attempted in this country, and it was not reasonable under such circumstances to expect performances which should rival in conception or execution the matchless frescoes of the Vatican; but he confidently appealed to any competent judge to say whether the works did not possess very great merit; and whether such a commencement had not been made as fully justified the encouragement that had been given? With respect to Mr. Barry, he had a very high opinion of that gentleman's genius, and should be sorry if his talents as exhibited in the splendid palace in which the House would ere long assemble should not be appreciated; but leaving the question of external ornament entirely out of consideration, he would take leave to say that it was impossible they should desire anything better for their accommodation than that the architect should be enabled to give them in the new edifice a room in which they could hear, see, and speak with as much comfort and convenience as in the present building. Not being quite at ease as to the certainty of obtaining as good accommodation elsewhere as they at present enjoyed, he admitted he was not at all as anxious for a change as some of his neighbours; but he was willing to make every allowance for those who were more anxious on the point than himself. In conclusion, he would only observe that if the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests could manage to get the designs of the architect carried out to completion in a year and a half, or in two years, it would, in his (Sir Robert Inglis's) opinion, be much more consistent with a true economical policy that he should do so, than that he should distribute the expenditure over a surface of four or five years. If it were physically and architecturally possible to complete a given amount of building within a given number of months, and if the state of the public treasury would permit an immediate expenditure, he was decidedly of opinion that it was on every account desirable (and on no account more so than on that which had reference to economy) that the works should be finished off with all possible expedition, and that the money requisite for their completion should not be spread over a larger period than was absolutely necessary.

entirely concurred in the last sentiment expressed by the hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat. The plan proposed by the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests department, instead of promoting economy, would be productive of considerable additional expense. Mr. Barry, circumstanced as he was, had no doubt an excellent opportunity for displaying his taste; but he ought to do so at his own expense, rather than at that of the country. The House had a right to have expected a more favourable state of things at that hour of the day than was afforded by the present condition of the New Palace. He was glad to see the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) in his place, because he would be able to show the right hon. Baronet that he had every right to expect a very different result from what had been shown in respect of these buildings. It should be recollected that this business was not hastily begun. He remembered, however, how he had been treated in the matter of Buckingham Palace. 300,000l. was the sum originally required for the purposes of that edifice; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after three days' deliberation, pledged himself and the Government with which he was connected, that not one shilling more should be demanded. The House relied implicitly on that assurance, and never dreamt that it was not to be religiously adhered to, until they were called upon to give their assent to a vote of seven hundred and eighty thousand pounds. Warned by that and some other similar occurrences, he had gone cautiously to work, and had taken care that Mr. Barry should have ample time and the fullest opportunity to consider his estimate. Mr. Barry had drawn it up solemnly and deliberately; and the monstrous deviations from it were wholly unpardonable. In the Committee which sat upon this matter, he proposed that Mr. Barry's estimate should be rejected, and that of Mr. Hamilton accepted, who offered to erect a building quite suitable for Parliamentary purposes, and somewhat resembling Somerset House, at a cost of 450,000l. Unfortunately, a large majority of the Committee and of both Houses decided against that proposition. When Mr. Barry sent in his estimate, the Committee were about to accept it without evidence; but he insisted on its being examined, observing that he would never give his assent to it until he had clearly ascertained that the calculations were properly made, and that Mr. Barry perfectly understood the description of accommodation that the House would require. Accordingly Mr. Barry was called in, and, on examination, he stated that he had made the estimate himself, assisted by competent persons—that they were such as he could rely upon—and that the kind of stone to be used, for which a price of 4s. a foot was estimated, was to be the best that could be got for the purpose. With regard to the 4,000l. which had been spoken of by the hon. Member for Middlesex as having been expended by the Commission appointed to decide on the best description of stone to be used in the building, he was not at all disposed to cen- sure the Government for that expenditure. The Commission consisted of Mr. Barry, Sir H. De La Beche, and another gentleman. Their labours were very necessary—they had to visit all parts of the country, and they made a valuable collection of specimens, which were now in the British Museum. It could not be pretended that due time and opportunity for deliberation were not given to Mr. Barry. At his (Mr. Hume's) suggestion, a year was allowed him to mature all his plans, and to consider all his calculations. At the end of that period a letter was written by Lord Duncannon, on his own behalf and that of his Colleagues, stating it to be their conviction that the works (exclusively of the proposed embankment of the Thames) could be completed for 707,104l. He objected to leaving the management of the matter in the hands of the Woods and Forests department; and he suggested that some person or persons should be appointed for the special and exclusive purpose of superintending the matter; but he was overruled. It was said that everything should be left to the Treasury; and he was decidedly of opinion that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was responsible for his share of the excessive expenditure. What was the state of the building now? He had an estimate in his hand, drawn up by a very competent person, which showed that the cost of completing the works, instead of 1,400,000l., would be 1,781,000l., being 1,000,000l. beyond the sum which the House of Commons originally limited the expenditure to. Would the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee have agreed to enter on such an undertaking if they had then any idea that the expenditure would so far exceed the estimate? He had complained of the late Lord Besborough, as Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests, in reference to this matter; but Lord Besborough denied that he had sanctioned the additional expenditure, and stated that he had signed a plan, believing it to be the original plan, though it turned out to be one with amendments. If any such imposition had taken place, there was no punishment which the Government ought not to have inflicted on the guilty parties. He had never seen any disposition on the part of the House to refuse any expense for any useful building. For himself, he had never refused, in cases where the building was likely to add credit or honour to the country. He certainly did think it was very desirable that the noble Lord should lay upon the table a precise statement of all the expenses incurred by or at the instance of that Committee. It would be wrong to blame Mr. Barry or the Government for that with which they were not justly chargeable. He did not know who the gentlemen were who constituted the Committee of the Fine Arts. He believed Prince Albert was at the head of the Commission. [An Hon. MEMBER: Yes, he was.] Well, that did not at all improve it. He meant that that fact should not exempt the Committee from the obligation of giving an account of their expenditure. He was very glad to see the Prince devoting attention to such matters. It was very much to his credit that he should give the benefit of his taste, skill, and experience to the promotion of the arts and sciences; but at the same time the House ought to know what was the amount of national expense occasioned by that Committee. He did not blame Mr. Barry. That gentleman had a toy and plaything in his hand, and, having fools to do with, he played with it as he liked; but the people should know that the result would be additional taxation. Was it right, when Parliament had decided to give a certain sum only, that twice as much should be expended? It was a reproach to the Treasury that such expenditure should be incurred, and especially to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel), who was First Lord of the Treasury—[Sir R. PEEL: Not when the building was commenced.] No, but the right hon. Baronet was First Lord of the Treasury when the deviations from the original plan, which led to the excessive expenditure, was sanctioned. It was originally decided that the architect should not be paid by a percentage; and it should not have been held out to any man, that if he doubled or tripled his expenditure he should receive so much the more payment. It was to him a matter of deep regret, that the Treasury had not adhered to the original resolution, and had sunk two millions of money on the banks of the Thames. On three distinct occasions he implored of the House to remove the situation of the New Palace to the park opposite Marl-borough-house, where the daylight could get at them, instead of their being buried on a sand-bank of the river; but all his remonstrances were in vain. They were spending two millions of money in building a house in a dark dismal pit, and a great tower was to be built in the only spot through which there was the slightest chance of their being visited by a stray beam of sunshine. It would be satisfactory if Ministers would even now come forward and state what arrangements they had made to prevent the lavish expenditure of the public money for the future. It was to be hoped that Government would take care that not one shilling should be expended for the future that could be avoided. All tawdry, useless, and unnecessary ornaments, such as disfigured the House of Lords, and though suitable to the time of Louis XIV., were wholly unfit for the present era, should be strictly eschewed, Mr. Barry should be put under curb and bridle, for he had had his own way too long.

When the subject was last under the consideration of the House, I offered a humble suggestion, that the House should appoint a Committee to inquire into all the circumstances; for I felt that the investigations of such a Committee would, either as regarded the original estimate of the construction of the Houses of Parliament, or as regarded the deviations, throw light upon the whole matter much more effectually than anything which could be said in the course of a debate. I was anxious that a Committee should be appointed to inquire as to the original estimate, and all the works which it covered, that we might see to what extent the original estimate had been exceeded, and ascertain whether there were any other items besides the expense of embanking the Thames not included in it—what was the excess of expenditure—and what were the causes that had led to that excess. I am of the same opinion still. I still think it is very much to be desired that a Select Committee should be appointed for the purposes I state; for I am well aware that matters of detail, such as are involved in the present question, are disposed of much more satisfactorily by such deliberations than they can be by a debate. The hon. Member for Middlesex has a more accurate recollection than I have of what took place in a Committee, of which I was merely a private Member, not having been in office at the time. With respect, however, to, the remuneration of the architect, I remember distinctly that when that question was under discussion, I entirely concurred with those who said that it was better that Mr. Barry should have a stated sum as the total amount of his remuneration, than that, following what I believe is the gen- eral rule in his profession, he should be allowed a percentage of 5 per cent, or any percentage whatever, on the work done, And I must say, it is very unfortunate that the Treasury allowed a single stone to be laid before laying down that condition, receiving the protest of Mr. Barry. They should have said, "A sum shall be paid to you—be it 25,000l. or 30,000l. or any other sum. We discourage entirely all expectation on your part of payments to a higher amount, or on another principle. At all events, we give you notice that it is a matter which will be settled, before the commencement of the building." I must further observe, that I do not think the blame falls either upon the architect, or the Woods and Forests, or the Treasury, exclusively. I think the House of Commons itself must bear a very considerable portion of the blame. I must say also, that if the result of the deliberations of the Committee in 1835 had been to present to you a building according to the beau ideal of excellence in the hon. Gentleman's estimation—namely, according to the plan of Somerset House—there would have been universal disgust. He said the estimate for such a building was about 400,000l. Now, I recollect when the House, in a very economical humour, specified the sum that should on no account be exceeded for certain public buildings; and what has been the result? First of all, there is Buckingham Palace. The hon. Gentleman there got a positive assurance that 300,000l. would be the sum expended; but if he walk through St. James's Park now he will see what has been the expenditure there. He will sec it is a very large building. [Mr. HUME: There are additional buildings.] But even without the additional buildings, I do not think he will derive very great satisfaction from a consideration of the expenditure on Buckingham Palace. Then there is the Treasury. The Treasury was built, and in some years after it was completed it was resolved to alter the front of it and improve its appearance; and to whose aid are you indebted for the great improvement which has been effected? To that of Mr. Barry, whose qualities are called in question. I think it is a proof of his consummate skill that Mr. Barry has been able to make out of the Treasury, as it was left twenty or thirty years ago, so beautiful an ornament to the metropolis. There are other instances of the consequences of your economy in regard to public buildings. First, you limit the architect to such an amount that his skill is fettered; and then you become so dissatisfied with the effects of your limitation of expense, that you pull down the whole front of a building, and employ another architect to supply a better one. [Lord MORPETH: The National Gallery.] There is the National Gallery. We were told that we should build a National Gallery for 70,000l.; but we are now all anxious that Mr. Barry should be sent to improve that. The sum was perfectly inadequate to erect the building on that magnificent scale; and the result is, the structure is one on which we cannot congratulate ourselves. [Mr. HUME: It would have been a brick building, only I recommended that it should be faced with stone.] It was originally proposed that the arcade should be eleven feet high; and does the hon. Gentleman recollect an observation he made, that people are not eleven feet high, and that seven feet would be sufficient; and does he not likewise remember that it was suggested to him in reply, that the higher we make the arcade the more we will save in brick and mortar. There, I say, is the National Gallery: you stinted the artist to a certain sum, and the result has been a building quite unsuited to the character of the country, and unfitted for the purpose to which it is devoted. I have heard with great regret that any censure has been passed on the conduct of the Government in appointing the Fine Arts Commission. It was the universal feeling of Parliament that they should not confine themselves to the building of houses for our own reception, but that they should see if the necessity for the erection of new buildings could not be made instrumental in promoting the arts. It was the unanimous feeling of the House of Commons that a Commission should be appointed to consider that subject, but without the power to incur any expense. I think that subject should be fully inquired into. I do not think the Fine Arts Commission had any authority to make such order without the consent of the Treasury. That Commission has been of the utmost benefit to the promotion of the arts. The Members have given unremitting attention to their duties, and his Royal Highness Prince Albert has presided over it. They received no remuneration for their labours, with the exception of the Secretary; and I cannot mention Mr. Eastlake's name without offering him that just tribute of respect which is most justly his due, as one of the most accomplished and learned men of the profession to which he belongs. He acted as secretary, with very inadequate remuneration for the sacrifice of the time which it was necessary to devote to it. I now ask, has not that Commission been successful? And yet the criticism that is passed on it must be painful to the feelings of the eminent persons who compose it. I hear it said that English taste is not accustomed to those productions which have appeared under its auspices. There are Gentlemen who contemplated oil paintings as fit decorations for the Houses of Parliament; but you are to consider that the works which have been selected are novel in this country; and you find that those who are acquainted with fresco are surprised at the success which has attended the efforts of our artists. At any rate, every exertion has been made by that Commission to call out the latent talent of the country; and no man can see the exhibitions of successive years in Westminster Hall without rejoicing in the opportunities which have been afforded for its development. Many persons whose powers were hitherto unknown—gentlemen not members of any public institution, or connected with the Royal Academy—have been led to exhibit a knowledge of the arts, and a practical application of them, for which this country was totally unprepared. In that respect I say the Fine Arts Commission has fulfilled one of the objects for which it was appointed, namely, whether the construction of the New Houses of Parliament might not be made conducive to the promotion of the arts. But with respect to the conduct of that Commission, I am sure if a Committee be appointed, there will be every disposition to give the fullest information to this House; and I think the hon. Gentleman will find that that Commission is not responsible for any expenditure on its own authority. If such a Committee be appointed as that referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, the relations in which the Committees of the House of Commons have stood towards those buildings and towards Mr. Barry will be ascertained. We shall see if any blame can attach to any party; and we shall see also the party on whom that censure ought to justly fall. With respect to the site of the building, the course adopted by the House when the building was undertaken, saves Mr. Barry and the Executive Government from any responsibility on that account. That subject was brought under the consideration of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose thought that Marl-borough House, at the bottom of St. James's-street, would be preferable; but there was a strong objection on the part of the House of Commons to have the New Houses of Parliament removed from this place, which was the ancient site. There was a strong desire to restore the old palace of Westminster, and to keep the Houses of Parliament as near as possible to the locality to which we were accustomed. The arguments for and against were fully gone into, and the House of Commons resolved to restore the old palace. Then with regard to the expense, it was from the nature of the foundation very difficult to make any estimate of the expense of embankment; and I am anxious that the subject should be fully inquired into, until we see how far the expense of embankment has influenced this excess. As to Mr. Barry himself, I must do him the justice to say, that in all the opportunities of intercourse I have had with him, I have found him fulfilling every duty which could possibly be expected from an architect. He was naturally solicitous that the work should be worthy of his fame, and the purposes for which it was intended; but there was no disposition whatever on his part to increase unnecessarily the expense, or on his own authority to depart from the plans originally laid down. Whatever we may now think, or however we may smart under the expense of this building, this is satisfactory. So far as I have had any intercourse with foreigners, it has extorted from them almost general approbation. I have consulted with foreigners who had the best means of judging of the comparative merits of public buildings in different parts of Europe, and both with reference to the interior and the exterior arrangements I have hardly heard any dissent from the general feeling that it was most honourable to the architect by whom it had been designed. I believe that almost all the artists with whom I have been drawn into communication, are inspired by high feelings of honour and principle. They prefer distinction to pecuniary profit, and I believe those are the motives by which Mr. Barry is actuated. I believe that the result of any inquiry will be to show that Mr. Barry is not responsible for any excess of expenditure. On inquiry it will be seen what is the nature of the building, the number of persons to whom accommodation is to be afforded, the conflicting opinions of Lords and Commons, the various views that were entertained, the immense extent of accommodation required for Committees, which was hardly anticipated when the building was designed; and I believe, on a full inquiry into those particulars, a mode of accounting for the extent of the expenditure will be found which will not imply blame to any party. Let the matter be gone into; let us see if any censure be due; and let us see if any precautions can be adopted for the future. I have one concluding point to notice, and that is, that I concur with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) in thinking, that if we are satisfied that the building—I will not say according to the original design, but according to the present design—can be completed in a short time, it would be better, for the sake of economy, to avoid spreading the cost over a certain number of years; that we should be guided by economy alone; that we should be influenced by no desire for increased convenience—by no desire to exchange the old building for the new—by no jealousy of the House of Lords on account of their having possession of their apartment so soon—by no considerations of architecture even—I am content to rest the case upon economy alone—upon a saving of money; and if the result of the inquiry should show that, by the employment of a great number of men simultaneously, and a great number of expensive machines, we can complete the work in two years at less cost than if it were spread over seven years, do not let us incur the additional expense from an unwillingness to meet the cost at once. In the case of individuals, it may sometimes be necessary to pay by instalments; but, in the case of the public, if the public interest and a regard to economy should require the immediate completion of the work, I am sure it will be much better to pay at once for its immediate completion, than to have it spread over a certain number of years. But we cannot discuss those matters satisfactorily until the proposed Committee shall have presented the result of its deliberations.

said, that as a Member of the Committee to which reference had been made, he might be excused for offering one or two words to the House. He deeply regretted that the works of art exhibited in the House of Lords had not produced that effect on the public mind which had been anticipated; he was greatly annoyed at finding how little those works were appreciated; and he derived no consolation from finding the cause in a fundamental error, which was traceable to the Commission itself. The great master of decorative art had pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman, that whatever merit there might be in the individual works, a gallery of fresco paintings would be ineffective; and that fresco paintings ought to be made subservient to architectural decoration. The consequence of neglecting that advice was now seen in the failure of effect which the fresco paintings in the House of Lords unfortunately exhibited; and he hoped that warning would be taken from that failure by the Commissioners of Fine Arts, and that that fundamental error would in future be avoided; for otherwise no merit on the part of the individual artists would prevent a failure of general effect in the rest of the building as great as that now witnessed in the House of Lords. He denied the soundness of the principle advocated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that in this matter they ought to concentrate their efforts within a short space of time. In the first place, he thought that in the present state of distress it would have an appearance of harshness and unfairness towards the people if they were to expend very large sums on matters of ornament and luxury. But, independently of that, this was the first time that an attempt had ever been made to complete a great public work of this magnitude within a single decade; and he was sure that the attempt must fail. The building of St. Peter's spread over a century; that of St. Paul's occupied the lifetime of Sir Christopher Wren; and the Madeleine at Paris, recently finished, was commenced during the consulate of Napoleon. He objected, therefore, to forcing the completion of this work within any limited period; and, although with regard to the House of Lords there might have been good cause for the impatience of Lord Brougham and other noble Lords to get into the New House, there was not the same reason as to that House; he, for one, was very well contented with this House, though it certainly was very like a railway station; but his great anxiety was, that a great work of art should be erected; and he believed that that wish would not be realised if the architect was to be limited as to the time of its completion.

said, assuming as he supposed he might, from the tone this discussion had taken, that on some future day the Motion would be made of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford had given notice, namely, for the appointment of a Committee to examine into the whole of this subject—the charges which had been made, not so much on the present occasion as on former occasions, against those departments of successive Governments that had the management of the works at the New Houses of Parliament, and against the architect—and which Motion he hoped would be carried by the unanimous consent of the House—he should feel it to be unnecessary to go into those details that had occupied the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex. That hon. Member had both exaggerated the excess of expenditure above the original estimate, and underrated the extra works which had since been found necessary, but which had formed no part of that estimate. But before noticing these inaccuracies, he wished to advert to two or three of the incidental Subjects which had been referred to by hon. Gentlemen, and particularly to one point which was alluded to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. The hon. Member for Montrose repeated that charge which had been made in the House in former years against Mr. Barry, namely, that he had undertaken to make a great alteration in the original plan of the buildings without any sanction whatever. [Mr. HUME: The Lords' Report says so.] The hon. Gentleman interrupted him by saying, "The Lords' Report says so." Now he had not read the Lords' report. He did not know to what question it was the hon. Gentleman referred, or how far the question he had quoted might be a mere verbal quotation or borne out by the questions and answers that succeeded and preceded it; but he knew this, that concurrently with the Lords' Committee a Committee of that House had sat for the purpose of considering this very question. He was himself the chairman of that Committee; they went most carefully into all the charges, and the result of the consideration of the subject was, that Mr. Barry was completely exonerated from any such charge. It was proved that if alterations in and deviations from the estimate had been made, they came from the House itself; and he was prepared to say, that if this Committee were appointed, he was confident the result would be to show, he would not say that no blame should attach to the architect or the successive Officers of the Woods and Forests, or the Board of Treasury; but that if blame at all were due to them, to that House that blame was in by far the greatest proportion to be attached. He had an experience of four years in the Office of Woods and Forests. He could say that during that time successive alte- ration's were proposed to carry out the warming and ventilating arrangements. Those alterations were submitted by Government to the House, and Committees were appointed, and the result of those Committees, without exception, had been, he thought, rather to increase than to diminish the expense. He would not go through the charges brought forward by the hon. Gentleman; but if he did not imagine that a Committee was about to be appointed, he should think it due to the Executive Government and to the architect to enter into them. The question with respect to the addition of 22,000l. for the stone had been discussed, and that was fully accounted for by preceding speakers, and, above all, it was most fully accounted for in the most satisfactory way by the Committee which sat in 1844. The hon. Gentleman had praised a former Commissioner of Woods and Forests, to whom he should be as ready to pay respect as the hon. Gentleman himself—he meant Lord Besborough; but he thought the hon. Gentleman had a little unfairly represented the case when he said Lord Besborough had pursued a different course from his successors, and had exercised a control in that department which others had not exercised. He thought that the result of investigation would show that up to the time he had quitted office, the same control was maintained as had existed in the time of Lord Besborough; and he did not doubt that the same practice was pursued by his noble Friend opposite (Lord Morpeth). Now, what was the course pursued by Lord Besborough (and he was not attributing it as a charge against him, but quite the reverse)? It was this: many of those heavy items, the expenditure for which they now complained of were passed under the authority of Lord Besborough, with the full assent and approval of the House. It was true that Lord Besborough had recommended that the estimates relative to the warming and ventilating should be submitted to the House with a view to reduce the amount. As soon as the Government of which he (the Earl of Lincoln) was a Member, succeeded to office in 1841, they found this recommendation from Lord Besborough; and when they found that in his opinion those estimates ought to be submitted to a Committee of the House of Commons, one of the first acts of the Government was to move for such Committee. The result was that that Committee recommended, as former Committees had done, that there should be no curtailment; that the opinion of Lord Besborough was founded in error; that there could be no saving in the contract at all; and that the whole of those estimates must constitute an additional expense. He would now Come to the statement of the hon. Member for Middlesex, with respect to the expense of the building. If he rightly understood the hon. Gentleman, he had stated that evening what he had stated previous to the recess, and what had, on his authority, gone to the public, namely, that the original estimate being 707,000l., 1,400,000l. had been already expended on the building, and that more Was yet to come. But he begged to assure the House that the statement was erroneous. The whole sum expended, as appeared by a return, was 833,000l. [Lord MORPETH: 808,000l.] The noble Lord opposite stated it to be 808,000l. The sum stated in the return was 833,000l., but he had no doubt there was some good reason for the discrepancy. Now, how stood the case with regard to the expenditure being an excess over the original estimate? The original estimate was 707,000l., the expenditure was stated to be 833,000l.; but 378,000l. out of this sum had been for works which were never included in that original estimate. Now, assuming the sum to be as the noble Lord had stated, and that 808,000l. was expended up to the present time, if they deducted the sum expended for those extra works, namely, 378,000l., it would leave the sum already paid for the works included in the estimate only 430,000l. What he wished was, that a great misrepresentation should not go forth to the public, for while it was represented that 1,400,000l. had been already expended on an estimate of 707,000l., the real fact was that only a sum of 430,000l. had been expended. According to the estimate of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex, there was already an excess on the estimate of 693,000l., whereas in reality there was remaining to be expended of the original estimate a sum of 276,000l. He had taken the trouble to refer to a former report on the subject, and what he was now about to state would be found in that report. He begged to call the attention of the House to some of those works which had been laid by hon. Gentlemen as a charge against the architect, whereas they were additional works subsequently sanctioned by the House of Commons. For the river wall 55,902l.; purchases of property on which a large portion of the building stood, 82,054l. There was for extra foundations—an unavoidable expense arising from quicksands—difficulties having been encountered in laying the foundation, which never could be included in the original estimate, a sum of 35,063l. And then came two large items, 21,000l. for additional fire-proofing, and for warming and ventilating 65,000l., change of stone 22,000l., and 40,000l. for the embellishment of the House of Lords. There was also another enormous item, rendered necessary by an alteration which had been recommended, having reference to the warming and ventilation, namely, a sum amounting to nearly 50,000l.,for alterations in the construction of the roof. He need not, he thought, go more into detail on those points, as he hoped the Committee would investigate them thoroughly. When the hon. Gentleman said there had been reckless expenditure, he did not think the hon. Gentleman had proved his case; but it would be for the Committee to inquire how far his charges were correct. The second head of his charge was unnecessary delay. All these charges had again and again been examined into before previous Committees. The hon. Gentleman had said, that four years since the question was asked, "How soon shall we get into the New House of Commons?" and that in two years afterwards, the same question was asked, and the same answer given. He admitted that; and he believed if the noble Lord opposite were asked the question at the present moment, the noble Lord would name very little less time for the completion of the works than he had named two years ago. That was the case because the House of Commons had chosen to make arrangements which it was not necessary for him to criticise. It was impossible, it was said—and in this he entirely agreed—for the building to proceed until the architect and the ventilator had assigned to them their proper vocations; and he hoped the noble Lord had succeeded in the very difficult task of placing those officers in the performance of their respective and proper duties. The delay which had arisen in the completion of the House of Commons was principally owing to the experiments for warming and ventilating—items not included in the original estimate. Over them the architect had no control, and he was in no way responsible for that delay. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had made some not very handsome allusions to the remuneration proposed to be paid to Mr. Barry for his professional services. It was true that by a Treasury Minute the remuneration to Mr. Barry was fixed at 25,000l. for the superintendence of the whole of the erections. But it was equally true that Mr. Barry at the time protested against that sum, it being an inadequate remuneration as compared with the sums paid to architects in the erection of public or private buildings. Mr. Barry also looked upon the Treasury Minute as something reflecting, in no slight degree, upon his honour: it seemed to raise a suspicion that he had an intention of extending the cost of the building far beyond the original estimate; and he objected to it on that ground. Mr. Barry accepted the proposed remuneration under protest. And the House should bear in mind that Mr. Barry was very peculiarly circumstanced—he was in a manner compelled to accept the offer. The proposal was made after Mr. Barry's plans had been adopted. When hon. Gentlemen brought the charge against Mr. Barry, that he had involved the nation in an enormous and extravagant expenditure, he (the Earl of Lincoln) must remind them that Mr. Barry was deprived of any pecuniary incentive to increased expenditure, inasmuch as if the Treasury Minute were adhered to be was not entitled to more than 25,000l., if the expenditure amounted to four times as much as the estimate. Taken as a percentage, 25,000l. was only 3 per cent on the outlay originally contemplated, instead of 5 per cent, the rate commonly charged by, and paid to, architects. When hon. Gentlemen talked of Mr. Barry being overpaid, they should bear in mind that Mr. Barry was called upon to supply all details—that he was called upon to exercise a general and vigilant superintendence—that the wear and tear on his brain and mental faculties was such as few architects had ever encountered—and then they would be ready to admit that it would be difficult to estimate the value of such services. They should also bear in mind that Mr. Barry, by undertaking the erection of this great public building, was unable to undertake works for private individuals—works certainly less in extent, but much more remunerative in their character. Under these circumstances, it ought not to go forth to the world that the House had been illtreated, plundered, and deceived by Mr. Barry. He felt convinced that the House, on the contrary, would do full justice to the zeal of Mr. Barry—his undoubted ability—his unrivalled talent. They would not, in one of their cold fits of economy— to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had alluded—be continually carping at necessary and unavoidable expenses; they would not be holding up Mr. Barry to the indignation of his countrymen, as having enriched himself at the expense of the nation, when almost the only remuneration which Mr. Barry had received for ten years was that applause which he had gained, not merely from his own countrymen, but from every distinguished foreigner who had visited the building. Every foreign architect, every foreign sovereign, or scientific professor, who had examined the New Palace, concurred in declaring that it was an erection tending greatly to the honour of the nation, and reflecting unbounded credit upon the talent and taste of the architect. He would not detain the House by expressing his individual opinion of the merits of Mr. Barry both as a man and an architect, because those points had been satisfactorily dealt with by the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Morpeth), and his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth. He entirely concurred in the observations of the right hon. Baronet as to the desirability of appointing a Select Committee; and he did hope that the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Woods and Forests would concur in granting a Committee, taking care that it should be composed of elements calculated to give the matter of complaint a thorough investigation, but that no matter should be referred to it relating to any question of further and increased expenditure. He felt convinced that the result of such an inquiry would prove that neither the architect nor the Commissioners of Woods and Forests—neither himself nor those who had succeeded him—had been so wanting in their duty to the House of Commons as, he feared, the House had been wanting in duty to itself and to the country.

felt anxious that the discussion should not close until the House had been brought back to the point from whence it started. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), in the observations he had made, had attacked neither the genius nor the integrity of the distinguished individual to whom the erection of the stately pile adjoining had been entrusted. His hon. Friend and himself viewed the present as a question of economy, concerning which the country had a right to know what was doing; and the House had a right to receive a distinct assurance from the Government that no other expenditure than that which was absolutely necessary to the carrying out of the great design should be incurred. They had a right, also, to know why such a delay had taken place in the completion of the New Houses. His hon. Friend had asked, why a building, which was to be completed in six years, was not complete in ten years, and not in a state to accommodate the parties for whom it was intended? He received no answer from the Government. His hon. Friend had asked that the time required, in addition to that already occupied, should be defined. He received no answer to that request. He had listened with undivided attention to all that had fallen from hon. Gentlemen on the subject; and he could not help being struck by the fact that one party, most deeply concerned in the transaction, had never been even incidentally referred to by the noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth) or those hon. Gentlemen who had followed him—he meant the party who had to pay. He had listened with pleasure to the talent and taste displayed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes). The hon. Gentleman had referred them to St. Peter's at Rome, to St. Paul's in this city, and to a building which formed one of the chief ornaments of Paris. That was all very well, but it was altogether foreign to the subject. If they went back to the time when the building of the New Houses was decided upon, they would find that the New Palace, as it had since been termed, was to be a building for public purposes. If the design in building the New Houses had been an exhibition of the national wealth, and a development of the national skill, then would the remarks of the hon. Gentleman have been extremely appropriate, and the nation would have been well content to have paid a sum commensurate with the grandeur of the undertaking. But they were told that the New Houses were to cost between 700,000l and 800,000l., and that they were to be completed within a given time. The House wanted to know how that object had been frustrated. On the behalf of those who were called upon to pay—at a period of great mercantile and industrial depression—he asked for an explanation. Would the noble Lord inform the House as to the probable time by which the buildings would be completed, and the probable expense that would be incurred in such completion? Neither the House nor the country had any distinct knowledge as to the causes which had delayed the completion of the buildings. They ought to know who had been responsible for the delays, and to whom the addition to the estimated expense was to be attributed. It was a question of responsibility—a question between the House and the country. At a time when the people were suffering under heavy taxation, and threatened with an addition to their burdens, they were entitled to a more satisfactory answer than had that night been received from the noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth), or his predecessor (the Earl of Lincoln).

said, he was afraid the debate would be read with great dissatisfaction by the country. With his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, he, ten years ago, divided against the site chosen for the New Houses. He was then of opinion that the site was objectionable, and that the style of architecture was objectionable on account of its enormous expense. The remedy now pointed out was the appointment of a Select Committee. To that proposition he was decidedly opposed. Committees had been appointed—Committees had sat—and Committees had invariably added to the expense. It often happened that the Government was seized with a cold fit of economy; but Committees were more frequently visited by those warm excesses which had been alluded to by the right hon. Baronet. If a Committee should be appointed, he hoped it would have the desired result of cutting short the enormous expenditure.

said, the House of Commons was responsible to the people in this matter; but the Commissioners were responsible to the House. He was surprised that the only remedy proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth was the appointment of a Select Committee. He could look with no hope to such a remedy. He cordially thanked the hon. Member for Middlesex who had brought the matter forward in the House of Common; and he trusted that in the House of Commons he would keep it. When he heard so much respecting the responsibility of the House of Commons, he would remind hon. Gentlemen that the present was a New House of Commons, and the responsibility for the outlay already incurred did not attach to the House as at present constituted. The House by which the estimates were sanctioned was chosen under different circumstances. It was elected in a time of prosperity, when the nation was considered able to bear great expenses. It was chosen before the great commercial changes had been tried; before the people had arrived at that depressed state which made them look forward with fear and trembling to the budget that week to be presented. He repudiated the idea that the present House of Commons was responsible for the expenditure—he would urge the hon. Member for Middlesex to keep the responsibility in the House from this time, and have no more Committees. He agreed that Mr. Barry was entirely free from blame. His conduct had been as irreproachable as his plans were admirable. The only reason he had failed was that that House and the Government had placed the building in a situation to which the plans were not appropriate. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had spoken disparagingly of Somerset House; but if Mr. Barry's building had been placed in the situation of Somerset House, instead of where it had been placed, it would have been indeed a splendid pile. He would acquit him of increasing the cost or displaying any want of taste. The want of judgment had been on the part of the Legislature and the Government, in placing the new buildings in so low and bad a situation—they might be costly, but they would never be ornamental. He recollected well that the Members before the days of Reform were satisfied with St. Stephen's chapel—now they must have a palace. Since the Reform Bill passed they must be accommodated like princes; but the people must pay for their accommodation, and they might depend upon it that the people would not be very well pleased. The time had arrived when every effort would be made to check the rate of expenditure. He did not agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth that it would be well to concentrate the expenses, and complete the buildings in one or two years. On the contrary, if they were compelled to go on, he should advise them to spread the expenditure over as long a period as possible. When the national resources again exhibited the elasticity so much talked about by some hon. Gentlemen, the public might be content to bear the expense; but at the present moment they neither could, nor would, nor ought to bear it. He remembered the time when the chamber in which they were then assembled was one of the most splendid rooms in the world—that was before the alterations which had, as the hon. Member for Pon- tefract well remarked, given it very much the appearance of a railway station. But previous to those alterations and improvements, it was truly a splendid apartment. From the tapestried walls shone forth the manly forms of their forefathers, who had stood against the united world and conquered—the heads of great characters, of whom the country was justly proud. They had taken that apartment, they had altered it. Let them keep it, and not put the people to the expense of another House probably less convenient. Under all the circumstances, he should oppose the appointment of a Committee, from a conviction that it would prove a delusion, and that it could lead to no satisfactory result.

was of opinion that the House in which the British Commons assembled ought to be of a character a little more ornamental than the present erection, which had been aptly compared to a railway station. If the New Houses had been completed for 700,000l., with that nakedness of decoration which the first design contemplated, the nation would have been greatly disappointed. The New Palace would have been as much a subject of reproach and disgust as the Treasury had been, and the National Gallery was at the present moment. It was better to complete the building at once, and not leave the task of alteration and re-erection for future years, as had been the case with the Treasury, and would be the case with the National Gallery. Hon. Gentlemen had talked of the distressed state of the country. It was not undertakings like that of building the New Houses, upon which workmen of almost every branch of industry were employed, that would aggravate the national distress. He thought if as good a thing as could be devised to spread the public money over the community, by employing the highest class of artisans on works, the advantages of which would be felt long after the New Houses were completed.

was anxious to see some one man really responsible for such a large outlay. He was not content to see the responsibility bandied about, now with the Treasury, anon with the Woods and Forests, and by the by with a Committee of that House. Let the full responsibility rest with one man, and, in place of being, as now, a shadow, it would be real.

said: Sir, if it had not been for the impossibility, upon the last occasion when this question was under consideration, of my entering upon that branch of this subject which I am most anxious to have clearly understood, I would not have troubled the House upon the present occasion. When this Bill was before the House previous to Christmas, as well as when it was proposed to go into Committee on Wednesday last, I took no part in the discussion which then arose. On those two occasions the discussion was almost entirely confined to the question of the waste lands in the colony of New Zealand, and the rights of the natives to these lands as affected by the Treaty of Waitangi, and subsequent despatches of the noble Lord Her Majesty's Secretary for the Colonies. How far this Bill was called for—how far it is necessary—are points upon which the Bill has undergone no discussion. I am not underrating the discussion which took place upon the two former occasions—I consider that discussion to have been very important, forming, as it does, a necessary part of the subject; though I cannot but regret that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) was unable to give a more satisfactory explanation with reference to the despatches of the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary. At the same time looking at the feelings expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who stands here as the representative of the Government in respect to this Bill—looking at the despatches of Governor Grey bearing on these points—looking at these despatches of the Governor, and taking into consideration the fact that the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary has not reprobated the opinions avowed by Governor Grey—I think the House should be satisfied with the explanations offered by the right hon. Gentleman. I will therefore leave this part of the question as it stands, and proceed to that portion of the Bill which affects the popular constitution of New Zealand. The right hon. Gentleman a few days ago expressed his extreme surprise that there should exist any desire for a debate on the Bill. When the Bill was first introduced—so said the right hon. Gentleman—there was such an unanimity of opinion on both sides of the House as to render discussion alto- gether improbable and unnecessary. I will admit that the utmost unanimity prevailed in the House when the measure was introduced; but I attribute that unanimity not so much to the circumstance that we were about to suspend a constitution granted to New Zealand, as to the willingness of all parties to get rid of this particular constitution. It was unanimously condemned. If it was true, as had been asserted, that this constitution was right in the abstract, it must be admitted that it was erroneous in its form, and too theoretic for practical application. The constitution was universally condemned by the Members of this House, and by every person who knew anything of the subject out of it. There is a general feeling—and in this I entirely concur—that the House ought to correct what has been done wrong; but it is our duty on the present occasion to see if this is the best remedy that can be adopted. I am very unwilling to revert to any part of the debate of 1845; it is sufficient for my purpose that I commence with the accession of the present Government to office. I will simply refer to those debates, and express my ready assent to the doctrine laid down by Earl Grey, in his despatch dated December, 1846. In that despatch his Lordship expressed an opinion that the time had arrived for providing a form of representative government for New Zealand. I, too, declare myself in favour of a representative form of government—not a representative government in the first instance, but the wiser and more cautious mode of first establishing municipal institutions, which might, before long, form the basis of a representative government. And when I speak of municipal institutions, I do not wish it to be understood that I mean such municipal institutions as were given by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) in 1846. They were mere copies of municipal institutions in this country, without any regard to the enormous difference between Great Britain and New Zealand. There was no allowance made for the striking difference which exists between the manufacturing population concentrated in large towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the agricultural population scattered over the whole extent of New Zealand. I consider that the right hon. Member for Coventry, and the right hon. Baronet then at the head of Her Majesty's Government, never intended what they called municipal institutions to mean mayors, town-councils, and burgesses; that these institutions were merely to form the machinery for paving and lighting; they meant something of a more comprehensive character—something which should in reality be the foundation of representative government. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth anticipated municipal institutions in this wider and more generous sense, and rightly described them as the germ of representative government. In the discussion to which I have referred, he quoted passages from the works of Burke, which completely exemplify these views. The noble Lord at the head of the Government is an authority on colonial matters; and the noble Lord stated that he considered municipal corporations as a proper and necessary prelude to a representative constitution in New Zealand; and expressly stated that it was not wise or desirable that the colony should jump at once from a state of despotism to one of the most elaborate and finedrawn constitutions, containing a number of forms hardly understood in a country such as our own. Within a very few months before the granting of this constitution which I am now discussing, so little was it desired by any one in the House, or in the colony, that a petition was presented, from which I beg leave to read a few extracts. It was dated 7th July, 1845, and the petition originated with a number of New Zealand settlers, who were then in England. After a great number of important statements the petitioners prayed that—

"Parliament will bestow upon Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand, without distinction of race, some such form of government as the chartered constitution which, from the time of Queen Elizabeth down to the year 1829, the supreme authority of this country conferred upon every body of its subjects, not being convicts, who emigrated to plant a colony."

And the petitioners went on to say that—

"In praying your hon. House to devise some means of bestowing representative government on New Zealand, your petitioners wish to express their opinion that, on account of the ignorance, both of the inferior order of the natives, and of the poorer immigrants who fly from pauperism in this country, it is desirable that the local constitution of the colony should be far from democratic, the grand point being that colonists, of whatever class, and not strangers—that is, persons having interests in common with the permanent inhabitants, and not persons coming from a distance merely to enjoy place and salary—should have a real voice in the management of the colony."

Now, Sir, that the constitution granted by the noble Lord was at variance with the terms of that petition, and with the recom- mendations of all who took part in the debate of 1845, is manifest. I shall be able to prove that it was at variance also with the opinions of those who were consulted by the noble Lord upon the subject. I think it is a matter very much to be regretted that, it being the opinion of the noble Lord that such a complicated form of constitution should be attempted, he should have rushed with such hot haste into it—that thus a temporary constitution has been granted—and that eventually he has interposed a long delay in the way of granting a permanent constitution by the attempt he has made to bestow upon the colony this half-American, half-English form of constitution. I regret that he should have made such extraordinary haste, with so little consideration and so little opportunity of obtaining the opinion of the Governor of the colony upon it beforehand. But, Sir, it was such a beautiful theory, that philosophers at home could hardly help admiring it. The machinery fitted so extremely well, that they did not venture to doubt its power of working smoothly; but when it came to be applied to the place for which it was intended, it was so wholly unsuitable, that it reminded one of the fine machinery of a clock applied to the rough hewing and cutting out of the foundation of a building. Instead of those localised governments which would have prepared the colony for the more refined constitution, the noble Lord attempted at once to establish a constitution which he considered might be applied to the whole colony without distinction. In the first instance, with respect to the franchise, which the noble Lord considered applicable to the whole of New Zealand, it must be observed that the country to which it was to be applied was one where there was a great fluctuation of inhabitants. It was not a country where the natives had become accustomed for a long while to the existing order of things; but a country upon which we had entered only a very few years before, and in which we had only some 14,000 or 15,000 English settlers; where that small body of settlers, too, was fluctuating from one part of the colony to another, day by day. In this colony it was that the noble Lord proposed to establish a franchise upon the basis of what is called household suffrage, but which in that country amounted to universal suffrage. It was established, too, with nothing to act by way of check. There was nothing having the form of aristocracy. Anything like an aristocracy was wanting. It was essentially an ultra-democratic constitution, and there was no prestige about it, such as in older communities conciliated love and respect for established institutions. The constitution was, in fact, without any check; and how was it to be limited? Solely by the ability, or rather by the acquirement of so much learning, as would enable those who received the franchise to read and write English. Now, Sir, I must say if ever there was a plan cunningly devised to produce not friendship but hostility—not to promote but to prevent the amalgamation of the native population with the English settlers—it was this which the noble Lord was in such haste to enact. If ever there was a plan to postpone indefinitely the amalgamation of the two races—a plan most successfully to separate them—it was this. Why, Sir, we have the authority of Governor Grey, in this very book that has been laid before us, that there is not in the entire colony a single native who can read or write English. Some of them speak English, and "the great majority of the native population can read and write their own language fluently." But remember "none can read or write English." How then could this universal suffrage to the English settlers, but which deprived the whole native race of the franchise, produce anything but ill-will between the two races? If anything could excite the jealousy of this jealous people, this was the elaborate and at the same time simple scheme for effecting that object. And the noble Lord was forewarned of it. I have a paper here which proves that there were four leading colonists who were then residing in this country, who gave him reasons of a sound and practical nature, which should have made him pause before sending out that constitution, but which nevertheless seemed to have received no consideration at his hands. They dwell most strongly on the objections to these mere municipal corporations, and insist that they should be of a more governmental character. If they were intended to perform only the functions of some small municipal corporations here, and to attend merely to paving and lighting, they would fail in teaching the people the use of constitutional power; and not only would they fail in teaching the people—not only would they be ineffective—but the colony would obtain functionaries of a very inferior description. Those of the natives of a superior class would decline to work with them. These parties said—

"We are the more impressed with the expediency of some such arrangement, because we are convinced that it is essential to secure in each settlement the services of the leading colonists as officers of its corporation, since those officers are to choose the members for the representative chamber of their provincial assembly. The colonists who are the most fit for this important trust might be unwilling to exercise it, if with its exercise were coupled the necessity of acting as common councilman or alderman of a borough, confined in its powers like those of England and Wales."

And they further said—

"If the officers of the corporation are to perform duties such as those of an alderman or common councilman of an English town or borough, we object strongly to their having a voice in choosing members for the provincial house of representatives, because, as we before stated, the best colonists will not have consented to perform the ungenial duties in order to secure the vote. But if the 'municipal corporation' possess the 'township' powers which we have above recommended, its offices would confer sufficient dignity and importance to induce the best colonists to accept them; and they, being the élite, as it were, of the general body of electors, might, without disadvantage, be empowered to select the representatives. We approach the question of franchise with some diffidence, because we are unaware how far our views as to the large local powers necessary for the 'municipal corporations' will be agreed to by Her Majesty's Government. We should, however, be unwilling to give an opinion as to what qualification would secure success to the scheme if the municipal corporations were to have only the powers of bodies which bear that name in England and Wales, because we should conceive that the functions of such bodies were totally distinct from those of choosing a representative."

I will not read any farther extracts upon this point. I have read enough to show how anxious these colonists were that the municipal corporations should have a more extended form; and that if the noble Lord persisted in maintaining them in the position he proposed, there should be a differently formed constituency for the election of the elective body. The plan proposed by the noble Lord was, that these municipal corporations should be appointed by the Governor in various parts of the country, with powers like those possessed by similar bodies in England. These municipal corporations were to consist of a mayor, aldermen, and burgesses, as in England; and, as in the old corporation system in England, in some of the boroughs, the Parliament of New Zealand was to be elected by the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the new corporations. That was to be the constitution of the two re- presentative bodies. From these two councils the Governor was to elect members of the principal legislative council; and these two bodies were to elect the members of the general assembly. So that this infant colony was to commence with—first, English corporations; then two provincial assemblies; then two legislative councils appointed by the Governor; and, as the apex of this constitution, another general legislative council selected by the Government, and one superior elective assembly. The system was altogether too complicated for an infant colony. I have already alluded to what were the opinions of all practical men as to the franchise. The gentlemen to whom I have referred, who delivered to the noble Lord the protest against the constitution, declared upon the question of the franchise, that—

"We are of opinion that, at any rate in the existing settlements, and for the present, it would be very dangerous to extend the franchise too much by making the qualification for a voter too low, trusting to a higher qualification for the person to be elected. This arrangement allows mischievous and intriguing individuals, who have no difficulty in providing themselves with the higher qualification, to obtain the suffrages of a low and comparatively ignorant class of voters through bribery or other corrupting means."

Did these gentlemen speak without experience on the subject? Did they fear without adequate reason that bribery would be tried in the form in which it exists in this country? Why, they had already found out that the evils they spoke of were not merely in anticipation, but that they already existed. And this striking example is given—an example that might excite some amusement, but from its similarity to many other scenes within the knowledge of the Members of this House:—

"A. remarkable instance of this occurred at the election which took place at Wellington in October, 1842, for the officers of a corporation which possessed very limited powers. Every male adult, who chose to pay 1l. sterling to have his name registered, was privileged to vote; and any voter was qualified for election. 350 persons obtained the franchise; and of course the small sum of money was paid for many of them by parties who wished to secure their votes. In one case, a committee for the election of certain persons had given 25l. to a colonist who had great influence over a number of Highland labourers, in order that he should register 25 of their votes, and make them vote for the committee's list. The leader of the opposing candidates, however, knew the laird's failing—set to drinking with him at breakfast time till he had won his heart, and then marched reeling arm-in-arm with him to the poll, followed by the 25 Highlanders, who were in the same state, and who all voted for the man who had so disgraced himself and them."

But, after all the warning he received, the noble Lord persisted in his course. Well acquainted with the scenes which take place in this country upon such occasions, the noble Lord imports them into New Zealand, notwithstanding the warnings which were given. I shall only point out one other subject which those gentlemen objected to. They suggested to the noble Lord the extreme difficulty he would find in limiting the franchise, after it had once been given. They told him that, once conferred, it would be utterly irretrievable. They said—

"It is also of importance to observe there is great difficulty in restricting a franchise once established and exercised, while there is comparatively none in extending it; so that a fault on the side of fixing too high a qualification will be easily remedied, but one in the opposite direction will be almost irretrievable."

But whether irretrievable or not, the noble Lord has attempted to retrieve it, as appears by the despatch to which I shall presently refer. But there is another and no trifling evil, consequent upon the haste of the noble Lord in despatching this constitution to New Zealand. A greater or stronger ground of complaint cannot be made against a Colonial Minister than that he should be guilty of anything like a breach of faith with the colonists, or that such a charge should be even colourably established against him. Now the colonists complain that they have been deceived by the noble Lord. At the time the noble Lord succeeded to power there was a body of emigrants preparing to leave Scotland for New Zealand; and with these persons it was a sine qua non that they should be allowed to try the effect of municipal institutions in that country. They were connected with the Free Church of Scotland; and the colony, I cannot help thinking, was one which was so constituted as to be likely to pave the way to a sound system of colonisation. Nothing can be a greater spur to a system of sound colonisation than for the colonists to secure to themselves those means of religious instruction and assistance to which they have been attached and which they have left at home. Well, Sir, these colonists made their preparations to leave their country in a large body, and settle at Otago, under the direction of Captain Cargill; and one necessary preliminary with them was the granting them a representative constitution. As soon as they found the Bill which the noble Lord introduced in 1846 had passed, they applied to the Colonial Office to know whether this to them essential constitution would be granted to them? They received an assurance that it would be granted and sent out to them. And with that assurance they have gone. [Mr. AGLIONBY: They are now on the sea.] The hon. Member for Cocker-mouth says they are now on the sea. They have gone out upon the faith of that promise that a representative constitution should be granted to them. And the first thing they will learn on their landing in New Zealand is, that by direction of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office that constitution, on the faith of which they left this country, is suspended for a period of five years. [Mr. M. MILNES: Their settlement is on the southern island.] My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract says they have gone to the southern island. I am perfectly aware that they have gone to the south. But let my hon. Friend read this Bill. If he attends to the question he will know that the constitution is suspended in the southern as well as in the northern island. Upon the faith of that constitution which is now suspended they have left their country, and upon their arrival at their settlement they will find that it is all null and void. When I call this a breach of faith, and attack it as such, I do not mean to use the word in an offensive sense. But the colonists have in fact and in substance been deceived. The representations which have induced many persons to go to Otago with Captain Cargill have not been fulfilled. I know not whether the advertisement I hold in my hand, and which contains some of those representations, was inserted with the knowledge or approval of Her Majesty's Government, or by the New Zealand Company. That Company, however, is sufficiently represented in this House to be able to take care of its own interests. But these poor Scotch colonists should not have been placed in this anomalous and unfair position, whether they were right or wrong in insisting on these institutions being granted previous to their departure. Well, Sir, the constitution was sent out, and Governor Grey at once condemned it as impracticable. It was a plan which would not work; and upon the receipt of that report the Government introduced the present Bill. How does the Government deal with this constitution that was condemned before it went out—that was condemned in this country—that was condemned in the colony—for I have seen New Zealand papers in which it was condemned; and I say that the right hon. Gentleman opposite cannot contradict me when I say that it was complained of in the New Zealand papers—that it was universally complained of. Well, Sir, this universally condemned constitution—condemned even by the Governor himself—what does he mean to do with it? To repeal it? No; but merely to suspend it for five years. And if I could imagine the result would be eventually its repeal, or if I could imagine that the time would be devoted to considering and remedying its defects, and finding a plan more suitable to the wants of the colony, I might be contented. But this process of mere suspension I do not approve of. It implies the approval of this constitution in the abstract. It implies that the constitution is a good one, and that it may at some future time come into operation. Now, I cannot contemplate after all the noble Lord has heard, that he can think it would be ever fit to be brought into operation. Would it not, then, be better at once to confess that the Government was wrong in sending out such a constitution—to repeal it at once—and to provide such a constitution as the colony has a right to expect? My object in proposing to repeal it is not to deprive the colony of a constitution. I think that, instead of the constitution that was sent out, one more suitable should have been devised, conferring those municipal institutions which might form a basis of free government, and prepare for the adoption of a fuller constitution. But I say it would be far better now to repeal the present one, and restore the colony to its former condition, and prepare a more suitable constitution for it. I do not know that it is necessary for me to point out the opinion of the Governor with regard to the fitness of the colony for receiving a representative constitution. He states that he knew of no circumstances to prevent the introduction of such institutions into the settlements in Cook's Straits and the Middle Island. But the right hon. Gentleman proposes by this Bill to suspend the constitution in both parts of the colony, and I do not think he has given any very valid reason for suspending it in both islands. He merely grounds his reasons upon the vague suggestion of uniformity, and thinks it would be better to suspend it in both parts than only in one. I cannot help thinking that, after all, the noble Lord thinks it himself so bad that it would be better to repeal it altogether. I am decidedly in favour of its repeal as regards the whole colony, and the immediate consideration of and granting a suitable constitution, to the southern part of the colony at least, as soon as possible. In a despatch dated October 7, 1846, Governor Grey said—

"I am not at present aware of any circumstance which need, then, prevent the immediate introduction of representative institutions into that colony, which would comprise the settlements in Cook's Straits and in the Middle Island. All questions of a vexatious nature between the Government and the settlers in that part of the colony have now been finally set at rest; and, with a considerable acquaintance with British settlements, I can have no hesitation in recording it as my opinion that there never was a body of settlers to whom the power of local self-government could be more wisely and judiciously entrusted than the inhabitants of the settlements to which I am alluding."

Now I will not read those parts of Governor Grey's despatch, which treat of the inapplicability and inherent vices of the new constitution. Having expressed my own opinions I need not repeat those expressed by him, which entirely coincide with mine. But I trust this system of uniformity will not be made a ground for persisting in the present course, for I cannot help pointing out to the House that long before this Bill now before us can have possibly arrived in the colony, the constitution, bad as it is, will have been established in the southern portions. I alluded just now to the giving of a temporary substitute for a constitution. When the present Government succeeded to power, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is now Chief Commissioner of the Poor Law Board (Mr. C. Buller), was said to be about to take on himself a kind of amateur position in the Colonial Office. If such was the case, I should be almost inclined to attribute to him the production of this temporary constitution, and to think that he had, forgetting his former character of a director of the New Zealand Company, been cutting a joke after the fashion for which he was at one time so famous, at the expense of the New Zealand colony. For I never met anything wearing a more facetious appearance than this burlesque constitution, grafting as it does members nominated by the Governor on elected members in a legislative council, and forming altogether a device which seems to hold out to the colonists the semblance of representation, whilst retaining the substance of power in the hands of the Government. By the present course of proceedings, I think you are attaching a very unfair responsibility to the Governor. You place him in this position: If he thinks that the colony is unfit for any form of representative government, he is to suspend this constitution according to his own discretion—he is to carry out your legislation at his discretion—so that the whole responsibility, legislative and arbitrary, is to be thrown upon him. But I think that the great objection of all is the uncertainty in which these changes will place this unhappy colony. You began by sending out a fine newfangled system, based on what I may call the ascending principle, while we are now called upon to proceed with the descending principle. At first we had a system gradually ascending through the legislation of a provincial legislative assembly, a provincial legislative council, up to a general legislative assembly, and a general legislative council, and culminating with the Governor Whereas now you are about to give the whole power in the first instance into the hands of the Governor, and to authorise him, acting with the authority of his legislative council, to grant, if he thinks fit, to those who are not otherwise entitled to it, the elective franchise to the legislative council. I am bound, however, to say that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department appears to me to be fully aware of the inconveniences of this course which he recommends. He distinctly expresses himself to that effect in the despatches; and I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) will have some difficulty in showing that the course proposed is in accordance with a sound system of self-government—that this plan of delegating to the Governor and Council the entire authority of granting or withholding those institutions is a necessary step, or in fact is one that will not impede instead of assisting the result which we are all anxious to attain. I have already alluded to what appears to me to be the unfair responsibility that is to be thrown on the Governor. These are the words of the noble Lord, in which he alludes to the nature of that responsibility:—

"With the insight which former despatches have given you into the views of Her Majesty's Government, and with your own knowledge of the requirements of the community under your charge, you will be able to carry into effect these general directions, so far as their execution depends upon yourself. For instance, if when you receive this despatch you should have already constituted the provincial assembly of New Munster, the powers of that body will be inevitably arrested for the present by the operation of the Suspending Act. In that case you may consider it advisable that the legislative council should exercise the powers conferred upon it, by keeping on foot the already constituted provincial assembly, and conferring on it those powers of legislation which would belong, according to the plan explained above, to the provincial legislative council. If, no the other hand, the provincial assembly of New Minister should not have been already constituted, you may consider it advisable that the legislative council for that province should contain, nevertheless, some admixture of representative members, which you may deem it best to withhold from New Ulster. Lastly, should you, for any special reasons, esteem the establishment of provincial councils premature, and that the legislative functions of the general council are sufficient for the wants of the colony during the interval which is to elapse before the charter comes into effect, you can exercise your discretion on this subject also."

So that after laying down various different principles, he throws the whole responsibility on the discretion of the Governor, who is at the same time fettered with a declaration of opinion as to what is probably the best course to be pursued. Now I, for one, do not object to leaving great responsibility with the Governor; but I think that the noble Lord ought in the first instance to have left that responsibility with the Governor, with a view to his recommending what course he thought was most practicable and advantageous to the colony. What I complain of is, that the responsibility should be given in this way—in a way which may place the Governor, when these despatches are promulgated in the colony, in the position of being either forced to perform what he believes to be his duty against the wishes and views of the inhabitants, or else of neglecting his duty, in order to accede to their wishes. I began, Sir, by stating what I think are the objections to the basis of this complicated representative system; and though this matter is not touched on very largely in the Bill, yet I find that the noble Lord appears to have seen the error of his ways on the subject, and that he has entirely withdrawn this portion relating to the franchise for the municipal corporations, which had been so strongly objected to by practical men before the constitution first left this country. I find by the 5th Clause of this Bill—and here I may remark that the clause gives a most unfair and unsatisfactory power to the Governor—that it is provided as follows:—

"And whereas by the said first-mentioned instructions the said Governor-in-Chief was directed to divide certain parts of the said islands into municipal districts, and to constitute within such districts municipal corporations, consisting of a mayor, court of aldermen, and common council, and of burgesses possessing the qualification prescribed by the said first-mentioned instructions in that behalf; and whereas it is expedient that the said qualifications should be subject to regulation as hereinafter mentioned; be it therefore enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the said Governor-in-Chief, from time to time, by and with the advice and consent of the said legislative coun- cil, by ordinance, to depart from the said first-mentioned instructions, in so far as the same relate to the nature and extent of the qualification, and to make and ordain such other or further rules and regulations, with respect to the nature and extent of the qualifications for burgesses in the said municipal districts, or any of them, or in any particular case, as the said Governor-in-Chief, by and with the like advice and consent, may think proper; anything in the said first-mentioned Act, letters patent, or instructions to the contrary, notwithstanding."

So that, as explained by the despatch of Earl Grey, which I shall now read, the power is given to the Governor of regulating the franchise itself. Earl Grey says—

"That franchise is vested by the charter in every male person occupying a tenement within a borough. It is now proposed to confine it to tenements of such value as the legislative council may fix as qualifying to vote. The franchise is also by the charter made subject to the following restrictions: That it is not to be enjoyed ' by any person not able to read and write in the English language.'"

Now, the noble Lord seems wedded to this most extraordinary provision in a rather unaccountable manner. It is the only one, I believe, of the original regulations that has not been rescinded either by the Act of Parliament or by the instructions which the noble Lord has sent out to the Governor; but instead of rescinding this provision, as I think the noble Lord would have acted most wisely in doing, he has, in order to retain it, regulated the franchise in a manner which in this country would be looked upon as most unconstitutional. The noble Lord goes on to say—

"I have, upon the whole, thought it best to advise not that this charter should be altered by removing this restriction, but that you should have a discretionary power to dispense with it. You will therefore be empowered to grant to such persons as you may consider to deserve that privilege, certificates that, although they may not be able to read and to write the English language, they are good and faithful subjects of Her Majesty, possessing the intelligence necessary for qualifying them to take a part in the administration of local affairs; and the possession of such a certificate will entitle the occupier of a tenement of adequate value, though he may not be able to fulfil the condition of reading and writing the English language, to be placed on the register of the borough, and to exercise his franchise."

So that except as regards these two points—the amount of money qualification which is to constitute a vote, and the qualification as to reading and writing the English language—the power is given to the Governor, the representative of the Sovereign in the colony, to regulate its franchises as he pleases. He may grant or refuse licenses to vote as he pleases; and though, if Go- vernor Grey chooses to exercise this discretion, there is no doubt but that it will be exercised wisely and well, still I would remind the House that Governor Grey is not immortal, and that this measure is to be carried out when a Governor less experienced is to succeed him. It is to be acted upon also, it appears, by the Lieutenant Governor of the colony, who, though no doubt a man of ability and judgment, has not had an opportunity of displaying the same intelligence and skill as Governor Grey. I think it is therefore most unwise to give such a discretion to any one man. I now, therefore, turn again to that which I believe to be the proper remedy, both for the original error and for the defects of the constitution. I return to that point with which I started, and I again repeat, that with a view to speedy and effective legislation on this subject, I think it would be far better to withdraw this Bill altogether; to bring in a Bill with a single clause repealing the Act of 1846, and then to bring in another measure, with a view to legislate on sound principles for the southern province, and ultimately for the northern province, providing for them such a constitution as would give satisfaction to the colony, and enable the Governor to fulfil the duty which devolves upon him. It is certainly not my intention to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman any amendments that should form part of that enactment, or to point out any omissions. In this course I am acting in conformity with the example set by the noble Lord, who, when he sat on this side of the House as Lord Howick, recommended the course to the House which I now take. I agree with the noble Lord on that occasion, that I think it is desirable for us when we think that what has been done is wrong to condemn the past; but that it would not be wise for any individual Member of this House to suggest what precise course it is best to take with regard to the future. I therefore confine myself simply to those recommendations that I have already thrown out, being confident that the course I recommend is most likely to attain ultimately the object at which we all seek to arrive. I feel that I have most imperfectly brought the subject under the consideration of the House; but at the same time I have this justification, that I have not made use of some of the documents with which the noble Lord has provided us, for I cannot but feel that the colony was in a very critical position at the time the late despatches were sent, and I, for one, would be sorry to do anything that might complicate the difficulties that exist, instead of removing them. If, therefore, I have but imperfectly pointed out the evils which I apprehend from the course that has been pursued, the House must attribute my failure, in the first place, to my own inability, and, secondly, to my unwillingness to allude to matters which might aggravate the difficulties of the colony. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, that though I have felt it to be my duty to comment severely on the errors which I think the noble Lord committed in framing the original constitution, I have not done so in any other spirit than a sincere desire to see these errors corrected. And let me implore the right hon. Gentleman—whether he consents to my proposal or not—whether he and the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office should on reflection consider it better to repeal this constitution rather than suspend it, or not—let me implore of them, as they value the peace of this colony, as they value the well-being of those who have left this country under the faith of the promises held out that representative institutions would be accorded to the colony—of those who have gone 16,000 miles from their homes, and who are living at this moment in a state of the greatest suspense on that subject which is most painful to all men—namely, under what system of government they are for six months more to exist—I say, under all these circumstances, let me implore of Her Majesty's Government to take this question into their most serious consideration, and not remain contented with five years' suspension of the constitution, under the belief that they may wait for these five years before they again take the subject under their notice. I do hope, as regards the interests of this important colony—which has been rightly characterised in this House as one of the most interesting that this country has ever possessed—that Her Majesty's Government will take into their most serious consideration, not this constitution, but one much more suited to the colony, and much more likely to conduce to its permanent interests and to promote the welfare of thousands who, under a well-considered and beneficent system of Government, will in future years carry to its shores the feelings and hopes of Englishmen.

I can assure the noble Lord that if I do not follow him at any length into the topics to which he has alluded in the address which he has just delivered to the House, it is from no discourtesy towards him, and from no want of feeling of the great importance of the subject which he has brought under the attention of the House; but it is because I feel that many of the matters which he has introduced can be best discussed in Committee, and also because I have addressed the House before on this question; and I now feel that if the whole of our time be spent before we go into Committee, we can have no hope of making—as I trust we may be able to do—some progress with the Bill in Committee. The noble Lord adverted, in the first instance, to the land question, and said that the statement which I made on the subject on a former occasion was not sufficiently satisfactory to him. I have no wish to revive that discussion; but I am ready, if the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen who took part in that discussion wish it, to assure them, as I am prepared to do on the part of my noble Friend, Lord Grey, that he is convinced, both from the despatches of Governor Grey, and from private letters from that distinguished person, that there is not the slightest difference of opinion between them with regard to the claims of the natives to land—that, to the best of his belief, they are acting most cordially together on this subject; and I may take the opportunity of reading an extract from a letter from a missionary in New Zealand, which has been entrusted to me by my hon. Friend the worthy Baronet who represents South Essex (Sir E. N. Buxton). It says—

"In my last I told you that I had had an interview with Governor Grey on the subject of the instructions lately sent out here by Earl Grey in reference to the waste lands of the natives; and that his Excellency had told me that he considered those instructions as referring only to such lands as have no claimants, and not in any way touching the Treaty of Waitangi."

I wish also to take this opportunity of stating to the House, after having on a former occasion stated that it was my painful duty to say that I could not altogether acquit the Bishop of New Zealand for the course which he had taken on a question which was then under the notice of the House, though at the same time I joined fully in all that had been said of the high character and services of the right rev. Prelate—having made that remark then, I am now very glad on this occasion to express, on the part of my noble Friend and of myself, the gratitude we feel to the right rev. Prelate for the exertions which he has recently made in settling the claims to land on the part of the missionaries, which were causing the greatest peril to the colony. I believe that the settlement of these claims has been effected mainly through the exertions of the Bishop, and that the dispute has now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I shall now address myself to the main part of the speech of the noble Lord; and, without adverting to details, I will proceed at once to what he considers to be the main objection to the course which Her Majesty's Government now pursue—I mean the part of the noble Lord's speech which consisted of a reprobation of the constitution. Now, considering that this is a Bill to suspend that constitution, I certainly do not think it is necessary to enter into a controversy with the noble Lord on that question. If the time and occasion warranted, I think I could show that the constitution is not open to all the objections which the noble Earl has raised against it. At the same time I think, from the letters of Governor Grey, that it is not fitted for the colony at the present period. That, too, is the opinion of my noble Friend. My noble Friend has been blamed for having ever sent out to the colony such a constitution. But I would beg the House to remember the very difficult position in which my noble Friend was placed. He took the Colonial Seals at the very end of the Session; and finding a strong call made for free institutions for the colony, and finding that it was the opinion of his predecessors that such institutions ought to be established, is it surprising that being thus obliged to bring forward the Bill at the end of the Session, it should be found ultimately not to be altogether suited to circumstances, which, I must say, were most complicated and difficult? But as soon as my noble Friend became convinced of his error, he at once readily retraced his steps. He told Governor Grey that he would introduce a measure into Parliament to suspend the constitution; and that very measure I have now the honour to submit to the House. And, by the way, it is remarkable that the noble Lord should have said that this constitution was blamed by every one in this country when it was sent out, and yet that another of his complaints should be that we have broken faith with a most respectable body of shrewd Scotch settlers, who went out to the colony under the faith of enjoying the blessings of this constitution. [The Earl of LINCOLN said a constitution, and not this constitution.] They, at least, were an exception to that censure which the noble Lord now believes was universally felt. These Scotchmen, judging here, thought that these were institutions which they should wish to live under. [The Earl of LINCOLN: They went out after the constitution was promised, but before the details were announced.] These emigrants are now on sea, and they left this country after the constitution was promulgated; and the argument of the noble Lord was, that the present line of proceeding was, therefore, a breach of faith with them. While they were here they believed that the constitution was a wise one, and well suited to the circumstances of the country; but when they get there, and find that it was not so suited to the colony as they had anticipated, they will not quarrel with us for giving them other institutions more suited to the country to which they have gone. But I apprehend that there is no difference between the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government as to the propriety of not carrying this constitution out at present. Looking to the position of the islands with which we have to deal—to the feelings and the interests of the intelligent, warlike, and active race forming the aboriginal population, and which have been so fully set forth in the despatches of Governor Grey—I think we are all agreed as to the propriety of suspending the constitution for the present. But the noble Lord recommends that the constitution should be repealed, and a Bill embodying free institutions at once introduced. I altogether differ from the noble Lord as to the propriety of this course. I believe that the course suggested by Her Majesty's Government, although I admit it to be an unusual one, and one which gives great unconstitutional powers to the Governor, is on the whole the safest, the wisest, the most prudent, and best calculated to lead to the result which the noble Lord and myself have equally in view; namely, giving both to the natives and to the British settlers free institutions as completely and speedily as is consistent with their own safety and interests. I believe this object will be attained more safely by the means which we propose, than by those which the noble Lord suggests. It is true that we propose to suspend the constitution for five years; but we do not propose altogether to repeal it, because we think it is right that this House, having given free institutions to the colony, should not part with that power which it has over the Executive Government under its Act, and which, I think, it is due to the House to retain on an occasion of this description. But I believe that the power given to the Governor and Council—for it is to the Governor, acting with the concurrence of his Council, and not to the Governor alone, that the power is given—will afford the best and safest means of preparing the population of New Zealand for those institutions. Under the powers given, the Governor can introduce these institutions as speedily or as slowly—with as little or as much of the popular element—as he thinks fit; and I think it is a wiser plan to entrust such a discretion to such a Governor as Governor Grey, than for ourselves to attempt the difficult, I had almost said the impossible, task of arranging the safest and best system for the mixed races that inhabit the colony, without any apprehension that we are furnishing not the means of peace and security, but the weapons of discord with each other. But the noble Lord said, "Give free institutions at least to the southern province;" and I think that some of my hon. Friends who are connected with the New Zealand Company, cheered the suggestion. Governor Grey certainly states that the southern portion of the colony, where the majority of the population are whites, and the aborigines few, is fit for a constitution; but, even with regard to this part of the settlement, it is better to leave a discretionary power to the Governor. By the last accounts it appears that, though peace is restored to the north of the island, it is not wholly re-established in the south. It is stated by Captain Grey that the people of the south are ripe for free institutions, but not for that form of them given by this constitution. He says in his despatch—

"I think it right to mention that, even in the south of the island, I did not contemplate immediately so extensive a change in the constitution of the colony. I thought a Council, over which the Governor presided, composed of official and non-official members, the last elected by the inhabitants, would in the present circumstances of New Zealand have been the form of government best suited to the wants of the people."

This is just the sort of constitution the Governor will have the power of introducing immediately in the southern part of New Zealand. The noble Lord has termed it a hybrid, an un-English constitution; but it is one not unknown to our colonial policy. I do not defend it as a good permanent system of government, but it is not a bad preparation for it. I am astonished to hear the noble Lord make this objection, as I believe he was a Member of the Cabinet when Lord Stanley sent out just such a hybrid constitution for the colony of Newfoundland, after he had suspended a more popular one. It is very much the kind of constitution that obtained at an early period in the colony of Guiana—it is the sort of constitution that exists in New South Wales—it is, therefore, not unknown to our colonial policy. The Bill will empower the Governor, in the first place, to increase the number of his legislative council; it is thought desirable that he should be able to surround himself with men of the best experience in the colony; the Governor and Council thus reinforced will be enabled, though not obliged, to constitute, for one or both divisions of the island, provincial councils with as much or little of the popular infusion in them as they may think fit. The noble Lord attaches great importance to the development of municipal institutions, as a fit preparation for the exercise of political rights. The Bill does not interfere with the establishment of municipalities; they will still be formed, and give the people the preparation desired. Having stated the reasons why the course recommended by the Government is preferable to that suggested by the noble Lord, which I felt bound to oppose, some other topics adverted to will be better discussed in Committee. It is of such importance that a decision on the Bill should become to immediately, that I hope the House will not delay its progress beyond the time absolutely necessary for its discussion.

quite sympathised with the anxiety expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that they should proceed with the Bill in Committee, and therefore he did not mean to trouble the House with any amendment upon the clause; but he wished to point out some things which appeared to him extremely defective in the framing of the Bill. In the first place, the Bill was defective with regard to the suspension of the constitution rather than its repeal. The right hon. Gentleman defended that arrangement, upon the ground that, having held out to the people of New Zealand the brilliant prospect of free institutions, they ought not to do anything that would tend to raise a doubt of the intention to carry that prospect into effect at the earliest possible moment. He could not say that he thought the passing of the Bill of 1846 had done much towards the carrying out of free institutions in the colony of New Zealand. The principle of granting free institutions had certainly made great and rapid progress in this country; and it was the conviction of all those who were conversant with colonial affairs, that the more they examined them, those institutions, wherever there were not strong reasons of a peculiar kind to be urged against their immediate application, afforded by far the best chance for the happiness and prosperity of the colonies. But he could not think that the Bill of 1846, in the circumstances under which it was conceived and passed, and under the circumstances now attending its suspension, had really done anything to promote free institutions; but on the contrary, that it had rather disparaged them. He did, however, not rest his argument upon that alone. He thought the House could not fail to perceive, from the letters of Governor Grey, that the promulgation of the constitution of 1846 had of itself been a serious cause of danger to the peace of the colony. Great apprehensions had been created in the mind of the native population by the promulgation of that constitution. Whether it was owing to a general idea among the aboriginal inhabitants that the constitution would place power in the hands of the settlers, in a degree which would make it dangerous to them, or whether it was owing to their exclusion from its benefits by the provision with regard to reading and writing the English language as a condition for the franchise, the House could not help admitting, as a matter of fact, that the promulgation of the constitution had been a source of danger to the peace of the colony; and he was also afraid that the suspension might tend to leave some excitement and alarm still menacing the peace of the colony. And although he granted, that upon a balance of the advantages, they might wish to retain the constitution after it had been sent back, rather than abolish it, yet he confessed that, adverting to the immense importance of tranquillising the native mind, it would have been the wisest and most practical course to have repealed the Act of 1846, which was confessedly premature, and to have waited until circum- stances were ripe for the constitution. With respect to the clause which enabled Governor Grey to devise institutions that were to stand in lieu of the institutions of 1846, he did not at all disapprove of what appeared to be the intentions of the Government by this clause. They intended to empower Governor Grey to create provisional institutions, into which they esteemed it probable he would introduce, so far as the southern province was concerned, some infusion of the electoral principle. He thought that under this clause the Bill threw a greater responsibility upon Governor Grey than he ought to be charged with; and, after all, this was not the measure for which Governor Grey had asked. Governor Grey had not requested the Executive at home, nor had he craved from Parliament, to have placed in his hands a discretion with regard to the whole of New Zealand; upon the contrary, it had been his object to describe as clearly as he could to the Government at home that he wished it would take a portion of the responsibility out of his hands, and by enactment would fix, to a certain extent, the course he should pursue. For these reasons he had pointed out, in several despatches, that he considered there ought to be a postponement of any perfect development of free institutions for the whole island; that for the northern division there should be a legislative council of official and unofficial members nominated by the Crown, and for the southern division a legislative council, in which, besides the official and nominated members, there should also be a certain proportion of elected members representing the people. Instead, however, of proceeding in connexion with the request of Governor Grey, they did not take the responsibility upon themselves, but they made over to him the power of deciding, upon his own free and pure motion, upon the whole question. This was very different from what Governor Grey had expressly requested; and whatever the House did, they must not think that by this Bill they were doing that which Governor Grey had asked. Governor Grey had not asked for an uniform measure with regard to the whole colony: he had pointed out a broad distinction between the condition of the northern and the southern portions, and requested the Secretary of State, and through the Secretary of State the British Parliament, to conform their proceedings to the distinctions he had pointed out. The House, on the contrary, was going to say, "We will not recognise your distinction," or, at least, "We will throw upon you the responsibility of carrying your views into effect; and if there is to be a distinction between the legislative and constitutional state of the northern and southern divisions of the colony, you alone shall make it." He (Mr. Gladstone) doubted the wisdom of that course. He conceived the Government would have acted more wisely in a case like this, seeing that after all the Bill was to be a confession of impotency, if they had lent to Governor Grey the support and the stay of their own authority, for which he had asked. Governor Grey, as he had already said, did not wish to have the power which this Bill would give him. At all events the House was about to repose a great deal of confidence in him, and he did not mean to say that confidence was too great; but by means of it they would place him in a situation of greatly enhanced difficulty.

confessed that he was unconvinced of the practicability of the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged the right hon. Gentleman to recollect the circumstances under which the colony was placed at this moment, and the state of things which might exist when the Bill arrived. Governor Grey might already have promulgated the new constitution in the southern division. Supposing that he should have carried those provisions into effect, and that they were working to the perfect satisfaction of all parties concerned, how inexpedient would it be to send out a Bill from this country to overturn all that had been erected, and to substitute something else to the dissatisfaction of the inhabitants? It was much better, therefore, under all circumstances, to throw the whole responsibility upon Governor Grey, than for the Government in this country to undertake themselves to lay down institutions which after all might be temporary. All agreed they were not prepared to legislate upon that ground; but as they were now dealing with merely temporary institutions, it was much more wise to allow them to be moulded by one who was upon the spot, who was enabled to judge of the circumstances, and who knew the feelings of the inhabitants to whom they were to be applied. On these grounds he thought the course suggested by the right hon. Gentleman inexpedient. Nor did he think there were any real grounds for the alarm which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed if the constitution was suspended for five years rather than repealed altogether. Undoubtedly upon the arrival of the constitution in New Zealand there was considerable alarm as to its effects on the native inhabitants; but by the efforts of Governor Grey that irritation had greatly subsided, and he doubted not that when they saw these temporary institutions es- tablished in a manner likely to conciliate their apprehensions, and the circumstance of the constitution being only suspended and liable to come into operation in five years hence, the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman would prove not well founded.

said, the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman related to the warnings the Government had received; and the question was whether, after those warnings, they would pursue a course exactly the reverse to that which had previously been followed. In a manner the most remarkable the Government of the metropolis sent out a constitution to a colony; and he believed that constitution had never been put into practice. According to the account of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) a Government in this country was hastily formed, and it found a considerable demand for liberal institutions, and constitutional institutions in a very distant colony. Without much consideration, and in avowed haste, a constitution was drawn out; it was sent to that distant colony, but it had never, he believed—happily for this country and happily for the colony—been put into practice, through the prudence of an extremely judicious Governor. The Government at home recognised immediately, upon his representations, the extreme absurdity for which they were responsible; and what remedy had been proposed by the Government after the warning they had received? Why, the remedy was this: it was to pursue a course exactly the reverse of that which Governor Grey recommended, and to throw the entire responsibility upon the local government, and not upon the Government at home. Everybody in that House recognised the great ability of Governor Grey; but that was an additional reason why they should assist him in every possible manner by sharing the responsibility with him, and not laying the consequences of every step upon his shoulders. No doubt, in a colony circumstanced as New Zealand was, it would be of the greatest importance to Governor Grey, in gradually introducing and watching the development of constitutional institutions, that whilst he himself personally sought to concede much to the wants and wishes of the inhabitants, he should still have the power, upon many important points, of being able to acknowlege a limited authority, and to refer to the supreme authority of the metropolis. Of all this, however, he was deprived. Astonished at the absurdity they had committed—preci- pitately almost acknowledging the mistake which was the consequence of their original precipitated action—the only remedy of the Government was to select the man whom they ought never to have placed in such a painful position, and invest him with powers which would render the fulfilment of his duty, and the carrying into effect a policy advantageous to the metropolis and to the colony, more and more difficult. He must say that in this case a great effort was made by the Government to conceal and to pass over their original sin upon this question; and he thought the country was extremely obliged to the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (the Earl of Lincoln) for bringing it forward. He could easily understand the feelings of the noble Lord in permitting the Bill to go into Committee. The sympathy of official reminiscences might have induced the noble Lord to take that course. But let the House clearly understand the position in which the question was placed; and let the people of this country understand how their colonies were managed. Was it to be tolerated that a Government being just formed, a Member of it, imbued with certain abstract and theoretical opinions upon colonial government, should make his début in his official career by drawing up with the greatest coolness what he called "a constitution," sending it to a distinct colony, and to an appalled Governor, and be saved only by the discretion and the abilities of that Governor, and by the presumed indulgence of the House of Commons from the consequences of absurdity so flagrant, and which might have been so ruinous? Do not let it be supposed that by the Bill now before them—a Bill which had excited attention out of the limited circle of those acquainted with the affairs of New Zealand—they were assisting the development of a colonial government, or in repairing the unadvised conduct of the Minister at home. This was legislation produced, and solely produced, by one of the most enormous errors that ever was committed by a Secretary of State. For his own part, he did not pretend to have more knowledge on these subjects than any other Gentleman in that House, who gave some attention to the publications distributed among them; but he honestly admitted that the name of New Zealand always attracted his attention. He knew that New Zealand was synonymous with flagrant jobbing and most ignorant administration. It was only by an accident that he had stayed in the House; but when he found there was a Bill on the Paper with this title, "to suspend for a limited time the operation of an Act granting a constitution to New Zealand," which as far as he could collect, could scarcely have arrived at that colony, he thought, as it was a psychological curiosity, he would stay to hear the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the statement of the noble Lord. What was that reply? Why, the most astounding answer that was ever made. It was an appeal to the House to hurry into Committee, in a tone and spirit which would have induced anybody ignorant of the facts to suppose that the noble Lord was merely retarding the progress of important public business. Who could have supposed that not eighteen months ago, with a new Government formed, a Secretary of State, with regard to a colony so interesting and so important as New Zealand, should have sat down in his chair, and with his pen have coolly drawn up a constitution which he sent out to a Governor, who, the moment he received it, found it was impossible to carry into effect without endangering the allegiance of that colony to the British Crown? New Zealand was a fine and most interesting colony—a colony well known to the House of Commons—a colony well known to the people of this country—not only for the advantages which it commercially gave, but by grants of public money, which, at the fag-end of the Session, were generally proposed to repair the blunders of Colonial Ministers. Some hon. Gentleman would remember how the last Session of Parliament ended—how they were called upon for a considerable vote, in order to silence claimants, who ought not to have been silenced by such considerations, but who had suffered through the maladminstration of the colony. And how did this Session of the new Parliament commence? With a Bill to suspend a constitution—a constitution acknowledged by the Government themselves to be a thing too ridiculous to defend. Why suspend it? He could only account for it upon the great principle of English law, that everything should proceed upon a fiction. They were going to introduce that principle of the ancient society of England into the modern colony of New Zealand. They were to be "governed" there; they were to have "legislative councils;" they were to have "provincial councils;" but they were, above all, to be astounded by one great assumption, that there was a constitution which had been suspended. Why should they introduce into this new, this simple, and this primitive society, such a degree of "enormous lying?" Was that an ingredient necessary in a state of society of that kind? It could be accounted for and vindicated in an ancient society like ours. Not ten years ago a man could not ask in a court of justice for relief for the commission of injuries without feigning to be in a position in which he never was, and which he never could occupy; but that was no reason why such a system of falsity should be introduced into a new colony. Why should the political and legislative position of New Zealand depend upon an assumption which every one knew to be false?—the assumption that the inhabitants of New Zealand were in the enjoyment of a constitution sent out by a Secretary of State; which constitution was not in existence. Did anybody ever suppose the New Zealanders would enjoy the constitution that was promulgated at the end of 1846? Why, if the New Zealanders could profit by the institutions secured to them by this Bill, if it was not suspended at the end of this Session, everybody must give them credit for more ability, greater advantages, and more experience than could ever be reckoned upon in that crude conception, now embalmed in the legislative museum, almost unprecedented for its odious absurdity. The suspended constitution was an enormous absurdity, perpetrated by a Government who ought, at least, to have acknowledged their error. They ought to have asked the House of Commons to abrogate their blunder. They might have said, "We entered office in the most unexpected manner, and we determined to do something. We sent a constitution to a distant colony. Forget all this; and let us do what we can to effect that which is best for New Zealand." That would have been an intelligible position. It would not have been a more painful position than that which the Government occupied when they justified that transaction which last year was acknowledged in the House by the New Zealand Company. All our affairs with that colony had been of the same suspicions and equivocal character. The House might be inclined to pardon and forget past errors; but the only compensation the Government could offer was, to guarantee that the future arrangements for the government of the colony should at least be conceived in a prudent and practical spirit. They were attempting by the proposed Act to save the reputation of an individual Minister. Let them save his reputation if they could by their arguments and their appeals, but do not let them drag in the House of Commons, by a fiction, to be the means of vindicating an absurdity the most gross that had been perpetrated for a long series of years, but the great evil of which was, not the mere grossness of the absurdity, but the fact of its leading the people on to future consequences, which the House would soon have to acknowledge, and again to rectify. He should have supported the noble Lord if he had called upon the House to testify their opinion upon the main question. As it was, he should support any one who would call for the opinion of the House upon it; but if no division took place, he could only say, that he had expressed his opinion upon the subject; and he knew, from what had occurred in the colony of New Zealand, that the time was not far distant when they should again have an opportunity of expressing their views with regard to it.

did not rise to vindicate the constitution which had been proposed for New Zealand, but he must call the attention of the House to the course which Parliament had itself pursued on a former occasion with regard to it. In the year 1846 Parliament passed a Bill giving to the Secretary of State for the Colonies the most ample power to promulgate a constitution for New Zealand, without any check whatever. In accordance with that power the Secretary of State for the Colonies did prepare the constitution which had since been sent out; but though it was printed, and laid upon the table of the House during the whole of the Session of 1847, neither the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk (the Earl of Lincoln) nor the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) made the slightest objection to it, or discovered one of those defects against which they now remonstrated. The objection which he should make to the Bill was, that it did neither one thing nor the other—that it did not give absolute power to the Governor, but deprived him of powers the loss of which was calculated to cramp and confine his action. He would recommend the Government entirely to withdraw the 5th Clause of the Bill. The 4th Clause, which they were discussing, gave a discretionary power to the Governor; but the 5th Clause gave him no discretion, for he was there ordered to divide certain parts of the said islands into municipal districts, and to constitute within such districts municipal corporations. But those municipal institutions, however desirable they might be as a first step towards representative institutions, were not formed after the type of our own corporations; and he thought that a portion of the Governor's objections applied especially to those institutions. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman either to withdraw the 5th Clause altogether, or to give the same discretionary power to the Governor with regard to municipal institutions that he had with regard to the provincial legislative councils, which might very easily be effected by a slight alteration of the 5th Clause. He considered that the regulation with respect to voters, by which certain parties were to vote as a matter of right, while others were required to produce certificates of qualification to entitle them to the privilege, was calculated to cause much ill feeling and dissatisfaction. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would leave discretionary power in the hands of the Governor to avoid that. He must remember, as that distinguished statesman the late Lord Holland had said, that establishing a constitution was a work of time, and was not the invention of ingenuity. Governor Grey was one of the wisest, most discreet, and most vigorous Governors they had ever had; and he believed that the existence of the colony as a dependency of this country, depended mainly, if not entirely, upon that one man. He called upon the Government, then, not to urge Governor Grey to establish institutions of which they knew not whether he approved, whilst at the same time they left him a most odious discretion—that of granting certificates of respectability to those who were to become the voters under the constitution. He thought it extremely unfair to place a gentleman who had shown so much ability, energy, and zeal as Governor Grey had shown, in such a position.

said, the subject which his right hon. Friend who had just sat down had brought under their consideration properly belonged to the 5th Clause. As the matter had been brought forward, however, he might state that though the present Bill was doubtless framed upon the principle of giving a large discretion to the Governor, assisted by his Council, yet at the same time the subject to which his right hon. Friend had referred was one which the House might be left to determine. It was quite true that Governor Grey did object to the municipal institutions in the form in which they were originally proposed to be introduced; but he believed that in their present form, after the modifications which had been introduced, there would be no difficulty in the way of introducing them. There were two provisions in the Bill which he thought quite met the Governor's objections. The first gave power to the Governor to grant certificates to such of the natives as he thought fit, enabling them to vote for municipal purposes; and he was also entrusted with the power of modifying the elective franchise.

said, he hoped no party feeling would be indulged on this occasion, but that hon. Members on both sides would do their best to promote the welfare of this colony. It seemed to be assumed that the constitution was the work of the House of Commons; but the constitution was not contained in any Bill. The history of the constitution, he believed, was the following. A Bill was brought in, at the very end of the Session, under pressure from all sides of the House, to give a free constitution to New Zealand, and it was left to the Colonial Department to carry out what was understood to be the wish of all parties. During the recess, the then Secretary of the Colonies did devote his attention to the subject, and produced the constitution in the shape in which it had been sent out. He waited upon the Secretary for the Colonies with a deputation, and they pointed out to him the objections which they entertained to the constitution. He thought at the time that it would not work; but he was not sure that it would not have been better to have allowed it to remain as it was, with all its defects and imperfections, than to interfere with it now to the great disappointment of the settlers. It was not improbable, that in the southern part of the island all the machinery had been prepared for carrying the constitution into effect; and even if it had not come into actual operation, still it would be a grievous disappointment and vexation to all parties in New Zealand to have lost a constitution which they thought was just within their reach, and which the colonists believed would have afforded them the means of setting themselves free from arbitrary power. The settlers had all gone from this country within the last seven or eight years; and they had gone out in large bodies, carrying with them their religion, their education, and all their institutions. Let them take for example the settlement of Otago, which was now in fact a Scotch colony. The distinction could not exist there, for there were not more than forty-two natives in the whole colony. So also in Nelson there was a very small fraction of natives; and in the whole of the Middle Island, which was as large as England, there were only 1,200 natives; and when they were so few in comparison with the settlers, he should not be at all afraid of extending the franchise to them. It had been said, that they had better abolish the constitution, in preference to suspending it. He confessed he thought it better, especially with such a Governor as Captain Grey, to have a clause such as this, enabling the Governor to enact as soon as he pleased what was called a "despotic Government." If ever there was a man to whom such powers might be entrusted, they might be entrusted to Governor Grey, though it must be confessed by so doing, they placed that gentleman in a somewhat invidious position. He hoped that some pledge would be given that Government would, before long advise a species of self-government. Of all the curses that ever fell upon our colonies, the worst was to be subject to constant suspense.

The right hon. President of the Board of Trade earnestly recommended the House not to waste time in discussion, but at once to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill; but it appears to me that the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman's advice has had the effect of involving us in some inconvenience; because those Members who were anxious to offer general observations upon the question, could better have done so in the House, than upon a particular clause in Committee. I wish myself to offer a few observations upon the general question raised by the introduction of this Bill. I must confess that the perusal of the papers which have been presented to the House, has left a painful impression on my mind as to the position of affairs in New Zealand. It appears that the native inhabitants of this colony have attained to a high point of intelligence; and that they possess warlike habits, courage, and military skill, which render it most advisable that scrupulous good faith should be observed with respect to all engagements entered into with them. I heard with the utmost satisfaction from the right hon. Gentleman, that no assignable difference of opinion exists between Earl Grey and Governor Grey in respect to that most fruitful subject of angry discussion, the settlement of land question. I take it for granted, that the right hon. Gentleman has received communications which assure him that no such difference exists. Indeed, in looking at the facts of the case, as presented by the papers, it is hardly possible to suppose that any difference upon so important a point can exist. The construction which Governor Grey has put upon the claim of the New Zealand Company on the one side, and on the case of the natives on the other, is printed in the papers before us. It has been published, and will be sent to the colony with the knowledge of the House of Commons—it will become notorious to the inhabitants of New Zealand; and, under these circumstances, I say it will be impossible to make Governor Grey responsible for the government of the colony if he is to attempt to put a less liberal and more limited construction upon the claim of the natives than that which he has done. Governor Grey says in his despatch of April 7—

"I should also observe, that the position I understand to be adopted by the New Zealand Company's agent, that if tracts of land are not in actual occupation and cultivation by the natives, we have, therefore, aright to take possession of them, appears to me to require one important limitation. The natives do not support themselves solely by cultivation; but from fern-root, from fishing, from eel ponds, from taking ducks, from hunting wild pigs—for which they require extensive runs—and by such like pursuits. To deprive them of their wild lands, and to limit them to lands for the purpose of cultivation, is, in fact, to cut off from them some of their most important means of subsistence; and they cannot be readily and abruptly forced into becoming a solely agricultural people."

The Governor adds these emphatic words:—

"Such an attempt would be unjust; and it must, for the present, fail, because the natives would not submit to it; indeed they could not do so, for they are not yet, to a sufficient extent, provided even with the most simple agricultural implements; nor have they been instructed in the use of them. To attempt to force suddenly such a system upon them will plunge the country again into distress and war."

That opinion was published, and would be known by the natives of New Zealand; and, therefore, it is impossible to believe that there can exist any practical difference between the Executive and the Governor of the colony upon that point. The coincidence of opinion between the two authorities affords the happy omen of the satisfactory adjustment of the question. The only observation I intend to make with reference to the debates is, that the former Secretary for the Colonies, my noble Friend (Lord Stanley) was most unjustly censured in this House for the construction which he put upon the Treaty of Waitangi—a construction which now appears to be universally adopted. In the present situation of the colony, anything which I say will be, of course, more in the way of friendly suggestion than with the view of imputing blame to the Government. Her Majesty's Ministers must be best acquainted with the state of affairs in New Zealand, and nothing could be more unwise than to embarrass their decision by obligatory advice. In my opinion, the best course to take would be, to abolish the present constitution, without raising a doubt as to the wish of this House and the Government to establish ultimately representative government in New Zealand. My opinion remains unchanged, that the colony can better conduct its own affairs through representative institutions than we can manage them for it. If there could exist a doubt upon this point, it must be removed, when we find that the Home Government sent out a constitution to the colony, the very foundation of which—the elective franchise—could not be established, because there was not a single native who possessed the qualification we required from him, namely, the ability to read and write the English language. I think, then, that the Government would have acted wisely if they had merely abrogated the existing constitution, and, to leave no doubt as to the future intention of Parliament, had inserted in the preamble a declaration that it was intended to give the colony a new one as soon as the Government had an opportunity of consulting with their Governor, in whom they justly reposed the utmost confidence, as to the principle on which it should be founded. Why not authorise the Governor to proceed forthwith to establish municipal institutions on a principle of fairness to the inhabitants of all classes? By these means you would guarantee the free expression of public opinion, and protect one class from injury arising from the undue preponderance of another. At the same time, I advise you to avoid as carefully as possible saying anything about the principle on which you mean to proceed. Wait until you get the Governor's opinion before you say anything about the principles of the British constitution as applicable to New Zealand. I retain my opinion that municipal institutions, which will give the inhabitants of New Zealand large powers for managing their own affairs, by local taxation for local objects, would form the best germ for free institutions to be subsequently imparted; and I see no reason why, in many parts of the colony, if not in all, municipal institutions should not be immediately formed. The disadvantage attending the suspension of the constitution during five years is, that you leave the question in an unsettled state during the whole of that time. Would you venture to put in the preamble of the reasons on which you act, what is to be found in the information which the Governor has communicated to you? Would you say, "Whereas the Governor of New Zealand, in whose integrity and ability the greatest confidence may be placed, has represented that Her Majesty's native subjects in New Zealand will certainly be exceedingly indignant at finding that they are placed in a position of inferiority to the European population;" and whereas, "at present, the natives are quite satisfied with the form of government now existing, and as the chiefs have always ready access to the Governor, and their representations are carefully heard and considered, they have practically a voice in the Government, and of this they are well aware: but under the proposed constitution they would lose their power, and the Governor would lose his influence over them;" and whereas, "whatever form of government it may be determined ultimately to bestow upon the northern colony of New Zealand, it would be desirable in the first place that it should not be such as to render it doubtful whether the large native population will submit to it; and secondly, that so long as the Governor has so formidable and numerous a race to control, it is necessary not only that he should have the power by his negative of preventing any measures being passed which might result in rebellion, but that he also requires to be in possession of the active power of carrying such measures as are essential for the welfare and pacification of the native race?" Those are the reasons on which the Government are about to suspend the constitution of New Zealand. What, then, will be the feeling of the native population, if you hold out to them that there is a possibility of that constitution being reimposed at the end of five years? Why run this risk for the purpose of applying a salve to the pride of a Secretary of State? If it be really intended to reimpose the constitution at the end of five years, what, in that case, would be the position of the colony if Governor Grey has accurately described the feelings of the natives? Let us tell Governor Grey to proceed, in the first instance, to establish municipal institutions, including within them the native population, on fair and just principles, and afterwards communicate with him as to the best mode of applying institutions to the colony on a larger scale. Tell the natives that they shall have free institutions, but do not tell them that the elective franchise you now propose for municipal purposes is that the Governor should name the electors. I deprecate the candour with which you publish these things. After telling the natives that they would have the happiness of living under the British constitution, you find that you cannot adopt the English principle, and you adopt another. You do away with what you first established, and in the meantime you substitute something else. What idea will the natives have of the English constitution, if they regard as the English constitution what you now propose? The Governor is to give a certificate of respectability. He is to determine who are to form the elective body; and for the power of "reading and writing in the English language" the Governor is to substitute a certificate of respectability, which is to decide the right of voting. I believe Governor Grey to be above the ordinary motives by which Governors are actuated. If he were an ordinary Governor he would be unwilling to give the elective franchise largely to the opponents of the Government. The qualification of natives to be electors is so far to depend on the opinion of the Governor, that they possess "the intelligence necessary for qualifying them to take a part in the administration of local affairs." The English would, by this proposed regulation, have a right absolutely to the municipal franchise, while the qualification of the natives would be made to depend on the opinion of the Governor. Do not call this the English constitution; and what I complain of is the candour of your revelations. If you give to the executive authorities the power of determining who are "faithful subjects of Her Majesty, possessing the intelligence necessary for qualifying them to take a part in the administration of local affairs," I will venture to say that in nine out of ten municipal corporations you will make the elective franchise depend on the opinion of the mayor as to the degree of intelligence of the parties, and as to their qualification to "take a part in the administration of local affairs." Under such circumstances I will predict the general complexion of the elective body. I can foretell that the majority will be in favour of the opinions of the mayor. This regulation is to apply to the natives; and as to foreigners of European origin, it is stated in Earl Grey's despatch to Governor Grey that

—"these settlers are said to be in general intelligent, as well as industrious and orderly, although they may not be able to read and write the English language; and, as a general rule, you will naturally grant certificates to all of this class who apply for them, unless for special reasons which appear to your mind sufficient to justify their being withheld."

Is such a measure calculated to enable the natives to form a notion of a representative government? I do strongly wish that you should establish the qualification according to one universal principle. If the natives are so intelligent as Governor Grey represents them to be, and if among the young chiefs there are men of great pride, we shall have not only their courage but their pride to combat, when they begin to understand what sort of constitutional privileges have been conceded to them—when they learn that every Englishman shall have a right to the municipal franchise, and every foreigner, except for special reasons, but that the natives shall not unless they have got in their pocket a certificate of respectability. It would be better, with a view not to offend their feelings of pride, to establish one equitable rule of qualification in which all parties would be embraced. These are my general impressions, which I have stated to the House, with the view of offering my advice, and not for the purpose of embarrassing the Government, for whose difficult position I make allowance. I beg the Government to consider whether it would not be better to make some general declaration for the purpose of putting on record our feeling in favour of the establishment of representative government in New Zealand as soon as possible; to take off the shoulders of Governor Grey the in-cumbrance of this constitution of 1846; and to let him proceed at once to the establishment of municipal institutions, making in respect to them no distinction between European and native blood, but dealing with the population as on the footing of British subjects.

observed, that there would be very few who would not be able to read and write the English language, and who would be debarred from the franchise. Those to whom the question of certificates would apply were partly foreigners—chiefly Frenchmen, settled in some of these districts, very few in number—and partly aborigines. He thought that by giving his power to the Governor, the certificates would be given to every body of character. As to the more important question whether they ought to suspend the constitution, or at once to abrogate it, he still continued of opinion that it was more desirable they should suspend it. In the case of Newfoundland, where a very popular constitution had been given, and it was thought advisable afterwards to modify the constitution, the course which was taken was not to repeal the constitution, but to suspend it, and to enact a temporary constitution. In Canada, although Parliament determined to alter the constitution, yet in the first instance it was suspended. He thought the natives would have confidence in the Government of this country that they would do them justice after they had seen that the constitution had been withdrawn and suspended for the purpose of conciliating their feelings. It was scarcely to be expected that the House would refuse its assent to a Bill of this nature, having for its object the real good of the colony, and particularly when it was recollected how much the rights of the New Zealanders had been respected by this country. If the constitution were for a time suspended, the House might depend upon it that the Government would in the meantime adopt every measure necessary for securing the freedom and the prosperity of all Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand.

considered the absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government a great misfortune, because he believed that if he were present and had listened to the arguments that had been urged by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, as well as by other hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, he would have seen the propriety of repealing the constitution, instead of allowing it to stand over for a term of five years. It was impossible to read the despatches of Governor Grey without seeing that he deprecated, as distinctly as any hon. Members in that House, the extended constitution at present existing in New Zealand. He (Captain Harris) had been struck by one or two remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, in reference to the legislative duties that had to be discharged by a portion of the colony. He could speak from an intimate knowledge and acquaintance which he had with individuals residing in the colonies, that those duties were found to work very prejudicially to those on whom those duties devolved; that they were obliged to leave their counting houses, &c, and travel several miles for the purpose of attending to the public concerns of their colony. He hoped the Government would devise some method by which such parties might be permitted to attend more to the transaction of their own affairs, as some felt the duties to be almost ruinous to their professions. He would entreat the right hon. Gentleman opposite to repeal the constitution at once. If at the end of two or three years Governor Grey should state in his despatch that he saw no objection to the restoration of the constitution, he (Captain Harris) would be very happy to give his vote in that House for its restoration. If the House, however, divided on the question now before them, he should certainly vote for the Amendment.

said, that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had indulged in a good deal of wit at the expense of the provision of the measure which regulated the qualification for the franchise, and gave discretion to the Governor in giving certificates to persons of good character, although they could neither read nor write the English language; and the right hon. Baronet seemed to think that that would be placing the Governor in an exceedingly invidious position; but if the right hon. Baronet would again refer to the papers, he would see that this power of granting or refusing the certificate was given to the Governor at this own request, with a view to the advantage of the colony. In page 49, it would be seen by reference to the despatch of Earl Grey, that this discretionary power of the Governor as to the certificates was intended as an advantage, and calculated to extend the privileges of the franchise, for after alluding to the condition that none but those who could read and write English should enjoy that advantage, the despatch to Governor Grey goes on to say—

"I have upon the whole, thought it best to advise, not that this charter should be altered by removing this restriction, but that you should have a discretionary power to dispense with it. You will, therefore, be empowered to grant to such persons as you may consider to deserve the privilege, certificates that although they may not be able to read or write the English language, they are good and faithful subjects of Her Majesty, possessing the intelligence necessary for qualifying them to take a part in the administration of local affairs; and the possession of such a certificate will entitle the occupier of a tenement of adequate value, though he may not be able to fulfil the condition of reading and writing the English language, to be placed on the register of the borough, and to exercise his franchise. This measure will apply, as you will not fail to observe, in the first place, to foreigners of European origin (naturalised according to the colonial laws). These settlers are said to be generally intelligent as well as industrious and orderly, although they may not be able to read and write the English language; and as a general rule you will naturally grant certificates to all of this class who apply for them, unless for special reasons which appear to your mind sufficient to justify their being withheld. It will apply, in the next place, to the natives occupying tenements within the limits of boroughs; and it was with a view to these that the restriction was originally conceived. With respect to them you have recommended, in your despatch of the 3rd of May, that the Governor should be empowered from time to time to name certain natives who should have the privilege. It is the object of the additional instructions which you will receive to carry into effect this recommendation, and accordingly the granting or withholding certificates to the natives, will be a matter on whish you must exercise your own discretion."

It would be seen, therefore, that the discretionary power was recommended by Governor Grey himself, and would have a tendency to extend the franchise to New Zealanders, even though they should not be able to read or write English.

said, that a question of this kind, as to whether they should repeal or suspend the constitution, was one of very great importance, and it was most desirable that with relation to such a subject we should come before the natives of New Zealand with clean hands. But this country had already acted falsely towards them. It commenced with the assumption that the whole country belonged to them, save what had been purchased from them, and eventually it turned round and said that the whole islands, unless what the New Zealanders absolutely cultivated, belonged to England. It appeared to him to be as great a piece of oppression as ever was practised even by the most arbitary Government.

thought it was impossible that the hon. Member who had just sat down had devoted sufficient attention to the subject, or he would see that his idea as to the treatment which the New Zealanders had received, and the faith which had been observed by them, could not be borne out. The hon. Member had evidentally alluded to what was called the Treaty of Waitangi; but they all knew that as regarded the southern portion of the Northern Island and the Middle Island, it was not pretended that any chiefs possessing property in those districts were parties to the treaty. Let the treaty be as solemn and as absolutely binding as they pleased, it could still refer only to those chiefs who were individually parties to it; and as it was impossible to give that treaty a power to bind other chiefs, as it would be to give to an engagement made by the Queen of England a right to bind the King of France by the terms of that engagement. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had said a great deal about the constitution; but he (Mr. Milnes) could not help feeling that it came with a bad grace from one who, when at the head of the Government, refused a constitution to the white colonists of New Zealand, but who now reproached the present Government with not being absolutely inclined to include the whole native population of an uncivilised island within provisions of a constitution proposed to be granted to the European colonists there. So far as the interests of the natives were concerned, he would remark that he believed there was no instance of a native population in the history of colonisation who had been treated with the same consideration which this country had exhibited towards the native population of New Zealand. If they com-pared the treatment which the red men of North America received from the white colonists—if they compared the treatment which the Indians of America received from the Spaniards and Portuguese—they would perceive at once the different treatment which was adopted towards them as compared with that which was adopted towards the New Zealanders. There never had, in fact, been a greater attempt made to improve the condition of the natives than that which had been made in New Zealand, at the same time that the endeavour was made to raise up a prosperous English colony. With respect to reading and writing English, the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) would see that such a qualification for the franchise was one that could not exclude any native who wished, by educating himself, so far to qualify himself for the rights and privileges possessed by his British fellow-subjects. He ap- proved of this measure, because he thought it was necessary, and because it wisely gave a wide discretion to the Governor, and a temporary transmission of power, which was calculated to be highly useful.

wished to know what right we had to sovereignty in the part of New Zealand included in the Treaty of Waitangi, if that treaty were not held sacred? Supremacy was obtained by first discovery, or by treaty: if they wished to rely on the former, why did they make a treaty? If they relied on the latter, what became of the claim on the ground of first discovery? He regarded such a treaty just as binding as the Treaty of Utrecht; and he should always continue to hold the rights of the brown man in New Zealand in as sacred a light as the rights of the white man in other parts of the world.

said, that the relation in which he stood to settlers and other inhabitants of New Zealand, was such as to render him disinclined to allow this discussion to close without making some observations upon the subject before the Committee. It was no light matter to suspend the constitution of New Zealand; but he hoped that the Government did not intend the suspension to continue for so long a period. Five years in the history of a colony was a period of greater length and importance than those who were unaccustomed to such subjects were apt to imagine. The intelligence of this suspension would be received by the colonists in New Zealand with suspicion and regret; and he did not think that this Bill would be held any consolation by them. He did trust that the Government would seriously consider, after the passing of the present Bill, the necessity of giving the British people of these islands a constitution such as they had a right to expect.

hoped, for the general sake of the House and the country, that the Treaty of Waitangi should be respected and maintained in the spirit in which it was conceived, namely, that the forests and estates of all the chiefs and tribes should be guaranteed to them collectively and individually. He would not have alluded to this subject, were it not that a person holding high official position had given expression to doctrines completely at variance with the provisions of that treaty, and were it not that their promulgation had given rise to much anxiety in the colony. The doctrines to which he alluded were contained in Earl Grey's despatch of the 30th of November, 1847, in which he stated his determination "that the theory of the ownership by tribes of unoccupied land should not be made the basis of any future transactions." He contended that this determination was at precise variance with the Treaty of Waitangi; and he trusted as far as the land question was concerned, between the natives and the European settlers, that it might be made known to them that it was the intention of the Government and of that House to carry out the treaty in a fair and liberal spirit. There was also one other point to which he desired to draw the attention of the House. Much discontent and animosity had arisen between the natives and the settlers from the fact that the former were not allowed to barter their lands to any one but the Government, who having received it at the rate of twopence or fourpence per acre, would not part with it under twenty shillings per acre; the consequence of which was that the natives felt that the Crown had obtained their land at an inferior price, and that they had not been justly dealt with. In conclusion he would request Her Majesty's Government to consider well whether they would only suspend the constitution for five years, or whether it would not be better to repeal the constitution altogether, and leave it to that House to determine when there might be a more fitting opportunity to confer one more suitable.

moved, that the House should go into Committee of Supply. This was merely a formal Motion in order to enable his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), on Friday, to make his financial statement. Next week there would be another Supply night, when the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. C. Anstey) would come before the House.

I believe, Sir, that when a question of Supply is to be discussed, it is the usage of this House to entertain one of grievances. If this is an hour not too late for Supply to be gone into, it is perhaps not too late also for grievances to be gone into; and if it is too late for grievances to be gone into, it may be also too late for Supply to be gone into. I will put it to the House whether the Order of the Day shall be now proceeded with, or an adjournment take place. I will put it to the House whether it is not late enough for the House to adjourn. I will not now refer more particularly to the means that were adopted on the former occasion to get rid of the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal; but it is notorious to the House that means were taken by the Government to get rid of this question. I do not wish, Sir, to stand in the way of public business most certainly; but I think the occasion does afford the opportunity of getting a hearing. I beg to say that I do persist in moving the adjournment of the House if the question of Supply is to be gone into; and I leave my Motion in the hands of the House.

Sir, I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and I will state to the House the grounds upon which I do so. I confess that I think a great injustice has been done to the hon. and learned Member who brought forward this Motion by the Government. They did not keep a House, whereas they might have done so if they had chosen. I have been in this House long enough to know the means that were taken to count it out on the former occasion. For my part, I have formed no opinion upon the subject of the charge against the noble Lord; at the same time, I am here as a juryman to listen to a charge. That charge, Sir, is the gravest that can possibly be made against a Minister of the Crown. If that charge can be substantiated, I say that the noble Lord is put upon his defence upon grounds that are worthy to be considered by this House; and I really was surprised to find that the Government should resort to a Parliamentary trick for the purpose of getting rid of a charge involving the character of the noble Lord. Under these circumstances, Sir, I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Stafford.

Sir, I wish very much that my hon. Friend (Mr. Urquhart) had not moved the adjournment of the House. I really would wish that the question relating to this Motion should be thoroughly gone into. I wish, Sir, that the Government, when this Motion came on the other night, had not resorted to the expedient of counting out the House, notwithstanding they have taken that course. But I do think that the object of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Anstey) may be much better attained by not offering obstruction to the public business of the House. I should recommend that the hon. and learned Member would not persist in a course of that kind. At the same time, I must say that, as a Member of Parliament, I think he has a most perfect and most undoubted right to make the Motion of which he has given notice; and I think that we are all bound, and most of all the Government, and more than all my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—I think that we are all bound to see that the hon. Member for Youghal has a fair and impartial hearing; because, however unpopular this Motion may be in the House (and I think it is vain to disguise from the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is so), however much people may have adopted preconceived notions upon the subject, I am sure that a thorough discussion is necessary in order to set the matter at rest. It is not for me to suggest any ideas to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but at the same time, if I entertained the notions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal, I should be as determined as he is—not indeed, perhaps, to obstruct the business when the House is about to discuss a subject of importance—but I should certainly be as determined as he can possibly be to bring the subject under the notice of Parliament. I am not now called upon to express any opinion upon the subject; it will be enough for me to do so after I have heard the whole of the arguments—after I have heard the accusations, and after I have listened to the answer of the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But with regard to any impression that may exist, I will state that I am in the habit of exchanging courtesies with the noble Lord; I have received kindnesses from him; I have been proud and happy to receive them; and it is impossible that I can do that if I at all participate in the impressions which my hon. Friends (Mr. Anstey and Mr. Urquhart) must conscientiously entertain before bringing forward such a charge. At the same time, I did feel great surprise the other night when I found how this Motion was got rid of; because I believe now that measures were resorted to which were perfectly Parliamentary, I dare say, but which I do not think, under the circumstances, were at all creditable to the Government. I will only say this—that if I had been in the position of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—because, disguise it as you will, it comes to this, that an hon. and learned Member of Parliament, using his right as a representative of the people, sent here by his constituents, does feel it to be his duty to bring a direct and distinct charge against a Minister of the Crown—whatever may be our impressions upon this charge, I say that my hon. and learned Friend has a perfect right to bring it under the notice of the House; and I must say that I think that a charge against the conduct of a Minister of the Crown ought not to be endeavoured to be got rid of by any undue means, such as those that were resorted to on Tuesday night last. It must surely always be desired that fair play should be done to every man, whether he be an accuser or a defender—if he be a Member of the Opposition, or a Minister of the Crown; and I will say this, that however desirous I might have been to have left the House, I certainly did stay in order to be present; and I would have endeavoured to induce other hon. Members had I known of the attempt that was to be made. I do not think it was at all creditable, I must say, for those who have the power of influencing other hon. Members, to ask them to stay away. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Gentlemen say "No, no!" They do not believe that such could be done as a person connected with the Government asking others to go out of the House. I was asked myself by an hon. Gentleman individually, and which I refused, and expressed my astonishment that such a request should have been made to me. I found that I was only laughed at. And my noble Friend must excuse me for now saying, that being attacked in the way that he was, then I should have been very glad if he could have made a triumphant defence. Let my noble Friend hear the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, let him tear his arguments to ribands, let him confound him—but do not let him, if it is only for his own character, shuffle out of the accusation. I cannot help saying, at the same time, that I hope my hon. and learned Friend will come to some understanding with the Government. I do not think it is very difficult to do so, and I do not think the Government ought to be anxious to avoid the subject. I have said that that is not the way I should act; but let my hon. and learned Friend take a regular Motion day on which to make this Motion. That would be the more regular way. It may be a long way off—let him take as long a day as he can—let him give my noble Friend a reprieve—and then I dare say there will be no difficulty. I have endeavoured to induce him to do that in order to forward the public business; and if I had any influence with the Government, it would be to induce them to come to an understanding with him, so as to do everything in their power to facilitate his bringing forward this Motion.

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will take the advice which my noble Friend (Lord Dudley Stuart) gives him, the Government will do their best to keep a House for the hon. Gentleman on any Notice day on which he likes to bring forward his Motion. For my part, I admit that I was not in the House the other night. I came down after having gone to get a mouthful to eat, and I found that the House had been counted out. I was not cognisant of any attempt to count put the House. I believe the hon. and learned Gentleman will take the regular course, if he now allows the House to go into the question of Supply, and brings his Motion forward on a Motion night. He will do this, if he is desirous to further that which is matter of public interest. I only ask it for the public convenience.

With a desire for fair play, I think I may express a hope that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Motion for this evening. With reference to the allusions made to the counting out, I must remind the House that it had been expressly told him by the hon. Member for Montrose that if he did upon that occasion, when both sides of this House had assembled upon the question which presented itself for discussion before this House, not only interesting to this House, but to the community at large—to England, Ireland, and Scotland, and in which all our feelings were wrapped and wound up—the hon. and learned Member was solicited by both sides to withdraw his Motion with an express promise that if he did so, he would get a full and fair hearing, and he refused to do so. Having refused to listen to the advice expressed and conveyed to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I, for one, who would have heard him with patience, with the same spirit of impartiality that the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) professes he desires to keep up—I felt so hurt by this course, and which so vitally interfered with the matter in which we were so interested (the Debate on the Jewish Disabilities Bill), that I exercised all the power I possessed to induce Members to retire from this House, for the purpose of marking my disapproval of any one who would assume to himself, in opposition to the concurrent wishes of both sides of the House, anything like a factious course of conduct. I now state that I did induce every man that I possibly could to withdraw, knowing this—that the course that the hon. and learned Member suggested and attempted to pursue was calculated to do mischief to a fair and impartial hearing, which he pretended to desire. For if the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) on the opposite side of the House is in the slightest degree obnoxious to the charges and accusations that the hon. and learned Member alleges against him, it will be the duty of this House to scrutinise them closely, and to punish them with severity if the noble Lord be guilty. But it was impossible, under the circumstances under which he brought forward the question the other night, that either a fair or impartial hearing could have been given to the hon. and learned Member, in consequence of the interference by his Motion in opposition to the unanimous wish of both sides of the House. It is under these circumstances, Sir, that I unite with the noble Lord (Lord D. Stuart) in praying that my hon. and learned Friend will withdraw his Motion now, and on the first convenient day he will get, I hope, the opportunity of making out his charges against the Foreign Secretary.

Before I speak on the question of adjournment, Sir, I wish to know from you whether that will constitute an objection to my being heard by and by upon my Motion, because at present I wish to speak merely in reply to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The question of adjournment is a separate question. The hon. Member is at liberty to speak upon both.

Sir, in answer to the appeal which has been made to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have to say that, at an early period of the evening, I gave Her Majesty's Ministers an ample opportunity to afford me some security, that I should have all that I desired, a fair hearing. I asked no indulgence from either side of the House. I knew that in the position in which I was placing myself, I was entitled to no indulgence; but I was entitled, and I am entitled to justice; and that I demand. I therefore gave the noble Lord at the head of the Treasury an ample opportunity to offer me some assurance that should be satisfactory. It was my desire not to obstruct the business of the House either on this occasion, or on Friday next, it having been conveyed to me that to persevere in my Motion would be to effect the postponement of the Vote of Supply to-night, and, with the Vote of Supply, the financial statement on Friday. No such assurance was given me. I then gave notice that I should at any hour to-night bring on my Motion. The notice was received with silence, and, as I thought, it was acquiesced in by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell): consequently I have been here ever since, at great inconvenience, with other hon. Members, for the mere purpose of this Motion; and now, at the eleventh hour, or rather at the last hour, the right hon. Gentleman conies forward in a manner which leaves me in doubt whether he is serious or not, to propose to me that I shall surrender the slender advantage I possess—the only one that I have been able to secure—on the chance of my being able to bring on my Motion by and by, on a day not to be fixed by Government, but by me; in which case Government will endeavour to prevent hon. Members from quitting the House. I am afraid I know what that chance is worth, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it too. But if the right hon. Gentleman will give me this assurance—that he will name a day next week for a Vote of Supply, and name it at such an hour, and give it such a place in the Orders of the Day as will give me reasonable hope that I shall not be again exposed to the contingency of such an appeal as this being addressed to me, I will most cheerfully comply with his request; otherwise, I am very much at a loss what to do. I do not wish to put hon. Members to the inconvenience of waiting here another hour or two for the purpose of hearing a speech of mine even upon so important a subject. On the other hand, I am quite ready to go on. I solicit no indulgence for myself—I can stay here till any hour in the morning. It is not for my convenience, but for the convenience of hon. Members, that I am prepared to give way, if at all, and I will give way if I have a reasonable security that I shall not be in any way prejudiced. Sir, with respect to what has been said by an hon. Gentleman of my conduct in not giving way on a former occasion, I have a very simple answer. I gave then what I should suppose to any man of honour was a sufficient reason for my refusal. I asserted then—I repeat it now—because the press, for reasons best known to those who have the conduct of it, have taken care to suppress that part, the only material part, of my statement. I did say then what I now repeat—that not only had I made promises not to give way, but that on the faith of those promises several hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the House, and prepared to vote for and against the Jews' Bill, had gone away for the evening. That was the ground on which I rested my reluctance—the impossibility, rather, in which I found myself to give way; and I believe I may appeal to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire, who was one of the Gentlemen who pressed me upon that occasion, but who was not previously aware that such was my position, whether he did not esteem it a perfectly satisfactory explanation? With respect to the conduct of Government on that occasion, it is notorious that the noble and hon. Members acting in the capacity of whippers-in to Her Majesty's Ministers did, in the exercise of that function, materially contribute to the reduction of the numbers present; and the moment was chosen by a noble Lord, a Member of the Administration, when the House found itself sufficiently weeded out by those means, to give the nod which decided the event of the evening. Therefore it is vain for Her Majesty's Ministers or supporters to deny that the House was counted out upon that occasion, and by their contrivance, and not at all from any unwillingness on the part of the House to hear me. However, I have made an offer to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I now beg to repeat; and I leave it to him now to say whether he will accept it.

With regard to the offer, I can only say this, that if the hon. and learned Member will put off his Motion till to-morrow fortnight I will do all I can for him, and the Government will take as much care as they can to keep a House for him. If he will now give way, he will have precisely the same power on any future Committee of Supply that he will have to-night. There must be another Committee of Supply before long; and, therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman chooses to wait till then, he will have the same power that he has now. But the other course will be more desirable; and if he takes it, I promise to do my best to keep a House for him for his attack upon my noble Friend. Of course it is in his power to insist upon proceeding to-night; but I am sure that no advantage can be gained by it.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that at present I have the opportunity, if I choose to use it, of giving notice for this day fortnight, or for Tuesday week. [Mr. SPEAKER informed the hon. Member that he had not, but must abide the ballot at four o'clock.] Then, Sir, I am in a difficulty. I know that every day is occupied until Tuesday week, and I may find, when I come down at four o'clock in the afternoon, for instance, that some hon. Member has given notice—that the hon. Member for Montrose has given notice for this day fortnight on that very Motion which stood for to-morrow, and which, to oblige Her Majesty's Ministers, he has withdrawn—I mean the case of the Rajah of Sattara. In that case I shall be again excluded. Nevertheless, as my first wish is not to press unduly upon the convenience of hon. Members, I will consent to incur even that risk; and I will trust to the promise of the right hon. Baronet. I trust that faith will be kept with me, not only to the letter, but in the spirit, and that no hon. Gentleman will give notice of a Motion for the mere purpose of obstructing or shutting me out. I rely upon the promise of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer with perfect and implicit confidence.

Sir, after the explanation of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

obtained the annual vote for outstanding Exchequer-bills.