Debates ants i3rotttbmns tnglartiament.

NEW ZEALAND.

In the House of Commons, on Monday, Mr. WARD presented a petition from the New Zealand Company, praying the House not to separate with- out taking measures calculated to allay the apprehension prevalent among the colonists of New Zealand, and to revive confidence in the Company, by which its usefulness' would be restored, the friendly communication' between the colonists and the aboriginal races renewed, and the prosperity of New Zealand secured.

Mr. CHARLES BIILL.ER rose to draw the attention of the House to what had occurred since he addressed them lately; taking up his narrative from the 20th June last. He briefly recounted the substance of the latest intelligence from New Zealand,—the attack by the Natives, in which the Government force had been completely routed, and the oldest British set- tlement in that quarter swept from the face of the earth. [The account was given in the last number of the Spectator.] The outbreak was the- result of no new discontent, but of settled hostility to the British sway: He feared that it would not end there, but that it was only the comrnence-'-=-7- ment of a war of races henceforward to continue between the White and Brown inhabitants of New Zealand: the leading chief has declared that his hostility is directed not against the settlers but the Government, and that he will next attack Auckland; probably intending the stratagem of Agesilaus, to put the enemy off his guard by declaring his real intention. Mr. Buller read a letter written at Auckland by a Mr. Cormack; which stated, that of the buildings in Kororarika only that belonging to the Roman Catholic mission was left standing: and he remarked incidentally, that not one of the Roman Catholic missionaries has participated in the land speculations or controversies. Those Protestant missionaries who have done go are regarded by the Natives as identical, at least in policy, with the Government. He read a letter, [also quoted in the last number of this paper,] describing the state of Auckland up to the 28th March,— full of runaways, convicts, &c. Incidentally, he condemned the Govern- ment for having sent out eonvicit-beys from Parkhurst Penitentiary: they occasion greater terror to the settlers than the savages do. Some friendly tribes had been gathered round Auckland; but as the property which fell into the hands of the savages at Kororarika was estimated at thirty or forty, thousand pounds, it was feared that, even if the friendly tribes sided in repulse of Held, they might turn round upon the British and attempt to plunder Auckland. In the settlements on Cook's Strait are twelve thousand settlers, who carried out two millions of capital, and there the Company had expended half a million: Wellington has had Most of its military defence withdrawn to Auckland; Nelson' with a population of' two or three thousand, had not a single soldier or sailor; New Plymouth, the nearest of those settlements to Auckland, with a thousand inhabitants, had not a single soldier or sailor, and no fortifications. The war had arisen in another part of the island, front no fault of theirs. Had it been undertaken to punish such monsters as Rauperaha and Rairgihaeata,_ it would have been justifiable. Lord Stanley ventured to assert lately, pat the House of Lords,] that all the difficulties had arisen from the conflict- ing engagements which Government had entered into with the Company' by the agreement of 1840, and with the Natives hy the treaty of Waitangi.: but the fact is that this was a wretched quarrel about a flag-staff, which lleki had twice cut down with impunity, in a part of the island six hun- dred miles from the Company's settlements, and the New Zealand Companl' could have no share in originating the mischief. It originated in, the policy of the Government—the reward for the previous outrages which Heki had actually received: Governor Fitzroy went to the Bay of Islands to take a nominal revenge for cutting down the flag-staff; but he proceeded' forthwith to abolish customs-defies there; and the impunity of those who. massacred the Europeans at wairan set the example of attacking the settlers. Who was it that left Auckland defenceless? Governor Fitzroyi who disobeyed the instructions to enahody a militia. But Lord Stanley must also bear his shig of the blame; since it appeared from the coire-, spondence that Celiirain Fitzroy Lad in. Vain ureic' the Government to send reinforceprerits; and Lord Stanley upheld the Gebel:nor against all siccusersi -15rrus always "You and I" in his despatches; and no Governor ever en- joyed more thoroughly the confidence of tire Colonial Minister. What it the remedy, and the guarantee for the future? Captain Fitzroy has been recalled; but the subordinates, whose conduct has been repeatedly blamed by Government, have not been discharged, not evert reprimanded: on the contrary, Lieutenant Shortland has been appointed Governor of a West Indian

One circumstance had recently revived Mr. Buller's hopes—the pro- mises of a change of policy implied in the speeches of Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham at the close of the last debate-.-

"When the right honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) came forward, as ho did on that occasion, and stated his views of that policy, I did think them so entirely in accordance with his own good feelings and judgment, that I was bound to believe him perfectly sincere, not only in his expressions as indicating his opi- nions at the time, but in his avowed intentions to give full effect to Ids feelings and views. I now ask the House what effect has been given to them. The im- mediate effect of the division on that occasion was very visible. I was myself; at the moment severely reproached by an honourable friend, and by others who per- fectly Teed with me upon the general question, for going to a division at all. I was told that so doing was pushing a Government, who were really willing to do right, rather too hard; that it was compromising the interests of the colony to divide, after the Government had given all that was wanted in their liberal and numerous promises. I know, too, that there were several gentlemen on the other side of the House whose votes were materially affected by these promises. I have seen statements from more than one, to the effect that they would then have voted with us, if they had not trusted to the assurances of the right honourable Baronet—if they had not relied on those assurances being curried into effect. We had no choice, after these, but to enter into further negotiation with the Govern- ment." But Ministers have given no more stable assurance than the instructions to the Governor. Now, in the first place, there is in Downing Street abundant evidence that the officials in the colony habitually disregard instructions from home. Next, Captain Grey might decline to exchange the government of South Australia for that of New Zealand; and in such case, after Captain Fitzroy's re- tirement, the government would fall into the hands of the Colonial Secretary, Dr. Sinclair, who was until lately surgeon in a ship, and who has shared all Captain Fitzroy's absurdities. Sir Robert Peel talked of extending municipal institutions, with wide powers of local taxation, as a germ of representative government such as arose in New England: now what was his meaning in speaking thus? Could it be supposed that /10 change would take place in the government of New Zea- land? Yet such is the fact. In the new instructions sent out by Lord Stanley, he says—" I think the introduction of the representative system is for the present impracticable; and I would therefore have you direct your attention, and that of the colonists, to the formation of local municipal bodies, with considerable powers of taxation for local purposes, and of making the necessary by-laws; leaving the more general powers of legislation vested in the Council as at present constituted." How was that Council constituted? It was formed of the Governor, three officers removable by the Government and paid by the Goverrunent, and three others re- movable by the Government, and who were threatened with removal when they voted against them. Lord Stanley's instructions implied nothing but the power of paving and lighting. Was this any boon? Wellington had had such a power three years ago; but it was disallowed then by an order of Lord Stanley, and was disallowed still. At Nelson they said, We do not want those powers." What guarantee was there in these instructions for sound laws, the effectual and honest administration of justice and sound policy with respect to land, and wise regulations with respect to taxes and fiscal imposts? What guarantee against the revival of such absurdities as had been practised by Governors Hobson, Short- land, and Fitzroy? What security had the Company that they had not before the last debate? None on earth.

Sir Robert Peel made another promise in reference to the disputes of the Com- panyand the Colonial Office: he expressed his desire that the Company should have the means of exercising the power given for the purposes of emigration and the employment of the settlers, not exercising any control over the local go- vernment, but assisting it in devising means for those ends. "I do not despair, he said, "that that relation will be established between the Government and the Company." What was the first essential to their furthering emigration? Why, the settlement of the land-claims. With respect to that, the Company were pre- cisely in the same situation as before the late debate; or rather, they were some- thing, worse off Hum before. Mr. Buller entered into a long explanation to make out assertion. It amounts to this. Under Lord John Russell's agreement of 1840, Mr. Pemiington awarded a certain amount of lands to the Company.: Lord Stanley having put a new interpretation on that agreement, the Company, in May 1843, reluctantly acquiesced in Lord Stanley's proposal to give them a conth Lionel title to lands, subject to other claims that might be advanced: that second

agreement remains unfulfilled; but since May 1843, the Government Commis- sioner of Land-claims has affirmed their title to various lands, under Lord John

Russell's agreement, on their making a further payment; which has been made; io that they have officially obtained a better title than Lord Stanley's conditional prime: facie title: yet now he wants to go back to his unfulfilled agreement and

the conditional title of 1843 Since the late debate, a deputation waited upon Lord Stanley to renew the negotiations; but not a word was said to them upon the subject of this title. Lord. Stanley said that he had shown them the instruc- tions; but in the instructions which were shown to the deputation, dated on the Yth July, there was not a word about it: it was mentioned in other instructions, dated on the 27th June, which the Directors did not see until after the despatches had gone and the thus for remonstrance had passed. This was the old story, of showing one set of instructions before sending to the Governor, and another when the despatches had been sent. He did not say that was bad faith; but no bad faith could have put the Company in a worse position than such mistake and carelessness. Unluckily, there had been more evidence of the spirit in which Lard Stanley still carried on the controversy; for he had taken the only oppor- tunity that had occurred to him in the House of Lords, to declare that he obsti-

este-1y adhered to the worst principles of his policy—his interpretation of the treaty or Waitangi, which was incompatible with the colonization of New Zealand. His

qwli might be called an answer to Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham. He declared that the Natives had as much title to their lands as the Natives of the Highlands of Scotland: but he had devised a tax on wild lands with forfeiture on eon-payment; so that, as the Natives never could pay, they must forfeit their

kinds. This had been called " thimblerigging," but it was more like the other trick of "ring-dropping," described in Roderick Random. A well-dressed man Mille Up to you, saying that he had found something belonging to you, sod in-

sisting in the most courteous manner on restoring it to you; and then, getting you into conversation, either picked your pocket or filched your money from you at play. In the same way, the 'table Lord said he would adhere to the Wai- tangi treaty; but, by a wild land tax and registration, confiscated the lands of the Natives.

The House now saw the spirit which still actuated the Colonial Office; and Mr. Buller called upon them not to separate without obtaining some

=to relieve t apprehensions of the colony and its friends. deprecating a party-vote, he concluded by moving, as an amend- ment on the motion for going into a Committee of Supply,

"That this House regards with regret and apprehension the state of affairs in New Zealand; and that these feelings are greatly aggravated by the want of any sufficient evidence of a change in the policy which has led to such disastrous results."

Mr. G. W. ROPE began the official defence by observing, that the gravamen of Mr. Buller's charge against Lord Stanley was, that he had not read certain instructions to the deputation : he had Lord Stanley's au- thority for giving a distinct denial to that assertion. The minutes of the Ouversation, agreed to by both parties, mentioned the communication of a despatch and certain extracts, of which coldee were subsequently to be sent to the deputation, but which were till such time to he cciesidered cone, fidential. To prove it by circumstantial evidence, he mentioned that, ill a passage which the deputation denied having seen, the printer [printer?] had spelled the word " exorbitant " with an h—" exhorbitant"; a misspelling which Lord Stanley, preparing for the deputation, pointed out to himself. Mr. Hope argued, that Lord Stanley's frank reception of persons who had made him the object of attack, and the teuour of his instructions to Captain Grey, attested a sincere desire on the part of Go- vernment to meet the demands of the Company. In proof, lie read this passage from the instructions- " I can only repeat to you the instructions which I have already given to Cap- tain Fitzroy, to endeavour' by amicable coOperation with Colonel Wakefield, to

remove obstacles arising from unsatisfied Native claims, and to discourage, as far as lies in your power, any exorbitant or extortionate demands on the Company on this head."

As to the complaint that the Company had been placed in a worse peel. tiou because a new condition had been imposed upon them, namely, the acceptance of the Commissioner's award by the Natives, Mr. Hope ex- plained—

It would be remembered, that early in July 1843, the Company applied to Lord Stanley to direct his officers to codperate with their agents in compensating

the Natives of New Zealand who might not have sold their lands, or who cora-, plained that they had not received sufficient compensation for land-sales. Lad, Stanley consented to issue such instructions, and he did issue them. Governor Fitzroy delegated to Mr. Spain, the Commissioner, the duty of conducting these negotiations between the Natives and the Company's agents; and the Commis- sioner had consequently a double duty to perform. In the one case, he had to adjudicate judicially on the question of sale or no sale; in the other, in conformity with the request of the Company, it was his duty to negotiate with the Natives

for the arrangement of unsatisfied claims. In some cases, awards of fm-ther com- pensation had been made by the Commissioner to Natives whose claims had re-

mained unsatisfied. But these awards were not made by the Commissioner judicially—they, were made by him in the character of a mediator between the two parties; and it depended upon the Natives whether or not they would accept the compensation that might be tendered to them. The award of the Commis- sioner in a judicial capacity might have been against the Company, but as a mediator his suggestions might be admitted and accepted by the'Natives.

It was unnecessary for him to defend Lord Stanley from so discreditable an act as to shift the blame from himself to Captain Fitzroy; but at the same time, Lord Stanley must not be held responsible for consequences that could not be attributed to his own proceedings.

With respect to the Parkhurst boys, it was resolved seine years ago to try an experiment of giving thorn a chance to retrieve their characters; and. he regretted to hear that any Member of the House would shut out the boys from that only chance.

He read some extracts of letters, and of the Southern Cross newspaper for March 29, stating that the ship Northern Star and schomme, Velocity had. arrived at Auckland, with 230 men and six field-pieces; whielt.hail imparted a great feeling of security to the colonists. Originally, Lord John Russell only allotted 100 meu to New Zealand; and in 1841 there were but 2,400, men at Sydney, which may be accounted a depot fer New Zealand ; but now there is a force in the colony sufficient for its defence, and nearly 4,000 men in Sydney. Here was quite strength enough to defeucl the colony against all the Natives, even if they were to combine; but the whole of their history is against the probability of such a combination. He denied that the disturbances were caused by the Government: they were caused by the Natives' dislike to any regular government, and by Helti's desire to exhibit a warlike spirit iu resisting the authority of the Queen. He denied that Lord Stanley had supported Captain. Fitzroy in all his acts: on the contrary, Captain Fitzroy was recalled because Lord Stanley disapproved of his financial policy, his neglect to embody the militia, and his hasty legislation. He also explained Mr. Shorthand's promotion— That gentleman was Secretary to the Government of New Zealand: he was a Lieutenant in the Navy, and had served with credit. Charges were brought against him of malversation in his office; but they were not supported, and lie was acquitted. He afterwards, however, resigned his office, because Captain' Fitzroy exhibited a want of confidence in him: but Lord Stanley, not finding that' Captain Fitzroy had sufficient grounds for his distrust, and feeling that to ruin a man on vague grounds without proof, and to damn him for public service for the; rest of his life, would be cruel and unjust, did nominate him to be a miner. President in the West Indies,—though the appointment had not yet taken place. It had been alleged that great evils have been caused by establishing the: capital at Auckland instead of at Wellington: but it was an engagement, that the Company should not possess any portion of the land of the capitaL of New Zealand— Lord John Russell, in a despatch to Governor Hobson, dated the 22d April, 1841, said—" The substituted lands must not embrace any part of the future capital of New Zealand, nor any lands which, by their vicinity to that capital, would command a price considerably exceeding the average price of land in the colony. It is iedispensible to reserve to the Government a commiuul over all the lands comprised in the site of the capital town, and over the whole of the district, which mu at any future period be embraced within its suburbs." In the selection of Auckland as the capital, everybody concurred that it was the best that could be, made. That it was m the midst of the Natives was necessary for the main-. tain' ance of authority: if they abandoned that locality, it would be a fatal and; ruinous step. It was objected that Government had only given to the municipalities; mere powers of lighting and paving: but the instructions were ciubruitted. to the New Zealand Company for inspection; and the objections to them should have been made before they were sent, and not after they were acted on.

To justify the tax on wild lands in New Zealand, Mr. Hope cited the case of the tax on wild lands in. Canada, recommended by Mr. Buller himself in his report to Lord Durham : and he protested against Lord'

Stanley's being accused of " ringdropping " on such grounds. , Mr. Buller urged on the Government an entire change of policy—

Those were wide words; but he believed they might be held to mean only one thing—that the New Zealand Company should be enabled to obtain the land to

which they thought themselves entitled. How could the honourable and learned Member expect such a change? On the contrary, had not that Hous over and over again, declared the necessity of keeping faith with the inhabitants of New

Zealand? It was said, however, that that was a wrong construction: if it was, it bad resulted solely from the policy of the noble Lord opposite. His instructions could, he maintained, bear only one meaning—that of the recognition of a title in the Natives to the soil.

Mr. Rounuca traced the difficulties of the colony, not to the acts of any one Government, but to the policy pursued throughout. Many resulted. from the way in which the question of title had been treated. In 1769,

Captain Cook discovered the territory under the authority of the Crowai

_ . thus arose an inchoate title, liable to be forfeited by non-user; and pos- session of New Zealand not being taken by any authorized colonization, the right gained by discovery remained unperfected. By several acts of Parliament Great Britain disavowed its title, and declared that sovereignty existed in the New Zealand chiefs. A company was formed in this country; they purchased lands of the " independent " and " sovereign " commu- nity, at what the rulers considered a fair price; and it would be a nice (petition at law, whether that contract could be annulled by subsequent proclamation—he could wager, the Court of Queen's Bench would not de- cide in favour of the Government. Captain Hobson was sent out, half as Consul-Ambassador, half as Governor, to obtain a cession of the land; and he concluded the "treaty of Waitangi,"—a fraud upon the Natives and the civilized world; since Government affected to be bound by it, knowing that the Natives had no rational understanding of the treaty, and that they would sign anything for tobacco and rum. One class derived advantages from this treaty—the Missionaries. This country is very much under the influence of cant, and in nothing has it been more susceptible than in the treatment of Aborigines. A formidable organization having been got up to emancipate the Blacks, when Emancipation was proclaimed the influence of the sympathizers was all abroad, and it was gravely dis- cussed to what subject public attention should next be directed—home or colonial? The state of the Aborigines was chosen. Missionaries went to New Zealand, to spread the true faith; and they put it into what they called the language of New Zealand,—a jargon made up of broken English; for the ideas of the Natives did not embody one-hundredth part of those to be found in the Sacred Volume. They also looked after their own interests: one took a "bit of land "—of 90,000 acres, and another 100,000 acres; and to enhance the value of their land, the capital was faxed at Auckland. For the Missionary influence rules at the Colonial Office. There is a responsible Colonial Minister, but behind him there is a paramount authority which controls him—that of Mr. Stephen, the permanent Under-Secretary: the Colonial Minister is governed by Mr. Stephen, Mr. Stephen by the Mis- sionaries. These Missionaries do good to none but themselves. If outbreaks occur, whether in New Zealand, or Tahiti, or elsewhere, it is where these men go to preach the gospel of peace; and it is in the neighbourhood of Auckland, and at the centre of Missionary influence, that the late outbreak takes place. If he blamed any individual, it would be Lord Normanby, who recognized the treaty of Waitangi. However, he blamed no particular Misters, but the system. A colony cannot be well governed by instruc- tions from the opposite side of the globe: it should have a charter of self- government, as Rhode Island had. But when the New Zealand colonists, On first going out, entered into a voluntary agreement for self-government, as the Pilgrim Fathers did, they were visited with reprobation. If the present Government would take up the treaty of Waitangi and coolly con- sider it, they would see it was not worth the paper on which it was written. There is no ownership of land among the Natives: the tribes wander from spot to spot, regardless of boundaries, and accounting themselves only owners of the soil so long as they use it. Lord Stanley said, he would respect the law of New Zealand: there is no law relating to succession of land; a club may descend from father to son, but you never heard of a native who could describe land acre by acre; and they rest their claim on having dispossessed the owner or exterminated the tribe. It is an undeniable fact, thakiie Brown races perish wherever the White man appears: but -cruelty to the Aborigines can be guarded against. That, however, cannot be done by treating them as sovereigns of the soil, and as owners of land, to be purchased with large sums of money. He had seen something of the kind in Canada: the Government granted 20,000/ a year to be distributed in presents among the Indians; as fast as they received the money it was dissipated in drunkenness; and the result of the system is that their numbers are gradually diminishing. So it would be with the New Zealanders. Their welfare should be sought by some such plan as that adopted by the New Zealand Company—allotting such portions of land as they are able actually to use. Lord Stanley attempted to get hold of the land by the thimblerigging process of a tax on it, with forfeiture on non-payment,—a paltry device: where will he find the owner, to levy the tax? for it cannot be levied on the tribe. The House should be no party to such a monstrous proceeding. The difficulties of New Zealand would disappear if they would go straightforward—consider all waste lands as Crown property, while they gave the Natives everything which they could possibly use for their own benefit. No other course would bring matters to a satisfactory state.

Sir FREDERICK TUMMIES opposed the motion; the gist of his speech being, that the Company was merely seeking its own interest, and that Government had put a legally correct interpretation on the several docu- ments—the treaty of Waitangi, the agreements, &c.

Mr. LABOIICHERE combated that view; but defended the Missionaries, and still more Mr. Stephen, against Mr. Roebuck's attack— He had brought away from the Colonial Office a very deep and enduring re- spect for the virtuous ability and great services of that gentleman. It was the fashion to impute everything that displeased any one in the Colonial Office to Mr. fitephen; and he remembered once, in discussing this subject with that entleman, that when Mr. Stephen said his conduct was so unpopular in that ...cc that he :thought he had better leave it, he replied, "No, for all the unpopularity we earn always goes to you." No mistake was greater than to suppose that Mr. Stephen was anxious to engross power at the Colonial Office; hat his services and experience were so great that he never knew any one at that office who was not desirous of having the assistance of so acute a mind as that of Mr. Stephen; nor had he ever seen any one more desirous of putting fairly and clearly the facts and means of judgment before the eyes of his principal, having him to decide for himself, unbiased by any prejudices.

Sir ROBERT beaus defended the Missionaries; and appealed to the greatly improved conduct of the Natives, even in the recent disturbances, as compared with their shocking customs formerly; favourably contrasting the chivalrous behaviour of Heki—who had shown a forbearance worthy of a Bayard, and had sent a woman and her child under a flag of truce— with the ferocities of Colonel Pelissier. He considered, indeed, that Government had quite failed on two points,—the not taking the responsibility of the governmeat on themselves; and in selecting a new Governor who was at so great a distance that for anything they knew he might be averse or incapacitated from serving when the instructions arrived. However, he should still support the Government, on the general grounds of the case. Mr. Acimosar explained some special points. To show the active part taken by the Church Missionary Society, and its managing Secretary, Mr. Dandeson Coates, in thwarting the colonizing plans of the Company, he cited a circular addressed by a Mr. White—among others, to persons in

Cockermouth, urging them to use their influence that the Members for the borough should oppose the recommendations of the Select Committee on New 7,91ancl. Sir ROBERT Drulas remarking that the circular was not signed by Mr. Dandeson Coates, Mr AGLIONBY challenged him to say that Mr. Coates had not communicated with Mr. White. Mr. Agliouby also read a letter which had just been written by Mr. George Frederick Young, saying that he had heard with equal pain and surprise the unqualified denial given on the part of Lord Stanley to the statement of the deputation that certain instructions to Captain Grey had not been communicated to them. He declared that he never saw a single passage referring to a grant of conditional titles,—which he must at once have opposed: as soon as he saw the instructions which were communicated to the Company, he at once found them to be totally different; and subsequently he saw the original document, at the office of the Colonial Land and Emigration Commission- ers, which also he identified. He regretted to find himself placed almost in antagonism with Lord Stanley on a point of veracity; but he left the discrepancy to be settled in any way possible compatibly with honour. Having mentioned that painful subject, Mr. Aglionby added, he would not hazard any remarks upon it.

Mr. G. W. HOPE made a further explanation—

If honourable Members looked through the papers recently laid before the House, they would perceive that they consisted of extracts and also a complete despatch. The complete despatch was taken away by the deputation; and that was the do- cument Mr. Young had in his hand during the interview with Lord Stanley. When the Company applied for the promised extracts, Lord Stanley directed him (Mr. Hope) to prepare them ; and as it was pointed out to him in the minutes of the interviews between Lord Stanley and the deputation that his Lordship had placed in their hands the instructions he had issued to Captain Grey, he pre- sumed they had retained those instructions and he directed extracts only to be sent.

On Wednesday, the debate was resumed by Captain Rous; who re- iterated his old charges against the New Zealand Company: now accusing them of having sold 120,000/. worth of land while really they had not a single acre in the colony; of inveigling persons out into the colony, and not keeping faith with them when they got there; and of not accounting for 16,000 shares, or 40,0001. He ridiculed the idea of representative in- stitutions for New Zealand; asking if the debates were to be carried on in the Maori language? He attacked the Government for sending a young officer to be Governor, who never served but as a subaltern; when they ought to send out a Brigadier-General and 1,000 soldiers in two ships of the line. And he attacked the Missionaries, for denouncing the English settlers to the Natives as " devils ": being anxious from selfish motives to exclude all Europeans, they acted as the Jesuits did in South America.

Mr. WARD spoke for the first time on the question as Chairman of the Committee of 1836, where the suggestion of New Zealand as a desirable field for English colonization was originally made but as having no connexion with the New Zealand Company. He refuted Captain Rous's charges: he undertood that the item of 40,000/. was paid to a preexisting company, for land actually acquired in New 7eAland. In spite of the letter addressed by Sir Robert Peel to Lord Ingestre, saying that his views coincided with those of Lord Stanley, Mr. Ward hoped that Sir Robert had not modified the sentiments which he had uttered in the former debate. [Sir ROBERT PEEL—" Not in the least."] If he could be assured of that, he should say, leave the matter in the hands of Government: but how could he be sure when Sir Robert Peel declared his concurrence with his colleague? [Mr! SHELL whispered to Mr. Ward.] He might apply to the relation be- tween the two the quotation just suggested to him—' Nec tecum possum vivere, nec sine te." He called on Government to take pity on the two races cooped up in New Zealand; to deal with the question practically and promptly, with liberality and justice.

Mr. GEORGE PALMER replying to Captain Eons, entered into an ex- planation of the proceedings of the original New Zealand Company, to which he belonged. That Company planned an expedition to these islands in 1824 or 1825, and bought lands from the Natives. They had the countenance of Mr. Huskisson, were offered a guard of soldiers, which they declined, and were promised a frigate if it should be necessary for defence. The Coromandel was sent out, and returned laden with spars; there being an understanding that Government would take all the spars or hemp furnished by the Company. That Company had as good a title to its land as any man in this country has to his; and that Company made over its land to the present Company; whose title of course was equally good.

Sir CliARLES Nsrisa roundly censured the total want of preparations for defence, though these late disasters must have been foreseen since the unavenged massacre at Wairau. He censured Captain Fitzroy's want of activity, and the conduct of other officers; paying a high compliment, how- ever, to the zeal and gallantry of Captain Robertson.

Viscount INGESTRE entered into an account of the conference which the deputation from the New Zealand Company had with Lord Stanley since the last debate; claiming for the Company credit for pure and disinterested motives, and conceding that Lord Stanley met them courteously and frankly. With respect to the disputed instructions to Captain Grey, he imputed no blame to Lord Stanley; as the difference between the deputa- tion* and his Lordship on that point was evidently the result of mistake. [The reports of this speech in the papers of Thursday are very imperfect: the details are not intelligible; and the general impression which they con- vey is erroneous; for Lord Ingestve corroborated Mr. George Young's statement respecting the instructions.] Mr. HAWES disclaimed hostility to the Government, but urged them to adopt a course decidedly calculated to restore order.

For his own part, Mr. Hawes had been led to rely on the speeches which Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham delivered in the former debate— Such was the effect of those speeches, that Mr. Somas, the late Governor of the New Zealand Company, crossed the House to him and asked him whether it was expedient to divide. He replied, that they ought to consider of it carefully; but the opinion prevailing that they ought not to avoid a division, it was taken ac- .m-dingly. Subsequently, in his letter to Lord Ingests, Sir Robert Peel said.- "As I have entire confidence in the desire of Lord Stanley to promote the welfare of the Company, so far as he can do it consistently with his own sense of public duty and with public engagements entered into with the sanction of the Crown, I must decline mterference with the discretion of Lord Stanley, in matters the im- mediate consideration of which properly belongs to the department over which he presides." That was an express declaration that the right honourable Baronet abided by the policy of Lord Stanley: yet he put it to every man whether the speech delivered by the right honourable Baronet in that House was in fall con earrence with the policy of Lord Stanley. He could not believe that it had been spoken for the purpose ofaverting an unfortunate division. The right honourable Baronet said that he wished to act in perfect harmony with the New Zealand

Company: but no one, looking to what had passed could imagine that such a de- sire existed upon the part of the Colonial Me. Ile would say, rather, that the policy of that office had been to put down the New Zealand Company: and he was supported in this belief by a reference to the public papers, from which it appeared that Governor Fitzroy had openly expressed his expectation of hearing by the next mail that that Company was in a state of bankruptcy.

Sir ROBERT PEEL commenced his speech with expressing deep regret that any reflection had been cast upon the Under-Secretary of the Colonies, Mr. Stephen— "Ample testimony has been borne to his merits by an honourable gentleman who is perfectly capable of appreciating those merits, having served in the same department which Mr. Stephen now holds. Mr. Stephen has the honour of being closely connected by birth with two men who have left each a name which will

i

long be memorable n the annals of this country. He is the son of Mr. Stephen, and the nephew of Mr. Wilberforce-' and yet that illustrious connexion, it would

seem, operates not as an advantage but a prejudice to their relative. I have little personal connexion with Mr. Stephen, but I do believe that there never occu- pied a station in a public office a man of higher integrity, of more disinterested views, of greater labour, of more profound knowledge, of more distinguished ac- suirements than Mr. Stephen. I believe the allegation with respect to the pre- judice of Mr. Stephen to be totally unfounded. I believe him to be wholly free from any bias of opinion by reason of any connexion with other persons; I do

not believe that he has any peculiar connexion with the Missionary body; and even if he had, I have such confidence in his highmindedness and integrity, that it

would not have any influence on his conduct in the discharge of his official duties. I believe that this country knows little of the real merits of Mr. Stephen but that the time will come when the country will be sensible of the distinguished labours of that gentleman. I know that Mr. Stephen feels most severely these imputations; and he has expressed his willingness to retire from the Colonial Office: but such is the estimation entertained of him, not by the present Govern- ment only, but by all preceding Governments under whom lie has served, and by all persons with whom he has come into connexion, that the general wish is that he should not relinquish his situation, but should continue to give the country the whole benefit of his services."

Sir Robert next wished to do justice to another gentleman—Mr. Robert- son; whose gallant conduct at the Bay of Islands stood forward in honour- able contrast to that of others on the occasion: it should not long go un- rewarded by the promotion to which it entitled him. Sir Robert passed on to the motion. He did not deny Mr. Buller's con- stitutional right to bring it forward; but he thought that prudential con- siderations should have prevented it. At all events, it should not now be said that the Minister was seeking a majority by holding out delusive hopes. He was about to make no new explanations, to make no recrimi- natory charges, but to justify Lord Stanley and himself. He should still bear in mind that the New Zealand Company continues a useful agent in the affairs of that colony, and that it is desirable for the public interests

that a good understanding should exist between the Government and the Company. His letter to Lord Ingestre showed that; and if he was ex- pected to explain away a difference between that letter and former ex- pressions, such explanation he was not prepared to give. He adhered to that letter—

"I will not supersede my noble friend in conducting the affairs of the Colonial department. With the opinions of my noble friend I concur. I believe my noble friend to be influenced by a sincere desire to promote the welfare of the New Zealand Company, so far as he can do it consistently with his own sense of public duty, and with public engagements entered into with the sanction of the Crown. These are the opinions I expressed in that letter, and these are the opinions I maintain." They had now nothing to do with any controversy between the Go- vernment and the Company. "I should think it perfectly unworthy of any Go-

vernment, having the welfare of a great colony at stake, to allow itself to enter into any controversy with any body. of men as to matters that have entirely gone by, or to indulge in feelings of recrimination. I address myself entirely and ex- clusively to the future."

Sir Robert went on to contend, as Mr. Under-Secretary Hope had done that there was perfect accordance between his own speech and Lord Stanley's subsequent conduct: that a congenial spirit was discerned in Lord Stanley's reception of the deputation; in his reading to them his despatches to Captain Grey; in the appointment of Captain Grey—a per- fectly disinterested act; and in the terms of the despatch where he enjoins on Captain Grey "amicable cooperation with Colonel Wakefield." He entered more into detail as to what had passed respecting municipal in- stitutions. He had recommended municipal institutions, with extensive

power of local taxation, for local purposes, as the germ of a future repre- sentative system, though representative institutions would not be practi- cable in the present condition of the colony: Lord Stanley used precisely similar terms in his despatch; saying that he left "the more general powers of legislation vested in the Council as at present constituted "; but Lord Stanley added—

"On those bodies I think you will find it advisable to throw, as far as possible, the burden of so much of the expenditure of your government as can fairly be considered to be of a local character; thus endeavouring to obviate objections which might be raised to the disproportion between the taxation of any particular locality and the benefit derived to it in the expenditure of the public revenue."

Lord Stanley inserted that because the inhabitants of the distant settle- ments had said that they were unduly taxed for expenditure at Auckland. You must set some limit somewhere: you would not wish to have separate bodies with supreme powers—with so many separate customhouse regula- tions and laws. By a local law, these municipal bodies are to be elected by every male inhabitant who has attained the age of twenty-one—

"I do not mean to adhere strictly to the instructions of the noble Lord, but to have them so far carried out as may make the municipal the basis of the repre- sentative system; and that is a subject which must be brought under considera- tion. But in the present state of affairs, it is utterly impossible to send out any precise instructions."

Sir Robert adhered to the assurance that the treaty of Waitangi must be maintained. Government would not guarantee to the Company certain amounts of land without reference to the rights of the Natives. (Opposi- tion cries of" No, no! ") If; then, it were meant merely that the Govern- ment should do its best to put the Company in possession of the land at the earliest period possible by legitimate means, there was no difference between them. That Government would do-' but they would not dispos- sess the aboriginal inhabitants by the sword. [Mr. HAWES--" No one ever asked you to do so."] What, then is the point at issue? He ad- mitted the right of the Company, with this reserve—that they should not violate existing engagements nor infringe on the rights of private property. I think you [the Opposition] ought to have rested your c'aim to the land on the ground of sovereignty; you ought not to have taken it by ces- Sion from the Natives. I think that your act-ng on the Aborien d Report Of 1886 has occasioned all the difficulty; and that you are now trying to

make us responsible for your acts." And Sir Robert proceeded to com- ment on the impolicy of Lord Normanby's instructions to Captain Hobson, in 1839, acknowledging New Zealand " as a sovereign independent state.* But, however unwise such pledges might be, they must be maintained, on grounds of policy as well as good faith. Sir Robert feared that he had said nothing to give satisfaction to Mr. Buller; but he repeated his decla- ration, that he could not supersede in the discharge of his proper functions a Minister who " executes his duty with almost unexampled ability, and with the sincerest desire to promote the interests of every colony committed to his care."

Mr. Rosvnucir said a few words in explanation. He had received a let- ter from Mr. Stephen, complaining that he had been misrepresented by Mr. Roebuck, as exercising paramount influence at the Colonial Office, and as being at the bidding of the Missionaries. Mr. Roebuck had not said so: he said that Mr. Stephen, from his position in the office, necessarily ac- quired great power over any person who was Secretary of State for the Colonies; and that he adopted a certain line, from an erroneous belief that the Missionary Societies were doing good. He never said that Mr. Stephen obeyed anything but the impulse of his own mind—a very powerful mind, no doubt. He should be sorry to have said anything to give pain to Mr. Stephen.

Lord JORN RUSSELL also began with a testimony to Mr. Stephen'spower- ful talents, various acquirements, and long experience in Colonial affairs— A person with such qualifications must naturally be consulted by the Prin- cipal Secretary, if he has any sense or fitness for the office to which he is ap- pointed. Whether the views and opinions of Mr. Stephen were to have more or less influence, must depend on the views which the Secretary of State for the Co- lonies entertains. "All I can say is, that I always found, that while Mr. Stephen was ready to give any information as to the facts' and as to past regulations of former Secretaries, he was always most unwilling, unless asked to do so, to give his opinion as to what should be the general course of Government on any sub- ject." Lord John added, that he always weighed Mr. Stephen's opinion, and adopted a different conclusion if necessary. "I should say further, as offending a proof of my opinion of the value of Mr. Stephen's services, that when he inti- mated his wish to retire fron the Colonial Office, and to be placed in some other situation under the Crown, I mentioned it to my noble friend Lord Melbourne, and induced him to concur with me in persuading Mr. Stephen to remain at the Co- lonial Office, on the ground that the public service would seriously suffer by his retirement."

Turning to the general subject, Lord John remarked that the questir' had been treated too much, and especially by the Attorney-General, as one between the Secretary of State and the New Zealand Company. So far from blaming Mr. Buller for bringing it forward a second time, he regretted that he himself had not brought it forward earlier in the session: but he had wished to avoid by adverse debates drawing adverse arguments from Ministers. He fixed great blame on Lord Stanley, because Lord Stanley had appointed and upheld Captain Fitzroy. To illustrate the folly of the Governor's conduct, he mentioned a letter in which Captain Fitzroy addressed the chief who now destroyed one of our settlements as "Friend Heki Poki," and told him that certain regulations did not please the "greedy Europeans," who wanted to get all the best lands. Thus excited against "Europeans" generally, what could a barbarous chief think, but that he had nothing to do except to force the whole sovereignty from a timid and incapable Governor? The recall of Captain Fitzroy did not relieve Ministers from responsibility, unless it could be shown that they had changed the policy which led to such disasters. On that head, Sir Robert Peel's speech this night was much less satisfactory than his former speech- " The right honourable gentleman now tells us that he is speaking with the full concurrence and authority of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; whereas I conceived that when he was speaking on the last occasion he was giving the re- sult of his own reflections in the course of the debate; and his opinion was then a much better and sounder one than any which he was likely to form after con- sultation with the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Most unfortunately, that Secretary has been engaged during three or four years in a controversy with the New Zealand Company; and that controversy having tinged all his views, he cannot understand anything with regard to this question which does not show that he is in the right and that the Company are in the wrong."

Municipal institutions are now recommended, as if it were a new dis- covery : Lord John himself recommended them in 1840, as a means of training the people in the exercise of free institutions: what has been done in the intermediate five years to advance that training? What has Lord Stanley done, from September 1841 to July 1845, but cause everything to retrograde? Lord John insisted that the local institutions would not be complete without representation; and that the present would be the pro- perest time to establish representation, as it would restore the popular confidence in Government, which has been so shaken by the weakness of the Legislative CounciL That is not a question of the Company, but a demand which the twelve thousand settlers have a right to make. Go- vernment, however, are only prepared to promise representative institu- tions, not to give them. Lord John went on to discuss the treaty of Wai- tangi; insisting that Lord Stanley's interpretation was wrong, and based upon a principle quite unprecedented in dealing with territory inhabited by savage tribes. He showed bow, by destroying confidence in Govern- ment and in the titles to land, it would prevent emigration to New Zea- land. He regretted the way in which the question had been made one of party politics- " If it were a question solely as to New Zealand, and the House were to act upon its own unbiassed opinion, reflecting the unbiassed opinion of people out of - doors, to whatever party they may belong, this House would say that the policy that has been pu.sued has been erroneous and must be altered. That would be the decision of- the House. But when we come to the question of political parties,. and the right honourable gentleman says, I identify myself with the Secretary of State, and you call upon this House to censure the Secretary of State,' why,. no doubt, New Zealand will be sacrificed, and party interest will be triumphant. Butthere will come a time when you will be obliged to change your policy. Whiz regard to matters nearer home, you have been obliged to change your policy. I remember when the noble Lord who has given these instructions brought in a bill intended for the government of one part of the United Empire, which destroyed the elective franchise there—which would have placed the people of the whole of that part of the United Empire at the mercy of a small body of landlords, and which he declared to be the great measure of hinna,lf and his party did you persevere in that policy? No: when the right honourable gentleman came into office, he declared that measure was unjust—that he would not consent to the injustice of that very measure for which he himself had voted, and which he had supported. New Zealand, in spite of the taunts thrown out against Members of this House who belong to the Corn y connected with that colony, has no such clainft as are wafted'across the C nel from the multitudes that have assembled in another part of the United Kingdom. But there will come a time I believe when the right honourable gentleman, acting on the conviction of his own mind, and on

• Willing to sacrifice the rising colony of New Zealand to pride, pique, and obsti- nacy, will then say, 'I will not be a party to this injustice: New Zealand must be governed according to the principles of common sense, which have made all other colonies and other establishments under this Crown prosperous.' In that thne we may expect better things; but in the mean time rott do expose this colony to the greatest risks. If you agree tonight that nothing farther shall be done with regard to it, you do impose on the independent Members of this House The necessity of bringing this question again and again before the House, until a better system of government is established." The House divided; and Mr. Buller's resolution was negatived, by 155 . to 89; majority, 66.

COERCION or BRAZIL.

In the House of Commons, on Thursday, Sir ROBERT PEEL having moved the Committee on the Slave-trade (Brazil) Bill, Mr. Mitaexa GIB- BON opposed the measure, as a penal act against a friendly power. He ad- mitted, that if Brazil will not observe the treaties, some means should be taken to compel her; but it should be remembered that the Brazilian Go- vernment can no more do as they please on this particular question than Sir Robert Peel could do in reference to the Corn-laws, or any other ques- lin on which a powerful interest might be banded against him. In 1841, 'Brazil made a distinct proposal to put clown the slave-trade; the negotia- tions were broken off in 1842, because it was understood that this country . contemplated a hostile commercial policy—to place the produce of Brazil under a ban of exclusion; Mr. Ellis was sent out on a special mission, but his instructions had not been produced. Now they were an essential ele- ment in the information required by the House to form a correct opinion as to the propriety of this measure. Mr. Gibson deprecated the equivocal conduct of this country, in excelling vessels so as to imply disregard of the independence of Brazil, and in conveying slaves from vessels captured on the coast of Brazil to the West Indies, as if to supply the deficiency of labour there. Brazil is determined to put a discriminating duty on our manufactures; she may withhold a treaty to secure British subjects and property in Brazil; and all this is done to carry out the views of a small section of the Anti-Slavery party. Sir ROBERT PEEL explained the necessity for the bill. Brazil having discontinued the treaty establishing the Mixed Commission Courts, this country is obliged to fall back upon a previous convention, of 1826, de- claring the slave-trade piracy; and the bill is required to restore the juris- diction of the Admiralty Courts, which had been suspended in such cases during the operation of the other treaty. For testimony that the British Government have neglected no effort to procure the voluntary concert and Cooperation of Brazil, Sir Robert Peel referred to the official correspondence Which had been laid before the House. And he reminded the House that it had frequently called upon the Crown to enforce the law against the slave-trade, promising legislative assistance. As negotiations for a corn- lnercial treaty with Brazil are still pending, it would not improve their chances of success to produce Mr. Ellis's instructions.

Mr. HUTT opposed the measure; which would only drive the slave-trade into other channels. The whole policy of Government on that subject was founded on wrong principles. Lord PALMERSTON supported the bill, on grounds similar to those ad- vanced by Sir Robert Peel: but he agreed with Mr. Hutt in thinking that it would be inefficacious; since the abandonment of the mutual right of search with France, and the nonexistence of that right with the United States, would enable the Uncle to resort to the flag of those countries. He then diverged into complaints against the French treaty with Mus- cat, which permitted the hiring of slaves at Zanzibar, to be employed in the island of Bourbon: there they would work among slaves, from whom they would be undistinguishable. He also complained of the neglect to procure liberation for the Emancipados in Cuba, and for certain British Negroes in Surinam; who being illegally conveyed to that country from the West Indies, were forfeit to the British Government, and therefore free.

Sir THOMAS WusnE afterwards said, that as these Negroes were not claimed in transigts, or before their Dutch owners completed their legal right, the British Crown had absolutely lost all title to them.

The -House went into Committee; and the opposition was renewed on the several clauses. The most notable point was raised on clause 2, by Sir THOMAS WILDE; who said, that as slave-trading is not piracy by any law of Brazil, this country cannot punish it as such in Brazilian subjects, whose own law does not declare it punishable. Sir ROBERT PEEL argued, that the clause applied to property, not to persons; and as the convention with Brazil aipulated that slave-trading should be treated as piracy, this country is justified in treating it as such. However, he promised that the clause should have further consideration. The several provisions of the bill were agreed to, and the House resumed.

• ACADEMICAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

• In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord STANLEY moved the second reading of the Colleges (Ireland) Bill, in a speech of moderate length: netting forth the principal reasons for the measure, of the broader kind, advanced in the House of Commons, and scarcely glancing at the details. He pointed out how the middle class of Ireland is unprovided with academical education, and how the want ought to be supplied; how the Legislature had to deal with a Roman Catholic population, and how im- possible it would be to establish religions tests without creating a sectarian style of education. He declared that the Government were determined not to unprotestantize Trinity College Dublin. He advocated a mixed education, as calculated to mitigate the asperities of religious dissension; and asserted the determination of Government to educate all classes in Ireland upon a system of perfect equality. He stated, in very general terms, the reason why no professors of theology had been directly provided for, since they could not have been provided for one class without pro- viding them for all; while facilities have been afforded for the endowment of such professorships by the spontaneous exercise of private means. He avowed his belief that the rejection of the measure would be attended by the most disastrous consequences in Ireland; while he looked to the passing of it to produce advantages to that country of the most inesti- mable kind.

The Earl of SHREWSBURY reiterated Sir Robert Inglis's saying that the bill was "a gigantic scheme of godless education "; the Government having been overawed by the fanatic feeling of the English people. He altered into a defence of the Roman Catholic religion, against an attack made upon it as idolatrous, in a sermon by the Reverend M. Alford, M.A. a Rugby on the 18th May last. He urged Ministers to withdraw the bill for a season, and reintroduce it in a shape better suited to the wants and wishes of Ireland. Lord Bitestroaaw, disclaiming the ever having attacked the Roman Ca- tholic religion, expressed his disbelief in its truth and his distrust of its moral and political tendencies. He warmly advocated the measure as most wise and liberal, because it established Colleges without religious tests; a principle perhaps even more strictly applicable to Ireland than to England, though it has also been tested by the success of the London University. He denied that it excluded religion because it provided only scientific and classic instruction: could not religion be taught to the youths by their parents or by pastors of their own persuasion? Those indeed who call it a godless" system of education mean that it is a pries:less system- He did not like it the less because it had a tendency to bring about the endow- ment of the Roman Catholic Church. As to the assertion that the Roman Catholic clergy would reject an endowment—" Credat Judeus." It has been said of them, " Ut malignos cessare faciam, otioaos madam "; a maxim to apply which to the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland none ever made greater sacrifices than that illustrious man who has just paid the debt of nature, Earl Grey. The Earl of CARNARYOR attributed no improper motives to Government ; but protested against the divorce of religion from education; and feared that such a precedent might be applied to Oxford and Cambridge. • The Marquis of LANSDOWNE defended the bill; but took exception to tie appointment of Professors by the Crown, and to the omission of establishing a central University, not in Dublin: it need not be a College in itself, but might represent the three Colleges, and possess the faculty of granting de- he bill Was also supported by Lord CLIF ' EORD Lord BEAUMONT, and the Bishop of NoRwien; opposed by the Duke of NEWCASTLE.

The second reading was affirmed without a division.

On going into Committee, on Tuesday, Lord STANLEY replied to Lord Lansdowne's suggestion that a central University should be established— He admitted that the grant of the power to confer degrees seemed a natural complement of the measure. Ministers were of opinion that it would be incen • plete without it: but the question requited more consideration than it would now be possible to afford to it. Perhaps the most satisfactory course, on some accounts, would be to affiliate the new Colleges with Trinity College Dublin: but their Lord- ships would be aware that there were difficulties in the way of such an arrange- ment. Then came the question, whether the new Colleges ought not to be asso- ciated as a separate University, the general meeting to be held either at a distinct place or alternately at one of the Colleges. It would obviously be highly. desirable, upon this and other points, that the opinions and wishes of the governingbodies should be ascertained; and for this and other reasons delay seemed not- inexpe-

dient. Ministers had this object distinctly in view; • and, as he had stated is, without the attainment of it the measure before the House would be inperFect.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE suggested, that the formation of London University out of University and King's Colleges would form a useful pre- eedent. Alter some few desultory remarks, the bill pawed through the

Committee. OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT.

On Monday, Mr. Hawes asked What steps had been taken in pursuance of the report from the Select Committee on the South-eastern Railway Company's petition?

Sir ROBERT PEEL stated, that shortly after the presentation of the re- port, Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero had signified to him their wish to

tender their resignation of their several offices; and it had been his painful duty to advise her Majesty to accept their resignation. With respect to Mr. Wray, Sir James Graham had addressed a communication to that gentleman, declaring that his conduct in 1836 was deserving of " serious animadversion," and directed him to confine himself exclusively to tile proper functions of his department. And with respect to Mr. Ifignett, the Master-General of the Ordnance had dismissed him from his situation as Solicitor to that Board.

Captain BOLDER° begged the attention of the House while he made a statement. He observed that the Select Committee had entirely acquitted

him and Mr. Bonham of the charges implied in Mr. Ilignett's letter, de- claring that those passages of the letter were false. Nevertheless, he heal been deeply wounded by a paragraph in the report, which alluded to his purchase of shares, and said that the progress of the North Kent Rail- way Bill depended on the -consent of the Board of Ordnance. His pur- chase of the shares was not at all influenced by his position at the Board; and had the Committee expressed dissatisfaction at his answers he could

have given a further explanation. He had disposed of his forty shares, thinking that he might have to explain some conduct a the Master-

General, who was not a .Member of that House • but the power to give a negative or affirmative to any project of the kind lies entirely with the Master-General; the duties of the other members of the Board being

merely ministerial. Mr. Bonham and he had resigned solely on account of the impaired degree of usefulness to the public service which might arise from the temporary impression made by recent proceedings; having a clear conviction of the utter groundlessness of any imputation thrown upon his character, either in his private or his public capacity. Mr. HAWES asked whether TMr. Wray still retained his place? Sir JAMES Gasasat said that he did; the expression of "serious ani- madversion" appearing to be sufficient punishment for what had occurred

so long ago. It ought to be stated, that in 1836 Mr. Wmy was free to employ himself in other matters besides those of Police; but his duties end salary have since been increased. •

Mr. Wean made some further explanation, with respect to the discredit able extent to which the practice of canvassing Members of Parliament went at the time in question [about 18363 by parties interested in rail way bills— With regard to the transfer of shares, there could be no doubt Buell a procead

lug was inexcusable; but, as he had said with respect to canvassing Members, it prevailed at that time to an extent which was not now the case. Hi e had, intact, come down himself to vote, at the solicitation of parties who had induced him to come down by assuring him that twenty-six Members had been brought down by the Duke of Buckingham. There was one part of the evidence in which Mr. Wray

had misrepresented himself. He made himself appear as acting as umpire in the case, while he was at the same time the. agent of the Smith-eastern Company. He thought there must have been some mistake, and he questioned Mr. Wray on the subject. Mr. Wray told him, that he was employed by the South-eastern Company as their agent, and it was in that capacity he acted. In the course of some further discussion, Lord Joust RUSSELL insisted that Mr. Wray was equally culpable with Mr. Bonham, and that his punishment should have been equal. Colonel SIBTITORP declared that more hepourable men did not exist than Captain Boldero, Mr. Bonham, and Mr. Wray; and he meant to call upon the House to investigate the conduct of all its Members. .Mr. FITesTsegew Fcu said, there had been other delinquencies, Stetter than any which had been mentioned yet— Could the House for a moment conceive the person who had been selected in this' or the other House of Parliament as a judge, placing himself in secret com- munication with the agent of one of the parties, receiving and acting upon the information he acquired in this manner from the individual who had been selected In get up the opposition to the case which he had been appointed to try—brow- 'beating every witness brought up by those who were defending themselves; having 'the in ecency in a railroad case to demand, "were their shares at a premium? and being answered in the affirmative, declaring that "he would have them apcesilly at a discount!" and ultimately suppressing the evidence which disproved The case he was anxious to establish? Would not the case be worse if this indivi- dual had occupied a high legal station? Perhaps you will tell me that conduct such as this can only be accounted for by the individual being fitter for being placed as an inmate in a large establishment at the ether side of the water than for occupying a seat in either House of Parliament. Conceive a company placing before him everydocument in their possession in reference to the case—the minute- book of all their proceedings, their banker's accounts, showing all their money transactions, and into which they courted an investigation, tendering their chair man for examination, whom he refused to call, but behind his back basely attempt- ed to calumniate, asking "had he ever been a candidate for a lucrative employment 'la a rival railway?" Possibly such a question should be regarded with contempt, .as coming from one who had shown himself incapable of either thinking, acting, or speaking as a gentleman: but as be (Mr. French) was the person about whom that question was put, and feeling that, was there the slightest foundation for that base and dastardly insinuation, he should be unworthy of a place amongst them, he had deemed it his duty to call attention to the fact. l'he individual about whose conduct he had spoken (and he was prepared to establish every state- ment he had made) was Lord Brougham and Vane; and the case was the Dublin aud Galway Railway.

Here the conversation dropped.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE AND LIBEL.

• In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, Lord BROUGHAM drew attention to what was not only a breach of the necessary privileges of the House, but was also a gross libel on the other House of Parliament—the attack on himself, attributed in the report of the Times newspaper to Mr. Fitz- stapben French. Tile made a statement, which we abridge. Some weeks ago, the House of Commons adopted the report of a Select Com- mittee declaring that the Dublin and Galway Railway Company had committed almost innumerable violations of the Standing Orders: on a subsequent day, Mr. French moved that the resolution for adopting the report be rescinded, which was done; but Lord Brougham then gave the parties a humane, considerate, and

erous warning, that if the Standing Orders of the House of Lords proved to have 'been violated, no majority of the House would be found to rescind the vote of its Select Committee. In consequence of that notice, Mr. Fitzstephen French waited

n him; in complimentary, exaggerated, and somewhat fanciful terms, described e power which Lord Brougham was likely to have in the matter; and threw 'himself upon his protection, or as he called it mercy. Lord Brougham found that Mr. French was a Director of the Company; that all the Directors qualified by holding shares; and not only so, but that they bought some five hundred shares each, and then sold all but the twenty necessary for their qualification,— one gallant General thus making 7001. or 8001. Lord Brougham, in passing, -contrasted the _patriotic motives arrogated by these dealers in shares with the Pharisaical panty affected in censuring Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero. He eleclined to hold any communication with Mr. French, except in an official and .blic way. A petition was presented to the House of Lords, from Mr. Pym, a

ker, stating that the Company had made out a share-list by allotting shares to paupers, and inventing names purely fictitious; and the petition was referred to a Select Committee. As a member of that Committee, Lord Brougham com- municated with two,—with a Mr. Croacher, of whom he knew nothing, and who gave him a rtrtse7vhich he never read; and Mr. Smith, the Parliament-

agent for the petition, who gave him some papers, which he handed to the n of the Committee, the Earl of Besborough. In the course of the in

kry, the name of Mr. Fitzstephen French occurred. Lord Brougham here read .'French's remarks. [The reader will find them under the head of "Official Misconduct."] Taking theist sentence by sentence, he showed that they were false. He was not a judge, but member of a Committee appointed to inquire and report to the House, the sole judge. He had no secret communication with anybody. Their Lordships would know that evidence could not be suppressed be- fore a Committee. He sharply examined one or two witnesses who were fencing with The questions, but he browbeat none. Mr. Joseph Parkes, well known as an attorney about the Houses of Parliament, was produced as a witness to show that the 'Company had done no more than all other railway companies had done: but Mr. eylan, Secretary to the London and York Railway Company, was called, and proved a perfect contrast in their proceedings. The York Company inquired Into the circumstances of all their shareholders: the Galway Company corn- prised one hundred-and-eleven shareholders, and out of twenty-nine cases -inquired into by the Committee, fourteen proved to be false, fictitious, and totally -unknown at the places to which they referred, or paupers. The question to Mr. Parkes, whether he had ever been candidate for a lucrative situation in a rival -railway company, at which Mr. French was so angry, implied no slander, and was really set down among questions suggested by the petitioner. Lord Brougham had read the statement attributed to Mr. French from a newspaper: it was re- markable that another paper, which he had seen, said that the Member spoke so low as to be quite inaudible in the gallery; and it would be well for some persons to remember, that though a speech uttered in Parliament, Members had no pro- tection in printing their speeches: Mr. Creevy was convicted on an indictment Tor printing a speech, though he did so optima fide in self-defence; and there is no protection to a newspaper for printing a libel because it has been spoken in Parliament But Lord Brougham disbelieved the statement that this had been 'spoken in the House of Commons—a body tremblingly alive to any breach of privilege. Gracious God ! could he, with those feelings, for one instant believe it possible that such ribaldry as he had read to their Lordships was suffered to be spoken in that House, against a Peer of Parliament acting upon a select and -secret Committee, and that not one word of reprobation, of censure, of reprimand was uttered? Did the House of Commons hear those words? could they have -beard them? could they have heard any man, however much lie was to be pitied for the fury into which his passions had hurried him—whether they were sordid passions arising from disappointment of expected gains, or whether it was passion arising from a less reprehensible and despicable motive—without pro- tecting their Lordships, and the Members of their secret Committees, from the foul abuse which was represented to have been thus uttered in their presence? Se left the matter in the hands of the House.

The Earl of BESBOROUGH corroborated Lord Brougham's account of what passed in the Committee; and bore testimony to the perfect fairness with which the inquiry was conducted.

The Earl of Wicseow agreed that a gross breach of privilege had been -committed; and suggested that the printer and reporter of the Times should be summoned to the bar of the House, to know whenoe they derived their report. The Duke of WELLINGTON suggested delay; and the further coneidera tion of .he matter was adjourned till Thursday.

In the House Of CORRI1011S, on Wednesday, Mr. FITZSTEPHEA Fittaller gave some explanation— He stated that every word of the speech reported in the Times had been uttered by him; appealing for confirmation to Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Lori John Russell, and other Members within hearing. He admitted that he could not wield his weapons with so much dexterity as Lord Brougham; and it would neither be consonant to his feeling, nor consistent with his position in that House to carry on a war of abusive words. He had for many years taken an interest in the construction of railways in Ireland: the Irish Great Western Railway [Dub- lin and Galway] was projected by himself and the late Marquis of Downshine; and not being in any way connected with stockbrokers or stockjobbers, it met with great hostility from that class, as well as from a rival Company. Nevertheless, there were applications for shares to the extent of 3,000,0001: No shares were

'yen to persons in Ireland, because it had been found, in the case of the Drogheda Railway, that parties who took shares when they were at a large premium after- wards refused to pay up; and accordingly all applications were transmitted to the Board of Directors here. There had not been the negligence which bad been im- puted to the Directors. The most respectable share-brokers were appointed in London, Edinburgh, and other towns; and no shares were allotted to any indivi- dual not approved of by the share-broker in the place. A Provisional Committee was appointed; scrutiny was had; and the result was, that applications for shares to the extent of 2,000,000/, were rejected as bad. At that time, advertisements were sent to the papers stating that the Company was about to be dissolved: the consequence was that the shareholders would not pay, and the money re- quired by the Standing Orders was not to be had. Several persons therefore came forward and took up the forfeited shares. Not one was reserved for the directors. He himself had but forty; he never had more, and those be still possessed. He could not lose more than 301. by them. He was net aware that he was so very complimentary when he called on Lord Brougham; and his object was merely to induce Lord Broushatn to withhold his oppo- sition until a noble friend should be in his Piece to answer objections. He acknowledged that he felt particularly hurt and irritated at what passed in Committee; but as it appeared the questions were not invented by Lord Brougham, but were written by a Quaker, a stockbroker at Dublin, and as he spoke of an in- dividual under mistaken feelings, he had no hesitation in withdrawing all the ex- pressions which he had used in regard to that individual; and he would further say, as every man of proper feeling would say, that he regretted having used an expression which was painful to that individual, or to any other person.

Mr. Gorr-miens took occasion to caution Members, anxious to preserve the privileges of their own House, to observe the rule of the House against commenting on the acts of individuals in the other House, whether in their legislative or judicial capacity.

Mr. BICKHAM ESCOTT observed, that he was in his place when Mr. French addressed the House, and he did not hear one word of what he said Here the matter dropped.

On Thursday, Lord Bitonenast made his counter-explanation. As "the individual" [Mr. French] had declared that what he was represented to have said was uttered under a total misapprehension of the facts, and that he was sorry for having given pain, Lord Brougham thought that their Lordships ought to proceed no further in the matter. Had he taken any _steps at law, he should have had to proceed against the Morning Chronicle as well as the Times; since that paper had printed the pretended speech, verbatim, in the same words. Replying to the editor of one of the papers which published the libel, who said that Lord Brougham was a judge in the case of the railway and yet had prejudged it, he stated that he was not a member of the Committee on the bill, but only of that to inquire into the frauds. He closed with some warning to Members of both Houses, not to meddle in railway jobbing.

Before Lord Brougham's explanation, Earl Barmertar stated that he was directed by the Committee on the Dublin and Galway Railway Bill to re- port, -that the Committee on this bill had considered the evidence on the petition of Mr. Pyin : they were of opinion that the most systematic fraud had been used for the purpose of obtaining the requisite number of signatures: unauthorized names and false addresses had been inserted in the contract; letters had been sent down to the country to be returned by postmasters as applications for shares; and two sums of 1501. and 500f. had been offered to be paid if the bill should pass through that House. The Committee awaited further directions. The Earl of 13zsacatotraff said, that on the following day he should move that the bill be no further pro- ceeded with.

THE ROYAL ASSENT was given, by Commission, on Monday, to ninety-three public and private bills. Among them were, Sir Henry Pottinger's Annuity Bill, the Oaths Dispensation Bill, Public Museums of Art Bill, Banking (Ireland) Bill, Banking (Scotland) Bill, Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill, Arrest- men of Wages (Scotland) Bill, and the Dog Stealing Bill.

CHEESE AND BUTTER. On Tuesday, Mr. EWART moved for a Committee of the Howie of Commons on the duties on butter and cheese; arguing that the re- duction of the duties would benefit the revenue by increasing the consumption, would benefit trade with Holland and America, and the poor consumer. Mr. GGUL- BURN said, that lest year the duties produced 347,000/.; this year the financial arrangements are made; that sum could not be spared; and it would be against all precedent to announce what duties should be repealed next year. Sir ROBERT PEEL followed up this plea. Mr. PHILIP HOWARD, Mr. NEWDEGATE, and Mr. TAT- TON EGERTON, demanded continued protection for the cheeses of Warwickshire and Cheshire. Mr. COBDEN pointed to this as an instance of the way in which by "protection" a few counties leek the pockets of all the rest: there are but six or eight cheese counties, and all the rest have to pay the enhanced price. The other supporters of the motion were, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. HUME, Dr. Bow- RING, and Mr. MOIIGAN JOHN OVONNELL. On a division, it was negatived by 136 to 38.

LAW-FEES. On Tuesday, Mr. BICKHAM Escorr moved the second reading of the Fees (Criminal Courts) Bill; which is intended to abolish fees before prisoners are called on to plead, and fees on acquittal. Sir FREDERICK THESIGER thought that Mr. Eseott was attempting to go too far in abolishing all fees--such, for instance, as the prisoner pays when he traverses for his own convenience. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, however, saw no objection to the second reading; mid the motion was affirmed by 40 to 6. On Thursday, Mr. Escorr withdrew the bill; Sir JAMES GRAHAM promising at once to introduce another of a similar nature.

PREVENTION OF SMOKE. Mr. MACKINNON having moved the report on his Smoke Prohibition Bill, on Wednesday, several Members opposed it; objecting to the number of exemptions in it, and insisting that if there were 80 many there ought to be more' so that the bill would, after all, have been quite inoperative. Mr. Wsiu.ar divided the House against the whole bill. Lord Joint RUSSELL sug- gested that further inquiries should be made. Sir JAIfE8 Gnaneat promised that scientific inquiries should be made during the recess, and the result incor- porated in a more comprehensive measure. bin MACKINNON yielded, and the original motion was negatived without a division.

THE HEALTH OF Towles Brie. was introduced to the House of Commons an Thursday, by the Earl of Li:Nem-sr, to be printed and considered during the re- cess; the lateness of the session forbidding any progress with it now.

MILITARY DECORATION-BEGGING. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the Duke of Rionmonn presented a petition from several veteran officers who had served in the Peninsular war, complaining that an invidious distinction had been made in not bestowing on them decorations to commemorate their services, in the same way that services at Waterloo, in India, and in China, had been rewarded; and praying the House to represent their case to the Sovereign. The Duke of WELLINGTON replied, that the House could not regularly interfere in the matter, which came within the exclusive prerogative of the Sovereign. He had often been Called upon to advise the Sovereign in the bestowal of rewards for military ser- vices, but had never done so except when expressly invited. Ile enumerated a great variety of rewards which had actually been distributed among officers serving in the Peninsula—the thanks of Parliament, medals, promotions, allow- ances of pay, and seven Peerages. He explained in what the precedents cited by the petitioners differed from ordinary war. In 1814, after war for a quarter of a century, a general peace was concluded: the war seemed about to recommence, but it was finally stopped by the battle of Waterloo,—that was commemorated by a general medal. No such disaster as that which occurred in Afghanistan had -happened in India for sixty years; and as to China, the Native Indian troops had with some difficulty overcome their prejudices against embarking for a distant land; while the operations were successfully conducted in the face of singular difficulties. Lord Ellenborough thought it desirable to mark the conduct of the troops by the issue of a general medal to the armies engaged in Afghanistan and China, and the Crown gave its sanction. If a general reward were to be given for the services in the Peninsula, no other services—those in Calabria, for in- stance—or any of the naval services, could be omitted; and such general rewards would cease to be distinctions. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY also opposed the petition; which was ordered to lie on the table.