POSTSCRIPT.

SATURDAY.

Three principal subjects occupied the House of Commons last night dining a long sitting, —the wind-up of the Committee business on the Militia Bill, the second reading of the New Zealand Constitution Bill, and Foreign l'olicy towards constitutional governments abroad.

The Militia Bill received its last consideration in Committee. The two postponed clauses, the 25th and 28th, were despatched. The first of these, repealing so much of the 42d George III. as authorized the militia to be embodied in case of rebellion and insurrection, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed to abandon. Thereupon a sharp attack was made on the Government by Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. MILNER Ginsoar, and others, for the trickery and jockeyship shown by the introduction of this clause, and the emphasis laid on it originally, in order to popularize the bill, and then its instant abandonment the moment an opportunity was offered by objections to it from either side of the House. The opposers of the clause insisted that the law which is to be preserved is odiously distrustful of the people; and also bad for its own object, as it has almost passed into an axiom, that a militia is the worst force to bring against local disturbances. The CHAN- CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. Wenroin defended the course they now proposed to take : the former with keenness of speech, and counter sarcasms ; the latter with a mild impressiveness, which produced from Mr. BRIGHT a ractation of anything he had said in his warmth which could possibly reflect on the honesty or sincerity of Mr. Walpole. On a division, the Government were supported by 151 against 61; and the clause was removed from the bill. Clause 28th was passed without much discussion. Some new clauses were added, including one to exempt Quakers without property who refused to serve, from being sent to the common gaol. The preamble was agreed to. The House resumed, re- ceived the report of the Chairman, and fixed Monday next for the third reading.

Sir Jolts PAKENCTON having moved the order of the day for the second reading of the New Zealand Bill, Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH rose to recite an elaborate detail of objections to the bill. He objected to the division of the colony into its two parts, a native part and an at glish pale ; the native laws to be maintained in the one, when not inconsistent with "humanity." Ile objected to the division of the English part into six provinces, each with a population ranging from 1500 to 7000 and each possessing not only a Municipality but also a real legislative Coun-

cil with power to make acts on general subjects; and a Governor or "Super-

intendent." There was also to be a General Assembly, comprising a nomi- nated Legislative Council, and an elected House of Representatives. Surely

this nest of colonies would be a most complicated machine for the govern- ment of 26,000 Europeans and 100,000 savages. There would be nine distinct and conflicting codes of laws—the six independent Pro- vincial codes, one General New Zealand code, the Native New Zealand code, and the laws of Great Britain ; a confusion aggravated by the powers of re- peal or veto reserved to the General Assembly, the Governor, and the Colo- nial Office, extending in the two latter cases to a period of two years. To the Superintendents chargeable on the civil list Sir William objected, as likely to be most intolerable jacks in office. He objected to the condition which clogs the surrender of control over waste lands to the General Assem- bly of New Zealand—the condition that five shillings for each acre pur- chased be paid to the New Zealand Company, until the sum of 268,000/. with yearly interest of 31 per cent be paid. The New Zealand Company,

established in 1839 to carry out certain views on colonization and to make money, has proved a failure; to prop it up, it obtained a loan of 100,000/. at

3 per cent in 1846, and in 1847 it obtained a second loan of 136,000/. with-

out interest : its claim is now made the first of the three charges on the waste lands of New Zealand ; surveys and emigration being postponed to that. Sir William cited memorials and petitions from Wellington, Nelson, New Plymouth, and other places, with the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor, and in part of the Governor, to show that on the whole they approved of his (Sir William Molesworth'sj plan for a constitution—making New Zealand one colony, with one Legislature, but with Municipal Councils, to elect their own officers and make local bye-laws, on certain definite and enumerated subjects.

He advocated a steamer as the great key to prosperity for New Zealand; and said that be should propose amendments in Committee.

Mr. ADDERLEY contended, that the worst thing which could happen would be delay ; as the colonists are at present deprived of power for ne- cessary works by the suspension of their legislative machinery : they cannot make roads, harbours, nor light-houses, no establish a militia for defending themselves at their own expense.

Mr. Adderley showed, that in a colony like New Zealand, with separate settlements along the coast, large local powers are required. In the very documents cited by Sir William Molesworth, of which he seemed only to have read the first paragraph in each, the colonists used the term "municipal powers" in the large sense given to it by our North American Colonies in their infancy—as When they established the constitution of Rhode Island. Aa to the New Zealand debt, the colonists are willing to pay it. Mr. FREDERICK PEEL elaborated the local point ; showing that the se- parate settlements carry on their exports or imports directly with Austra- lia, England, or California, and would be hindered by too great centrali- zation.

Mr. GLADSTONE advised the House to consider the measure as a whole, for acceptance or rejection; and not in seeking speculative niceties to bin-

der the gift of a constitution for New Zealand, if the measure could pos- sibly be put in a shape within the present session.

I Be proceeded to deliver a calm but earnest and dignified thesis on the true relation of colonies to the parent state; showing that the present prinej.. ple of reluctantly and gradually giving local freedom is fundamentally wrong, I and wholly opposed to the old system, under which highminded men, who had received the real " training for freedom," went forth, and, demanding no assistance, but overcoming obstacles with miraculous facility in those days of imperfect commerce, founded the great States of America—the basis of that Union the strength of which depends so much on the independence of I its States. Mr. Gladstone applauded the Government Bill because it made a beginning in dispensing with the sanction of the Colonial Office for local mea- sures, and because it discarded in the local Councils the principle of nomination, that absurd plan of endeavouringto keep up " Crown influence." Be thought, however, that the "concurrent jurisdiction" of the general and local bodies would, as usual, prove to be conflicting jurisdiction : their powers, as in the ease of Parliament and minor bodies in this country, should be more strictly limited and delegated. The paid Superintendents should be erased from the bill; and the colonists should be permitted to elect unpaid men, like mayors, who would command their confidence. With a general caveat against the inter- vention of trading companies in executive administration, Mr. Gladstone objected to altering the present pecuniary position of the New Zealand Con.. pony : he would at least keep their mortgage as the third of the charges on the land.

On this point Sir JAMES GEARAM also insisted.

Sir Josue PAKINGTON urged the passing of the bill, to avoid the inevit- able alternative of again passing a suspending act ; because he could not allow the act of 1846 to be revived. Enforcing many of Mr. Adderley's positions, he showed that the real opinion of the New Zealand colonists is singularly attainable, as they have many representatives now in this country ; and persons who promoted the very meetings cited by Sir Wil- liam Molesworth are now urging Sir John to legislate. He explained that the native population, advanced in civilization, advanced in Chris- tianity, and rapidly taking their places side by side with the European emigrants, are as desirous as the British for the enjoyment of free insti- tutions.

There were several minor speeches. Mr. VERNON Sum& would reject the bill ; Mr. ANSTEY would cut out portions of it ; Mr. ETPMEN DENI- SON would amend it ; Mr. Tom; ABEL Slum would heartily and thank- fully cooperate in perfecting it. Mr. MANGLES explained that the New Zealand Company, desiring no alteration of their position, had been de- prived of the land which was their security for 268,0001. to other parties.

The bill was read a second time ; to be committed on the 3d of June.

Lord PALMERSTON called "the attention of Government to reports which have circulated in Europe as to the exertion of foreign influences with a view to effect changes in Spain." Laying great stress on constitutional monarchy as the best form of go- vernment ever invented by the wisdom of man, he enumerated the principal countries now enjoying that form,—Prussia, Denmark, and Sardinia, by the effect of domestic arrangements ; Greece, in the same way, at the recom- mendation of the Three Powers; Belgium, Portugal, and Spain, mainly by the intervention of Great Britain. Sardinia received Parliamentary govern- ment by the spontaneous act of her Sovereign, and is an embodiment of its success ; and the statesman at the head of the Spanish Government looks back with just pride to the part he took in the Quadruple Alliance. But there is reason to fear that the reaction of the despotic influences after 1848 has extended into Spain and Sardinia • and, believing the foreign. policy of this country to be steadfast and not changed with changes of Administration —trusting that countenance, support, and even counsel, would be afforded to Sardinia or Spain in times of difficulty and danger, Lord Palmerston asked for a declaration on the part of Government. Remarking that Lord Palmerston had only called attention to "re- ports" which he had not detailed, Mr. DISRAELI showed how inconve- nient it would be to make a declaration without some facts or reasons for so unusual an appeal. Agreeing, however, in Lord Palmerston's view as to the unchanging prin- ciples on which the foreign policy of this country rests, he mentioned, as an illustration, that Ministers had advised her Majesty not to accept the resig- nation which the present Ambassador at Madrid, Lord Bowden, had tendered on the change of Ministry ; and, no doubt, he would offer friendly counsel on the occurrence of any exigency. Not agreeing altogether in Lord Pal- merston's eulogy on the monarchical system prevalent in Europe, Mr. Dis- raeli expressed a hope that the lesson of 1848 would prove that the civiliza- tion of Europe is opposed to all extreme opinions, whether Despotic or Re- publican ; but he believed that if the spirit of disorder should again break out, from whichsoever side arising, there is not the same prospect of its be- ing so speedily allayed.

In the Upper House, replying to Earl GRANVILLE, the Earl of 1/Luxus- BURT said, her Majesty's Government had learned with pleasure, that the Marquis d'Azeglio had resumed office under the King. of Sardinia,—an. earnest that constitutional government would be maintained in Pied- mont.

Two other topics engaged the Peers. The Duke of WELLINGTON raised a long conversation, by moving for papers, and objecting to Earl Talbot's Committee on Mr. Warner's invention as that point has already been settled by a perfectly competent Ordnance Commission. The circum- stances, said Lord DERBY, are different; as Mr. Warner now promises to disclose his secret modus operandi. Ultimately, however, Lord Termer agreed to postpone his Committee until after the production of the papers. Lord Derby was baited, to draw from him a statement on the Maynooth question more explicit and more consistent with Mr. Disraeli's avowal. First Lord BREADALBANE tried, and then Lord BEAUMONT ; but, in two speeches, Lord DERBY could say no more than this,—that Ministers do not intend to abrogate the grant ; but they- cannot be indifferent to what is taught at Maynootb, especially as to "loyalty "-; and they must be left at perfect liberty. Several other Peers followed, in a string of provoca- tive speeches; but Lord Derby would not rise again.