said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government have any objection to state on whose application, and for what alleged reasons, a large extra force of Police were billeted in Caledon for the 12th of July; and, whether it is not the fact that the local magistracy had previously expressed a decided opinion that their services were not required?

said, in reply, that the Government had received an application from certain Roman Catholic inhabitants of the town of Caledon, asking for an increase in the police force on the then coming 12th of July. It was impossible for the Government to comply with all such applications, and no answer was returned to this; but it was referred to the resident magistrate, who was instructed to make arrangements for the preservation of the peace. The resident magistrate ordered a head constable and twenty additional constables to be sent there, and he (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) did not think the magistrate was wrong in taking that course, considering that this town contained a mixed population of 300 Roman Catholics and 800 Protestants, and that upon the 12th of July a large number of Orangemen, to the number of 3,000, marched through the town with forty drums and fifes. There was no breach, of the peace; but, in his belief, the resident magistrate used a proper discretion in increasing the police force by this small number. As to any statement made by the local magistrates on the subject, he knew nothing of it.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that, in consequence of the Imperial Chinese Proclamation forbidding the cultivation of the poppy in China, it has been determined to increase the production of opium in the Bengal Presidency?

said, in reply, it had been determined to increase the production of opium in the Bengal Presidency; but that determination was in no way connected with the Chinese Proclamation to which his hon. Friend alluded. The Government of India some time ago proposed to increase the growth of the poppy in Bengal with a view to obtaining a reserve of 10,000 chests of opium, and to offering for sale a fixed quantity of 48,000 chests in each year, exclusive of the opium sold to the retail traders. The object of the Government of India in proposing this was to steady prices, and to mitigate some, at least, of the uncertainties so embarrassing to the Indian financier which arose from fluctuations in the opium market. This proposal of the Government of India was sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council as far back as March last.

said, he wished to ask, Whether the Correspondence on the subject will be laid on the Table before the Indian Financial Statement is introduced?

made a gesture of assent.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will state to the House what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take in regard to the acknowledged evils of the traffic in South Sea Islanders now in active operation in the Polynesian Archipelago?

said, in reply, that a communication was received at the Foreign Office in June, 1868, from the Convener of Foreign Missions of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, stating, on the authority of some missionaries at the New Hebrides, that a system of kidnapping natives was being carried on in vessels under the British, American, and French flags, and that even in the case of natives who went willingly the contracts made with them were not adhered to, and that they wore detained for longer periods than they were hired for. The missionaries denounced this traffic as—

"Being no better than slave-trading; alike injurious to those who are taken and those who are left. As those who are taken are of the strongest of the men, the remaining population is composed of the old and infirm, with the women and children; the women, moreover, on losing their husbands, take others, a course which," the missionaries observed, "produces complications and quarrels on the return of the emigrants."

Her Majesty's consuls and naval officers, who were directed to report on this matter, did not bear out the missionaries in their statements, but it was very probable that abuses did arise connected with this immigration; and at Lord Clarendon's suggestion, therefore, special instructions had been sent to the naval authorities on the station to watch over the operations in progress to procure immigrants, and to prevent anything like the slave trade in disguise. Her Majesty's Consul in the Polynesian Archipelago and in the Sandwich Islands would receive instructions in this sense also. He could assure his hon. Friend, and also the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird), who had been in communication with them on the subject, that it would not be neglected in the Foreign Office.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a Letter in the city article of "The Times" of July8th, signed by the Chairman of the Committee of Shareholders of the Société Agricole et Industrielle d'Egypte; and, whether the statements therein contained are correct; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are prepared to take, to obtain the fulfilment by the Viceroy of the engagements entered into by him with Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt?

said, in reply, that he did not think it would be convenient to discuss with the writer of that letter whether his statement was correct or not. He would, however, repeat to his hon. Friend the substance of the answer he gave the other day. The contention of the Government had always been that the British shareholders in that society were intitled to the same treatment as that which was meted to the foreign shareholders, and when they were informed that the Viceroy had settled on certain terms with the French shareholders, the Secretary of State had instructed Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt to require that the British shareholders should have the same treatment. The Consul General, in answer to that instruction, informed them that the Viceroy intended that British shareholders should be placed in the same position as French shareholders. The Viceroy having purchased the shares held by two French firms, had consequently purchased those held by two English firms. We have not been informed that he had purchased the shares of all the French holders. Inquiries have, however, been made on this point in Paris, as he should certainly contend that it was only just that British shareholders should be placed in exactly the same position as French.

said, he wished to ask Mr. Solicitor General, Whether, considering that the University Tests Bill will not become Law this Session, the Government would be prepared to include a more comprehensive scheme for the extension of our Universities in the general educational measure they intend to bring forward next year?

In answer, Sir, to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I need hardly remind the House that my position in relation to the Government is not such that I am able to speak very authoritatively on this matter. Whether the Cabinet has any intentions on this subject, and if so what those intentions may be, I really do not know, and I have not taken upon myself to inquire; but if the hon. Gentleman wishes for any expression of my opinion, I may perhaps be permitted to say that the entire rejection of the wishes of this House by the majority of the other House, in refusing even to consider a Bill which had been sent up after being passed through this House by very large majorities, has certainly freed me from the duty—and I may say has taken away from me the wish—of considering the feelings and prejudices in regard to this measure of the other House of Parliament. And I may add, that if the majority of the House of Lords are unaware that popular and just demands of this kind are in the nature of things—["Oh, oh!"]—

I beg leave, Sir, to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is in Order in commenting upon the conduct of the other House with regard to a Bill lately brought before it in answering a Question?

The rule of this House is that we do not comment upon the debates in the other House, but the public acts of the House of Lords are open to comment.

I was only going to say, Sir, when the noble Viscount interrupted me, that if the majority of the House of Lords are unaware that demands of this kind are in their nature certain to rise if met by contemptuous rejection, they are the only ninety-one persons in England who are so.

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether, in answering a Question, an hon. Member may be allowed to debate a public matter? ["Oh, oh!"] I beg to state that I have no objection to the hon. and learned Gentleman having this opinion, and taking a proper mode of communicating it to the House; but if an opinion is expressed, and if we are to enter into controversy, it ought to be under circumstances which will allow an answer. Therefore, Sir, I beg to ask your opinion whether, in answering a Question, an hon. Member has a right to enter into an argument such as that which is now being conducted by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite?

I think it is desirable in answering a Question that as little of controversial matters as possible should be introduced into the answer.

said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the further evidence taken before the Royal Commission appointed in 1865 for inquiring into the Pollution of Rivers will be laid before the House during the present Session; if so, whether with or without any further Report; and when it is probable that the Commission will complete its labours?

replied that the Rivers Pollution Commission of 1865, having made three Reports, was dissolved in February 1868, and a new Commission appointed in the following April. That Commission would probably complete its first Report very shortly, but scarcely in time to be in the hands of Members during the present Session. This Report would be on the Mersey and Ribble basin, as a cotton manufacturing district, and on the Aire and Calder basin as a woollen manufacturing district. The Commissioners had still much work of an important character to proceed with, and it was not possible at that moment to fix any precise period at which it was probable that their labours would be terminated.

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, during the recent cruize of the Fleet in the Channel, it was true that certain Coastguardsmen, in the full enjoyment of health, and in the prime of life, are about to be discharged on pension, by direction of the Admiralty, because their back teeth are too far gone to masticate ship's biscuit; and whether, if this statement be correct, the Admiralty think that the pensioning off of able-bodied men, in the prime of life, simply for the loss of their back teeth, is the best way of making Her Majesty's Service attractive to our seafaring population?

said, in reply to the noble Lord's inquiry, he had to say that, during the recent cruize of the Reserve Squadron, no coastguardsmen were ordered to be discharged, either from deficiency of back teeth or for any other reason, What he imagined the noble Lord alluded to was this. By the rules of the service, every coastguardsman, unable to serve efficiently at sea, was liable to be discharged; and, considering that the force was our principal reserve, this rule should be strictly enforced. On the occasion of the recent cruize, it was ascertained that some hundreds of coastguardsmen were probably unfit for sea service, and it was ordered that all above a certain age should be surveyed during this summer. One of the conditions for entering the service was that a man should not have lost "so many teeth as would materially interfere with mastication;" and as sailors had to eat hard ship biscuit, he was not prepared, as at present advised, to repeal this regulation. But he found only one case, in which the medical officers recommended that a coastguards man should be discharged solely on this ground; and in that case the recommendation was sent back for re-consideration. In several cases, men had been pronounced "unfit for active service at sea, in consequence of injuries or diseases, coupled with loss of teeth," but not for loss of teeth only. In reply to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, he had to say that the naval service was most popular at the present time, in consequence of the high rate of pay and allowances, and especially the recent great increase in pensions; and he was not prepared to diminish its efficiency by refraining from giving those pensions to men pronounced unfit for service.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that on Monday the 12th instant the troops at Aldershot remained under arms from ten o'clock till between two and three p.m., and that in consequence of the extreme heat of the weather and the tightness of their clothing, the plain was literally strewn with men who had fallen out of the ranks in a fainting condition; whether he has any objection to state the number of men in each regiment who fell out upon that occasion; whether any, and if any, what directions have been given to the General Commanding at Aldershot as to the manifest expediency of ordering that field exercise of every description should take place early in the morning during hot weather, and whether it is not the fact that Regimental Medical Officers of the Army have reported that the health and comfort of the soldier would be greatly increased if the wearing of stocks were altogether discontinued?

In consequence, Sir, of the Question put to me by my noble Friend I have made inquiries, and have received a Report from Aldershot, from which I find that there was a field day on Monday, the 12th, and the troops remained under arms from ten till two, and a portion of them till half-past two. From the heat of the weather many men —that is 125 out of 8,125—fell out—the greater part of them to obtain water from the water carts that were in attendance. That, however, was not to be attributed to the tightness of the clothing. It is not the case that the plain was literally strewn with men who had fallen out; but it is true that five men were sent to hospital. In no one of the cases have serious consequences followed, and all the men have since returned to their duties. No directions have been given by the Horse Guards to the Lieutenant General commanding at Aldershot, in whose discretion, assisted by the medical officers, the utmost confidence may be placed. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that there is no officer in whom greater confidence may be placed than in Lieutenant General Sir James Scarlett. As to the wearing of the stock, permission has been given to discontinue the wearing of the old one. The new tunic is in course of issue.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of men sent into hospital between the 6th and 16th of July in consequence of the great heat on field days?

I shall be happy to give the noble Lord that information if he wishes for it.

said, every one connected with New Zealand must thank the noble Viscount for the manner in which he had pleaded for the colonists. He had also to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies for the manner in which he had attended to representations which had been made to him on behalf of the colony of New Zealand, although he had not been able to give effect to them. He (Mr. Magniac) believed the value of our trade with New Zealand and the interest which we had in the prosperity of that colony were little understood in this country. The Returns for 1867 showed that the value of the direct imports of British manufactures into it for that year was £2,750,000, while the amount of the imports from Australia was £1,500,000, the total imports into the colony for the year having been about £5,000,000. The exports, he might add, for 1868, gave a total of £4,500,000, of which £4,000,000 came direct to this country, £1,500,000 in the shape of wool, and the remainder in gold. During the last ten years the value of the British manufactures imported into the colony was no less than £17,000,000; and these facts proved, he thought, that we depended to no inconsiderable extent on our trade with it for the comfort and well-being of our manufacturing classes. The settlers whom we were asked to aid were our own blood and sinew, and he believed that the country would recognize the fact that blood was thicker than water, and would be prepared to do their duty by New Zealand, even at the expense of their pockets. Governor Bowen attached the utmost importance to the presence of European troops for their effect, not only upon the European mind, but upon the mind of the friendly natives, who had stood by us, regardless of danger to themselves and their families, and certainly deserved consideration at our hands. The effect of British troops upon them was described as something not to be believed, and he was afraid of the effect upon them when the last red-coat left New Zealand. Such a withdrawal, it was justly said, was as though it had been proposed to withdraw British troops from Scotland in 1715 and 1745, from Ireland in 1798, or from British India in 1857. It was alleged that only a certain limited number of natives were in arms against the Queen. No doubt the natives might be divided into three classes—hostile, neutral, and friendly. But the departure of the red-coats would be the signal for the neutral natives at once to throw themselves into the arms of the hostile Maories; the friendly natives would be unable to maintain their ground; and in the district of Wellington, with which he happened to be acquainted, there were already signs that natives, who had been looked upon as the most certain in their loyalty, were now wondering what they were to do. The massacres and outrages which had occurred, and the devastation of settlements, had brought the greatest distress upon many colonists, and he knew numbers of families, previously living in affluence, who were at this moment penniless. But it was said — ''Why do not the colonists depend upon themselves, there being 220,000 colonists against 38,000 natives?" But the natives were concentrated in the Northern Island, while only from 70,000 to 75,000 Europeans were there, of whom from 40,000 to 50,000 were located in the principal towns. Thus between 30,000 and 40,000 Europeans—men, women, and children— were scattered about from one end of the island to the other, some very unused to arms and unfit to fight, while among the natives the women were almost as apt as the men, assisting in the pahs, loading the guns, and even firing them on occasion, and aiming very straight. Again, it had been said that the colonists ought to get somebody to fight for them. That was exactly what they had done. In the course of the last five years this colony of 220,000 had expended no less than £2,750,000 for mi- litary purposes, their annual military expenditure being at the rate of nearly £2 per head, whereas the annual military expenditure of this country only amounted to about £1 per head. In a letter which he hold in his hand from an eminent member of the Legislative Assembly, it was stated that the colony was expending more blood and treasure than it could possibly afford. Upon the subject of the quality of the men raised, it was impossible that the colony could be blamed upon that ground, as it was a matter of extreme difficulty to get men at any price to imperil their lives in a country where the services of the common labourer were so valuable. The cost of the common soldier in the colony had been estimated at £150, and, consequently, the expenditure involved by keeping on foot a force of 1,500 was very considerable. The result of the present state of affairs in the colony was that settlers in all districts were leaving in large numbers, the Customs revenues were falling off, and the exports were being reduced. Under these circumstances it was impossible that the colony could support an enormous military expenditure without some extraneous help. If that help were not forthcoming the war would degenerate into an irregular war, to which numbers of wild spirits would be attracted in the hope of appropriating the lands of the natives whom they would exterminate, and the result would be a disgrace, not only to the colony, but to this country. It was impossible for this country to shake off the responsibility imposed by the treaty of Waitangi. Former Governments had not held the views now held by the Colonial Secretary. It had been suggested that the colony should employ friendly natives, under white officers, to fight for them; but the result of all attempts to employ native soldiers had been that no prisoners were taken, all who fell into the hands of the victorious party being massacred without mercy. Did the Goorkas or the Sikhs make any prisoners in their campaigns? It had been also suggested that the colonists should make peace with the natives, but that advice came ill from a Government which had at one time 16,000 soldiers in the colony. He complained bitterly of the Home Government offering for sale in the colony large quantities of surplus gunpowder, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the Colonial Government, who represented the danger of its falling into the hands of the natives. The noble Viscount who had brought this question before the House had stated that the colony did not ask for men, although a very modest request had been made within the last month to the Home Government that they would permit the only regiment that was still in New Zealand to remain there until the result of the present crisis of the war was known in this country. That request had, however, not been acceded to. As the noble Viscount said, a guarantee, under perfectly unexceptionable conditions, was asked for; but that request was not acceded to. Under these circumstances gentlemen who took the deepest interest in the colony made up their minds to ask for nothing more, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, and ultimately of this House. He trusted, however, that means would be found to give the colony some small aid. The lives of 10,000 English men, women, and children, to say nothing of the natives, were dependent on the manner in which this question was dealt with.

said, that, after the eloquent speech of the noble Viscount the Member for Berwick (Viscount Bury), he would not enter at any length into the history of the evils which had brought the colony of New Zealand into its present condition, but he might say that he had received communications which corroborated every statement of the noble Viscount. During the last few years it had been the policy to leave the colony to itself, but in that time horrors had been perpetrated in New Zealand which people in this country would hardly realize. In December last a despatch from the Governor of New Zealand warned the Government against the fatal step of withdrawing the Imperial troops, stating that a number of friendly natives had waited upon him, and complained that they were being abandoned to the Queen's enemies. He feared that if Her Majesty's Government persisted in its present policy they would desert the English cause. Letters, which he had received, stated that unless some assistance were afforded to the colonists they would be unable to cope with the evils surrounding them, and it was suggested that Go- vernment aid might be given in opening up roads throughout the country for the troops. He trusted that the general appeal which had been made to the Government would induce them to do something for a colony which afforded excellent openings for emigrants from this country.

said, he thought it would be evident to anyone who knew the difficulty of guarding a large extent of coast that it must be impossible to keep gunpowder and arms out of the hands of the native population of New Zealand, especially as many of the Maories possessed ships, and performed considerable voyages. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) had stated that there never had been a period of positive tranquillity in the province, but when he (Sir Charles Dilke) was there, in 1866, perfect tranquillity prevailed, and the Governor made a peaceful progress through the island, and was received by the chiefs of the now hostile tribes on the east coast. Though he dissented from the conclusions to which the noble Viscount had come, he admitted that our early dealings with the Maories were not what they might have been. The despatches of Lord Carnarvon showed that the policy of the present Government was adopted at the Colonial Office a long time ago, and the Duke of Buckingham, in a despatch last year, while deploring the fresh disturbances which had arisen, stated that the Government did not feel at liberty to assume the control of native affairs or undertake the duty of defending the colony from native disburbances. With regard to the proposal for leaving the 18th Eegiment in New Zealand, it had been refused in the most emphatic way by the colonists themselves. The hon. Member who had just spoken said it was the policy of the Imperial Government to leave the country alone. That had, in fact, always been the policy of the colony itself, which had asserted its independence in even a defiant manner. He, like other hon. Members, had received many letters from the colony on this subject; and it was rather curious to find that, although intended to tell strongly against the Colonial Office, when closely examined they told very strongly in faxour of the Colonial Office. The Colonial Government had never observed those stipulations which the Home Government had prescribed. "Whatever might be said now, it was clear that the colony had assumed an attitude of self-reliance. That had invariably been the tone of Mr. Stafford, the able Prime Minister. There had been a suggestion that the North Island of New Zealand should be abandoned; but, before such an idea was seriously entertained, it would be well to remember the present proportions of the population, as between the whites and the natives. The population of the whites had been understated that evening, while that of the hostile Maories had been overstated. According to Sir George Bowen's showing there were now in the North Island only 38,000 Maories. of whom only about 3,000 or 4,000 were absolutely hostile, and 16,000 were friendly. In 1851, there were about 58,000 whites and 56,000 Maories; but, in 1867, the number of whites was 227,000, exclusive of the diggers, who were very numerous, and he (Sir Charles Dilke) believed that, at present, the white population was not fewer than 280,000. Nothing could be more preposterous than the notion that that large body of English settlers would be willing to give up so prosperous and fertile an island to a mere handful, comparatively speaking, of hostile natives. What, then, was to be done? The colonists would not accept troops except on conditions of local control, which the Colonial Office could not possibly assent to. Purely local troops must be maintained from purely local resources. With regard to a loan, it seemed to him a very lame conclusion of all that had been said on this subject that they should be asked to guarantee a loan of £1,500,000. The credit of New Zealand had greatly improved of late years, and the colonists need not look to the mother country for financial assistance. He had been informed that in 1863 the colony issued a 6 per cent at 83, and it fell to 60, but that now she could issue one at a price between 90 and 100. This surely was not the time when England should resume the oft-condemned policy of guarantees. As respected the future he would suggest that the prohibition of settlement in disturbed districts should be strictly enforced; that honours should be conferred on leading friendly natives as a means of securing their attachment, and welding them into a homogeneous force—the practice of sending swords and badges should be continued and extended—and that the Imperial Government should give encouragement to the native-King movement. Thousands of natives, extremely friendly to the British Government, were also passionately attached to that movement. At this moment there was no sign that the native- King flag was likely to be raised against this country, and he saw no reason why it should not be recognized, to the extent of reserving a certain portion of the North Island for the natives, in which the writs of, the Colonial Government should not be allowed to run, but reserving the suzerainty of the Home Government.

said, however much hon. Members who had listened to the debate might differ on other points, there was one point on which there could be no difference of opinion, and that was that the House was greatly indebted to the noble Viscount for the exhaustive and eloquent speech in which he had brought the question forward. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) had attributed the present troubles of New Zealand in a great measure to the Aborigines Protection Society. Now he (Mr. Fowler) had been a member of that society for nineteen years, and he denied that the society had any such power for good or for evil as that attributed to it. To hear some people talk one would think it a powerful organization like the Anti-Corn Law League of former days. But what was it? It consisted of a number of gentlemen who took an interest in colonial questions, and who made it their business to seek the redress of the grievances of the natives when grievances wore proved to exist. Their proceedings consisted, in a great measure, of representations addressed to the Secretary of State, and to the authorities in the colonies, and their object was to do as as much good as possible to the natives. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who had long filled the Office of Colonial Secretary with advantage to the country and with honour to himself, as to whether they had ever encouraged them to any course of factious opposition to the Government? The Maories were not the despicable race that the noble Viscount appeared to believe. The conduct of the Hau-haus had been such as must be reprobated in the strongest terms, but this must be put down to the successive wars and difficulties of New Zealand during twenty years. The progress made by the Maories in social elevation had been described in encouraging terms by Sir George Grey, Sir William Martin, and other authorities; and for this we were very much indebted to the labours of those devoted men who went forth among them as missionaries. Ten years ago Sir William Martin, Chief Justice of New Zealand, drew a picture of the natives of that colony which did honour to their race. He said they were an industrious and intelligent race, that they grew a large portion of the corn produced in the colony, bought mills and vessels, accumulated considerable sums of money by a system of co-operative labour, readily gave land for schools, and took steps of their own accord to repress drunkenness and immorality. That was their state ten years ago; but unhappy contests with regard to the land afterwards sprang up, and led the Maories into the commission of acts which could not be defended. They were, however, the original possessors of the soil; they had seen it taken away from them, and their feelings might be supposed to be those of the Gaels, as described by Sir Walter Scott—

"The stranger came with iron hand,

And from our fathers left the land."

The description which Sir George Bowen gave of his tour throughout the Northern Island was very favourable to the natives; he compared the present state of the Northern Island to that of the Highlands of Scotland 130 years ago. The same progress might be expected, and he trusted that the native race of New Zealand would one day take their place among the foremost races of the world. The affair of Taranaki, of which the noble Viscount had given an account, was very differently represented by Archdeacon Hadfield, in the pamphlet published by him. He distinctly stated that the war had nothing to do with the land league; that the natives did not kill the surveying party, but merely drove them away. In further contradiction of the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury), he declared that in the war in Taranaki the land had been bought with the sanction of the Colonial Ministry, and that Sir George Grey, on his appointment, had ordered an inquiry which resulted in the restoration of the land to William King, the chief with whom we had gone to war. With respect to Te Kooti, the present chief of the rebel Maories, it must be admitted that his conduct was utterly indefensible, and that, in fact, he was now a miscreant; but it must not be forgotten that formerly he was a loyal subject of the Queen, and that he was unjustly arrested and sent to imprisonment. It appeared that when he was serving under the British Government he went into the rebel camp for the purpose of persuading his brother, who was fighting against the British army, to come over to the loyal party. This circumstance coming to the knowledge of the authorities, he was placed under arrest, and sent to Chatham Island, from which place he subsequently made his escape. This unjust treatment was the primary cause of Te Kooti's rebellious conduct. Allusion had been made to the services of Sir George Grey. All must respect the character of that distinguished man. The services which had been rendered by Sir George Grey, when Governor of the colony, entitled him to the best thanks of this country, and he only regretted that any differences should have arisen between him and the Government of this country to prevent his continuing to hold that office. The noble Earl the present Secretary for the Colonies also deserved the approval of the public for the despatch in which he reprobated the offer of prize money for the heads of rebels taken in war. Had the debate not already occupied considerable time he should have called the attention of the Government at length to a Paper by Mr. Manning, which had been presented to the House, in which, at page 61, he laid down the importance of the action of the native land courts in promoting the civilization of New Zealand; but he should now content himself with expressing a hope that the recommendations contained in that Paper would receive due attention at the hands of the Government and of the authorities in New Zealand. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) had referred to the native-King movement, and he agreed with all the remarks that had fallen from the hon. Baronet on that point. Had that movement been met by the British Government in a friendly instead of a hostile spirit, the colony might have been preserved from many of the evils which had now to be deplored. He was glad to observe that Sir George Bowen gave a somewhat qualified approval to the movement, and believed that it might be made compatible with the sovereignty of the Queen. The noble Viscount had wound up his speech by advocating what might almost be described as a policy of extermination. If such a policy were to be adopted, it would be a disgrace to our civilization and to Christianity. He rejoiced to believe that it received no support from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that, instead of attempting to exterminate the natives, he was anxious to bring them within the pale of civilization. Whatever might be said of other races in our colonies, he thought it must be admitted that the Maories were a race of people capable of civilization, and it would be a disgrace to this country if they were not civilized, as such a result would be entirely owing to our own mismanagement. The policy of Sir George Bowen was exactly contrary to that of the noble Viscount, being founded on the belief that the Maories could be governed upon the same principles as the natives of India were. In conclusion, he trusted that this country would always pursue a firm and reasonable, instead of an exterminating, policy towards the noble and manly race with whom the colonists in New Zealand were now at war.

said, he felt bound, at the outset of the observations which he was about to make, to express his gratitude to his noble Friend who had introduced the subject under discussion to the notice of the House, as well as to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Magniae) for the manner in which they had spoken of him personally. He could assure them, speaking on behalf of the Government, that he approached that subject with the deepest pain, and that he sympathized no less than his noble Friend in the sufferings of the colonists which he had so eloquently described, while he had no less anxiety to do everything to redress those sufferings which justice and policy would allow. On the other hand he was satisfied his noble Friend would admit that it would not be right in such a matter as that with which the House was dealing, to act on the impulse of feeling or under the influence which might be produced by mere panic. It was the duty of the Government fairly and fully to consider what the relations of this country were to the colonists, as well as those of both to the Maories, and decide the question accordingly. The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) had referred to the present condition of New Zealand, and there could be no doubt that the statements which he had made were perfectly accurate. The number of Maories now in the North Island was certainly not more than 35,000 or 36,000; and of those 10,000 wore cut off from the rest by the isthmus on which Auckland stood, and they were, and had for many years been, friendly to this country. Of the remainder, a very large proportion were friendly also, while those who were neutral were powerful and numerous. He was sure the House would listen with interest to the statements in a letter referring to the subject, which had been received by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, within the last few days, from a connection of his in New Zealand. The letter was not written for the purpose of publication, nor was it dressed up in order to advocate any particular view. It was written by a man of considerable eminence, Mr. Seymour, who was for some time Superintendent of Marlborough, and who it was also right to state, possessed property to a considerable extent in Now Zealand, not only in the Southern but also in the Northern Island. Now, the statement of that gentleman, who, there could be no doubt, was a competent authority on the subject on which he wrote, would, he thought, give some relief to the mind of his noble Friend. Mr. Seymour said—

"There is no war of races, and I do not think it will ever turn to one. For the natives may be divided into three bodies—friendly, neutral, and hostile. I think the friendly are the most numerous, and they have been giving us great help, and, what is more, have been suffering with us too. The neutrals are also a large body, who some years back under their king retired into a comparatively small district lying on the west coast round about Kawhia harbour. These then surrounded themselves with imaginary lines termed Aukati,' past which no European was to come; if any ventured, they were warned back; if they persisted, their foolhardiness generally resulted in the loss of their clothes, &c.; but in no case was personal violence offered that I ever heard of, or their lives placed in danger. These Kingites, then, still maintain this attitude of strict neutrality. These two classes embrace most of the native population; the hostile are few in num- ber, but from the cause above are capable of doing vast mischief. I do not think masses of British troops would be of any service to us. The British soldier cannot, or rather, is not allowed to fight or even to be trained to that mode of fighting which only can be useful here. Our self-reliant policy was and is still best, and undoubtedly most likely to succeed. Our fault was the common fault of the British—that of being unprepared."

Now, that was a letter which, in his opinion, was very much calculated to alter the judgment of those who took such a gloomy view of the state of affairs in New Zealand as he had heard expressed by some hon. Gentlemen that evening. The noble Lord (Viscount Bury) said that the evils existing in New Zealand had been caused by the Home Government. Now, they had been reminded in the course of the debate that successive Governments had deliberately adopted and carried out that very policy towards New Zealand which the noble Lord now Condemned, and they had likewise been reminded, with great truth, of the great importance of that colony to England. There was hardly a Gentleman in that House who had not a friend or a relative in New Zealand, and it represented the different classes of which English society was composed probably more completely than any other colony. It seemed to him therefore absurd to suppose that successive Governments should have deliberately adopted a policy hostile to the best interests of such a colony. After all, every suggestion that was made, whether for troops or for guarantees, amounted n some way or other to this—that the tax-payers of this country ought to be called on to contribute towards the internal affairs of New Zealand; but he maintained that the taxpayers of England had no more to say to the internal affairs of New Zealand than the tax-payers of New Zealand had to say to the internal affairs of England. The noble Viscount had spoken of the way in which they had governed New Zealand; but if a Government conscientiously did its best in regard to a colony, it was idle to contend that on account of possible mistakes which it might have made—for no Government was infallible —it was to be called on to pay some contribution or to acknowledge that it had contracted some debt towards the colony. In 1854, when responsible government was adopted in New Zealand, the Legislative Assembly addressed the Governor, congratulating him on the progress of the colony and on the good relations which existed between the two races inhabiting it. Native affairs had up to that time been carefully excluded from the control of the colonists; but the colonists afterwards began to seek some control over those affairs. In 1858 or 1859 a demand was made that the Native Minister should be responsible to the Governor in Council—that was to say, to the Government which had the confidence of the colony. When that demand was sent home by Governor Gore Brown, it was objected to by Lord Carnarvon, who felt that there were certain obligations on our part towards the natives which he could not be sure would be properly discharged if that concession were made to the colony. A remarkable correspondence passed between Sir George Lewis—who acted as Secretary of State for the Colonies during the Duke of Newcastle's absence in Canada — and Mr. Richmond, a distinguished colonist of New Zealand. Mr. Richmond made the demand on the Imperial Government that 5,000 troops, involving an expense of about £150,000 a year, should be maintained for the defence of the outlying settlements. Sir George Lewis replied that wise government and prudent conduct on the part of the settlers would, in his opinion, do far more than an increased military force to maintain on a satisfactory footing the relations between the Europeans and the natives; and he pointed out that the outlying settlements were in a position in which it would be utterly impossible for this country to protect them. Such were the views of the Home Government on that subject; and therefore those who went to those outlying settlements were given to understand that they went on their own responsibility; they knew the dangers to which they would be exposed, and that it was utterly impossible for any Government to shield them from such risks. Mr. "Weld himself had recognized that no amount of British troops could possibly protect the settlers in those districts. Therefore the settlers were fairly warned from the very first by the Government of this country. In 1861, when Sir George Grey returned to New Zealand, he found the colonists possessed with the idea that it was absolutely essential they should have the control over native affairs in the same way as they had over their own. Sir George Grey, indeed, found this feeling to be so strong that he took on himself the responsibility of giving effect to it without waiting for the decision of the Secretary of State, and he wrote a despatch home explaining his conduct. To that despatch the Duke of Newcastle, on May 26, 1862, replied, sanctioning the placing of the natives under the control of the Assembly, stating that he could not disguise from himself that the endeavour to keep the management of the natives under the control of the Home Government had failed, and that it could only be mischievous to retain a shadow of responsibility when the beneficial exercise of power had become impossible. He therefore acceded to the demand of the colonists. It was true that when his despatch reached New Zealand the Colonial Government declined to accept the been they had sought, for the simple reason that they wanted to have the power, but did not desire to pay the expenses to which it would render them liable. But in a subsequent despatch of great ability, dated February 24, 1863, the Duke of Newcastle explained his view of the whole of the transactions which had occurred, and refused to withdraw the gift he had made to the colonists, telling them distinctly that what they had asked for and obtained they must keep, and that with it they must bear a considerable portion, at all events, of the expenditure for their own defence, and the Legislature of New Zealand, relying upon the cordial co-operation of the Imperial Government for the future, cheerfully, by a unanimous vote, accepted the responsibility thus placed on the colonists. The Imperial Government gave its assistance with no niggardly hand; 10,000 Imperial troops with 6,000 colonial troops, took the field, aided by a fleet of steamers and gunboats, but these great forces were paralyzed by the system of double government, which, to quote Mr. Weld's words, was "the root of half the misfortunes that occurred;" and, in November, 1864, the colony was nearly prostrate. The natives, as my noble Friend has said, quoting Mr. Weld's words, "were defeated but not subdued." Taranaki had not been reconquered; escaped prisoners occupied a fortified position within sight of Auckland; the colony had neither money nor credit. Then it was that the Government of Mr. Weld was formed. The system of double government had broken down—Mr. Weld refused to take Office unless it were abandoned. The principles upon which his Government was formed are clearly laid down in a Memorandum he submitted to the Governor in November, 1864. After expressing his opinion that double government had resulted in evil to both races of Her Majesty's subjects in New Zealand, he recognized the right of the Home Government to interfere as long as the colony received the aid of British troops, but said he was prepared to accept the alternative, and would recommend the Assembly to ask for the entire withdrawal of British troops, and also to ask the Home Government to issue such instructions as would enable the Governor to be guided by the recommendations of his constitutional advisers, except only upon such matters as concerned the Imperial interests and the Prerogative of the Crown. That reservation would have been sufficient to prevent a war of extermination between the two races, because Her Majesty's Government could not be absolved from the obligations of the treaty of Waitangi, and the rights of the natives were secured under that treaty. With that limitation, however, a demand was made by Mr. Weld for absolute and entire self-government. He required that the whole of the land forces should be withdrawn from New Zealand with the least possible delay, and had since stated distinctly, having before his eyes the present lamentable state of things, that in his opinion it was due, in part at all events, to the fact that his demand had not been entirely acceded to at once — was due, therefore, not to the removal of the troops, but to the delay in their removal. Mr. Weld insisted not only upon getting rid of the Imperial troops, but upon keeping up a sufficient colonial force, and, with the assistance of Major Atkinson, succeeded to a great extent in effecting this object; but he was turned out of Office. Mr. Stafford became Prime Minister, and, unfortunately, the colony was left without sufficient defence against the inevitable results of the system of confiscation that was carried on. Mr. Weld had recommended that 1,500 colonial troops should be kept on foot, armed and trained with special reference to the nature of the services required. This policy was not adhered to by Ms successor, and there were nothing but raw and undisciplined recruits to suppress the recent rising, notwithstanding the repeated and energetic warnings against confiscation by his right hon. Friend the present Secretary for War. Confiscation was carried on, and, at the same time, the colonial military force was not kept up. Allusion had been made to the natives who escaped from the Chatham Islands. Now he believed—though his information was not official—that these prisoners were sent to the Chatham Islands for two years. They behaved well while there, but finding they were not released when the time expired they made their escape, and it must always be remembered that, with the exception of one person who lost his life in the scuffle, they inflicted no injury upon anybody. When they landed, however, it was attempted to re-capture them, and, as the House knew, the result of that attempt was lamentable. At the other side of the island—of this, again, there is no official information—in the course of the campaign under General Chute, some horses had been taken away from the Maories. They were re-taken by the natives, two of whom were seized as hostages for their return. The result was an encounter in which two or three people lost their lives, and he believed that the rising upon the east coast was precipitated by this circumstance. He thought he had clearly shown that the demand for the removal of the troops was made by the colonists themselves; that it was insisted upon by them in the strongest manner; that after Mr. Weld went out of Office they omitted to take the precautions which common sense suggested for their own protection; and that it was on account of the absence of precautions that these lamentable events had occurred. Under these circumstances was it quite reasonable that the colonists should come to this country and ask us to assist them? It was obvious that the reason why the colonists had not hitherto provided for their own defence was that, as long as British troops remained in the island, they looked to them for protection, and imagined that they would be extricated from any difficulty by the assistance of the mother country. That was the opinion of Mr. Weld., who had re-stated it in an able pam- phlet which he had written within the last few months. He therefore said deliberately that in his opinion it would be a cruel gift to the colonists to thrust them back upon the old system, which entirely broke down under their hands—and to lead them to depend upon the mother country instead of upon themselves. He hoped therefore that the House would approve of the conduct of the Government in refusing to leave the British troops in New Zealand. Then came the question raised by his noble Friend with regard to the guarantee. His noble Friend spoke of the heavy taxation which pressed upon New Zealand, but he had not taken into account the difference in the incidence of taxation in this country and in New Zealand. In his financial statement made in September, 1865, the Colonial Treasurer said—

"I must be allowed, while admitting the weight of the burdens laid upon the shoulders of the people of this colony, to deprecate the exaggeration with which this subject has been treated in many quarters, and which appears to me calculated to excite unnecessary discontent within the colony, as well as seriously to injure its position in the estimation of persons at a distance. The positive as well as the comparative weight of the taxation of New Zealand has been frequently over-stated. The sum per head paid for duties of Customs, which constitutes four-fifths of the public revenue, amounts, it is true, to £3 11s.; but of this sum no less than £2 1s. 8d. is paid on spirits, wine, beer, and tobacco, which are generally considered fair subjects for the operations of the tax-gatherer—Again, although the amount of taxes paid by each individual in New Zealand is considerably higher than in Great Britain, being £4 10s. (including provision for many local services) in the former, as compared to £3 0s. 1d. (including local taxation) in the latter; yet, when it is considered that the average earnings of the labouring classes in the colony are, as a rule, more than twice as large as in the mother country, it will be found that, testing the weight of taxation by the proportion which that taxation consumes of the earnings of each adult, the position of the colonist will compare favourably with that of the tax-payer in the United Kingdom. With regard to this question of taxation generally, it has, in many of the discussions on this subject which have taken place throughout the colony, been somewhat hastily assumed that heavy taxation, if not incompatible with, is at least rarely coincident with national prosperity. I think this is a very false and mischievous impression. A reference to the statistics of the principal countries of Europe will show that, so far from this opinion being true, countries like Turkey and Russia, where the taxation is 8s. 1d. and 16s. 1d. per head respectively, are those which are far from being the most prosperous or wealthy; while the State in which—with the well-known exception of the United States—taxation is the highest—namely, the kingdom of Holland, where the general taxation is £2 11s. 3d. per head, is admittedly one of the most flourishing."

This showed that statements which had been made with regard to the comparative taxation of the inhabitants of the colony and the people of this country were founded in error. He would not, however, rest his objection to the claim which had been put forward solely upon that consideration. It appeared to him that the worst of all governments was that of one race over another when the dominant race was supported and assisted by a superior power behind it, because such a government led to abuse and to the undue exercise of power. Upon that ground alone it appeared to Mm that the Government would be consulting far more the interests of both the colonists and the natives of New Zealand by leaving the Colonial Government to exercise the power they already possessed without any assistance from this country. The noble Lord had stated that this country had made a rush to take possession of the colony before France could take possession of it; but if the noble Lord would refer to Lord Normanby's letter to Captain Hobson he would find that the then Government of this country, much against their inclination, were compelled to take possession of the island in consequence of the course adopted by the Now Zealand Company. He fully admitted the value of many of the suggestions that had been made in the course of the do-bate, and he would take care that they should be laid before the Colonial Government for their consideration. One suggestion had been made over and over again to the Colonial Government by the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Office, and that was that steps should be taken to prevent settling upon the outlying districts where no protection whatever could be extended to the colonists. Warning after warning had been given on this subject by successive Secretaries of State. He was satisfied that so long as such settlements were dotted along the coast, they would be liable to such attacks as those which had occurred. In conclusion, he must express his deliberate opinion that the worst been that this country could grant to the colony would be the assistance that was now asked for on its behalf. If the Government were to yield to this application, the same vicious circle would be entered upon that led to the state of affairs that existed in 1864, when the condition of the colony was far more desperate than it was at present, and the colonists would be deprived of that spirit of self-reliance which he was happy to see animated them now. Her Majesty's Government were ready and anxious to give the colony any assistance in their power. They had instructed the commanders of Her Majesty's ships in that quarter of the globe to protect the colonists in the event of any sudden disasters occurring. They were ready to aid them to procure officers, non-commissioned officers, and trained policemen; but, on the other hand, he must state most distinctly that all such assistance must be limited by the principles which he had endeavoured to lay down in the remarks he had just addressed to the House. Her Majesty's Government fully appreciated the importance of the colony and the position it was likely to occupy in the future history of the world; and, while willing to aid it within the rules he had laid down, they must decline to give them that which would prove, in their opinion, a fatal gift—stifling their energy and bringing back the lamentable state of things from which they had only just escaped.

said, he wished to call attention to the extraordinary nature of the blue book upon this subject, part of which was merely a record of quarrels between the last Governor of New Zealand and the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's forces in the colony. A more amusing part contained a number of despatches from the present Governor of the colony, who, with many poems and quotations from Sir Walter Scott's novels, endeavoured to establish a parallel between the wars of the Maories and those of the Highlanders. For his part, he should rather compare the Maories with the Fenians in Ireland, because their cry was—" New Zealand for the New Zealanders." The whole of the documents contained in the blue book were a record of the vicious result of colonial affairs being undertaken by the Home Government, and he trusted that no steps would be taken calculated to restore a policy so pregnant with disaster. The noble Viscount (Viscount Bury) had drawn a fearful picture, but he had offered no remedy, nor had he heard any valid one suggested in the course of the debate. The stories of the horrible massacres which had occurred in New Zealand were certainly harrowing, but still they ought calmly to consider what was the proper remedy for the existing state of things and not follow the first impulse of sympathy to do what must increase the evil. The noble Viscount seemed to imply that there had been a wretched feeling of parsimony on the part of the people of this country, which had deterred them from assisting their fellow-countrymen in New Zealand; but the truth was, that this country had, on the contrary, by its desire to act on the highest principles of humanity towards the natives, and to discharge its duty towards the colonists, been too long led into profuse and mischievous expenditure both of blood and money. It had also been implied that the course of abstinence and caution recently taken indicated a readiness to abandon New Zealand. To his mind it appeared to show a precisely opposite inclination. Within the last few months a line of policy had been for the first time fully pursued which would cement the only possible lasting relations between the colony and this country, The noble Viscount said that as the Imperial policy had been to blame in producing the wars, it was the duty of the country to undertake to settle them; but upon that point he took issue with the noble Viscount. The way in which the affairs of New Zealand and the land and the native questions had become complicated was by the mistakes of Crown policy; but that circumstance gave the inhabitants of New Zealand no claim upon the British tax-payers, for the Government of New Zealand was their Government; and, bad as it was, it was honestly conducted in the best supposed principles of the day in their interest, and not in ours. He rejoiced with the noble Viscount that the old system of government was gone. That double government, one half administered by the colonists, and the other half by the Crown for the native races was sure to be full of mischief, and early in 1861 the Duke of Newcastle found that it was impossible to go on with it. The old Downing Street government was bad enough, and when that was exploded the attempt still to reserve the native half of local government was worse. That being the case it was absolutely necessary to make all things square with a better state of things. The transition must be painful but the result would be beneficial, and to return to the old state of things, which bred the mischief, would be insane. First of all, it had been necessary to settle accounts with the old system; and the part taken by this country in wiping off old scores was most liberal and generous, though it was, unfortunately, not so taken by the colonists. The English Government were willing to forego all claims, and to let bygones be bygones, but the colonists carped at every item, set up counter-claims, and considered that all the expenses incurred for the Imperial troops sent out to fight their own battles, even to the horses and baggage lost in the service, ought to be charged to the mother country. When the new system of the policy and means of conducting it being left to the colonists was inaugurated, the colonists were told that they might retain the 18th Regiment, if they were willing to pay for it at the Australian rate of pay. Soldiers cost this country £100 a man, and they were offered at £40 a man, but the colonists would not accept them anyhow, except on the indefensible terms that the regiment was to fight for them gratuitously, and was also to be under their entire control. The Imperial troops were consequently withdrawn, as it was impossible to keep them in New Zealand serving colonial policy, and so that the Crown would have no control over them, but only have to call on our English subjects to pay for them whatever they might do. The war was renewed and it was quite clear that the colonists had not had time, or had not used it, to perfect a system of self-defence. The fact was, there were in that country, as in this, two parties in the Parliament — they were the self-relying party and the party who wished to go back to the old system. The self-relying party were strong enough to get the principle of self-defence carried by resolution, but were not able to obtain the means of carrying out the principle by the necessary measures of defence. The resolution to discard the English troops together with the absence of any substituted force was the cause of the horrible massacres which had occurred. He thought the speech of the noble Viscount rather contradictory in some parts, especially where, after arguing on the ground of colonial help- lessness, he described the taking by a few colonial troops of the pah at Taranaki "which General Cameron, at the head of the English forces, had refused to attack. That alone showed what the whole colony might do if they were left to control their own policy and meet it themselves. He fully admitted, with the noble Viscount, that the principle upon which our dealings with New Zealand was to be regulated ought to be closely watched, because we must apply the same rule to our dealings with all our other colonies. It, therefore, ought to be made clear that we had no intention of taking a retrogressive step It was an entire mistake to suppose, as had been suggested, that the colonists would be willing to look out for another country to which to attach themselves, if they were not undertaken for by their English fellow-subjects. They would find no other country so foolish to take them on such terms; but they did not wish it. They were as much bound to the mother country as the mother country was to them—an attachment founded upon affection and strengthened by commercial considerations. But they must be content to live like Englishmen if they wished to be identified with them. They must find their own means of defence. If they had no men to spare for fighting, they must hire men, they must, as had been said, look to Australia for troops; and he did not know that they could do anything better. He would only, in conclusion, express his hope that the Government would give its hearty support to the self-reliant party in the colony, for the principles that guided that party were those that it would be for the best interest of the colony and of the Empire to uphold.

said, he attributed the origin of the wars in New Zealand not to the colonists grasping at the lands of the natives, but to the readiness with which land purchased from the natives had been surrendered whenever the slightest colourable pretence of a defect in title had been shown. Cases had come within his own knowledge in which land had been paid for twice or three times, because some chief had trumped up some absurd claim to it, and the result was that when these preposterous attempts were resisted the colonists were attacked, their cattle stolen, and their wives and children murdered. So far as the land question was connected at all with the recent disturbances it was connected with them in that manner. He contended that the attempt to re-take the Chatham Island prisoners was perfectly justifiable on the part of the colonists, but that alone was not the cause of the Hau-hau rebellion, and of the subsequent atrocities. There was no doubt such atrocities would give rise to desire to exterminate the Maories, but that feeling had been repressed in the colony. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Charles Adderley) in thinking that a self-reliant policy ought to be encouraged by us. It was wholly indefensible that the tax-payers of Great Britain should be called upon to contribute 1s. towards the expenses of our colonial governments. He agreed that the pampering policy which had been acted upon with regard to the colony was unwise; but was it judicious to inaugurate a new policy at a juncture when the colony was suffering under such deep depression? In the Northern Island production was altogether stopped, and they were overburdened with taxation. The colonists however, did not ask for either money or soldiers, but only that the credit of this country should be pledged on their behalf to the extent of £1,500,000. He regretted that the Government were indisposed to grant this. He thought there was a great inconsistency in the couduct of the Government with respect to this matter. They refused the guarantee of the country to loans for such colonies as New Zealand, yet they had no hesitation in giving guarantees to any amount of loans for Canada. He admitted the importance of the Canadas, but it was surely of equal importance that New Zealand should be protected, where the settlers were struggling for their lives. With regard to the King movement, nothing could be more unwise than to encourage it. The system of native kingship arose in this way— When the British Government took possession of the island they abrogated the Maori laws, and established the British law. But with the law they established no means to enforce it; there were neither courts of law nor police magistrates, so that the natives were compelled to elect a king of their own. But if the Maori King were recognized and an imperium in invperio established, it would lead to a conflict of races of which no man could see the end. Everything should be done to induce the two races to amalgamate, and the Maories should be encouraged to take part in the government of the country, and should be treated as the settlers. He thought the Imperial Government had not gone far enough in giving independence to the colonies. The colonies had independent Legislatures for managing their own affairs, but no representative Congress like that of the States of America to which they could send their representatives, and at which they could discuss colonial subjects. The colonies had no representatives in that House, nor could they send diplomatic representatives to this country. If the colonies had the privilege of sending to this country persons as ambassadors or chargés d'affaires to represent their views to the Government of this country, that single concession would do much to bring about a better state of things.

said, he wished to offer a few remarks on this question. He was aware that he spoke in the presence of several colonists, but he did not yield to any of them in the interest he took in the colony. When this country undertook to wield Imperial power over New Zealand the people were placed under Imperial protection. That was the rule in all colonizing countries. Greece and Rome always undertook the duty of protecting the people over whom their power was stretched. When New Zealand was established as a British colony in 1840, it was as much for the protection of the native interests as for those of the colonists. But the policy that had been pursued was not always wise; he believed the Land Act, which was passed early in the settlement, was the cause of all their present troubles. Under that Act the Government purchased land at a small cost and retailed it again at a large profit. The natives soon found that their interests suffered by that arrangement, and they asked to have ground-titles to their land. But our Government refused to treat with them except as to their tribal interest, and that was the great cause of the present disturbances. The noble Viscount who moved this Motion had stated that it was impossible the Maori race could survive, and that they were not amenable to civilization. In opposition to that he would quote the authority of Mr. Swainson, the late Attorney General of New Zealand, who declared, that they were a brave and warlike race, and in every way amenable to civilization. The proof of this was to be found in the fact that there was, at the present moment, a large native population who were devoted to Imperial interests and obedient to the law. The political condition of the native race was greatly attributable to our own neglect. For five years native feuds prevailed, and our rule existed only in name. It was only at the end of that time that they proceeded to elect a King in order to give them laws that they could obey; but it was impossible that this country could allow this dual government to go on. He hoped the House would excuse him for making these few remarks on a subject in which he took so deep an interest.

said, no one had offered any satisfactory explanation as to the cause of these chronic wars in New Zealand. He thought the Government ought to promise that there should be early next Session a full inquiry into the condition and circumstances of the settlements. The particular cause of the rebellion was not hard to discover. It was to be found in the Virgin Mary of the Hau-haus. The Hau-hau movement was, beyond doubt, inaugurated by the Jesuits, and the same cause had led to a great development of Fenianism, which he believed to be strong in New Zealand. That admitted, it would explain everything. Where Jesuit action was at work, it was only years after the disaster was accomplished that the whole conspiracy was laid bare, and sometimes it was not fully unfolded for centuries afterwards. For these reasons he hoped the House would consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the origin and causes of the movement. He had had a conversation with two gentlemen who had recently returned from New Zealand, one of whom had resided there for ten years. Within the last two years a Roman Catholic chapel had been established near his residence, and ever since that time nothing but dissension and difficulty had existed. He believed that five Roman Catholic priests had been detected in communication with the rebels. In a dispatch of Sir George Grey, dated July 1846, addressed to Lord Stanley, he spoke of the proceedings of Dr. Pompalier and the Roman Catholic missionaries at the Bay of Islands but exonerated him from all blame. This very Dr. Pompalier took over thirty Jesuit priests in 1862, who were in direct communication with the rebels. He wished to point out that this French Roman Catholic Bishop had thought himself entitled to assume a position of neutrality in the rebellions of the natives; and he would ask whether there was not fair ground for inquiry as to whether that neutrality had not degenerated into secret complicity with the rebels?

said, it would be admitted that, looking to our colonies abroad, it was absolutely necessary not only that our small Army should be furnished with the best weapon we could place in their hands, but also that their ammunition should be the best this country could manufacture. He wished to direct attention to the two points comprised in the Question he had put on the Paper; and first, with regard to the Committee which might or might not at present be sitting at the War Office. He understood from his right hon. Friend (the Secretary of State for War) the other night, that the Committee to which he alluded had been broken up, and was no longer to exist. That Committee had been composed of most distinguished men—Lord Spencer, Colonel Fletcher, and other gentlemen of equal ability and uprightness. He did not east any blame upon that Committee, but he did upon the orders which had latterly been given to them. A Committee to inquire into the arms of this country ought to be perfectly free and unfettered, and it ought to be a judicial and in no way a constructive Committee. Now the Committee to which he had just referred was, he believed, as free as most Committees of that kind could possibly be, and he certainly had no fault whatever to find with it. But, in future, we ought to have a Committee on which we could thoroughly rely, composed of scientific persons totally unconnected with the trade, including one or two scientific Members of Parliament. He had brought this question forward, because at the recent meeting at Wimbledon there had been in competition with the Henry-Martini rifle one or two other weapons, which had been proved to be nearly, if not quite, as good. The Duke of Cambridge's prize was not won with that rifle. He trusted therefore that his right hon. Friend would consent to the appointment of a Committee to decide what arm was the best for the service— giving all arms that might be brought forward a fair and impartial trial. An arm for our service ought to be tried not only in this country, but in India, in Canada, and on board ship; and he might here mention that a manufacturer had authorized him to state that he was perfectly prepared to send at his own cost to India, or any other country which the right hon. Gentleman might name, 200 stand of arms and 200 or more rounds of ammunition for each arm, in order that the weapon might have a fair trial. Mr. Westley Richards' gun, he might remark, was nearly a pound lighter than the Henry-Martini. As to ammunition, he had heard that the old Boxer ammunition was used, and certainly the country had amply paid for it, because the gallant gentleman having been allowed to patent that ammunition, received from the country a very large reward for it, besides obtaining a royalty on it from the trade. He had been informed, however, that that ammunition had signally failed in the East Indies, in consequence of galvanic action having taken place between the metals used. Surely, in the general interests of the service and of the general public, the matter ought to be thrown open to the trade; and, in order that this might be done, it was necessary to appoint a tribunal in which implicit trust could be placed. If such a system as he now suggested had been adopted throughout, we should not have spent so enormous a sum of money without arriving at any satisfactory result. In the event of the Government coming boldly forward when they wanted a new arm, and offering even £30,000 for it, he believed that manufacturers would readily come before a proper tribunal, and that the result would be most satisfactory. In conclusion, he asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of the Government to make any and what alteration in the system hitherto adopted of appointing permanent or special Committees to choose new Arms for the Service, when modern requirements render it necessary to adopt Arms of new pat- tern or improved principle of construction; and, if it is the intention of the Government to sanction the expenditure of Public Money by Officers at the head of Government Manufacturing Departments in trying experiments, for which, if successful, they are permitted to take out Patents, thereby levying a Tax upon the trade created by the article being adopted by the Government, the Public Purse being saddled with the expenditure if the experiment be unsuccessful?

was of opinion that the Patent Laws ought to be abolished, if this country were to compete on equal terms with the continental nations.

said, he entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the only object the War Office should have was to get the best weapon and ammunition at a moderate price for the public service. About ten years ago the heads of the establishments at Woolwich were members of the Ordnance Select Committee, but at that time the Committee was re-constituted, and those gentlemen ceased to be members of it. His right hon. Friend who preceded him in the War Office (Sir John Pakington) dissolved the old Ordnance Select Committee, and it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to substitute for it a small Committee which should sit at Woolwich. It appeared to him (Mr. Cardwell), however, that a Committee sitting at Woolwich "was not what we wanted. He thought there ought to be a closer connection with the War Office and with Parliament in the Committee that should advise him; consequently, he constituted a Committee to sit, not at Woolwich, but in Pall Mall. Of that Committee his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War was president, and Ms hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) was a member of it, as was also the Director General of Ordnance, the Controller-in-Chief, the Inspector General of Artillery, the Inspector General of Engineers, the Inspector General of Naval Ordnance, and other persons who were above the suspicion of being actuated by any desire but that of promoting the interests of the public service. When a special Committee was required to examine any particular article they appointed such a Committee, and he trusted that this statement would be satisfactory to his hon. and gallant Friend, and would prove that he (Mr. Cardwell) had been walking in the direction that the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired. As to the Henry-Martini Committee, that was constituted before he came into Office, and its Report was presented very soon after he took Office; but he believed that a more able, independent, or trustworthy Committee could not have been possibly nominated. Colonel Fletcher was at the head of it, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland sat upon it, and all its other members were persons in every way calculated to inspire respect. His hon. and gallant Friend had said that every Committee of this kind ought to be judicial and not experimental, but that must depend upon circumstances. As far as awarding prizes was concerned the Committee was judicial, but the object of securing the best weapon for the public service could not be attained unless experiments were instituted. They had instituted experiments to ascertain whether any one of the weapons brought before them, or whether the combination of a part of one weapon with a part of another, would be the best for the public service. The result of those experiments was that they adopted the breech of one inventor and the barrel of another, and they recommended the Henry-Martini rifle. The course taken by the Government was to have the Henry-Martini rifle tried at the late Wimbledon meeting. He had not yet received the official Report of that trial, but he believed he was only stating what everybody knew when he said the result had been very successful. That weapon could not be immediately adopted because it must first be tried in India, where some specimens of it were to be sent out for that purpose. With regard to ammunition, the ammunition of Colonel Boxer was generally very satisfactory. It was quite true that there had been recent reports from India which showed that No. 5 ammunition in that country was not in a satisfactory state. He was not yet sufficiently informed of what the extent of the deterioration had been, or whether the cost of destroying any considerable portion of it would be entailed on the Indian Government; but, at all events, the whole amount of the loss would be much less than had been represented to his hon. Friend. But a remedy had been found; the means of excluding chemical action and moisture had already been adopted. With respect to the system of patents, he might say that he had never been a friend or admirer of the Patent Laws, which appeared to him to he open to many of the objections urged against them with great ability in a late debate in that House. But, however that might be, as long as they existed the question would arise whether persons employed in the public Departments, as the heads of public establishments, should be allowed to take up patents. He knew that patents were not binding against the Crown, and that, therefore, no cost need be incurred for them by the public service; but he quite agreed that it was very doubtful whether a public servant at the head of a public manufacturing establishment should be permitted to take up any patent. That opinion he entertained in common with his right hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty, who had been in correspondence with him for some time on the subject, and they proposed to issue instructions in accordance with that opinion.

said, that he had known a good deal about these arms in former days, and he had heard something further upon the subject from Birmingham. The great object was to have a tribunal that would satisfy inventors that they would have justice as between each other, and that they would not be exposed to the piracy of their inventions on the part of any of their judges, or of any persons employed by their judges. He had known cases of great hardship, and he had to represent them to predecessors of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in which cases there had been direct piracy of inventions submitted to the Government for improvements in arms. But a remedy for this was found. General Peel appointed a Committee of officers to give a preliminary judgment upon the arms submitted to them. Now, officers were the proper judges; a soldier ought to know what soldiers wanted. A man who had seen active service was the most likely to know which arm would endure the wear and tear, and what ammunition would be most likely to resist rain, and snow, and heat. If the right hon. Gentleman would revert to that system of General Peel, he would find that the best commencement for establishing an impartial and unsuspected tribunal. He had never known satisfaction so fully given as by the tribunal appointed by General Peel.

said, that a great amount of discontent existed among the private manufacturers, and he was glad to hear from the Secretary of State for War that in future the taking out of patents by officers or persons connected with the public manufacturing departments would be put an end to. He also hoped that those officers would be prevented from making trials at the public expense in any way for their own advantage. When private manufacturers made discoveries and improved weapons they ought to have some security that the benefit of their discoveries and improvements would not be taken from them.

said, that in his opinion the moment the Secretary of State parted with the direction of a matter of that sort and handed it over to a Committee composed of members of the constructive departments of the War Office or of any one of the great spending Departments of the State, that moment the right hon. Gentleman and the country were placed in a false position. A question that required a clearer answer than had yet been given to it was this—whether it was possible, seeing the manufacturers were dissatisfied with the judgments of persons interested in the constructive departments of the Government, an independent Committee should not be formed, composed in part of Members of that House?

said, that when he complained the other night of the practice of the National Gallery authorities in neglecting to buy pictures when they could be obtained at low prices, and afterwards purchasing them at excessive prices, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works replied to him in a tone peculiar to himself, denying in a somewhat excited and reckless manner certain statements which he (Mr. Bentinck) had then made. He must repeat that a picture dealer bought at a public auction a couple of pictures for £800, and a few months afterwards sold them to the Government for £1,800; and that another picture had been offered to the Government some years ago, was refused, and then purchased by the Government on the Continent at a high price. Then there was the question of scrubbing, and the reply made to him was in the nature of cross question and crooked answer. He had asked whether a certain picture by Rubens had been scrubbed; and the answer made by the Chief Commissioner was that a picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds and some others had been very well treated. This he granted, but if two or three pictures could be well cleaned, why could not they all be cleaned well? The fact was the Rubens had been in bad hands. He cared little for the opinion of the Attorney General; the facts could not be altered if the whole of the Government one after the other contradicted him, but the Attorney General's answer consisted of an attack on Sir George Beaumont, whose memory, however, would doubtless survive the stroke. The Attorney General had been cited as an authority because he was an accomplished artist. He had the good fortune to possess a work by Sir George Beaumont and another by the Attorney General, and he would be glad to exhibit them side by side and let their authors stand the test. He desired further to put a Question to the Chief Commissioner with reference to Sir Charles Eastlake's library—whether it would be added to any existing Art library or be placed in the National Gallery? He also desired, in the interest of Sir Charles Eastlake's family— as it was said that the pictures of Sir Charles Eastlake were to come to the country for the prices he had paid for them—to inquire what explanation the Government had to offer of the fact that £1,500 was to be paid for one of his pictures, which was bought by him some years ago at a public sale in London for less than £100? One of the pictures attributed to Melozzo da Forli, which had come into the hands of the Government in so extraordinary a manner, and which the Chief Commissioner said had never been in the country before the Government purchased it, was exhibited by the British Institution in Pall Mall in 1863, and was hawked all over London before and after this. For a long time it was exhibited at a temporary studio in the neighbourhood of Oxford Street. It had been offered to a gentleman of his acquaintance. His informant declined the picture on the ground that it was not by the Master to whom it was attributed, and that it was practically valueless on account of the extensive restorations it had undergone. The same informant and others assured him that this and the companion picture had been repaired by Mr. Ugo Baldi, and that a large portion of the works were by his hand. He desired to give to those who represented the Department in the House an opportunity of affording the explanation which the country had a right to expect at their hands; and therefore he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury the Question which stood in his name upon the Paper, and which was as follows:— Whether a picture exhibited in the British Institution, Pall Mall, from June until August 1863, under the following description—"No. 28—Subject: Prince Guidobaldo di Montefeltro, afterwards Duke of Urbino, kneeling before an allegorical figure; painter, Melozzo da Forli; proprietor, W. B. Spence, Esq." —is not one of the two pictures purchased for the National Gallery from Mr. W. Spence, of Florence, during the year 1866, and attributed to Melozzo da Forli?

said, he trusted the Committee would not renew or repeat the discussion which occurred the other night on this subject. They all knew the extreme devotion of the hon. Member to matters of art, but the Committee was now devoted to matters of business —[Mr. BENTINCK: And economy]—and economy, if they could effect it. There was no use spending another hour discussing the merits of ancient pictures, and the best mode of varnishing and cleaning them; for he never knew two gentlemen taking an interest in the subject who did not differ in opinion on these points. There was no mystery about the two pictures referred to in the Question. The Report of the Directors of the National Gallery, laid on the table so long ago as February, 1867, contained a very full account of these purchases, which stated very fairly what the pictures were. It did not guarantee them as being the works of the artist, but merely said that they were attributed to him; but the peculiarities of the pictures were described in nearly a page of print. The House had adopted the policy of placing the National Gallery under a Board of Trustees, with a stipendiary Director to assist the Board in the selection of pictures. The reason was that the selection of pictures was an affair of taste, about which everybody differed in opinion. It was perfectly useless for the Committee to discuss the proceedings of those Commissioners for the last half-dozen years, and to raise the question whether they had wisely exercised the powers with which they were invested by law. If the system was a bad one, nothing could be done but to change it altogether. So long as the Commissioners retained their powers, it was obvious the Committee of Supply could only vote the money to enable them to discharge their functions. If, therefore, he did not follow the hon. Member into details, he hoped it would not be supposed that there was any ground for reflecting on the proceedings of the Board, or for suggesting that they had not acted to the best of their judgment.

said, he wished to correct a statement made in his absence the other evening which conveyed a very erroneous impression to the House. The statement originated with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinck), who always spoke upon this subject in a manner which deserved attention. The statement was that the authorities of the National Gallery and those of the National Portrait Gallery were in the habit of bidding against each other at public sales. [Mr. BENTINCK: I did not say so; I never said that.] However, the general impression was that the statement was made, and it was represented that in consequence of the two institutions competing with each other the country lost the portrait of Hogarth at his easel, painted by himself. As a Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery, and one who took much interest in that institution, he ventured to say there was no foundation whatever for that statement, by whomsoever it was made. It was quite impossible that the trustees of the two institutions could bid against each other, because there subsisted between them the most cordial and confidential understanding, and they always communicated with each other upon a sale of any importance. The portrait of Hogarth at his easel was one which it was desirable the country should possess, and the Trustees of the National Gallery wished to acquire it, but on the whole it was thought that it would be more satisfactory to the country if it were placed in the National Portrait Gallery, and the Trustees of the Portrait Gallery undertook the duty of purchasing it; and they made an offer accordingly of the sum of 355 guineas. That, he believed, was a fair and proper offer; but a gentleman from Manchester defeated the country in this instance, because he was prepared to go to a much larger amount. Those Manchester gentlemen were formidable foes. He was sorry the country lost this interesting picture, but he must congratulate the country on its possession of such high-spirited men as our fellow-citizens of Manchester.

said, he must add a word as a Trustee of the National Gallery. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Bentinek) was unfortunate in his remarks on this subject, for his hostile criticisms were generally made upon the pictures which were acknowledged to be among the best in the National Gallery. He had spoken of an Italian picture cleaner being employed at the National Gallery, and no one else; but a very eminent English cleaner (Mr. Merritt) was employed at the same time, and had cleaned a Rubens most successfully, removing a mass of brown varnish, and revealing the original colours of the picture. The remarks made respecting Sir Charles Eastlake's pictures were calculated to cause his family great pain. Sir Charles had expressed a wish that the pictures which he had purchased whilst Director of the National Gallery should, after his death, be offered to the nation for the price which he had paid for them. Upon these terms, the Trustees of the National Gallery had acquired some of those pictures. Two other pictures which had belonged to him before his connection with the National Gallery, had been purchased from his widow at their fair market value. No doubt those pictures had considerably risen in value since the time of their purchase by Sir Charles; but the trustees had no right to call upon his representatives to sell them, except at the price they would fetch in the market.

said, that he had no intention of making an attack upon the representatives of Sir Charles East-lake. Everyone knew how the right hon. Gentleman opposite answered statements made in that House, rushing into matters which were totally irrelevant, The Director of the National Gallery was equally answerable with the head of any other Government Department for the conduct of its business, and must submit to have his acts criticized. His complaint was that seven pictures had been injured in cleaning. With regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), he must explain that what he stated on a former occasion was not that two Departments had competed together for the purchase of certain pictures, but that by arrangement one of them had been prevented from competing. The hon. Member (the Secretary to the Treasury) had not answered his question respecting Sir Charles Eastlake's library.

said, that the library in question was to be kept in connection with the National Gallery. It would not be kept open as a public library in the strict sense of the term, on account of the expense that would thereby be entailed; but any person taking an interest in art would be allowed to refer to the works it contained on making application to the gentleman under whose care it was placed.

said, he would suggest the policy of opening a gallery for the exhibition of collections contributed by private individuals instead of purchasing pictures at the national expense. That course had been adopted in Copenhagen with the best results.

said, he hoped that some assistance would be given to the Royal Geographical Society, which rendered valuable assistance to the Government.

said, he must object to the Royal Society receiving £10,000 per annum, while the Meteorological Society of Scotland received nothing in exchange for the information with which they furnished the Government.

said, that the Royal Society only received the £10,000 per annum as trustees, having to expend it for the purposes of the Government. No part of it was applied to their own requirements.

said, he would remind the Committee that the Royal Society now made meteorological observations which had formerly been made by the Department of the Board of Trade, and that the society had undertaken this duty for the convenience of the Government.

asked why a sum of £500 for the Royal Academy of Music had been re-introduced in the Votes?

said, there were increased demands on the scientific societies, and he did not think the contributions made by the State to the funds of those societies were at all too liberal.

said, he thought the Committee ought to have some explanation on the subject of the re-introduction of the Vote of £500 for the Royal Academy of Music, which was discontinued several years ago. He would be the last man to object to any well-spent outlay for the cultivation of music; but he thought there was much reason to doubt whether this Vote to the Royal Academy was a really useful one.

said, that the mercantile interests of the entire kingdom benefited by the observations of the Royal Society. There were accounts to show how all the money voted to that society was spent. The Geographical Society had lost the house accommodation with which the nation had provided them in consequence of the building operations going on in Piccadilly; and the Government could not undertake to supply that society with another hall. The Royal Academy of Music had received a Vote for several years. During the last two years that Vote had been withdrawn, probably owing to the expenses of the Abyssinian War. The question was, whether the Vote should be revived. The Academy wanted a building for its accommodation, and Her Majesty's Government thought that the Vote ought to be renewed, so that the Academy might be kept alive. But since the Government had arrived at that conclusion there had been an expression of opinion by a portion of the musical world against the Vote, and, in consequence of that opinion, the Government would carefully consider the question whether the Vote should be asked for in future.

said, that, though music was the science of harmony, there was no profession among the members of which there was greater discord than that which existed among the professors of music. He was authorized to say that the Vote would be of great use to the Academy, which was the only society which gave musical instruction to poor people at a cheap rate. Many of the members of the Covent Garden orchestra had received their musical education from the Academy.

said, he did not think a good case had been made out for the Vote to the Royal Academy of Music. He accordingly moved that the Vote be reduced by £500.

said, that £500 was a very trifling matter to the State, but it would be a serious loss to the Academy of Music. Its existence was of great advantage to young women with a taste for music; and it had enjoyed the favour of former Sovereigns, George IV. especially having invited the Academy to play before him during his illness.

said, he would vote the £500 if it were understood to be a gift. But any hon. Member who had taken the trouble to go through the Estimates for the last thirty years, as he had done, would be astonished to find how every item had grown, so that we had exactly trebled our expenditure in that time.

said, he thought it would be hardly fair to stop the £500 this year, as the Academy must have expected to receive it.

said, he must point out that the Academy had not received the Vote for the last two years. At the same time he had no objection to grant £500, or £5,000, if it were proved first that the Academy required it, and next that it filled that place in the estimation of the musical world which it ought to do. What assurance had they at present that the Academy was worthy of its name?

said, that according to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, that Department had undertaken to see to the proper distribution of the Vote. The ordinary course was to vote money for a purpose clearly defined and ascertained beforehand.

said, he remembered perfectly well that two or three years ago, when this subject was last discussed, it was agreed to drop the Academy of Music out of the Votes. He wanted to know what change of circumstances had induced the Treasury to put it in again?

said, the Vote was an exceptional one, merely to assist the Academy to meet the exigencies of the year, arising out of the necessity of a change of residence. It had been distinctly understood that the Vote was not to be continuous, and power had been reserved to the Government of investigating thoroughly the condition of the Academy, with a view of ascertaining how far it fulfilled the wishes and expectations of the musical world.

said, he thought that the salary of £300 a year paid to the Secretary was excessive, seeing that the same gentleman received £520 yearly as Secretary to the Fishery Board. He thought it was a great abuse and waste of the public money that the son of a Peer should hold both these appointments.

said, no complaint had ever been made of the manner in which the gentleman in question performed his duties.

said, he observed in the detailed account of this Vote an item of £1,000 for the purchase of pictures. He should be glad of an explanation.

said, as to the question of salary, no doubt the item appeared large; but he feared it was not open to the Government to re-consider the amount till the office fell vacant, without paying this gentleman a considerable sum for compensation. As regarded the pictures, the Vote was one enabling them to be purchased, and would be administered by the Board of Manufactures, subject, however, to this restriction, that to meet the amount voted by the State an equal amount must be raised by local contributions. How they might exercise their taste he could not undertake to say.

moved that the Vote be reduced by £1,562 6s. 2d., the amount granted for Queen's Plates.

said, he thought that the Motion ought not to be persisted in, seeing that the opponents of the granting of Queen's Plates to Scotland were beaten on a division by two to one. He had supported the Vote in reference to Scotland, knowing what his Friends below the Gangway had in store for Ireland.

said, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee on this Vote. A large stud was maintained by the Crown in England, and these Plates were originally granted to Scotland and Ireland under the impression that they might in some degree be regarded as an equivalent. The arguments against the Queen's Plates in Ireland were equally strong in the case of Scotland, and as the opponents of the Vote had in that ease been beaten, he trusted that they would not oppose the Vote now.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury had furnished sufficient argument to induce his hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) to persist in his Motion. The hon. Gentleman had defended this Vote, not on the ground that it was good in itself, but on the ground that these plates being granted in England, it was necessary they should also be given to Ireland. If the Committee had no opportunity of dividing on these grants in the case of England this year, he would take care that they were afforded an opportunity next Session.

said, he would beg to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to explain what Vote connected with England it was that he referred to?

replied that the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) had mistaken his argument. What he had said was that the Vote having been granted in the case of Scotland, it would not be fair to refuse it in the case of Ireland. There was a considerable expense incurred in England in connection with horses as part of the Royal state and dignity, and this expenditure was supposed to improve the breed of horses. These Plates were given as an equivalent, not for the purpose, as some hon. Gentlemen appeared to imagine, of encouraging racing, but for the purpose of encouraging the breeding and improvement in the breed of horses. That was the view of the Vote which was taken at its establishment.

said, that the expenditure alluded to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton) as being incurred in this country did not appear in the Estimates, but came out of the Civil List, and did not, therefore, in any way prove the validity of his argument.

said, he thought that any hon. Member who was about to propose the reduction of a Vote ought to give notice of his intention. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett) was so fond of dividing in minorities that he should never dream of appealing to him not to divide; but he trusted the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) would not take the sense of the House after the decision which had been given on a former occasion. It was a great advantage to the country that the breeding of horses should be encouraged.

said, that he should vote for the grant of this money because he desired to place Ireland on a footing of equality with the other portions of the United Kingdom.

said, a smaller sum used to be voted for this purpose in England until the late Sir John Shelley persuaded the House to strike it out of the Estimates on the ground that the Royal stud was not only self-supporting, but even a profitable concern. If, then, the English Vote had been disallowed, why should the Irish Vote be agreed to?

said, that he should vote in favour of the reduction, as he had on a previous occasion adopted a similar course with regard to Scotland. One division was surely enough on this subject.

said, that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ayrton) need not be alarmed on the score of inequality between the two countries, as the Report of Supply had not yet been brought up.

said, he was of opinion that if the Queen's Plates in England came out of the Civil List the expense of those for Ireland and Scotland ought to be likewise defrayed from the same source.

said, he rose to move to report Progress. He had a complaint to make against Her Majesty's Government. He had placed a Notice on the Paper to the effect that he intended to object to certain items of the Vote respecting the Fishery Board of Scotland, and he had come down to the House expressly to bring forward his Motion. That Vote had been taken. He had given notice of his intention to move to reduce Vote 30, Class II., for the Scotch Fishery Board, by £5,766 13s. 5d. The Notice placed on the Paper by the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Ayrton) was that Class IV. would be taken, and after Class IV., Class II. Shortly before midnight, he made an inquiry respecting that Vote of a Friend of his, the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife (Sir Robert Anstruther), who took the same interest in the matter that he (Mr. Craufurd) took, and he was informed by him that the result of an inquiry addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury had been an assurance that Class II. of the Votes would not be taken that night, as the intention was to proceed with Class IV. Now, if it had not been for the fact that he had had a letter to write he should have left the House. His hon. Friend the Member for Fife would also have gone away, but fortunately the Lord Advocate was good enough to go and inform him that the Vote was on. Now, he complained that, instead of going on with Class IV., Class II. was taken, when public notice had been given that objection was to be taken to the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board in that Class. What was done? The hon. Baronet the Member for Fife and himself had scarcely turned their backs, having been informed that Class II. would not come on, when Class IV. was put aside, and Class II. was brought on behind their backs, and passed without comment. He thought he had a right to complain of such conduct on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and especially on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, who told his hon. Friend the Member for Fife that he would not take Class II. of the Estimates that night. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.

said, he was quite prepared to confirm everything that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd). They remained there the whole evening in order that they might be present when the Scotch Votes came on. He went to the Secretary of the Treasury about forty or forty-five minutes ago, and asked him whether the Scotch Votes were to be taken that night, as he was anxious to know; and he told him distinctly that the Scotch Votes would not be taken.

said, he had also been anxious to make some observations on the Vote for the Scotch Fishery Board, not with a view to oppose it, but to show to the Chancellor of the Exchequer— who would not lend £10,000 to keep the Irish fisheries alive until they could get a portion of the surplus funds of the Irish Church—what a gross injustice was done to Ireland by giving Scotland £7,000 more than Ireland.

said, he was exceedingly sorry that the smallest misunderstanding should have arisen about the progress of the Committee of Supply. He was constantly asked by hon. Members as to what would be the probable course of business, and he gave them the best estimate he could of the time that was likely to be taken up by particular matters. If any hon. Gentleman construed such an estimate into an engagement that certain business should not be proceeded with, all he could say was that he was very sorry for it, because he only gave the best opinion he could as to how far the Committee were likely to go. He thought it was generally understood that they would not that night take the Irish Education Vote—the only Vote passed over in Class IV. When he asked the Committee whether it would not object to go on with Class II., he was not in the least under the impression that any hon. Gentleman interested had left the House. If, however, any hon. Member had lost an opportunity of questioning any Vote, he would promise him that the Report should be brought up at a time when it could be freely and fully discussed. If the Committee did not now wish to proceed any further, Progress could be reported. ["Go on."] But it was desirable, if such was the pleasure of the Committee, to finish Class II. that night.

said, he would beg to inquire what Classes of Supply would be taken at the Morning Sitting to-morrow, and what Classes in the evening?

said, he proposed at the Morning Sitting to take the Irish Education Votes in Class IV., and then proceed in the ordinary course with Class III. If they got into Supply at the Evening Sitting he wished to resume exactly at the point where they might have left off at the end of the Morning Sitting.

said, he must be allowed to say that he was not satisfied with the explanation which the Secretary of the Treasury had just given, and he should accept no assurance from the hon. Member. He must have the assurance of a Minister of the Crown. ["Oh, oh!"] Otherwise, he should refuse to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress. He could not help thinking that he had been "jockeyed" out of his opportunity. ["Oh!" and "Order!"]

said, he rose to Order. He must ask the hon. Member to withdraw that expression.

said, if the expression he had used was un-Parliamentary he would withdraw it; but, he must say, that he thought he had been treated unfairly in the matter. No opportunity which might be afforded him on the Report would put him in the position which he would have occupied in Committee of Supply.

explained that no promise had been given by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to postpone the Scotch Votes. His hon. Friend had explained that they had arrived at a point when it "was inconvenient to proceed with the important Vote for National Education in Ireland, and the Committee consented to proceed with Class II. of the Estimates. He thought it unnecessary to renew the assurance which had already been given by his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, that the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd) would have on the Report a convenient opportunity of stating his views with respect to the Scotch Fisheries Vote.

said, he must be allowed to say one word in explanation. He thought that when the hon. Member for the Ayr Burghs spoke with such extreme certainty as to what took place, he should remember the fact that he was speaking not of anything within his own knowledge, because he did not suggest that he had any connection with him (Mr. Ayrton); and when observations made by him passed through other channels, it was quite possible that, without the smallest desire on the part of any person to mislead, there might have arisen a misapprehension as to what took place.

said, as he was the channel referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, through which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Ayr Burghs might have been mistaken, he was bound to say that there was not the slightest misapprehension on his part as to what took place. It was quite possible that the hon. and learned. Gentleman did not mean him (Sir Robert Anstruther) to understand that the Scotch Votes would not be proceeded with to-night; but all he could say was, that upon the faith of what he stated, he informed his hon. Friend that the Vote which he, in common with himself, had been waiting for for a great many hours would not come on.

said, he wished distinctly to understand what they were going to do to-morrow. It was generally understood that the first business would be the Irish Church Bill, and after that the Metropolitan Poor Law Amendment Bill. He desired to know whether that was to be the Order of Business.

said, it was certainly intended to take the Irish Church Bill as the first Order at two o'clock if the printer should have finished his work, but if not the first Order would be Committee of Supply.

said, if at one o'clock in the morning the Government did not feel certain that the printer would be ready, they ought to say that the Irish Church Bill would not be taken first.

said, it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Church Bill first, and it was their hope that it would be ready.

said, he wished to know when the Metropolitan Poor Law Amendment Bill would come on?

said, it was impossible for him to give any pledge on the subject.

said, he wished to know what was the meaning of "two gentleman at large," whose salaries formed an item in the Vote?

replied that these were gentleman attached, at a small salary to the Viceregal Court, and adorning it. There was nothing at all novel about the matter.

said, he must ask that the Vote might be postponed, as he was prepared, if there was time, to show, that there was the most wasteful and wanton extravagance in connection with the Board of Works, and that there was general dissatisfaction as to the manner in which the business was carried on.

said, he could assure his hon. Friend that if he were to communicate with him he should have every assistance in promoting the economy and efficiency which he desired in the Board of Works, and that would be better than postponing the Vote.

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would move to report Progress, as there were several items in the Vote which required explanation.

moved to report Progress.

said, he must again refer to the recent changes in the establishment of the Office of Works, and would base his remarks on the correspondence between the Chief Commissioner of Works and the Treasury, which had been presented to Parliament on his (Mr. Selater-Booth's) Motion. It appeared that the original proposition of the Chief Commissioner had not worked well, and the net result seemed to be that a valuable public servant had been exchanged for a gentleman of reputation and ability, with an increase of the establishment and not an increase in efficiency. Then it appeared that Mr. Pennethorne's office had been abolished; but, while his salary appeared on the Estimates for twelve months only, it was understood he was to receive £3,000 for work done, which did not appear on the Estimates in any shape. Mr. Hunt, a most able surveyor, appeared on the Estimates as drawing a salary of £750, but in some way this was to be made up to £1,000. He trusted the Government would be able to offer some explanation of these points.

said, the hon. Gentleman had given a singularly unfair version of the matter. The arrangement which he at first proposed was not carried out. It was that the distri- bution of coals, candles, and furniture should be taken away from the Department, that the assistant secretary should be dispensed with, and that there should be a financial secretary and one for works and buildings. The Treasury, however, thought it right not to take away the distribution of coals, candles, and furniture from the office, and the amount of business, therefore, thrown on the secretary led to an inquiry by a Committee, who recommended the continuation of the appointment of an assistant secretary. It would have been well if the hon. Gentleman, who had so suddenly appeared in the character of a financial reformer, had done something when in Office to check reckless and scandalous expenditure on the new Foreign Office, Burlington House, and other buildings, for it appeared there was not a single person in the Office of Works to check any part of the enormous outlay on those buildings. Mr. Pennethorne was a practising architect, and was receiving 5 per cent on every 1s. which he expended. The system was a bad one which led to the employment of Mr. Pennethorne to check the expenditure upon buildings which he himself was erecting for the Government. Thinking it necessary to have some disinterested person attached to the office to give advice to the Chief Commissioner, he selected Mr. Fergusson, whose appointment had given general satisfaction, who had already effected a large saving to the public, and who, if appointed some years ago, would have prevented much scandalous and extravagant expenditure. With increased efficiency in the Office there was no addition to the expenditure. Mr. Pennethorne would be able to compete like any other architect for the erection of public buildings, and would be remunerated by a percentage.

said, that in Committee of Supply he remarked that the circumstances of the case were very peculiar, correspondence which had been promised three months not having been produced, and the production of the correspondence had borne out the remark he made. In so simple a matter there never were so many blunders made by two Departments. When the right hon. Gentleman (the Chief Commissioner of Works) came into Office there were a secretary, an under secretary, and an assistant; and Mr. Austin, the secretary, an old public servant, was anxious to retire. Before he had been in Office many days the right hon. Gentleman recommended that there should be a Secretary of Works and Buildings, but the right hon. Gentleman and the person appointed had different opinions as to what were the duties of the office. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer found the new arrangements would not work, and recommended a Committee of Inquiry; and no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right. The Committee recommended that the arrangement so harshly interrupted should be restored; but the new Secretary of Works and Buildings could not be got rid of, and as there was an officer too many, Mr. Pennethorne, a valuable public officer, must be made the victim. He was to be discarded to make room for this new Secretary of Works and Buildings imported by the right hon. Gentleman. It was proposed that he should be discarded at the end of six months, and that his salary should be taken only for that term on the Estimates; but it was found that Mr. Pennethorne had works in hand which would occupy him much longer than six months, and. it was felt that it would be treating him unhandsomely to give him less salary than he had been receiving. How the money was to be found to pay Mr. Pennethorne for his services he was at a loss to know. The Committee was scarcely treated with frankness when it was told that Mr. Henry Hunt's salary was to be reduced from £1,000 to £750, and it was not stated that he was to be recouped by commission. [Mr. LAYARD: I stated it the other night.] All he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say was that Mr. Hunt had handsomely waived a quarter of his salary. He did not understand the official reply then given in the sense in which it was now interpreted. There was no intimation, certainly, that Mr. Pennethorne's services were to be retained for a year and a-half at a cost of £3,000. The correspondence ended with a request from Mr. Pennethorne that it would be stated that he left the service with honour. The answer given to that request had not been communicated to Parliament, but he hoped that Mr. Pennethorne would be satisfied, and that testimony would be borne to his official services. The right hon. Gentleman had sought to turn upon the Con- servative Government responsibility for the expenditure upon the Foreign Office. But when the plans for that building were under consideration, and the nation was practically committed to the expenditure, who were the Ministers at the Foreign Office? Why, Earl Russell was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the right hon. Gentleman now the Chief Commissioner of Works was his Under Secretary. Even supposing that the officials primarily interested in the character of the new building had favoured extravagance of design, whose business was it to check them and keep them within reasonable compass? Why, the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown, who then was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To hear the right hon. Gentleman opposite endeavour, under these circumstances, to fix responsibility for this expenditure upon the Conservative Government, was a proposition so extraordinary that one could hardly refrain from laughter. Before the right hon. Gentleman sanctioned other changes in public Departments, he hoped they would be preceded by careful inquiry, so that they might not again have such an exhibition as was contained in this correspondence.

said, he hoped the discussion would not be carried on with any acrimony. The Government had laid upon the table all the details affecting an important and useful change in a public Department, but naturally a minute history of any such change must disclose the fact that views from day to day had changed or modified. Economy and advantages were expected to follow from the change, as well as the removal of much inconvenience that was now felt, for without reflecting upon Mr. Pennethorne, or any other gentleman, the fact remained that a state of affairs existed which prevented the Department from being efficient for its purpose. It was the price paid for all improvements in the public service that there was always at first considerable difficulty, as well as apparently an increase of expenditure. There had not been the slightest desire to keep back anything from the House of Commons. The Papers could not be produced at an earlier date, and the discussion upon the Vote itself had been taken expressly upon the condition that those Papers would be produced upon the Report, a pledge which had now been fulfilled.

said, he wished to ask what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with reference to filling up the vacant appointment of Queen's Remembrancer in Scotland? It was often said that Scotland was governed by the Lord Advocate and the Queen's Remembrancer, and he was sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate must have been greatly inconvenienced by the vacancy which had existed in the office of his Colleague for so many months; and he trusted that the intentions of the Government in reference to the appointment would be made known to the House.

said, he wished to state that Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the great importance of this office, and that had been the reason why no step had been taken to fill it up; because it had been necessary to consider very carefully what should be done in regard to it, with a view to a number of questions which are now pending, and have reference to the future administration of affairs in Scotland. As soon as Her Majesty's Government had arrived at a conclusion on the subject, they would deal with the office; but he must remind the hon. Member that there had been subjects of great moment engaging the attention of the Government for some time past, and they had not. in consequence, been able to arrive at a conclusion in regard to this office.

said, he did not wish to cavil at the answer just given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had stated distinctly that, on the Report, he would be prepared to say whether Her Majesty's Government would fill up the vacant office or not.

said, his hon. Friend was perfectly right; and if the Prime Minister was in his place, he would be prepared to make the statement, because it was upon his instructions that he gave the answer he had referred to.

said, he hoped the people of Macclesfield would have an opportunity of bringing the case of Cheshire under the consideration of the House next Session.