bound to vote for that Resolution; for he also said that the Treaty of Waitangi was a most injudicious proceeding. He wanted to know what he had laid down which should alarm the most sensitive person about the Treaty of Waitangi? He had said that a more absurd comedy had never been acted than the whole of those proceedings, and he had the right hon. Baronet agreeing with him. He had not said that the Treaty should not be observed, nor had he contended that its maintenance would affect the interests which he advocated; for he had stated that if any fair interpretation was put upon the Treaty, it would not be found inconsistent with the doctrines which he had laid down. The Second Resolution stated "That the acknowledgment of a right of property on the part of the natives of New Zealand, in all wild land in their islands, after the Sovereignty had been assumed by fler Majesty, was not essential to the true construction of the Treaty of Waitangi, and was an error which had been productive of very injurious consequences." establish a regular registration of lands, and of the titles to lands of native chiefs. And all these rights and titles of occupaucy and emigration, and above all the right and title of killing and eating-these were the rights which they proposed to investigate; and these monstrosities and barbarisms, which denoted the absence of all law, they were going to establish as forms of law, in a court established for that purpose in New Zealand. He said, take any plan but that take the bold plan of pitching the Treaty of Waitangi into the sea, rather than have recourse to a plan which would make people say that that Treaty they intended to violate secretly and by stealth, because they did not dare openly and honestly to renounce it. He rested the agreement of 1840 on two things besides the words of that agreement. One of these which he had adduced in his opening speech, no Gentleman on the other side of the House had at all alluded to. The bargain was, that on producing certain expenditure before an accountant, they were to have a grant of land. The Company proved that expenditure before an ac He did not think that he should very far differ in opinion from the right hon. Ba-countant. ronet when he expressed his opinion in accordance with that of the Committee, that the interpretation which had been put upon the Treaty of Waitangi had been productive of very injurious consequences. It was absurd to treat the natives as being the exclusive owners of so vast a quantity of land which they had never cultivated or used. The Clause in the Treaty which gave the pre-emptive right to the Crown was of as much importance as the Clauses which regarded the rights of the natives. That Clause was well meant; it was de-effect that the New Zealand Company had vised to protect the interests of the natives, it was meant to guard them against the most avaricious system of dealing with a savage race, which had always ended in their extermination. The right hon. Baronet said he was determined to act on the Treaty of Waitangi. Then let him do it honestly, and provide a certain sum of money, and tell his representatives that he did not mean to delay about this matter any longer; let him avail himself of the pre-emptive right which the Crown had to purchase the land, and prevent the natives from selling it to any one else. That was what he called an honest mode. But the dishonest mode was coming after your Treaty and clapping on a land tax, for the purpose of confiscating the land on which it could not be paid. They were about to They went before the noble. Lord, then Secretary for the Colonies. That noble Lord issued instructions forthwith to the then Governor of the Colony to make the stipulated grant of lands. But he rested his case upon a still stronger ground. It was impossible, satisfactorily, to discuss matters like these in this House. Acknowledging that truth, the House had already referred the subject to a competent tribunal, formed of its own Members. That Committee made a Report, and the fourth Resolution which they came to was to the a right to expect to be put in possession of the number of acres awarded by Mr. Pennington with the least possible delay. Now he asked them whether they thought themselves competent to overturn the decision of this Committee, composed as it was of men of honour, influenced by no party feelings, and who after weeks of investiga tion had come to their decision? These were the grounds on which the agreement of 1840 rested. But not a word had been said about the agreement of May, 1843. Then they had made an agreement with Lord Stanley, that they were forthwith to have from Captain Fitzroy a conditional grant, giving them a prima facie title to lands to be selected by their agents. The virtue of this agreement was in its immediate application. But it was never ap plied, and all the satisfaction they could get was a cool statement from the Government that, with reference to the matter, the conduct of Captain Fitzroy had not met with their approbation. That was all the explanation which they could obtain, after making a bargain with Government, and trusting for its execution to the honour, good faith, and good sense of the Government Agent. It was said that the land had not been selected by the Company's agents. Why, they had selected 60,000 acres in New Plymouth; and then the Governor stepped coolly in and told them they should only have 3,500 acres, and that on condition of their paying for them over again. Government had stated their views, however, upon the still more important subject of their future policy towards New Zealand. First, they were told that the colonists were to be protected by a regiment to be sent out for the purpose. Then they heard that the land was to be recovered by the worst possible means. But what guarantee had they that the same misconduct which had plunged the Colony into its present condition, would not be renewed? One such guarantee would undoubtedly be representative government; and had the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, given a distinct pledge that the people of New Zealand would be allowed to have a voice in the imposition of the taxes which they paid, and in the making of the laws which they obeyed-that pledge would have greatly diminished his desire to press his Resolutions. But Government gave no guarantee upon the subject. He could not deny the conciliatory tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; and he believed that neither he, nor any of his Colleagues, had tried to mislead the House as to the late government of New Zealand. They had fairly thrown it overboard. He was obliged for that. He thought that the course thus adopted was the best and the most candid one which they could take; but he did not think that they had given any guarantee for the future government of New Zealand; and he must therefore call on them, notwithstanding the intimation that this would be made a Government question, and the hint that after all the trying votes which hon. Gentlemen had given to extricate the Ministry from awkward situations, they must not stick at the present one; notwithstanding all this, he relied on the fairness and good feeling of the House to do justice in this Bulkeley, Sir R. B.W. Hobhouse,rt.hon.SirJ. Buller, E. Colborne, hn. W.N.R. Hill, Lord M. Hindley, C. Hollond, R. Horseman, E. Howard, hn. C. W. G. Howard, hon. J. K. Howard, Sir R. Howard, hon. E, G.G. Howard, P. H. Howard, hon. H. Howick, Visct. Humphery, Ald. Hutt, W. Ingestre, Visct. Jervis, J. Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Mangles, R. D. Manners, Lord J. Marjoribanks, S. Marsland, H. Martin, J. Matheson, J. Maule, rt. hon. F. Mitcalfe, H. Mitchell, T. A. Morrison, J. Muntz, G. F. Murray, A. O'Connell, M. J. O'Conor Don Ogle, S. C. H. Private.-20. Bolton and Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junetion, North Union, Liverpool and Manchester and Grand Junction Railway Companies Amalgamation. Reported.-Cork and Bandon Railway (re-committed). 3. and passed:-London and Brighton Railway (Horsham Branch); Eastern Union Railway; North Wales Mineral Railway. PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir T. Acland, from several places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories. -By Admiral Bowles, from Members of the Committee of Governors of the Incorporation of the Seamen's Hospital Society, for Alteration of Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill. By Sir J. Hobhouse, from Nottingham, for Alteration of Parochial Settlement Bill.-By Mr. Astell, from Luton and Woburn, in favour of Physic and Surgery Bill. BROAD AND NARROW GAUGE OXFORD AND WOLVERHAMPTON RAILWAY.] Lord Ingestre, in rising to move the reception of the Report on the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill, said that he had given the comparative merits of the broad and narrow gauges his best consideration; and he had no hesitation in giving his opinion that the former was the best. The matter was one of national interest, and also of local interest to the county which he represented; and on both accounts he considered the broad gauge was the preferable one of the two. The House also should be cautious how they upset the verdict of a Committee of that House. He would move at once that the Report of the Committee on the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway Bill be brought up. Report brought up. On the Motion that the Amendments made by the Committee be read a second time, Mr. Cobden rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to issue a Commission to inIquire whether, in all future Acts for the construction of Railways, provision ought to be made for securing one uniform gauge, and whether it would be practicable and expedient to bring existing Lines of Railway in Great Britain, and Lines now in course of construction, into uniformity of gauge ; and, if so, to report upon the best mode of carrying these objects into effect in the present Session of Parliament." He said, this was not merely a question of a particular line; it involved an important principle. They could not disguise the fact, that out of the House the proceedings of that night were looked to with great anxiety; and the crowded state of the benches within showed that the House itself looked upon it as nothing less than a national question. It was a most important question, and ought not to be decided rashly, or without due deliberation. This was, perhaps, the most important question that had yet arisen in the course of railway legislation, and of the greatest national importance. They had fallen into a great error, in railway legislation, in not laying down a proper system for the regulation of railways. It was, however, a remarkable fact, that in the early stage of railways they took steps to secure an uniformity of gauge. In the London and Birmingham, and in the Grand Junction Railway Bills, clauses were introduced providing that the gauges should be uniform. But when railway communication was extended into the south of England, this principle was departed from, and a different gauge adopted. There were two questions involved in this subject. First, the prevention of injury to the passengers and traffic from the want of uniformity in the gauge; and, second, the possibility of bringing the existing lines of railway into one uniform system. They were all, he was sure, agreed on the necessity of having only one gauge. There could be none but what admitted that two gauges were mischievous. They produced the greatest inconvenience to passengers and traffic, and would interfere with the traffic going forward in all parts of the country, unless steps were taken to avert the evil. In the Midland Counties, in Oxfordshire, Worcester, Warwickshire, and Gloucestershire, there was a war on the subject of the gauges at present raging. Now, in those counties there was yet a vast area not supplied by railways; and it was here that the battle was going forward-the London and Birmingham, and the Great Western Companies contending which should occupy the vacant space. It was, therefore, a most important question, which should be discussed substantively, and not be decided by a side-wind during the progress of a particular Bill. The war would go forward, gathering strength, unless they stepped in and settled the question. Not only in the Midland Counties was the contest going forward, but it was extending itself to Somersetshire, Wiltshire, and Dorsetshire, where as yet railways had made but slight progress. Well, now they had projects for new lines in connexion with the Great Western. There was a line from Southampton to Salisbury, which was nearly completed, and there was another from Bath to Bristol. But if these lines should be completed according to the present plan, the inconvenience would arise of transhipment from the Salisbury line to get on to the Bath line; and that was a monstrous evil. In Dorsetshire it was the same; and he understood that a line now about to be made in Wales would cause a like inconvenience, by reason of the narrow and broad gauges coming in contact. For these reasons, he did think there could not be a second opinion as to the necessity of having a uniform gauge. He knew there were some hon. Members in the House who would go so far as to argue that it was no inconvenience to tranship goods from one line of carriages to another; but, surely, it would not for a moment be argued that it was no inconvenience to remove loads of coals, or droves of cattle, from one train of carriages to another. He believed that a greater annoyance or inconvenience could not be conceived. Well, then, that fact being admitted, the question lay between the broad and narrow gauges; and let him call attention to the fact, that the narrow gauge was the first one on which railways were constructed; and at the present moment there were more railways constructed upon the narrow than on the broad gauge, while the projected lines were ten to one in favour of the narrow gauge. He believed the proportion of railways constructed to be 1,000 miles broad gauge, and 3,000 narrow gauge. On these grounds alone, he did think the narrow gauge should have the first consideration. What were the objections to the narrow gauge? They were not in a position now to delay the question between them; and even if there were a preponderance of utility of the broad over the narrow gauge, they were not, he repeated, in a position to defer the settlement of this question. But what was the objection to the narrow gauge? It had existed in this country for fifteen years. It was general throughout America, and there the width of the rails, instead of being as in this country, four feet eight and a half inches, was but four feet six inches. It was common in France, in Belgium, and, he might say, over the Con. tinent, with the single exception of Russia. Well, then, they had ample experience on the subject. There had been no accident, he believed, that could be really attributed to the narrowness of the gauge. They had had experience of its use, and its spread was so extensive, that they were not now in a position to interfere with it. If, at this time, they were attempting to conform their narrow to their broad gauges, they would require to alter their tunnels, their |