ihhatro gut narrlaugo inVarliantut.
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.
110061 OP LORDS. Monday, May 29. No sitting. Tuesday, May 30. Railway Regulation ; Mr. Cardvrell's Bill reported with amend- ments—Manning the Navy, and Navy Pay Bills, read a third time and passed— Common Law Procedure Bill read a third time and passed.
Thursday, June 1. Embarkation and Debarkation of Troops ; Lord Ellenbo- rough's Question—Letters to the Fleet.; Lord Beaumont's Question—Railway Re- gulation; Mr. Cardwell's Bill recommitted and reported—Criminal Law ; seven Bills read a first time.
Friday. June 2. Royal Assent to County Courts Extension Act, Navy Pay and Navy Manning Bills, Boundary Survey (Ireland) Bill—Russian Ports in the White Sea; Lord Clanricarde's Question—Minister of War ; Lord Ellenborough's Question, Homo OP COSMO:fa. Monday, May 29. New Zealand ; Sir John Pakington's Questions and Mr. Peel's Answers—Minister of War; Mr. Drummond', Question— Occupation of Greece; Mr. M. Milnes's Question—Letters to the Fleets ; Lord Dud- Tey Stuart's Question—The Bribery Prevention Bills withdrawn; Debate on the Posi- tion of Government—Exchequer Bonds (6,000,0001.) Bill read a second time—Cus- toms Duties (Sugar and Spirits) Bill read a second time—Scotch Schoolmasters ; Lord Advocate's "Bill, leave given. Tuesday, May 30. "No House."
Wednesday, May 31. No sitting. (Derby Day.) Thursday, June 1. Business of the House ; Sir John Pakington's Resolutions— Income-tax Bill passed—Oxford University Bill in Committee—Exchequer Bonds (8,000,0001.) Bill committed. Friday, June 2. New Writs ; Lord John Russell's Resolution—Operations in the Baltic ; Sir James Graham's Statement—Military Affairs ; Questions, replied to by Hr. 8. Herbert—Customs-duties (Sugar) Bill ; committed—Excise-duties Bill read a third time and passed—Public Revenue and Consolidated Fund Charges; Mr. Gladstone's Bill committed—Merchant Shipping; Mr. Cardwell's Bill coin- muted—County and Borough Police ; Lord Palmerston's Bill read a first time.
TIME- TA.BLL
The Lords.
Hour of Hone of Meeting. Adjournment.
The Commons.
Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.
Monday No sitting. Monday 45 .(m) 111 Om Tuesday 6h7b 55m Tuesday No House.
Wednesday
Na sitting.
Wednesday No sitting.
Thursday 5117h 45m Thursday 45 .(m) lh 30m Friday 512 813 55m Friday th Om Sittings this — this Session.
Week, 8; Time, 711 35m
Sittings this — this
Week. 3; Time, 2511 30m
61; — 148h Om Sesalon. 71; — 5115 17m
THE POSITION OF GOVERN/el:ENT.
A debate arose on Monday out of the withdrawal of the bills for dis- franchising certain persons in the five corrupt boroughs of Canterbury, Cambridge, Hull, Maldon, and Barnstaple, not upon the :aills, but upon the conduct of the Government generally, and that of Lord John Russell in particular.
In moving that the order for the second reading of the Canterbury Bribery Prevention Bill be discharged, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL briefly stated the reasons for withdrawing the whole of the bills. When he moved the first reading of the bills, he had frankly stated that if it could be shown that the voters proposed to be disfranchised had made disclosures under the belief that their reward would be complete exemption from penal, moral, or legislative consequences, he should be the last man to ask the House to pass such measures. The purification of the consti- tuency would be dearly purchased by the sacrifice of public faith. Mem- bers on both sides of the House had expressed doubts as to the propriety of the proposal ; and besides this, several inaccuracies had been dis- covered in the schedules, and the result was complete uncertainty as to the identity of certain individuals. These errors could not be rectified by the Commissioners, and a Committee of the House would have no power to receive evidence on oath. In the face of these difficulties, Govern- ment felt they could not proceed with then bills. He expressed a hope that the corrupt voters would not misapprehend the course now taken; in future, they would only be exempted from penal consequences. Sir FREDERICK Timm= remitted that the Attorney-General had acted in the fairest and most candid manner. For his own part, he would have supported the bills had he not been convinced that they involved a breach of faith. Commenting on the inaccuracy and haste with which the bills had been drawn up, he mildly expressed regret that the Govern- ment had introduced them at all. Of course he assented to the motion.
Not so Mr. OWEN STANLEY. The withdrawal of the bills, he said would lead to the belief that the Government are not sincere in their en. deavour to prevent corruption. Mr. VERNON SMITH, cheered by the Opposition, gave it as his opinion that the bills ought not to have been introduced. Did Ministers mean to suspend the writs for these boroughs until the Bribery Bills now before a Select Committee have been disposed of? Lord JOHN RtssEff said, that the imperfect success of his measure of last session for the appointment of Bribery Commissions had greatly dis- appointed him ; though it is a great matter that the House should have full proof of bribery obtained on the spot. But that is only one step ; and he trusted the bills before the Select Committee will be brought down in such a shape as shall tend to correct bribery. "Until those bills shall have been disposed of it is the opinion of Government that the five writs should not be issued.
Mr. GEORGE Bre-r contended that the fate of the bills before the Select Committee ought not to delay the issuing of the writs. Mr. Tnomea DUNCOIEBE pointed out, that the order that no writ should be issued without seven days' notice is a sessional order ; that it is therefore com- petent for any Member to move the issuing of the writs ; and that if the writs are not to be issued until the Bribery Bills have been disposed of, a resolution to that effect should be passed. He should object to any writ being issued to these boroughs during the present Parliament. If these delinquent boroughs go scot free, after the reports of the Commissioners, the sooner the franchise is restored to St. Albans and Sudbury the better. Did they expect stronger reports against these five old offenders ? Ile should be ready to disfranchise these boroughs and create new constitu- encies, but not to disfranchise individuals. So far the business had proceeded very quietly. But at this stage Mr. DISRAELI rose and made a speech whioh led the House quite away from the Bribery Bills into new themes, with all those articulate and inarticu- late expressions of approval or disapproval which Members are pleased to indulge in on occasions of high excitement. Government, he said, owed the House some explanation with respect to the probable progress of public business. The Government gave notice, this session, of seven important measures. Of these seven they have withdrawn three ; on three they have been defeated : the seventh awaited discussion that night. They have been defeated on a bill to change the law of settle- ment, a bill "for public education in one of her Majesty's kingdoms," and a bill for the total reconstruction of Parliamentary oaths. They have with- drawn, without introducing, a bill to change the civil service and alter the whole character of the country and the spirit of our administration, a bill disfranchising constituencies, and a bill for Parliamentary reform. On the seventh, the bill for the reform of the University of Oxford, they have sus- tained partial defeats. When Ministers introduced these measures, did they believe they could carry them ? if not, why were they introduced ? All the Seven measures had one characteristic—they either assailed the rights of the subject or the institutions of the country ; and Mr. Disraeli went over them one by one, again and again asking why they were introduced. "I want to know what were the prospects entertained by the Government, when they introduced these important measures to our notice, as to their proba- bility of carrying them. Did they believe that they could have passed- a bill for reform in Parliament—that they could have effected a reform in the civil service—that they could have disfranchised the constituencies of offending boroughs—that they could have established a system of public education in Scotland—that they could have revised the whole Parliamentary oaths and changed the Protestant constitution of the country, settled the law of settlement, and reformed the University of Oxford ? Did they believe that, when they introduced these important subjects to the consideration of Par- liament, they had a fair prospect of carrying all those measures; and if they had not any prospect of carrying those measures, were they measures which ought to have been announced and introduced to our notice ? What- ever different opinions may be entertained as to the expediency and policy of these seven measures, there is one characteristic which all must agree they possess—these seven measures are either assaults on the rights of the subject or upon the institutions of the country. You met here tonight with the intention of disfranchising a considerable number of her Majesty's subjects. You were to proceed, after having read those bills a second time, to attack the rights of the University of Oxford. Some of you may be of opinion that in both instances such violent measures ought to be had recourse to; but nobody can deny that one is an attack upon the rights of the electors of the country, and the other an attack upon the rights of the Universities of the country. No one will deny that the scheme of Parliamentary Reform which the noble Lord introduced was an attack upon the institutions of the country. The noble Lord and his Mends may have been of opinion—though I am not aware of any one being of that opinion—that the measure was a most beneficial measure : still it would effect great changes in the institutions of the country. No one who has given any consideration to the subject but must feel that a measure re- lating to the civil service—which, by the by, was announced in her Ma- jesty's gracious Speech—was a measure which menaced one of the most im- portant changes in the institutions of the country., and probably would have effected a greater alteration in the whole habits of the people than any other change ever introduced in Parliament. No one will pretend that the tneasure fot Scottish education was not an assault upon an institution of the country—upon all the parochial schools of Scotland. I do not think any one will say the abrogation of the law of settlement wen not an attack upon the institutions of the country. After what I said just now of the bill for altering Parliamentary oaths, I will say no more on the character of that measure ; bet I say that, if my view with respect to these measures be a correct one, it is, I think, highly impolitic in any Government bringing forward measures for changes of that character, which has not a fair prospect of carrying theta, and carrying them in the session in which they are introduced. I shall leave the House to decide whether they think the Government had a fair chance of carrying these seven important mea- sures when Parliament met, at the beginning of the year, or not. Supposing the noble Lord had proceeded with that measure, so dear to his heart—Re- form in Parliament—supposing he had not raised the siege of the House of Commons, which he had maintained for three years—does the noble Lord imagine he would, by this time, have succeeded in passing it through the House ? And if he had been ever so successful, I want to know how other measures in the interim would have prospered ? It is of great importance to impress this circumstance on the attention of the House and country, be- cause we must never forget we have the great blessing of having affairs
administered by men remarkably distinguished by their abilities—men who have made enormous sacrifices, both for their country and for them- selves. No man has made greater sacrifices than the noble Lord himself; for he has thrown over his old colleagues, and connected himself with a
coterie of public men who have passed a great part of their lives in depre- ciating his greet abilities and running down his eminent career. And if the
noble Lord had succeeded in the object for which he made these enormous
sacrifices, I should understand more clearly than I do at present the position of the noble Lord. But at the end of May, to find that out of seven of the
most important measures ever proposed to Parliament three have been with- drawn, and three have only brought defeats to the Government, I cannot help feeling that the time has come when it is impossible not to consider that we have not received that ample compensation which was held out to us for the break-up of parties for not following the spirit and genius of our Parliamentary system, that we have not received that full, ade- quate, and ample compensation, in well-digested and statesmanlike mea- sures, which was held out to us ; that, in fact, when we were told that the Government to be sure was to have no principles, but all talents, we had a right to expect that the noble lord, who wishes always to behave handsomely to
the House, would, at least, have done something—that at least he would have gained something as compensation for this remarkable state of affairs,
which has banished from him all his natural colleagues to an invisible posi- tion in the House, and left him on a bench surrounded by those who have been decrying his career for the last quarter of a century. I think it neces- sary to make these passing observations, because this is such a busy country, we have so much to do, that very often months elapse and we have not time to take stock of what our representatives are doing in the House of Commons. It is of great importance that the country should understand that the month of May is about to terminate ; that the Government have introduced id& of
the most important measures which were ever introduced to the notice of Parliament, and that none of those measures have advanced or can advance a stage—three having occasioned ignominious and complete discomfiture, and three having been discreetly withdrawn. The seventh measure remains, which I hope tonight will receive its final overthrow."
The first motion having been agreed to, the ArroarrEr-Gasmier moved the discharge of the order for the second reading of the Cambridge bill;
and this gave Lord JoaN RusszLL an opportunity to reply to Mr. Disraeli's unexpected assault. At the outset, however, he remarked in answer to Mr. HIJKS and Mr. BRIGHT, that if the sessional order relating to the seven days' notice, is not in force, he will move it, as due notice of the issue of the writs ought to be given. In the bill before the Select Committee, there is a clause disqualifying all persons proved guilty of receiving bribes: un- til a similar clause be passed, the writs ought not to be issued.
In reply to Mr. Disraeli, Lord John observed that he could not say from his experience of the Reformed House of Commons that there is that plea- sant certainty about carrying measures which there used to be when Minis- ters relied on Members returned by themselves or their friends and con- nexions. Even Mr. Disraeli, in office, brought forward a measure which he could not carry, although it is to be supposed he did not bring it forward without expecting to carry it. No doubt, he was disappointed ; the present Ministers too, have been much disappointed. But Mr. Disraeli might gay
"when was defeated, I resigned." (Loud Opposition cheering.) Well ;
there was one great question on which the House gave symptoms of an opinion. The negotiations regarding the impending war were laid on the table ; Mr. Disraeli accused the Government of being actuated by "credulity or connivance " : that was a question on which he might have tested the opinion of the House ; but he ventured on nothing of the kind. Were his scruples about disturbing the Government so great that he would give no vote affecting that Government ? No; for when supplies had been obtained, and measures of ways and means were proposed to defray the ex- pence(' of the war, Mr. Disraeli and his friends came forward to defeat those measures ; but he was himself defeated by more than 100 majority. There- fore he cannot say that he and his friends possess the confidence of the House ; for neither on that occasion nor a few days afterwards on the subject of Ex- chequer Bonds was he successful, but he was again defeated by more than 100 majority. Referring to the defeat of the Oaths Bill, Lord John said it had only one practical effect, and that was, to exclude the Jews from Parlia- ment. Mr. Disraeli, no doubt with great sincerity, thinks the Jews peculi- arly worthy of that privilege ; but nevertheless sometimes he stays away, and sometimes he votes against them—" the political convenience of the hour always seems to overcome his attachment to the cause." That is the posi- tion of Mr. Disraeli, and this is the position of the Government : both in dis- cussions and upon divisions, the House has shown that the Government, and not Mr. Disraeli, possesses its confidence. Mr. Disnazu at once renewed the assault, with increased vehemence of gesture and acrimony of tone. Lord John was completely deluded if he thought that his remaining in office occasioned surprise. He knew him too well as a Minister on suffer- ance; he had seen him endure the most humiliating, the most disgraceful defeats, and yet tenaciously adhere to office. It would take many more humiliating defeats before Lord John would think the ceremony of resigna- tion needful.
When Lord John informed the House that its opinion upon the transac- tions connected with the East had not been tested, he forgot that Ministers did not at first lay all the papers on the table. The most important papers
were kept back, secreted. When he accounted for the conduct of the Go- vernment on the supposition of "credulity or connivance" he took much
too limited a view of the case ; but when all the papers came before him, then his opinion was more mature, and he asserted that "the conduct of the Government can only be accounted for by connivance and credulity."
He accused Lord John of unfairly opposing Lord Derby's Government— lending the weight of his influence, night after night, exhausting every com- bination of faction, to defeat the Militia Bill on the voluntary principle ;
yet is not that bill one of the most successful measures that ever passed through Parliament ? Did not the noble Lord and his friends also oppose the reform of the Court of Chancery,—a reform for which the country was not indebted to the distinguished statesman opposite, but to the Go- vernment which he opposed by every artifice of faction. "Look at the dis- tinguished and gifted beings before me ; what have they done at all equal to the establishment of the Militia on the voluntary principle or the reform of the Court of Chancery ?" Then there was another enlightened and liberal proposition, which laid down the principle since adopted by Lord John in
/fis R. eform Bill, that the forfeited seats should be given to great counties ; and they proposed to give them to the West Riding and to Lancashire- (" Hear, hear ! " "Oh, oh ! " laughter)—how was that opposed ? By the
"sanctimonious eloquence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer," who said that a Government upon sufferance could not be permitted to bring forward a measure of Parliamentary reform. "1 suppose the vision of a perfect re- formed Government passed before the prescient and prophetic glance of the right honourable gentleman. Yet what have you got in the way of Parlia- mentary Reform from the Government of All the Talents ?" "When we brought forward financial measures and failed, we did that which it was our
part to do"—"at least when I have the misfortune to propose measures and fail; for I will never be a Minister upon sufferance." Lord John Rus- sell had denounced the proposal for a graduated Income-tax, and then joined S Government which carried a graduated Income-tax. " He parted from the colleagues who had all his life been faithful to him, to take into his be. som those ancient foes who had passed their lives in depreciating his talent, and in decrying his eminent ability" ; he " broke up the very being of a great historic party, the confidence of which aught not to have been leo precious to him than the favour of hia Sovereign " and he did this to carry great measures,--the great measure of education, for example, which eva- porated while he was expounding it to the House,—" That was his reason
for breaking up an honourable party, connected by association with the glory this country." In this spirit Mr. Disraeli again went through the Minis- terial failures,—the ignominious defeat on the Scotch Education Bill ; the failure of Parliamentary Reform from the opposition of " those new allies
with whom he consorts,', with reference to Lord John's emotion when he
withdrew the bill ; the complete discomfiture of last Thursday. What rela- dons now subsist between him and the Government ? Defeated on all these great measures, Lord John still retains his place. "The most eminent statesman of this country—one of the oldest and most experienced Members of this House—one who has been thrice Secretary of State, Secretary of State in each department, and who was Prime Minister of England for a long time —one who is associated with the memory of a great principle believed by large bodies of the people of this country, and who was the leader of a noble historic party—without a department, condescends to accept subordinate office, under one who is not only a Minister not entitled to the confidence of the country, but who was his ancient and inveterate political opponent, and whom only four years ago he rose and denounced in this House—he talks of 'connivance' now—as a 'conniver' with foreign conspirators. And now the noble Lord comes down and tells me that this vote the other might, which he admits was an overwhelming defeat, was caused by my being false to the principles which I profess in this House !" Mr. Disraeli denied in the most unqualified manner that he had either voted or staid away at his own convenience when the claims of the Jews
were brought on. He rated the Roman Catholic Members for voting with the Government; and he intimated that Lord John Russell in bringing in the Oaths Bill was "solely influenced by counsellors who have already in- jured his position, and who will not rest from their endeavours until they have permanently sullied his illustrious name."
Sir GEORGE GB.EY expressed an opinion that the course taken by Mr. Disraeli was not calculated to elevate the tone or character of the House.
He characterized the first attack on Lord John Russell as violent and un- provoked; and the second, so vehement in gesture and acrimonious in lan- guage that it recalled past times, as unwarranted by the moderate tone of Lord John's reply. Sir George said he rose in consequence of the taunt of throwing over his old colleagues made against Lord John to which
his life was the best answer. Sir George explicitly stated that John
had consulted him when he took office, and also others of his late col- leagues ; and they all heartily concurred in opinion that duty called upon him to accept his present position. Instead of separation, his late col- leagues had uniformly supported him ; and it is most degrading to Mr. Disraeli's party to assert, night after night, that Lord Aberdeen's Go- vernment does not possess the confidence of the country, and yet to shrink from putting those assertions to the test by a direct appeal to the House.
Colonel PEEL rose to say, that although he entertained Conservative opinions which render it impossible for him to support the present
Government, yet he never would be a party to these attacks made to weaken them ; and so far from thinking they have been guilty of " cre- dulity " or "connivance," he for one will support them in everything connected with the war.
The second order being discharged, Lord .TOHN RUSSELL spoke on the motion for the discharge of the order for the second reading of the bill relating to Hull.
Regretting that there should be any necessity for his again addressing the House, he felt that he could not be altogether silent after the charges made by Mr. Disraeli. In the first place, he expressed regret if he had done Mr. Disraeli any wrong in what he had said on the subject of Jewish right*. He could refer to a division, but declined to enter into that kind of controversy ; fully persuaded that Mr. Disraeli intended to serve the Jewish cause. But when he made accusations of factious opposition to Lord Derby's Govern- ment, Lord John must be allowed to question the facts, and deny the in- ferences on which Mr. Disraeli relied. Far from founding his opposition to that Government on the Militia Bill, Lord John did not consult his party on the subject, but, holding it to be an inferior measure to that which he had himself introduced, he voted against the second reading, took no part in the Committee, and when there was a majority of only 14 on one occasion, he purposely absented himself from the House. What he did oppose Lord Der- by's Government for was, that Lord Derby started the new and unconstitu- tional principle that he would carry on the government without the confidence of Parliament or an appeal to the country ; and until Lord Derby himself disclaimed that principle, Lord John denounced, as he had a right to denounce, the Ministry as standing on unconstitutional ground. He did not constantly oppose the Government, but voted sometimes with them and sometimes against them. That which damaged the Government of which Mr. Disraeli was a principal member—that which destroyed the confidence of Parliament in them, and finally ruined their power,_was the means by which they attempted to obtain a majority in Parliament, and the manner in which they carried on the government. Here Lord John entered into an historical account of the formation of the Aberdeen Ministry, in vindication of his position challenged by Mr. Disraeli. "Welt, but says the right honourable gentleman, I opposed his plan of finance on the ground that it made a difference in the impost between dif- ferent sources of income. Sir, I did state that I had doubts upon the sub- ject, and that the proposition was entirely new.- J took no part in the debate by which his Government was overthrowYyj r),nt when it was over-
thrown, a serious question offered itself to my mind, and I was obliged to
give a decision upon it. The question was—having taken a part in con- nexion with other parties in the overthrow of that Government, whether or not I could take a part in the Government which was about to be formed. I do not hesitate to say, that if I had thought a Government could have been formed, either by myself or by other parties, without a junction between dif-
ferent parties in politics, which Government could hope to be strong in the eon- fidence of the House of Commons, I would rather that the Government should have been formed of one party only, than that the Government should be formed of different parties who had not hitherto worked together. But when I came to consider the position in which I might be placed, should her Ma- i esty—w hich from some intimation I received I had reason to think might be the case—should her Majesty have sent for me to ask my advice on that occasion, could I form a Government which was likely to obtain a perma- nent majority in the House of Commons ? Could Lord. Aberdeen, with the assistance of Sir Robert Peel's friends, have formed such a Government ? Lord Aberdeen thought that was impossible. He has frequently de- clared to me that he thought that was impossible. The Government of Lord Derby had just been defeated, after every means had been taken—means, upon the character of which I will not now enter—but after every means had been taken to secure a majority, that Government was not able to command a majority in the House of Commons. Was I then to contribute to bring Parliamentary Government into discredit? Was it not my duty, by every means in my power, to enable Lord Aberdeen to form a Go- vernment which would have the confidence of the House of Commons ? Sir, on this subject I did not act alone. I did not betray, nor desert, nor surren- der the confidence of that great party with which. I was associated. My right honourable friend who has just spoken has given his testimony to the fact that I did not desert them ; and I may add, that the man whom I natu- rally went to consult on that occasion was not one who had constantly been my enemy—one in whom I had no political confidence : the man whom I went to consult was my Lord Lansdowne ; and I found with him aright honourable friend of mine, as distinguished for his talents, as distinguished for his cha- racter, as any Member of this House or of his party—I mean Mr. Macaulay. I think I betray no confidence when I state what passed on that occasion. I asked Lord Lansdowne, supposing that Lord Aberdeen has a summons from bee Majesty to form a Government, whether he thought that I could be a EISIBber of the Cabinet with Lord Aberdeen—whether he thought it was my duty so to do ? We discussed numerous contingencies, and Lord Lansdowne ended by declaring that in his opinion it was my duty—a duty which I owed to the public, to accept office under Lord Aberdeen. Mr. Macaulay expressed his opinion still more strongly : he said, 'I know you are not afraid of respon- ;hility ; but you never incurred a more awful responsibility than you will incur if you do not lend your utmost assistance to form a Government on the present occasion.' Sir, I consulted others—I consulted my right honourable friend who has just spoken—and they were of opinion that it was my duty to form a Government which would unite the Whig party with the party of the remainins• friends of Si Robert Peel, who were then ready to accept office under Lord Aberdeen. With regard to Lord Aberdeen, I must say that I have always been in habits of private friendship. I respected his public character; and when I hod occasion to speak of his conduct in the Foreign Office, in the administration of Sir Robert Peel, I said that, though opposed in some respects to his administration, I could not find any occasion on which the honour or the interests of this country had ever been sacri- ficed by Lord Aberdeen. Such was my public testimony to his conduct, at a time when I was opposed to him. The right honourable gentleman chooses to say that at the time when I spoke of my noble friend the present Home Secretary as not being the Minister of Austria, or the Minister of Russia, or the Minister of Prussia, I alluded to Lord Aberdeen. Sir, I made no such allusion ; I meant no such allusion ; but I did declare, that in spite of the whispers of a coterie of persons in this country, formed chiefly, I believe, of foreigners, I thought my noble friend had acted as the Minister of Englad, and not as the Minister of any foreign power ; and as such I defended his policy. Sir, I retain that sentiment to this present hour. (Loud cheers.) I think my noble friend, as Foreign Minister, did uphold, to the very highest point, the interests of this country ; and as I defended bins in 1849, so I would defend him now. (Renewed cheers.) But the question was this ; if, as I thought, it was impossible to form a Ministry composed of the Whig party—if it was impossible to form a Ministry composed of those who fol- lowed Sir Robert Peel—if it was unwise' if not impossible to leave the Go- vernment in the hands of a party which had not the confidence of the House of Commons, and which, in my opinion, did not deserve to have that confidence —there remained the question whether those men who had seed together on the greatest question that for some years has divided Parliament—I allude to the question between protection and free-trade—whether the men who concurred on that question might not be able to concur on other questions, and enter office together. To many of my, former colleagues office was not proposed; to some of them office was proposed, and declined. But with regard to all of them— having the highest opinion of the party—having acted with them through all my life—I felt sure that if there was formed a firm Government—if these par- ties saw what they considered as a liberal course adopted—if they saw that liberal course tempered with that moderation which had always characterized the Whigs as a party, and which was acknowledged and declared to be so by Mr. Burke—if they saw that these principles were the principles of Lord Aber- deen's Government—thens, whether they held office or no themselves, no con- sideration would prevent them from as heartily and as willingly supporting the Government as if they had themselves a part in it. Sir, I have not been deceived in the hopes which I anticipated. I do, indeed, form part of an Administration from which most of them have been excluded. The Administra- tion of Lord Aberdeen is formed, in great part, of those with whom be for- merly acted. Since the Government has been formed, on all the general principles of domestic government we have been agreed. I cannot of course pretend, after what has passed tonight, that we have been generally success- ful in the measures that wg, have proposed. But I think we are engaged at present in an extremely diffrnIt task, apart from any measure of reform in Parliament—of .alteration of oaths—of dealing with corrupt practices at elec- tions. Should I come to be of opinion that the conduct of the war cannot be safely left in the hands of the present Government—that the Government cannot carry on the war with that vigour which makes war successful, and by which peace can alone be rendered 'safe and honourable to this coun- try—I shall cease to be a member of the Government. But, considering that to be the immediate, great, and pressing question to this country, no taunts of the right honourable gentleman shall make me leave the post which I at present occupy,—a post which, God knows, is one of far more la- bour and anxiety than of pleasure, profit, or emolument. Unless I were con- vinced that the present Government is more likely than any other which can be formed to carry on the war with success and to finish it by an hon- ourable peace, I should cease to be a member of the Government. But as long as I remain under that impression, I trust that the House and the coun- try will give a fair interpretation to my conduct, I rely upon this country, knowing that, while most enlightened on general questions, yet it is occa- sionally apt to be misled, now as in former times, with regard to the conduct of public men ; yet I rely upon the justice of this country, which has hardly ever failed in the end to construe right the actions of public men." (Much cheering.) Other Members now intervened in the debate, and continued the dis- cussion on collateral points. Mr. OSBORNE told Mr. Disraeli that he had better refresh his memory before giving unqualified denials as to his past conduct ; and, producing Hansard, pointed out that Mr. Disraeli was ab- sent fi om one division in 1849; and that in 1850 he voted against a mo- tion pledging the House to consider the form of the oath of abjuration as it affeeted the Jews early in the ensuing session. Mr. DISRAELI ex- plained, that in 1849 he was absent some time from Parliament owing to severe indisposition. On another occasion he voted with Lord John Russell against a motion by Sir Page Wood, that Baron Rothschild should be admitted to take the oaths at the table. He could not rebut the charge that he left the House to avoid a vote, without going back te the period. [Mr. OSBORNE tendered _Hansard.] "I do not want to see the 'Volume," said Mr, Disraeli. One morning there were some twenty
divisions; some of these were cross-divisions, when it was possible he might not have voted with the Secretary of the Admiralty.
Mr. WALPOLE next spoke, not to interfere in the discussion ; but to vindicate Mr. Disraeli's conduct in reference to the Jews. Opposed as he had always been to Mr. Disraeli on this question, he must say that if there is one thing more than another for which he deserves respect, it is the manly and honourable way in which he has supported the Jewish race. Were it not for that manly support, his position might have been higher, if possible, than it is now : but his friends will never withdraw their confidence from him so long as he pursues the same manly and honourable course. Mr. Walpole also referred to Lord John's opposition to Lord Derby's Government. In the first debate after Lord Derby came into office, Mr. Walpole had stated that Lord Derby was in office because Lord John Russell had resigned, and no other party was strong enougb to take the reins of power ; and that if the. House had no confidence in Lord Derby's GOiernment, they might bring that question to a vote. lie denied that they had had any intention of remaining in office otherwise than as the constitution prescribes.
Mr. Balmer took up the general queeffon of the conduct of Ministers ; commencing with a remark on the `Irvely " combat, frorn ertioh Lord John Russell had not come out without some scars.
Nothing could make Mr. Bright believe but that Lord John took office Irons highly honoiireble motives; but at the same time, the element of the Government were and are such as to prevent the formation of a Government that can act fli the welfare of the country. As an ingenuous friend of Lord John had said, they would get on admirably if they avoided politics. On all questions relag to the taking off or imposition of taxes, Mr. Gladstone had saved the Ministry, and had been on the whole very successful. But on all other matters the Government was unable to lead or advise the House. Lord John Russell is called "leader," by courtesy ; but the House does not follow him; and many good measures, including the admirable Oaths Bill, have been kicked out by large majorities. But if the Aberdeen Government is a failure, he was not sure whether the members of that Government, doubtless as patriotic now as they were six- teen months ago, ought not to form other combinations, which may be more successful, (Cheers and great laughter.) The first adverse vote mail* the late Government was followed by their resignation; but if Mr. Disraeli had only been reckless enough to involve the country in a war,, he might have been Chancellor of the Exchequer now. That is Lord John Russelra theory. Ile tells the House of Commons that it is absolutely necessary the Government should remain in office because they have intolved the country in a war. What a position for the House of Commons ! what a pernicious principle to advance ! "Because, let a Minister be ever so reckless, ever so unprincipled, ever so unpatriotic, yet by a course of concealed and misun- derstood diplomacy, let him involve thiscountry in difficulties with a foreigil country, and then we are told that the majorities of this House go for no- thing; that Reform Bills, Corruption Bills, Oaths Bills, Settlement Bills— all that in ordinary times were thought necessary for the welfare Of the country—all these are to go for nothing now : we may not be able to pass a single measure except those which have reference to the imposition of taxes ; but as we have led this country into a war, Parliament must support us, and all other measures must be deferred."
Mr. Bright contended that he had a right so to speak, because he had always denounced the war, to which, it appears, we are to sacrifice our Par- liamentary system. He did not want Lord John, he did not want Lord Aberdeen, to resign. "If Lord Aberdeen had been at the head of a Cabinet partaking of his own views, we should have had no war." Believing the policy of the Government to be mischievous, he could see no ground for Lord John Russell calling for the confidence of the House, or for the support and approbation of the country. Sir JOHN PAX1NGTON, echoing and dwelling upon the hostile remarks of Mr. Bright., and declaring that Lord John Russell began the attack, produced Hansard to vindicate Mr. Disraeli from the accusation preferred by Mr. Osborne. On the 5th August 1850, a motion was submitted to the House that Baron Rothschild should not take his seat until he had taken the oath. Upon that motion an amendment was moved ; three divisions took place ; and ultimately the motion was that Parliament, early in the ensuing session, should take into consideration the oath of abjuration with a view to relieve the Jews. The " Ayes " were 142, the "Noes" 196; and amongst the latter was the name of Mr. Dis- raeli; so that he voted, not against the admission of the Jews into Parliament, but against a motion pledging Parliament to a given proceed- ing in the next session. On the morning of the same day, Mr. Disraeli made a speech, an extract of which Sir John read, in which he declared his views on the subject unchanged and unchangeable. Like Mr. Walpole, Sit John Pakington differed from Mr. Disraeli's conduct and opinions on this question; but that conduct was of such boldness and honourable consistency, that it tended to win the confidence and regard of all men.
Mr. GLADSTONE brought the protracted controversy to a close ; glad to make some explanations when the heat of the debate, which at one mo- ment was certainly greet, had somewhat cooled down. Mr. Gladstone's remarks were chiefly in correction of preceding speakers. He corrected Mr. Walpole's statement of the position assumed by Lord Derby's Go- vernment. When Lord Derby assumed office, he explicitly stated that what they had to do was not to consider whether his Government possessed the confidence of the House of Commons, but whether the time had not come to set aside party political questions and apply themselves to questions of "practical reform," about which there were no party differences of opinion. That was what was objected to • and those objections led to an understanding with Parliament that the business of the session was to be wound i up and a new Parliament called. Now Mr. Disraeli was not justified n his reference to the "sanctimonious eloquence" of the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer; because that sanctimonious eloquence was used to protestagainst the introduction of measures forming no part of the sessional business to be wound up, and it persuaded a large majority to prevent the Government of Lord Derby from venturing on the discharge of legislative business. , Mr. Gladstone also corrected Mr. Bright's construction of Lord John Russell's speech. Lord John had propounded no such absurd doctrine as that laid down by Mr. Bright, that a Government which involved the country in a war thereby acquired a lease of power until the war was concluded. What Lord John had said was, that questions of peace and war had thrown all others into the shade ; and that upon these primary ques- tions the House of Commons had not withdrawn its confidence from the Government. As regards the charge of legislative impotence preferred against Lord Aberdeen's Administration, that had not been sustained; And in defence of the Government he referred to the last session of Par-
Bement and its substantial measures; admitting that these are not mat- ters to be referred to except in self-defence.
"If," he said in conclusion, "during the present year, the results have been very different, I appeal to your sense of Justice to consider whether that has been owing so much to eareleasneass, or to neglect, or to incompetency on the part of the Administration, as it has been owing tolhat marvellous and profound change which seems to pass upon the temper of a people, which passes upon the temper of a legislature, and which, I venture to say, you may trace eV-ay night in every discussion of this session, when the energies of a country have been drawn upon to conduct a tremendous external struggle, and, in being so called, have been of necessity diverted from the pacitie purposes to which, in former years, they have been, and to which, in future 3-ears, God grant they may soon be again directed." (Cheers.) Lord Hamar having stated that he should still present several peti- tions against the bills, the motion before the House was agreed to ; and the orders for the second reading of the five bills were discharged.
WAB. ADMINISTRATION.
Before the great war of words on Monday began, Mr. DRUMMED, who disclaimed being actuated by any idle curiosity, asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Ministers to take any steps towards placing the whole of the military resources of the country under the management of one responsible Minister ?
• Lord Joint Russitim—" The important question to which the honourable gentleman refers has been under the consideration of the Government. No positive decision has yet been come to. As soon as a decision is ar- rived at I will communicate it to the House."
OCCUPATION OP GREECE.
In reply to Mr. MoNex.Tox IfiticEs, Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that no account had been received of the occupation of Greece by the Allied Powers; but a French force of six thousand men, to- gether with a British infantry regiment, has been ordered to oc- cupy the Erma. The cause of this step has been the intelli- gence repeatedly received by the Allies, that by the connivance of the Greek Government, Greek officers have attempted to raise an insurrection in the Turkish provinces. Besides this, a correspondence was recently found in the possession of the secretary of the insurgent General Tzavel- los, showing that the Greek Government was cognizant of the insurree- tion:'-If the King of Greece disapprove of these insurrectionary attempts, then the force sent to him will enable him to compel his subjects to ob- servellieir obligations; but if his repeated protestations of disapproval turn out not to be sincere, then other means will certainly be adopted. At present there is no intention of declaring war against Greece, but care will be taken that Greece shall not be the secret or avowed ally of Russia during the present war.
LEITERS TO THE FLEETS.
In reply to Lord DUDLEY Smarr, Sir hams GRAHAM described the arrangements that have been made for the transmission of letters to the fleets in the Baltic and the Black Sea.
With regard to the Baltic, a mail is made up in London every Tuesday, and sent on by a messenger to Dantzie ; and orders have been sent to Sir Charles Napier to send a steamer to Dantzic every Friday to meet the mail at that place. Officers' letters under a half-ounce, sent by this route, are charged 8d.; that is, Id. British, 3id. Belgian, and 3id. Prussian postage. Seamen's and soldiers' letters are charged 6d. ; that is, id. British, id. Bel- gian, and 314. Prussian postage. Besides this mode of conveyance, mails are made up and forwarded by every man of war or other Queen's ,ship despatched from England to the fleet ; and by this route officers' letters are charged 6d and seamen's letters Id. under the half-ounce. Three mails were despatched in March, three in April, and five in the present month.
For the Black See, the French Government have afforded the English Government all the facilities of their communication by way of Marseilles; and by this route mails are made up six times a month. All letters are liable to the combined British and French postage only ; but the French Government reckons its postage by the quarter-ounce, but most English letters exceed that weight, and the charge upon-them will be 6d. Twice a month letters are sent to the Black Sea by way of Southampton and Malta.
As there have been complaints that letters directed to Copenhagen, Kiel, and other places, have not reached their destination, Sir James explained that the 'delay and loss arise from the specification of places; and he recom- mended that the address of a letter should be simply the name of the-person to whom it is sent, the name of his ship, and whether it is to be forwarded to the Baltic or the Black Sea.
.In. the House of Peers, on a subsequent day, Lord CAtircrso made a atmilar statement, in reply to Lord BEAUMONT.
FACILITIES FOR EMBARKING AND DEBARKING TROOPS.
The Earl of ELLENEOROUGH asked for some explanation of a letter from General Brown giving an account of the important assistance rendered by the French in the embarkation of troops at Gallipoli, and read the letter as confirmation of his apprehensions that the transports and steamers in which our troops were conveyed to Turkey were not sufficiently provided with boats for the embarkation and disembarkation of troops; a deficiency that might lead to serious inconveniences. • Thii Duke of NEWCASTLE, admitting the authenticity of the letter, ex- plained, that in order that we might send to the Baltic and the Black Sea two of the largest fleets that ever left our shores, it became necessary to employ hired vessels to convey the land force to the East ; and, of course, those vessels of commerce had not fiat-bottomed boats. The French troops were chiefly conveyed thither in vessels of war, provided with fiat-bottomed boats ; and on the occasion referred to in General Brown's letter, the French authorities courteously placed those boats at his disposal. The Duke was happy to assure the House that ample provision had now been made for embark- ing and disembarking our troops in case of need ; and only that day he had received a letter from Admiral Boxer, under whose command the transport service has been placed, stating that every necessary provision had been made for the safe and rapid disembarkation of troops on any given point.
MANNING THE NAVY.
• On the third reading of the Manning the Navy Bill, the Earl of HARD- WICXE contended that prize-agents would not be able to perform their duty under the bill ; and he objected to its retrospective operation. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said, the bill was not retrospective ; nor would the remuneration of 21; per cent be interfered with by the bill. Lord BROUGHAM suggested, that it would be better to insert a few words so as to prevent the possibility of doubt. The bill having been read a third tinlei Lord lisanwxeNE, on the question that it do now pass, moved an amendment, to the effect that the bill should come into operation ft-cm the 1st of June 1854, but not affect any captures of a previous date. The amendment was negatived by 47 to 34, and the bill passed. The Navy Pay Bill also passed.
Ox.ronn UxrvEasrrY.
The House sat again in Committee on the Oxford University Reform Bill, on Thursday, and got through clauses 26 and 27. On clause 26—pro- viding for the opening of private halls by members of Convocation, sub- ject to specified restrictions—Mr. EWART moved the insertion of words enabling " resident householders" to provide lodgings for the reception of students, as it would lessen the expense of attending the University. Mr. GLADSTONE and others objected, that the course proposed would break down the system of discipline ; and the Committee agreed with them; rejecting the amendment by 112 to 41. Mr. GOCLEURE moved the omission of words from the clause which admitted matriculated students to " all the privileges of the University, without being of necessity entered as members of any College or existing Hall." On this point there was considerable discussion. Sir Joux Pe.- EnCGTON and Mr. WAtroLE supported Mr. Goulburn ; opposed by Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and Sir WILLIAM HEATH- COTE. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 205 to 113. Clause 26, as amended, and clause 27, were then agreed to. In moving that the Chairman report progress, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated that Min- isters proposed to make considerable alterations in the remaining part of the bill, in order to save time. Sixteen clauses of great detail will be omitted, and others substituted. Speaking generally, it is proposed that the Commissioners should have certain powers, which, if the Colleges agreed to, or unless they dissented from them to the extent of two-thirds, should enable the Commission to enact certain statutes in regard to the Colleges. The number of the Commissioners will be increased. He pro- posed to print the clauses, and take Thursday week for proceeding with the bill. Tho Chairman reported progress, and the House resumed.
THE RAILWAY BILL.
Mr. Cardwell's Railway and Canal Traffic Regulation Bill passed through Committee of the Lords on Tuesday, after a protest from Lord Campbell and the insertion of two amendments. Lord CAMPBELL renewed with great force his objection, that the bill proposed to throw upon the Judges du- ties which they are not qualified to discharge. He had consulted them, and the great majority concurred with him. He had spent a great part of his life in studying the laws of his country, but he was totally unac- quainted with railway subjects ; he could not determine what is reason- able fare, and what undue delay, or within what time trucks and boats should be returned. He suggested a lay tribunal to decide disputes be- tween rival companies, and those companies and the public. If these duties were imposed upon him, he should perform them to the best of his ability; but they are not duties of a judicial character, and ought not to be imposed upon the Judges.
The Loin) CHANCELLOR made light of the difficulties suggested by Lord CampbelL The only difference between the function of a judge under the bill and in trying a cause before a jury would be, that he would have to do that himself which he did through the intervention of a jury.
Lord STANLEY of Alderley read a letter from the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, expressing an opinion that the Judges might work the bill if they would take the trouble.
In Committee, a clause was added, to the effect that all actions under the bill should be brought in the Court of Common Pleas; and a second, rendering railway companies liable for the loss or injury of goods, any notice on their part limiting their liability notwithstanding.
SUGAR-DUTIES.
On the second reading of the Sugar and Spirits Duties Bill, Mr. Wire SON stated the intentions of the Government with regard to refining in bond, and the use of sugar in breweries. It is proposed to change re‘ fineries in bond into free refineries, in this way. Until the 26th June, bonded refineries shall be permitted to work, but after that date they shall take in no more raw sugar. Six days will be allowed them to work up their produce ; and three days will be allowed for placing the refined stock in the bonded warehouses. Stock will then be taken, the duty paid, and from the 5th July the refineries will be free refineries. It will therefore be necessary to allow a drawback according to the qualities of the sugar ; but the rate cannot be fixed, but must be left to the Queen in Council for settlement. With respect to the use of sugar and molasses in breweries, that cannot be allowed, because no facilities exist for checking abuse. The .duty on malt is 1/. 12s. per quarter; while the duty on a quantity of sugar equivalent to a quarter of malt is 1/. 2s. id. The difference would operate as an inducement to use sugar ; but as there are forty thousand licensed breweries, it would require ten thousand additional men to protect the malt revenue if sugar were used. This restriction will not greatly affect the trade. Since the concession, the largest quantity of sugar used in one year was 800 tons; last year it was 723 tons out of a total consump- tion of 420,000 tons.
LAW REFORM.
On the third reading of the Common Law Procedure Bill, Lord CA.KP, BELL made some observations defending the contested provisions relating to the trying of issues of fact by the Judges, the arbitration clauses, the alteration in the law relating to the unanimity of juries, the dispensing with oaths, and what is called the fusion of law and equity ; in all of which changes he concurred, pronouncing the bill a most valuable one. On the other hand, Lord ST, LEONAILDS retained his adverse opinion re- specting the fusion of law and equity the alteration of the jury law —he would not receive a verdict from fewer than eleven jurymen, and the clause substituting affirmations instead of oaths. The last-named change is limited to the Courts of Common Law ; so that on one side of Westminster Hall a man will be bound to swear as the law now directs, and on the other he will he relieved from swearing. The LORD CHAN- CELLOR argued in favour of the oath clause ; pointing out as a fallacy in all reasoning on the subject of oaths, that it was assumed the oath was a privilege of the witness and not the right of the suitor. A suitor wants testimony ; the only man who can establish his right conscientiously ob- jects to take an oath : why should the suitor suffer because such a man is over-conscientious ? That argument has never been answered. Lord BROUGHAM gave his hearty support to the whole of this great and most important improvement of the law—one of the greatest and most import- ant within his recollection. It is not all he could wish, but not for that would he reject it. The bill Was read a third time. On the question that it should pass, Lord Sr. LEONARDS moved the omission of the clause relating to oaths. The motion was negatived by 41 to 31; and the bill passed.
CRIMINAL LAW.
The Loam CHANCELLOR said that, the Commissioners of Criminal Law having now completed the bills which each had drawn up for the amend- ment of the law, he proposed to lay on the table those bills which had not already been laid before the House ; and he proposed to move, after the recess, that they should all be submitted to a Select Committee, with in- structions to report on the best course to be adopted on this important subject.
The Criminal Law Amendment Bills, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, were brought up, and respectively read a first time.
SCOTCH SCHOOLMASTERS.
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to bring in a bill to regulate the salaries of parochial schoolmasters in Scotland. Not discouraged by the late defeat, he should only propose that the arrangement of 1828 should be continued until Martinmas 1855. It will soon be impossible, whe- ther Parliament interfere or not, to maintain the exclusive privileges of the Establishment any longer.
GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND.
Sir Jomv PASINGTON put a string of questions to Ministers relative to the Government of New Zealand and the Administration of Sir George Grey, couched in these terms-
" 1. Whether it is true that the Governor of New Zealand, having pro- claimed the new constitution of that colony on the 17th day of January 1853, postponed till the latest possible day allowed by the Constitution Act, viz, till the 17th day of July 1853, the issuing of writs for the election of members of the Legislative Assembly; and, notwithstanding the direction of the Act that the Assembly should be convened 'as soon as conveniently may be after the return of the first writs,' had taken no steps for convening the Assembly up to the time of his leaving the colony, in January 1854, although the Provincial Councils were in full action. 2. Whether the last revenue appropriation ordinance passed by the former Legislative Council did not expire on the 30th day of September 1853; whether the Governor did not, subsequently to that date, appropriate revenue by his own sole act ; and if so, whether such appropriation was not illegal. 3. Whether Governor Sir George Grey did not continue to dispose of land under new regulations, after and notwithstanding a decision by the Supreme Court at Wellington that such regulations were illegal, and after an injunction by the said Court to restrain such disposal of land. 4. If all or either of these allegations are correct, whether it is the opinion of her Majesty's Government that the course so taken by Sir George Grey admits of satisfactory explanation, and meets with their approval. 5. Whether her Majesty's Government have received any information, or have received any instructions, with respect to the Legislative Assembly of New Zealand being convened by the acting Governor. 6. Whether Colonel Winyard, the commander of her Majesty's forces in New Zealand, and now acting Governor of the colony, offered him- self as a candidate and was elected as Superintendent of the settlement of Auckland ; and whether her Majesty's Government approve or have ex- pressed disapprobation of such a combination of offices."
Mr. PEEL asked the House to allow him to make a statement of some length in reply to these questions; as they affected the character of an
official highly esteemed by the Government, and implied that he had en- deavoured to defeat the intentions of Parliament by postponing the issu- ing of the writs for the election of members to the General Assembly, And by omitting to fix a day for their meeting. Mr. Peel replied to the questions seriatim. 1. Parliament had left to Sir George Grey the duty of defining the bound- aries of the new provinces, and of the electoral districts ; also the duty of fixing the number of members of both Houses and of the Provincial Coun- cils, of arranging for the revision of votes, the situation of polling-places, the appointing of returning-officers, and other details, all which were com- pleted in two months. Then the lists of voters had to be framed, and the claims of electors to be received ; and notwithstanding every exertion on the part of Sir George Grey, it was not until the middle of June 1853 that the electoral roll was complete. As soon as it was closed, he issued writs for the election of the General Assembly. As to convening the General Assembly, the act of Parliament directed that it should be convened as soon as convenient after the return of the writs. It was not until within seven days of his quitting New Zealand that he re- ceived the return of the writs from Otago, a province 800 miles from the seat of government ; so that he could not have summoned the Assembly until that time. Sir George had given a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the reason that induced him not to convene the Assembly. He thought that the responsibility of that step ought to rest with the officer who would -assume the government in a few days : but in private he advised Colonel Winyard to convene the Assembly without delay ; and from the newspapers it would appear that Colonel Winyard bad convened the Assembly the mo- ment Sir George Grey quitted the Government. 2. Sir George Grey had not appropriated a single penny of the public money. The general revenue had been appropriated in three ways,—first, to the payment of the civil list charged upon it by act of Parliament ; se- condly, to the payment of certain permanent charges which had been im- posed by ordinances of the late General Legislature ; and, thirdly, it was appropriated by the elective Provincial Councils. Sir George Grey found that the first two charges absorbed about one-third of the general revenue; and he directed the Treasurers of each of the Provinces to pay the remaining two-thirds into the treasuries of the different provinces tl be appropriated according to the direction of the Provincial Councils. in taking that course, Sir George Grey had acted with perfect propriety; and if he had done anything illegal, it arose from an oversight of Sir John Pakington ; for the act of 1852 only gave power to the General Assembly to appropriate revenues raised by their own acts, whereas the general revenue now accruing in New Zealand was raised under the old ordinances of the late General Legislature. Sir George Grey had acted according to the manifest intentions of the act in directing that the surplus of the revenue, not otherwise appropriated, should be placed at the disposal of the Provincial Legislatures.
3. Sir George Grey had reduced the price of land to an uniform rate of ten shillings per acre, acting on the powers and using the discretion conferred on him by Sir John Pakington when Colonial Secretary. The legality of the regulation had only been disputed in the district of Wellington. The Judge of the Supreme Court at Wellington had granted an injunction to stop the sale of lands in the adjoining district. Sir George Grey was anxious that the matter should be brought fairly before the Court, and that the At- torney-General should be made a party to the cause ; and the Judge per- mitted the plaintiff to amend his ; but he was informed by Mr. Sewell and Mr. Wakefield, who supported the plaintiff, that they preferred not to proceed with the bill.
4. Government had frequently bad occasion to express their approval of the conduct of Sir George Grey, who deserved their gratitude for the success of his administration.
5. Whether an injunction to stop the sale of lands had or had not been issued, or whether while it was in form any sales of land had taken place in the district immediately adjoining the town of Wellington, Mr. Peel could not say.
6. Generally speaking, it is not desirable that the Governor of a colony should occupy at the same time a subordinate civil position; but Auckland forms an exceptional case. Colonel Winyard was intimately acquainted with the manners and habits of the natives, having governed the province for two years ; and at the request of Sir George Grey he had offered himself, and had been elected.
In the midst of Mr. Peel's speech, Mr. HUME interposed on a point of order. Statements which no Member, in conformity with the rules of the House, could answer or explain, should not be made. Had he been in Mr. Peel's place, he would have answered "yes" or "no." The Sreas- est observed that Mr. Peel had asked to be allowed to make the state- ments as the conduct of a public officer was called in question : the House concurred, and he had not felt bound to interfere: but unless it were the wish of the House, Mr. Peel could not proceed. Lord TORN RUSSELL hoped the House, having allowed the questions to be put, would consent to hear the replies ; and Mr. PEEL finished his statement.
BUSINESS OF Trta Hoven OF COMMONS.
Sir IOHN PARINGTON, in moving the resolutions adopted by the Se- lect Committee on Business, explained that his own views, fully borne out by the evidence, as he conceived, went beyond those of the Com- mittee, which had rejected all his recommendations except two. His chief proposals recommended, that when a bill had been once in Com- mittee it should not be necessary to put the question upon again going into Committee ; that the numbers of Select Committees should be re- duced, and be nominated by the Committee of Selection; that the ques- tion of adjournment, if put and negatived, should not be repeated within an hour ; and that certain restrictions, which he did not explain, should be placed on the practice of moving amendments upon going into Com- mittee of Supply. The two recommendations adopted by the Committee related to the consideration of public bills in Committee in succession without the Speaker resuming the chair ; and to the adjournment of the House from Friday till Monday. Having made rather a lengthy preface, he proposed the resolutions seriatim ; which with some discussion on each, were adopted, except the last.
The resolutions agreed to were to this effect—that Committees of the
whole House may make such amendments in bills as they may think fit, and if the amendment be not within the title of the bill, then the title shall be altered ; that the putting of the question for reading a bill a first and second time in Committee shall be discontinued, and no question be put for filling up words printed in Italics, unless exception be taken.therete ; that
when a clause is offered in a Committee, or on the consideration of a report or on the third reading, it shall be read without question put, but no clause altered at either stage, without notice ; that Lords' amendments to public bills shall be appointed to be considered on a future day, unless ordered for consideration forthwith ; that "every report from a Committee of the whole House be brought up without any question being put " • and "that bills which may be fixed for consideration in Committee on the same day, 'whe- ther in progress or otherwise, may be referred together to a Committee of the whole House, which may consider on the same day all the bills so refer- red to it, without the Chairman leaving the chair on each separate bill, ro- vided that, with respect to any bill net in progress if any Member raise an objection to its consideration, such bill shall postponed."
On the last resolution submitted to the House—namely, "that the House, at its rising on Friday, do stand adjourned until the following Monday, unless the House shall have otherwise ordered "—there arose a discussion, in which Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. Hum; Mr. E. DENISON, and other Members, warmly opposed the resolution, on the ground that the motion for adjournment is a legitimate occasion for bring- ing on important questions, and discussing the opinions and feelings of people out of doors ; and also because the privilege has not been abused. Lord Joint Russau, thought that the proposition was not unreasonable; but as the House did not seem to concur in it, he recommended its with- drawal. Sir Joan Pexiatomie agreed ; and the resolution was with- drawn.
Previous page
