leaving him, under the circumstances of the great difficulty of in any case undoing such acts as had been done, more especially after the lapse of a year and a half, during which they had been in force, a full discretion whether to make the attempt or not;

instructions the important addition of placing at Mr. Grey's disposal that amount of military and naval force which, according to the best opinions, would be sufficient to enforce the observance of, and ensure respect to whatever laws, on full consideration, he might determine to adopt. Such, he contended, was the only practical

the only rational course to pursue. He would contrast with it the course proposed by the hon. Member for Liskeard. Of the long string of Resolutions proposed, he believed he might assume that the first, second, and fifth, relative to the Treaty of

veral important measures and their final, enactment into laws. As regarded the claims to land of the New Zealand Company also, although he believed that on this as on other questions he had done himself injustice by his silence, he appeared not to have executed the instruc-making, however, to the giving of these tions issued to him; and although he did not doubt that Captain Fitzroy believed that in doing, as he had shown he had done, all he could to obtain actual possession of land for the Company's settlers, he was substantially executing his orders he admitted that he ought, if he had been requested to make prima facie grants under Lord Stanley's instructions (of which, however, he, Mr. Hope, had no evidence), not to have refused to do so. But he could not conclude this part of the question without again bearing testimony to what he believed to be Captain Fitzroy's anxious desire to do his duty, and the cou-Waitangi, being injudicious, and calling rage with which he undertook the respon- upon the House to assert a title to all sibility of what he considered essential to waste lands, respecting only land in the the performance of it. Having touched actual occupation of the natives, were the upon the causes of Captain Fitzroy's recall, most important; and from the whole he would proceed to the course which it tenor of the hon. Member for Liskeard's was proposed to adopt in consequence. speech, it was clear that he wished the Her Majesty's Government considered that Treaty to be considered as a fiction, and at the distance of the other side of the all right of the natives, except as allowed globe, when a year must intervene between by that Resolution, to be disregarded; and each question and the answer to it, and he professed to urge the adoption of these that answer might find the whole state of Resolutions simply, and as they stood, on circumstances altered, it was absurd to at- the authority of the Select Committee tempt to prescribe the details to be adopted which sat last year on New Zealand. But, that the only course was to choose a was he justified in doing so? Although person of known ability, discretion, and the Committee stated in these Resolutions experience; to point out to him the gene- their views of the abstract right of the ral views of the Government; but to leave Crown, did they advise their assertion? him a wide discretion as to the mode of Far from it. Though the hon. Member carrying them into execution. With this adopted the Resolutions, he omitted the view Government had selected Mr. Grey, modifications by which the Committee, in now Governor of South Australia. He their Report, accompanied and qualified had been appointed by the noble Lord op- them. He would read them to the House. posite five years ago, to execute a very In the fifth page of the Report it is said— similar service in South Australia; except, "The information which has been laid beno doubt, that the difficulties of that Co-fore us, shows that these stipulations, and the lony were not aggravated by the presence subsequent proceedings of the Governor, of a numerous, half civilized, and warlike founded upon them, have firmly established race of natives. The task he had executed, by the admission of all, in a manner most creditable to himself. The instructions with which he would proceed, he could not at present be expected to produce to the House. He would, however, state generally that they contained a disapproval of many of Captain Fitzroy's proceedings, more especially as regarded finance and land, with an expression of a wish that he might be able to retrace his steps; though

in the minds of the natives, notions which they had recently been taught to entertain, of having a proprietary title of great value to land not actually occupied."

And again, in page 9, after giving their general views, so far from pressing their immediate adoption, they state distinctly

"That they are not prepared to recommend that the Governor should be peremptorily ordered to assert the rights of the Crown as they believe them to exist."

8/20

Sir J. Graham said, that they were not brought in on the responsibility of Government. He believed that the hon. Member for Cork had the care of them. Mr. O'Connell then supposed that the Irish Judges had not been consulted; and it would better to get rid of them.

they were brought in on the responsibility refusing to comply with them, an action of Government? might be brought against him by the persons suing. Claims were often made by persons, and summonses sent in, when not one shilling was owing to them by the workmen. No course of the kind should be taken until the Court had given judgment in the matter. Then one-half of the costs of such proceedings should be paid by the pursuer, and the other half by the person pursued; and in the event of no debt being due, the workman should be compensated by the person making the false claim. He was of this opinion, because the greatest extortion was practised on workmen, who would rather pay the amount claimed than lose a day's work. The arrestment of wages in Scotland had been productive of the greatest extravagance and of the greatest demoralization, and was opposed by both the employer and the employed. There was no law of this sort in England, and why should there be in Scotland? He had brought in a Bill for the assimilation of the law of the two countries, and very much regretted that he withdrew it. He was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the Government; but would not be satisfied that the Bill should be put off from day to day, and that legislation on the subject should be postponed.

Mr. Sergeant Murphy said, that these Bills were originally introduced into the House of Lords, and had passed that House. The noble Lord from whom they originated had confided them to him; but he candidly informed the noble Lord that there existed great objections against the Bills by the members of the legal profession, when the noble Lord replied that he was not disposed to place himself in opposition to such parties. If, therefore, the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) persisted in his Motion, he (Mr. Sergeant Murphy) should not object to it.

Mr. O'Connell: I certainly shall; and I think sufficient reason has been given for my doing so by the hon. and learned Member himself.

Mr. Sergeant Murphy moved the committal of the Common Law Process (England) Bill.

Mr. O'Connell moved, as an Amendment, that it be committed that day six months.

Amendment agreed to. Bill to be committed that day six months. Also, the Common Law Process (Ireland and Scotland) Bill.

ARRESTMENT OF WAGES (SCOTLAND).] Mr. T. Duncombe moved the Second Reading of the Arrestment of Wages (Scotland) Bill.

The Lord Advocate rose to oppose the further of the Bill. He did not progress object to the 1st Clause of the Bill; but it was on the whole improperly drawn, and several clauses were imperfect. It would require very careful revision.

Mr. T. Duncombe said, that the Bill had been drawn by a Scotchman, and one supposed to be well acquainted with the legal phraseology of that country. The evil he sought to remedy was one of great importance. It was most objectionable that a person employing from two hundred to three hundred men, should be served on a Saturday night with as many summonses for the arrestment of the wages of his workmen ; and that, in the event of his

Sir James Graham said, this was a subject most difficult of adjustment, and involved a question of great nicety. It had engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, who had submitted it to the consideration of a very eminent legal authority, who at first was of opinion that the law should be abolished; but, after further consideration, it was found that there would be a great objection to the total abolition of the law. The fear was, that the sudden abolition of a system which had endured long in Scotland, would cause the workmen to be more than ever dependent on their employers, by making the latter their only creditors; and another evil result to be apprehended was, the revival of the truck system-a thing which he (Sir J. Graham) believed to be most injurious to the working classes. He had, however, no objection to permit the second reading of the Bill; and, previous to the Committee, his learned Friend the Lord Advocate would confer with the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the purpose of removing all cause of objection to its further progress.

Mr. Rutherfurd was understood to ap

prove of the course taken by the right hon. Baronet. He thought it absurd that Gentlemen who were entirely ignorant of Scotland and Scotch affairs should school Scotch Members on this subject. At the same time, he admitted that to pass the 1st Clause in the Bill would be beneficial. Captain Wemyss would not have said one word upon this Bill, but for what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. He (Captain Wemyss) was a coalowner, and paid 4007. a week to workmen, and he often had summonses sent in for 601. of that amount. The power of attaching wages had the effect of encouraging shopkeepers who gave credit to profligate workmen, to the prejudice of the families of the latter. He was most anxious for the success of the Bill.

Bill read a second time.

RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) BILL] Mr. Labouchere begged to ask how long it was proposed to defer the discussion on the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Bill?

The Lord Advocate replied, to that day week.

Mr. Labouchere saw no ground for postponement. The chief Amendment to be considered was, the Clause which had been introduced by the House of Lords to give compensation to trustees of turnpike roads in Scotland, for any loss they might sustain by reason of any railway running near their roads. If the learned Lord Advocate was opposed to this clause, then there would be no need of discussion, because the House of Commons had already rejected a clause of a similar description, when inserted in the Bill that was first introduced. It was a clause which had been engrafted upon the Government Bill by parties unconnected with the Government, and the principle contained in it was of infinitely greater consequence than the whole of the remaining parts of the Bill.

The Lord Advocate would bring on the subject the next day.

Sir R. Peel would not pledge himself to adopt it.

Sir G. Grey: If the hon. and learned Lord Advocate would state that he meant to abandon the clause, all necessity for discussion would be obviated.

Mr. Warburton said, that the circumstances connected with the progress of this Bill were so peculiar as to call on the House for interference. It was first brought in without the objectionable clause; in its progress through the House the clause was surreptitiously inserted; the irregularity was discovered, the Bill was withdrawn, it was re-introduced without the clause, and sent up to the other House. Subsequently it was returned, the clause having been again inserted by their Lordships. He hoped, therefore, that either the clause would be withdrawn altogether, or another Bill be brought in by the noble and learned Lord.

Mr. Brotherton doubted whether it was not an infringement of their privileges for the House of Lords to insert a clause which the House of Commons had previously discarded.

Lord J. Russell said, that one of two courses might have been taken-either the clause might have been introduced into the Bill in that House, when it would have been fully considered, or it might have been entirely omitted, and not been supported by the Government; but here a different course was adopted; and the clause which had been objected to in the Commons, had been re-introduced on the third reading in the House of Lords.

Mr. Rutherfurd would ask distinctly, did the Lord Advocate mean to adopt the clause or not? If he was not prepared to adopt it, then there was no reason for delay; the Amendments might be disposed of now.

Sir R. Peel was not aware that the question would come on at that moment, and therefore he had not given it that attention which he otherwise should have done. He must say, he thought the objections made by the House of Commons against the clause on a former occasion appeared to him to be reasonably grounded. He did not consider it was right to establish a rule with respect to Scotland different from what prevailed in England. And, certainly, if it were proposed to make such a rule as this clause contained applicable Mr. E. Ellice, jun., asked whether Go-to England, he should feel it to be open to vernment would state if they meant to very great objections. He had not at all adopt the clause? changed his opinion on this subject. He

Sir R. Peel said, that the only reason he had for postponing it was to give room for the adjourned debate, and thus obviate any complaint that might be made of unfair advantage being taken. He would not then pledge himself to any definite course respecting the further progress of the Bill, until he had heard the discussion.