sons for opposing this measure than hef ships must have seen enough of the Bill had just delivered, supposing their Lord- to convince them that it was absolutely ships agreed to his postponement. The necessary for the interests of the Irish fact was, this Bill was a necessary consequence of that passed last year, limiting the time of bringing these actions. The advowsons would be handed over to the claimants, if some such protection was not afforded; for it could not be expected that prelates elevated to sees often at an advanced period of life, would incur enormous expenses in defending rights by which their successors would benefit. prelates. The existing bishops might be ruined by litigation before their rights were ascertained, and the object of the measure was to provide against this evil by the mode adopted in other cases. The question was between the lay patron, who claimed the right of presentation, and the ecclesiastical patron, who enjoyed the patronage; and the ecclesiastical patron had to pay the expenses of litigation with reTheir Lordships then divided, on Ques-gard to rights in which he himself had tion, that "now" stand part of the Mo- very small interest. tion:- Contents 19; Non-contents 35: Majority 16. The Marquess of Clanricarde said, he considered it was against all precedent to press forward a measure, with the nature of which many noble Lords were wholly unacquainted. He might state that a dispute had arisen between a right rev. Prelate and himself with reference to a right of presentation; his adversary had taken the case through every court, and eventually it was brought before their Lordships; and after a lapse of nine years from the commencement of the proceedings a final decision was given, the judgment of every court having been in his (the Marquess of Clanricarde's) favour. The Earl of St. Germans thought that individual prelates ought not to be saddled with the expense of such extensive litigation as that in which they might be involved for the maintenance of their rights; and he hoped their Lordships would not consent to delay a Bill of so much importance. Lord Campbell said, this might be a very meritorious Bill, but he thought that further time ought to be allowed for its consideration. In his opinion they should be cautious to provide some check upon useless and unnecessary expenditure; for if a bishop presented without just right he was the assailant. It was proposed by the Bill, that the Judge should certify that there had been reasonable grounds for defending actions of this nature. He considered that this provision would impose an invidious duty upon the Judges; and he would suggest that the Attorney or Solicitor General for Ireland should give his opinion before the case came on for trial as to whether there was just and reasonable ground of defence. Lord Brougham said, he entertained no objection to this Bill, and he did not think the noble Marquess had any stateable grounds of objection to it. He considered that a great injustice was inflicted upon the Irish prelates by the Act of last Session, which fixed a time beyond which no action could be brought to try the title of presentation to a living. The bishops were compelled to proceed in such cases within a certain time; and consequently actions which might bave spread over a century were crowded within one or two years, and the unfortunate arch-land. bishop or bishop at present in possession of the see, was compelled at his own proper cost to defend his rights. He saw no objection to the second reading of the Bill to-night, for the noble Marquess would have ample opportunity of discussing its merits in Committee, on the Report, or on the third reading. The Earl of Wicklow said their Lordships had had as much time for considering this Bill as was usually afforded them in the case of other measures. Lord Cottenham thought their Lord The Marquess of Clanricarde recommended that the Committee on the Bill should be put off till time was afforded for consultation with the parties in Ire Lord Denman agreed with Lord Campbell, that it would be necessary to look fully into the details of the Bill. Bill read 2a. House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.-2 Commons Inclosure; Reported.-Birmingham and Gloucester Railway (Glou cester Extensions, Stoke Branch and Midland Railways' | his statements, I greatly admired) the Junction. 3o. and passed:-Manchester and Birmingham Railway Argyll's Estate; Eastern Union and Bury St. Edmund's Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway (Cumnock Branch); Glos sop Gas. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Ashley, from Clergy of Dorset, against Grant to Maynooth College.-By Mr. Spooner, from Members of Church of England Lay As sociation, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor. By Sir Robert Ferguson, from Merchants and others of Londonderry, for Alteration of Banking (Ireland Bill.-By Viscount Clements, from Joseph Boyd, for Inquiry into his Case. By Mr. J. O'Connell, from several places, against Colleges (Ireland) Bill.-By Sir H. Douglas, and Hours System in Factories.-By Captain Gordon, from Shipowners and others of Banff, for Inquiry into the Merchant Seamen's Fund.-By Mr. Bell, and Lord Worsand Mr. Spooner, from several places, for Alteration of Mr. Heneage, from several places, in favour of the Ten ley, against Parochial Settlement Bill.-By Mr. Compton, Physic and Surgery Bill.-By Mr. Sheridan, from Dorchester, in favour of Physic and Surgery Bill..-By Lord Ashley, and Lord Rendlesham, from several places, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.-From Magistrates and others of Beccles, for Alteration of Law relating to the Sale of Beer.-By Mr. Spooner, from Ma charges made against the conduct of his absent and gallant Friend Captain Fitzroy. But the gallant Captain, in the course of his speech, having made another attack on the conduct of the New Zealand Company, that was followed by another defence. Then followed the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, stating his opinion as to what ought to have been the conduct of the Government on the original formation of this Settlement. But, Sir, it will be obvious to the House that all these speeches had reference more to the past conduct of the different parties implicated, than any tendency to enlighten this House with respect to the policy hereafter intended to be pursued upon this great and important matter. I shall consume but little of the time of the House by going back again into any of the details which have been so much discussed before. But with respect to the past, I gistrates and others of Wolverhampton, in favour of think I may state that in the course of Smoke Prohibition Bill. foresight, so little system, so little com- pretty nearly forty years' experience of the Colonial Administration of this Empire, I NEW ZEALAND-ADJOURNED DEBATE have never seen a case in which there ap(THIRD NIGHT)] Mr. Edward Ellice pears to me to have been, since the com(Coventry) said: My hon. Friend the Mem-mencement of these transactions, so little ber for Guildford has been kind enough to permit me to take precedence of him in this debate. I am anxious to do so both for my own convenience, and also in order that at this stage of the discussion I may endeavour to extract from Her Majesty's Government some distinct statement as to their future policy on this subject. We have had the whole question brought be fore us by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Charles Buller) in a speech characterized by more than his usual vigour of development. He opened to the House the very complicated and difficult case on the part of the New Zealand Company. That speech was followed by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, denying the imputations cast upon the Department of which he is a member, in the course of that statement. That was followed by various speeches from hon. Gentlemen; by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, who addressed the House, in re-action with the New Zealand Company ply to certain attacks made by my hon. and further than as having received back learned Friend (Mr. Buller) upon the mis- (what I never expected) the money ad sionaries in the New Zealand Islands; vanced on the first undertaking. Beyond by the hon. and gallant Member for West- that I know nothing of its concerns or of minster, who denied (in a tone and temper its deliberations. I agree with my noble which, while disagreeing with many of Friend (Lord Howick) who addressed the House last night, in thinking that it would be impossible to concur in the Resolution of this House, approving of the first expedition of settlers to New Zealand under the protection of the New Zealand Company. I think it was wrong, both in those who sent these people to the New Zealand islands, and in the Government having permitted them to go there, to found a settlement in a savage country, without either the protection or the control of the law. But having said that, I, with my noble Friend, am equally satisfied that the New Zealand Company have rendered a great and important service to the interests of this country. Without their interposition, without their industry, and without their energy, this Colony would undoubtedly have been lost to this country. It was one of those cases in which the pressure from without has promoted the public interests, when the Government are rightly slow to determine and slow to act-because always bound to act with caution and circumspection. But there we are! The Company have sent out emigrants to New Zealand. We have done various acts relative to the government of that country; and I think it was the duty of the authorities, as soon as they had decided on recognising the settlement of those islands, to have taken measures to render that settlement as little irksome to the natives and as advantageous to the emigrants from this country as possible. But what has followed? It is impossible to describe the want of system and of foresight which has characterized the whole of these proceedings. Instead of the Government doing its utmost to reconcile these three conflicting parties in that country-for there are three parties -the New Zealand Company, the missionaries, and the natives instead of seeking to reconcile these parties, it has been throughout, as it appears to me, the policy of the Government, and of its authorities in the Colony, to set them one against the other; to array the New Zealand Company against the missionaries, and the missionaries against the Company, and the natives against both. Thus the Government has added to the confusion and complication in which the affairs of New Zealand were involved, and has done everything in its power to defeat the ends and object of this great measure of colonization. With respect to the important question of the right of property in the land of these islands, really, while listening to the discussions that have taken place on the subject, one felt a doubt whether he was sitting in an assembly of reasonable gentlemen. The various points, of what estates belonged to the chiefs, what to their savage dependants, and what to missionaries, former settlers, and these companies, purchased from them for the consideration of a little rum and tobacco, fire-arms and Jews' harps, have been gravely mooted to us. Why has not the policy adopted on all similar occasions by civilized states taking possession of new countries for the purposes of colonization and settlement-followed in every case of cession or conquest of old Colonies, in the cases of Canada, the French, Spanish, and Dutch West Indian and other Colonies been acted on in this? In all these cases, land actually in possession, and in the use and enjoyment either of aborigines or settlers, has been secured to them on the titles on which they previously possessed it, or has been confirmed to them by new titles; and the waste and vacant land has become the property of the Crown. The principle may have been applied under various qualifications and modifications necessary in each peculiar case, but it has been the univeral rule of civilized nations. Is it not, in fact, according to reason and common sense, and to every analogy, the principle implied, if not directly expressed, in this famous Treaty of Waitangi? But supposing a different construction to be placed on it by the casuists of the Colonial Office, and their fit representatives in New Zealand, they are bound to give us an explicit statement of their version of the Treaty, and as soon as possible to correct the blunders and to clear away the doubts in which their negotiators have involved it. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford has defended with his usual ability and authority the case of the missionaries, vindicating, as became his Christian feelings and character, the conduct they had pursued in these islands. I believe them to have been eminently useful in their calling, and to have acted since their first establishment among the islanders with zeal and efficiency in promotion of the doctrines of their creed. At the same time they ought to have kept clear of the imputations on their disinterestedness, and abstinence from mere worldly considerations, which have been cast upon them in this debate, and the transactions with the | What was ceded to the Crown with the natives which have involved them in dis- sovereignty of these islands? My noble putes relative to claims and titles to land. Friend the Member for the city of LonBut, in dealing with this case, the obvious don has rightly construed the Sovereignty policy would have been to have made such to include, as in all other cases, land not fair compromises with all parties having occupied for use and enjoyment. What acquired titles before the Treaty as might portion of the 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 have satisfied the justice of the case; re- of available acres said to be in this counpudiating immoderate claims on the one try are in the use and enjoyment, or are hand, and either allowing the purchasers necessary for the use and enjoyment of to take a reasonable portion of their pur- 100,000 to 120,000 natives, not requiring chases, or giving them compensation for it territory for the purposes of the chase? in lands more conveniently situated for the We have an analogous case in Canada, general benefit of the Colony; on the where large Indian reserves were kept other, limiting the grants according to the between the cultivated districts, and bemeans of the parties, for their settlement yond them, but where no doubt ever and improvement. I give no opinion as existed with respect to the right of the to the extent to which this ought to have Crown to dispose of the remainder of been done; but a prudent and intelligent the land. The New Zealand Company Governor, if the discretion had been given | appear to have suggested an excelto him, would have had no difficulty in lent principle on this subject, with rereconciling a reasonable arrangement on ference to the mere agricultural habits the subject to the general feeling of the of the natives of these islands, securing to settlers, which would not have supported them a participation in the ultimate adthe pretensions of speculators, known vantages of settlement and improvement. under the name of "land-sharks," in all But, Sir, whatever is or ought to be the newly settled countries. Every such grant, policy of this country on these points, when determined upon, should have been the first question I entreat the right confirmed by a deed from the Crown, to hon. Gentleman opposite to answer us, put an end for ever to what are called in before we go on with this debate, is the America "Indian titles," and, I suppose, construction put upon this Treaty, not by some analogous name in New Zealand. according to the lights of the Colonial This is what you must come to at last. Office, or the pettifogging authorities in The only question seems to be, whether the Colony, but by Her Majesty's Governyou will do it directly and honestly, or ment, and with reference to their future through the persecuting machinery of your intentions? It is clear they put a different Land Commissioners' Office on the one construction on it from that of my noble hand, and some further and disgraceful Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies. extinction of the disputed claims of the What are their qualifications of, and difpoor savages under a doubtul con- ferences from that construction? What struction of the articles of your Treaty land do they think the natives-those on the other? Whatever construction deriving titles under them previous to the you put on the Treaty, the result must Treaty-or the Crown-relatively entitled be the same. The natives can only to, in the whole soil of New Zealand? I retain what is required for their use mean, of course, on principle, not in detail. and enjoyment, and that should be most Are they really of opinion that it will be liberally conceded and secured to them. still necessary, under the provisions of the The remainder must be brought under the Treaty, to repair any omission with respect dominion of civilized man. Why not de- to the rights of the Crown to all waste clare this openly, as the course equally land, by practising upon the ignorance of dictated by justice and by policy, and for the natives, to obtain for delusory comthe quiet and advantage of both parties? pensation, or by some equally base device, Must you wait till, to repair and supply a further and more complete cession? the faults and omissions in your Treaty, The next question I ask is, what you you go through the farce of a solemn ne- intend to do with the New Zealand Comgotiation with the natives for the purchase pany, and the settlers who have established of all land not described as reserved to themselves under their auspices? In what them, in consideration of another supply manner do you intend to quiet and satisfy of tobacco, blankets, and Jews' harps? their rights and expectations, both with Much has been said of the respect to property and institutions? You empire. cannot allow matters to remain in their conduct of Captain Fitzroy. I do not present state, or subject to misunderstood join in all the censure that has been cast and capricious instructions, and the exe- upon that gallant Officer. It is true, that cution of them by such men as you have several of the acts of his Administration, hitherto entrusted with the administration especially with respect to his financial of affairs in the Colony. Ruin will in system, his issue of paper money, his that case fast follow the despair in which remission of custom dues, and imposition the last accounts left the colonists. With of property taxes, are very unintelligible reference to the question of institutions, and strange, as emanating from a gentleit will be well the House should be in- man who, beyond his professional knowformed as to the legal authority under ledge, had some experience on these subwhich the Colony is now governed and jects as a Member of this House; but the taxes raised in it. I have endeavoured in difficulties with which he was surrounded vain to ascertain this. There is no Act on all sides, and his published and reserved of Parliament relating directly to New instructions irreconcilable with each other, Zealand. By the Acts of the 3rd and preventing the possibility of a good un4th of Victoria, power is given to the derstanding with the settlers and the authorities in New South Wales for the Company, and his utter want of resources, government of what are called depen- must always be considered in reference to dencies of the Colony. New Zealand his share of responsibility in these transwas, I believe, formerly called one of these actions. Whatever blame may be justly dependencies. But how has that character imputable to him, it must be admitted of dependency been altered by Captain that no other Governor could have sucHobson's declaration of her Independence ceeded under similar circumstances. His before these Acts, and by the Treaty of successor, were he an angel, will fail with Waitangi subsequent to them? I throw the same instructions, and in attempting out rather than insist upon these points, to carry on an absolute Administration as interfering with an authority resting under the direction of the Colonial Office. solely on the Acts I have referred to. My The reputation of Captain Grey, certainly right hon. Friend (Sir James Graham) points him out as a fit person to be shakes his head, and says they are not the successor; but, again, the difficulty responsible for the acts of a previous Ad- arises of his not having had the benefit ministration. Sir, it is not so much with of oral communication with the Governreference to who is to blame for the past, ment at home, after these discussions, and but to those who are responsible for the carrying out with him some settlement of future, that I ask these questions? What the disputes between the Colonial Office are to be your future institutions? Our and the New Zealand Company. What old habits and associations with respect to are you to do with the Company? Settle Colonial Government have been completely their claims on the principle of the reasonlost sight of subsequent to the Quebec able compromise made with them by my Act. Since that time we have only learnt noble Friend the Member for London? to maintain in conquered Colonies the Reassure their colonists by indemnity French, Spanish, and Dutch institutions for the past, rescuing them from the we found there, and to establish Penal insolent and irritating aggression and inColonies, the administration of all of terference with their affairs by your Cowhich has been conducted by Orders in lonial officials, and securing them from Council, giving power to absolute autho- the violence and excited passions of the rities to levy taxes, and execute the laws natives-the consequence of your weakin force, by Treaty, or sanctioned by the ness and inconsistency? With all its Colonial Office, without reference to po- faults the New Zealand Company has pular control and opinion. Is it intended, done inestimable good. I do not agree as has heretofore been the case-for your with the hon. Member who gave us such Council is a mere mockery-to persevere promise, by his speech the other night, of in this system with your new Colony of future efficiency in this House (Mr. Barkly), New Zealand? It would be better, Sir, that it would be expedient to purchase as far as the interests of this country are their rights and interest, and dissolve the concerned, to allow the missionaries and Company. In the first place, that would the natives to reassume their divided I be an expensive operation; in the next, it |