Zealand. His object in rising chiefly was to make an appeal to the Government, not to allow the people of Ireland to die as they were now dying. There was not a post that arrived in this country from Ireland that did not bring accounts of the people starving there. It was no answer to say that it was the fault of the guardians, of the Poor Law Commissioners, or of the landlords. Whosever fault it might be, it was the duty of the Government to see that the people were not suffered to perish. If the boards of guardians neglected their duty, protection ought not to be afforded them. As to the Commissioners, he confessed he was not able to unravel the system by which they conducted their proceedings. But there were many subjects well deserving the consideration of the Government besides the due administration of the poor-law; subjects which had often been suggested to Her Majesty's Ministers, but which had hitherto failed to engage their attention. Up to the present moment nothing had been done with regard to the waste lands in Ireland; on the contrary, it appeared that the object of the Government, and of the Poor Law Commissioners, was to render the large expenditure upon the poor of that country as unproductive as possible. He was afraid that after expending millions the result would, on looking back, be found to have been a mere waste of money, and that its expenditure had been productive of no other consequence than that of the demoralisation of the people. Last year he pointed out the impracticability of carrying into effect the poor-law system, in consequence of the unions being too large. His admonitions on that occasion were not attended to; but he was glad to find that since then the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had changed upon that subject, and that he was now convinced that unions of a smaller area were necessary to the efficient working out of the new law. But it would not be enough to divide the unions; greater powers were required to be given to the public to scrutinise the claims of applicants, for the purpose, on the one hand, of protecting the ratepayers against impostors, and, on the other, of being assured that every deserving object, on making application, obtained relief. There was another portion of the present system which operated in a most painful and distressing manner-he meant the exclusion of all persons as recipients of relief who occupied a quarter of an acre of land. He had no hesitation in saying that the quarter-acre system would have the effect of ejecting from their holdings many thousands of persons in Ireland. He considered that all the arguments which were made use of last year for the suspension of the operation of that enactment were equally applicable to the circumstances of the present year, and that Government ought to bring forward a measure for repealing or at least suspending the application of that system. MR. HENRY DRUMMOND was desirous of making a single observation. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said, that no question was more deserving the attention of the House than that concerning the Irish Poor Law. Now, it was on that very ground he regretted that this Motion had been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud. It was because he was desirous of going into a discussion on the very questions which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned respecting the reclaiming of waste lands, the doing away with the quarter-acre system, and so forth, that he considered this to be a most inopportune and ill-advised moment to bring forward the subject, there being no opportunity on such an occasion as this for entering upon any such discussions. He, therefore, protested against its being supposed that because English Members declined going into the consideration of those questions on the present occasion, there was any want of feeling on their part for the distresses that at this moment afflicted the people of Ireland. SIR B. HALL concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for West Surrey. He was quite ready to go into the subject of distress prevailing in Ireland, but he would not do so on such an occasion as this, because he did not wish to encourage so inconvenient a mode of dealing with great public questions. He was anxious that a day should be appointed when the subject should be brought fully and deliberately under the consideration of the House; and, whenever that might happen, he should be prepared to give it his best attention. MR. REYNOLDS would be the last Member in the House to encourage any act calculated to interrupt the public business of the country; but as to the observation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, that this discussion would interfere with the New Zealand Bill, he would say it was of more importance that the lives of the people of Ireland should be saved, than that their time should be taken up in mending the constitution of New Zealand. He (Mr. Reynolds) thought he should be justified in calling the attention of the House to Irish destitution, at least once a week. It was a question of life and death. The people were dying in thousands, while that House was relying upon that which appeared to be a rotten reed, namely, the working of the poorlaw. He had already declared that he was favourable to the principle of the poorlaw; but he believed that Her Majesty's Government, and a majority of the Members composing that House, placed too much reliance on its good effects in Ireland. It was time the Government should direct their attention to the profitable employment of the people. He would remind the House that the waste lands were unreclaimed; that the resources of the country were undeveloped; and that it was profitable employment the able-bodied poor required, and not to be fed in idleness. MR. S. CRAWFORD would not detain the House for one moment, but was anxious to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland to the oppression which was now practised under the quarter-acre clause. Subject at an end. EPIPHANY QUARTER-SESSIONS BILL. MR. PACKE moved the Second Reading of the Epiphany Quarter Sessions Bill. The object of the Bill was to postpone the period of holding the sessions for a week for the convenience of magistrates, jurors, and witnesses. Although he might encounter the opposition of the bar, on the ground that it would interfere with the discharge of their professional duties during the ensuing term, still he would submit that the measure if carried would be of convenience to a great many persons. SIR GEORGE GREY'S only objection to the Bill was this: From the information he had received, and the best consideration he could give the measure, the inconvenience it sought to remove was occasional, and the effect of removing it would be more than counterbalanced by the permanent inconvenience which would result from this Bill. Unless gentlemen of the bar could attend the sessions regularly, it was likely they would give up their attendance altogether. MR. SERJEANT TALFOURD said, that the whole matter had been fully considered seventeen years ago, and at that period the time for commencing Hilary Term was changed, and the time for holding the Epiphany Quarter Sessions was fixed, under the advice of the late Lord Abinger, then Sir James Scarlett. The Bill proposed by the hon. Gentleman would not prevent senior barristers from attending quarter-sessions, but it would prevent the possibility of their juniors being present at the commencement of term in Westminster-hall. And if there was one thing more important than another with respect to that branch of practice, it was that the gentlemen who had been concerned in cases at the quarter-sessions should have an opportunity of arguing those cases, on appeal, before Her Majesty's Judges in Westminster-hall. And when the hon. Gentleman suggested an alteration in the commencement of Hilary Term, he thought the House would pause before it sanctioned the alteration of an arrangement which had been so well considered, and had been found, altogether, to work so well. Many great and lasting inconveniences would result from any alteration of the present arrangement, to say nothing of prisoners being detained a week longer before trial. MR. PACKE, in reply, said, he was free to confess that he did not see the force of the objections which had been urged against the Bill. No man acknowledged the efficiency of the bar more readily than himself, and he should be sorry to promote any measure having the slightest tendency to impair that efficiency. He had hoped to secure, without injury to any party, and without opposition from any quarter, the quiet enjoyment of their Christmas holidays to the magistrates, jurors, prosecutors, and witnesses, called upon to attend the sessions; but finding that he could not effect that object, and having drawn the attention of the House to the subject, he would not further press the Bill. Bill withdrawn. Motion negatived. NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL. The Order of the Day for going into Committee on the New Zealand Government Bill having been read, The EARL of LINCOLN said, that he was most unwilling to make such an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), but he would ask him whether, under all the circumstances of the case, it would be right to proceed with the discussion of the New Zealand Bill at the hours, to arrive at any satisfactory con- present sitting. It would be recollected | and prosperity of New Zealand, how could that when the right hon. Gentleman moved they expect now, in the course of three the second reading of the Bill, he appealed to the House whether or no they would allow the Bill to pass its second reading sub silentio, on the understanding that the discussion should be taken on going into Committee. The House agreed to the proposition; but could the present be considered a fair opportunity for that discussion? The House met at twelve o'clock on Wednesdays, and adjourned at six, and he would quote an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman, at one o'clock that afternoon, to corroborate his view that the present was not a fitting opportunity for discussing so important a measure. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the hon. Member for Stroud not to proceed with his Motion on the Irish Poor Law Bill, alleg- MR. LABOUCHERE: I had hoped that ing that it would be inconvenient to raise upon the principle of this Bill there was no a discussion on that matter, because the serious difference of opinion on either side business of the day being only the Com- of the House. With regard to the necesmittee on the New Zealand Bill, the noble sity of suspending the constitution of 1846, Lord the First Lord of the Treasury and after the strong recommendations of Goothers of the Cabinet Ministers were ab- vernor Grey, I thought the propriety of sent. That was always the case on a such a course was generally admitted. I Wednesday. Unfortunately the Under therefore did think that, the House being Secretary for the Colonies had no seat in agreed upon the principle, the Committee that House, and could take no part in the would offer a more suitable opportunity for debate; but the subject was one which the discussion of the measure, than the ought to claim the best attention of the second reading would have afforded. The Government. He had no doubt but that second reading, although there was little the right hon. Gentleman the President of difference of opinion on the principle, was the Board of Trade was fully prepared not passed quite so sub silentio as the noble to meet any objections, and had undoubted- Lord would lead the House to suppose. ly made himself master of the whole case; There was an animated discussion, and the but the House would bear in mind that the tone of that discussion led me to believe noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury that the provisions of the Bill rather than was Secretary for the Colonies at an im- its principles, would form the subject of portant period in the history of New Zea- debate. The noble Lord asks me to postland, and he should have been present pone the Committee on this Bill. I need during this discussion. If the presence of not tell the noble Lord, who has had some the noble Lord was essential when the experience of official life, the extreme and proposition respecting Ireland was brought increasing difficulty the Government find on, surely it was equally so when the in bringing forward for discussion and deHouse proposed to settle the difficult ques-cision the many important questions which tion of a constitution for New Zealand. In 1845, when the subject of New Zealand was last prominently before the House, the discussion lasted nine nights; and he (the Earl of Lincoln) did not think that the condition of the colony was less critical, that its affairs were of more trivial importance, than they were at that period. It was proposed to suspend a constitution which had been granted after the most grave deliberation; and if, after nine nights' discussion, the House had failed in doing all that was requisite for the safety they feel it their duty to submit to Parliament. There are only two nights in the week set apart for Government business, and these nights are frequently broken in upon in a manner which no Government can prevent. The Government find it almost impossible to proceed with the many measures which the country demands and the House expects; and the Government would have been censured for neglect had they not taken advantage of this comparatively unoccupied day for the purpose of going into Committee on the New Zealand 66 Bill. I cannot agree that because Wed- | tually in existence, or which might at one nesdays have been usually devoted to the time have been in force. He did not use consideration of measures brought forward by individuals, that therefore the Government are not justified in pressing forward any public business at the beginning of the Session on that day. I hope the noble Lord will not impute any disrespect to what has fallen from me, but I do express a hope that the House will go into Committee on the Bill. I shall be happy to answer any objections that may be taken. I will give to all questions the best reply I can, and I hope the House will not refuse to go into the immediate consideration of the Bill. the term in a contemptuous sense, and he was merely repeating the expression of other hon. Gentlemen, when he called the constitution of 1846 a mere paper constitution." It never found its way into actual life in New Zealand-it was unknown in that colony except as a subject of theoretical and speculative discussion. This constitution had never been enforced in New Zealand; and how far public opinion was in its favour in that country it would be impossible to say. The House had no evidence to show that this constitution would ever be acceptable to the colonists-that it was the constitution for the people-the constitution which they would require to be revived, not to be created, in the year 1853. It appeared to him, therefore, that this would be a most inconvenient mode of fettering the future opinion of the House, by laying down the policy to be pursued at some future time, with respect to a question not then before the House. He was decidedly of opinion that the simplest, wisest, and most proper course to pursue, would be to say that the time had not arrived when it was proper to grant this constitution; and, therefore, that it ought to be repealed. The House could then, at some future time, give to New Zealand a constitution which would allow full scope to popular principles. It would be infinitely prefer MR. GLADSTONE said, that, after the strong opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he would not revive the question as to the inconvenience of discussing a measure of this nature at the present moment. He would at once enter upon the consideration of one or two points connected with the Bill, as well as of points of a collateral nature, not directly embodied in the provisions of the Bill, but of such vital importance to the well-being of the colonists and natives of New Zealand, that it would be impossible to fairly discuss the Bill without entering into a review of these points, and their bearing upon the general subject. The provisions of the Bill he found to be of two kinds-they were partly suspending, and partly enacting. With respect to the enacting clauses, although they undoubtedly did contain provisions of an un-able for them to avail themselves of the usual character, delegating all the powers practical experience which the next few of the State to a few individuals, yet as years would confer. They would then be they were in accordance with the recom- able to construct the constitution on the mendations of Governor Grey, and seemed basis of experimental knowledge, instead to be called for by the force of circum- of speculative opinions. He could not stances, he thought it would be better to pass from this subject without again bringpass these provisions. But as to the sus- ing before the House a subject upon which pending provisions, he could not help feel- the social welfare of the New Zealanders, ing a wish to put a question to the right and the permanent possession of the colony hon. Gentleman, upon which he thought by this country, would be found mainly to he had some claim to explanation. He depend. He alluded to the disposal of the did not understand why the constitution of public lands. The question of the public 1846 should be suspened for a term of five lands lay so at the root of every discussion years, rather than repealed altogether. in New Zealand, that it was impossible to In ordinary cases of suspension, when it avoid it. It would be vain to adopt meawas found necessary to step in between a sures for the commercial progress of the law and its operation for a given period, it islands, unless they came to a fair and was always considered that the law so equitable decision upon this fundamental suspended had a presumptive title to re-matter-the claims of the natives on the newal that the reasons for the validity of the law revived in full force at the expiration of the term for which it had been suspended. But the House was not about to discuss the provisions of a constitution ac public or waste lands. There was no party feeling with regard to this Bill— these were not matters of party discussion. It would be a sin against the first principles of humanity, and detrimental to its important limitation. The natives do not support root, from fishing, from eel-ponds, from taking themselves solely by cultivation, but from fernducks, from hunting wild pigs (for which they require extensive runs), and by such like pursuits. To deprive them of their wild lands for the purpose of cultivation is, in fact, to cut off from them peace and tranquillity, if, in considering | possession of them, appears to me to require one the interests of a distant colony, and in devising measures for the happiness of a distant people, the House allowed party objects to weigh in their decision. He wished, therefore, to state frankly to the Government, in the person of the right hon. Gentleman, the difficulties which occurred to his (Mr. Gladstone's) mind in regard to it. He did not wish to commit himself finally to any positive opinion, be cause no man was more anxious to feel satisfied that the views of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department in regard to this question were views calculated to promote the peace and welfare of the islands of New Zealand. He thought there could be no doubt as to what had been the understood construction of the Treaty whether fortunate or unfortunate in the first instance he would not inquire —of Waitangi, which was conceived to regulate the disposal of public lands in New Zealand, so far as regarded the claims of the natives to land. It was well known that the natives had occupied a certain portion of the fertile lands of those islands, which they had improved by their labour. It was well known that the natives might be said to occupy another and a much larger portion of the lands of the island, which, however, they had not improved by labour, but which they used for purposes connected with the feeding of cattle, the pasturing of wild pigs, &c. These were not lands improved by cultivation, but were used by the natives in a manner somewhat beneficial to themselves, though certainly in a way very adverse to the principles of political economy. Now, when the Treaty of Waitangi was concluded, it was universally understood that the titles of the natives were to be recognised, under that treaty, not only to the lands they had occupied and improved by labour, but likewise to those lands from which they derived a beneficial use in the manner he had described, even though that particular use was very slight indeed compared with what they derived from the land which was under cultivation. Governor Grey had given a very simple and just description of the footing on which this matter ought to stand, in a despatch received from him in the month of December last. He said "The position I understand to be adopted by the New Zealand Company's agent, that, if tracts of land are not in actual occupation and cultivation by natives, we have therefore a right to take some of their most important means of subsistence." The view of Governor Grey had been, he might say, universally understood by all who had considered the treaty. He would now frankly state the point to which his to be assured that the despatch of Earl anxiety was chiefly directed. He wished Grey, dated the 23rd of December, 1846, and the instructions appended to that despatch, so far as regarded the public lands, were in conformity with that treaty. He thought good faith towards the natives required that they should be. The House should bear in mind that the natives of New Zealand did not judge of this matter by the terms of the treaty, but by the interpretation put upon those terms by all the persons in New Zealand occupying places of authority; and it followed, therefore, if good faith was to be maintained with them, that that construction should be adhered to. He wished to see this course followed, also, because he was convinced that the peace of the island was involved in the question. He referred to the despatch of Earl Grey, in order that it doubts and apprehensions on this subject might be fully understood on what his were founded. In a despatch which was printed among the papers presented in August, 1846, Earl Grey spoke of the pretensions put forth by certain tribes to large tracts of waste land, which they "had been taught" to regard as their own. He said to admit these pretensions to a considerable ex"It appears that you have found it expedient tent; and, having done so, no apparent advantage could be suffered to weigh against the evil of acting in a manner either really or even apparently inconsistent with good faith. While, however, you scrupulously fulfil whatever engagements you have contracted, and maintain those rights on the part of the native tribes to land which you have already recognised, you will avoid as much as possible any further surrender of the property of the Crown." Then, in the instructions appended to that despatch, he said "No claim shall be admitted in the said land courts on behalf of the original inhabitants of New Zealand to any land situate within the said islands, unless it shall be established to the satisfaction of such court that either by some act of the Executive Government of New Zealand, as |