The Sun. — London, England, 1845-03-19 00:00:00

;c, ths t i t that tiie irrt; by the old it ca It er a" 3 ti V not go ice, -11 1 0 , ren',°r uid be atNin im it ' rag Coopnclo Pre en d near him (Mr. Baring).—( Hear, hear.) Chancellors of P the .-xehequer were a ll h ar d hearted.-1 Lenehter ) It was t b • L " a ° sffect of th e sys t em t h at t h ey s h ou ld b e so•—(Con 'need l aughter.) They had plenty to do with their money, a nd th erefore he (Mr. Hume) would make every allowance fur . th e , trade , He would read the House an extract from a suggestion 6 Y himself to Lord Althorp in reference to this very re r et i o rn ci sta nee. , He then h o p e d th a t th ere was no occas i on t o th the Noble Loid the Chancellor of the Exchequer of te a e t P l edee whi c h h e had given some time ago to do away with os,i i d utY• and he suggested the propriety, at least, y e ; 'ing every man who had paid the window-tax for one s e e r t° °Pen additional windows, without any increased duty, t t h h at ef itself he considered would be a very great relief. „„_ e 30th of Jule, 1834, certain clauses were brought up Purl th e euhject, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then L° eicli that his (Mr. Home's) recommendation would occasion . °ss to the revenue, as its only effect would be to prevent ei_lelerease in the houses already taxed. Agreeably to that r h " . ge the clauses were introduced into the Bill. What was eie:lnesequense? Why this, that those who had shut ap their d e "'"e's to the litter exclusion of fresh air, as soon as they un tflors.l°od that although the tax should be continued, yet that ses whe had paid the tax for one year might be allowed to ecinsoadditienal windows without an increased expense, they th e e v e and allowed fresh air to be admitted throughout of ti"2, n 'es• A few years afterwards, however, the Chancellor those e 'xehequer considered it to be his duty to re-assess all tag, And what was then the consequence ? The ee' d enlch had been 1, 9 00,0001., was raised to 1.700,00 e/. The cloyedl-°", were again shut up, and many houses were altogether O ttth t and the tax again fell in consequence of that pre , sore. tet ed ° ,,se grounds he thought this one of those taxes which wil ed lor immediate correction by the House ; and he thought ea t any pla n were su b m i tte d to t h e H ouse f or a more equa l tse et. " of this tax, that plan ought to be a general ~,a n equal charge upon the rental of the houses. tse e i • " l el not have an opportunity of making an amend h if the Government refused an inquiry, but he se m fee,' pat his Noble Friend would receive some assurance tske the Right Hon. Baronet that this subject would be sit under the immediate consideration of the Government ° ,e, view of modifying the tax. li ons ; RARING said he should be obliged to trouble the see th With a few o b serva ti ons , in consequence of the remarks fer e , i mputations of the Hon. Member for Montrose, in re st - h t e to himself, and to the office which he had the honour had h ol e under ' the late Government. The Hon. Member l ett Lidtnitted that that office was a most difficult one, ne Loti on should not accept of that admission. His tstis e °f the duty o f a p u bl ic servant was this—to het he to the A c t s w hi c h h a d b een passe d b y th a t H ouse ; pleaiid not think that any course of getting money would tisfaetory to the Government or to the country, if the he doges ° f the G overnmen t were v i o l a t e d by it. I n thi s case , tie s e yed that th e G overnment h a d p l e d ge d i tse lf i n t h e man bad i ated b y t h e Non. Member for M ontrose. The House Alth 'ard the Hon. Member read his own speech to Lord th epe 'rPi but the had not heard the answer which Lord Al !see heti returned to him. He ( Mr. Baring) perfectly re tfoe'ptedethe Hon. Member bringing the question before the ' th ,"nt he did not remember, and he would not say, that Pesitt o ° ° l e Lord (Lord Althorp) had concurred in those pro ns es 'eNTE—Read the 30th of July. elts t ,•• l 'ARING was perfectly aware that the Noble Lord's le,ll.l"ns were fully carried out by those appointed to do so. bl el„ -- r g e n e 'Member for Montrose seemed to think that the No -44 r'- ," e nad been deceived by the officers of the Stamps and to ld. "t CO one was less likely to be deceived than the Noble n ;rhe Hon. Member for Montrose had also said that he ID One --r 'nZ), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had wanted the e t . 4, and had acted upon the instructions in the clauses of "e`ss glle •te i n a manner never acted on before. That was not the "lat clause was acted on in the same way in 1835 and in , (4 1-1 „ g e admitted, indeed, that an additional survey— itt send''' n ear' " from Mr. Hume.) What was the construe- Bt'nPonthos His c tl ri ses by he Hon. —tMember for .Mon t.4l`elfe" str ction t was thishat by the clause st g , ll ' w as given too o penw u indows without any additional tax. tiss, -° PPesing th at parties had opened windows under originally properh' . ' , .s t e - s 'h i v l he o number of windows—supposing that their It s* eO,l twenty windows . and they had only returned fifteen, ,l'rth ee t e " the construction put upon the clauses by the Hon. 'lts etr e tor elontrore act upon that case ? Were they to would "re 4'l l re windows—were they to cheat the revenue—he 'het it cheats—he would say evade the proper payment of i ,tel e - n ; to n a d was it to be said that proper measures should not b'tn enforce the proper amount which they ought to pay ' td "'yen " ? He was sure that that reading of the Act t qh " s e e r been . contemplated by the Noble Lord. The Noble red " never had any intentions like those constantly re ate t°, by the Hon Member anxiouse It was state ate • t •ei4o (Mr. * Retitle) was for an increased tax, Rete,,,la,t he Lad ' * caused a survey for that, purpose. That was ltectlY c orrect. cau }l - e found that it would be necessary to l ' e i °d al e e t he amount of the window-tax ; but he thought it was e ettly ul e " In the first instance, to see that all parties paid the tax citti e ; " a fore h e should levy any additional duty upon other llts e ee arid for that n ?Tose he had caused the survey to be ot' eue d with. B a ul, u hcs Hon. Friend the Member for Mon tt, fad e s 's Mistaken in supposing that the survey had then been 4 * -- 'or the first time. The survey had been going on long th He (IMr. Barig) had been informed that whole streets ,4ti ni pym en t of the tax, and he did not see that parties Peg: those streets should be exempt—especially when . they Teeth regard to make an additional charge upon other parties. It etW e egard to thegrievances of the tax, they all knew per kris; ; s ' l that there g was no tax existing which had not t !!ise a- e ' re a• The Hon. Member referred to particular . cases . of iesto l f, c esi but it was isle . possible for him to answer individual ',"; ° °ght forward by Hon Members. They had heard of etr d e esn'ages ofdireetover indirect taxation, and yet, as in Ne l i a '.ei the Hon. Member for Montrose was the very first to hi e , / 4 1 , (4 ‘ the unequal pressure of direct taxation. h eir ft e . 4 E—Not if you tax the rental. Ittai ,-4 ,,,RING—Oh, the Hon. Member said " tax the Pe happened to know that the !Hon. Member . fur t •'tie r tt °- , e e.. 1 , 1 ad complained in no set terms of the injustice of r ßlar e i 'az. He had known some of the largest houses in e t l t lttll e e whieh were taxed scarcely anything; and it was " I lth',"' e ll known that many gentlemen's seats did not d p d ay n s e o t t il t) th e ' , the tax as the village inn beside them. He Isr et t:'" injustice in this, but he must admit that thisfact et 'le eed an impression on the public mind which the I t " (' n entbe r for Montrose was not slow to take advantage bi j i.t c t ,' e ar hear f om Mr. Hume, and laughter.) . That P ll lsr ee • n sidered it so r unfair that it was done away with in ei'sk ß - rt e ! to the window-tax. If, however, that house-tax s 'alt e ' enforced and the window-tax abolished every oue dissentl". nI W ' n Ythi o f the circumstances must know that the Asses n in that case than they did at would pay more Committee on qhe is„ll"et th ie tes regard to t ep eti li t e it would be of that utility which the Noble uestion Lord r would, and if, as he thought, the Noble 4t e e t thtentin was to take the . sense of the House rt P r opriety of repealing the tax altogether hltte,/ Baring) for one would not, in the_ pr esent Iftheywent I)lt;einte.!.cevenue, lie prepared . t t o w a o s u s l l d be but a waste of the ti' u lttee on this subject, • e 'sr ten m e' end would lead to no useful result. But . if the e Is et _eht instead were to consult officers,the s ir tahe with the thought it :"ltle,`" l leating the grievances of this sot , t e preferable plan. U t those circumstances he bVr• • 1 2 11 ( of votieg with the No . ble Lord. e hsLEY rose amid loud cries of " .Divide, divide." tli o e ari M ember, after the lapse of a few minutes, obtained Q 4 " . li e wished to know if the tax was abandoned by eih;lee'rntn, ent?-(Laughter.) The late Chancellor of the t, l th h wad certainly made one of the most lame defences k (4r. Wakleys had ever heard in that House.. This e eeiversally condemned. Everybody said it was tf en equal 'one, and pressed heavily upon the t e ''s e „lases o f soc i e ty. ( Hear, hear, and cheers. d t. 44itt ed by all that the tax was injurious to health, an St' e Nt l i - t h elt h mischief." But the Chancellor of the Exchequer . ti l ":tsse House that there was no hope of getting rid of it tt ' t hllsre e t n ; 'and from all the admissions of the Right . Ho . n. QS te ° PPosite, he was induced to . hope that the .e r h em em is e s . i — on is, a t'' ittpould be comprehended in their next 1 11; 4 tra il ' laugh.) He would recommend.it would th ' electors el" tj e f nethil e to bestir themselves —he iatien r , e — e commend lays an " Anti-Window-tax . A ' (Hear, )—for there was no tax which Association"—( more inju ke''ltof'd()n the health and morals of the people. It was the to ' t / ie tease and vice.—( Cheers.) He himself had recently ei . t 'ee tit parish of Marylebone. In a large house he had s /le e the highest story, where there was no window at aes l upo ' 4 nd there a human being without any covering audit th e f l oor. It was the body of a fema l e, / 8 years of he Ile Oa he wa s i n f o rmed, the widow of a captain ' o "oes.1 Navy—( Hear, hear.) She could not he v e ei - elch al lowed t o die in that 'state of utter destitution, if t h at e ti eel eoers were acquainted with her situation. He bkfte 'e"ne et the want o f light in the upper part of the house , •e,(llr~t the causes of her remaining alone, and not inrret I `,",c Noble Lord persevered in dividing the I ouse te k • ",rth et ",akley) would vote with him. But he would e? .. site - of tn . e. Government would hold out some hopes of the th r p v t ,oe tax.—( Hear, hear.) Win E EL said that before he went into a consideration Of ti - 'w - tax he should state, that the Government hail le t s t ute eo-areful and comprehensive review of all the taxation thei"e o n r e before they submitted their financial measures f "le r i revi e l e t and that the window-tax had not been left out o they -- (Hear hear.) They thought that the taxes tli t ", l nad repea ' led wre those the remission of which bet ~,n'clst advantageous to the country. He admitted is tl th e re inequalities and inconveniences in the app tltet j n,t w lax ; but all the arguments for its repeal f IS, soa p t es f orcibly be alleged in favour of a remission o ?Itit.'l'ter‘ -tit Hear, hear.) He did not think . it his duty, etteee fo r ee'neMember for Finsbury, to give a specific t e e repeal of this tax or of that—( flear)—at the same i sq(l-1, I " not deny the great inconvenience of the window aL lee tr a ) It had been recommended by the Hon. Member Uri in the course of this debate, that there should be r etu rn le - i`nt of tenpence in the pound upon all houses in the S te te .rn r . ' te g e rl° ,rn• But the Hon. Member overlooked that the k e c ots „ he reade the basis of his calculation included Ottu t l e of the ' val eof 21. per annum.—( Hear.) There th0 1 )le ; r u nedens on t u he o peop . lequite as onerous and as objec tselPo•i:pthe Window -tax ; and it would be the business of (1„," h e t consider how these and other burdens h 1 : 1 'llei ' d •—( Hear hear ) He gave the Noble Lord I t his mean) credit for the Manner in which he had pro ft dietai°t'ons but he hoped the Noble Lord would not press e,; i t e e Lo e•S said th a t if h e t h oug h t th e mo ti on o f the tei ll i e d° ,%est e c il Int P,lied a pl e d ge o f t h e H ouse f or th e repea l o f th e At;,,, , r a C om mittee Would not vote for it. As it was, however, olio eote netnitte e to inquire into the operation of the tax, Hopis" ei te lo 4; It. ''s le' th e " HORP could look upon the motion only as th, el 4 r tpeal of the window-tax.—( Hear, and laughter.) C ee "rn with astonishment and regret the statement of Isi t etler ean el ember for Finsbury, and he thought the Hon. 'sc Y f"rthe ought, in his official capacity, ' to follow up the in- Sisotesie, r•---(Hear.) There had been a great deal of con eetyof t h ii Pon the part of the Government as to the remis le ing for upon cinnamon and copaiba—(Laughter)—but t he 1 "oel e th ,c remission of duties affecting the comforts of eietio,;7l Hear, and laughter.) He would net vote for te lt :. T . i pause he thought it woted he of no use. ate h ik e u NCOM BE said, that on the ground which NE statd he would not vote for the motion, for he did !teh,t,that anything could be got by inquiry.—( Hear.) thi e nt ' te nts wanted no inquiry. They had already had It s ea n l a eti e P h e a r d ienee in that way ; and when he heard that 'Mr ad die a tendency to prevent the repeal of the tax, to • e t „,eonal reason for his voting against it. tts ti e s eet to 11 . LI AMS thought a sufficient case would be I. Justify the repeal of the tax if a Committee were the i'd NJ Tv Ch," C AN then replied. The Right Hon. Gentleman 1 1 te at ,ticellor of the Exchequer had been pleased to tell le .eal e„ee_wrepresented a pauper constituency. Now, St st : stet, 4 ; are that either Plymouth or Portsmouth was , et ton t neet , a ' Pauperism; but the Right Hon. Gentleman . * hts an argument in favour of his motion. If his ir'rssere paupers, why did the House subject them to ee n ear, hear.) For ehe m then di v id e d , when there appeared— eotio "Rkl nst it .... n .. 47 93 eel eeterAelai°rity...;.g.ains.t the Zotion— ROpE " 4., to the gallery, Pere . ' l 'm or, te as requesting Mr. Mackinnon, whose motion . 11, A s i :e ee e t : t e a , r , , ie n u PaPer, to withdraw it, because it was of im theon"etion w ` h rio delay should take place in removing the had been thrown upon his Noble Friend, r• Se s tele of the Colonies. 4 ' IN NON would accede to this appeal, if those Hon. Members who had motions on the paper before him vveuld do F o ton. fn the firt the Hon. Member for Bolton had amotioorelating to Colonial Accounts. "- - - - - Those explanations were given, but they conveyed a great qua -I.fieation ef the read;ness with which he had accepted the first proposal, and it was a very different answer to a man, asking another to do his best for him, when he said, he would do his best, or when he said he would do it " so far as it could be done with propriety." The qualifi cation he added to his second instructions completely nullified the premise he had given by the first. It was exactly the sort of qualification attached to a promise there was no inclination to keep ; the spirit of the promise to do his best was totally altered and vitiated. He now came to the third point, and that the most important one, with regard to the title to the lands. Captain Fitzroy wrote on the subject to Lord Stanley, in terms which showed that he (Captain Fitzroy) had totally misconceived his original instructions; and he must say it was exceedingly hard that the New Zealand Company, which in this matter was obliged to trust to the honour of the Government, and the sense and spirit of its officer, should not have been informed of these misconceptions on the part of the Governor. The Govern ment was bound to have told the Company that the Governor had found some ambiguity in their instructions, which had led to a total misconception of the arrangement between them ; that they had done their best to correct that misconcepti„n, and that they wished the Company t• see if they had com pletely settled it. That was the course a Colonial Secretary, anxious for the good of the colony, and anxious to fulfil his engagements with those who trusted him, should have pursued. He should have told the Governor, in terms as gentle as he pleased, that he did not understand the matter, and that he (Lord Stanley) would set him right. Substantially he (Mr. Buller) granted that Lord Stanley did set the Governor right, but he did it in such a manner that he could attribute it to nothing but that the instructions had never been acted on.—( Hear, hear.) His Lordship referred the Governor to his original correspondence, which the Governor must already have seen fifty times, and which it was evident he had already totally misunderstood. Lord Stanley's explanation of his instructions opened the whole question of the validity of the purchases; it at least implied a doubt on the subject ; and as Lord Stanley must have known he was dealing with a man capable of misunderstanding a great deal, he ought to have made his instruc tions as clear and intelligible as he possibly could. But, then. what was to be thought of the words that had been used by the party of whom he had been speaking, in the let ters to which he had been referring ? If anything could con firm the fact that he was right in his construction of these ob servations, it was the words he had quoted ; but then the same letter added, " I confess that I concur in the view taken by you." Now, what was he (Mr. B.) to infer from these words, but that the view taken by the Governor on this ques tion was a wrong view ?—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, if Lord Stanley had thought proper to consult the New Zealand Com pany, a very different result would have followed. Therefore, what the Company complained of was, that without any notice to them as to what was to be the proceeding in their regard, rules had been adopted which gave the Company reason to complain of a want of an observance of good faith towards them. —( Hear, hear.) Therefore the Company complained of a want of observance of good faith towards them, and alleged that this agreement of Lord Stanley's was nothing more than so much waste paper, and that the Company had not not got their title to their grant. An HON. Meareea—Aye, not an acre.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. BULLER—WeII, the result of all this was, that the Company were placed in the position of plaintiffs instead of de fendants.—( Hear, hear.) Instead of the Company having got even a conditional title to this land, and let those who ob jected to them establish their claim, it was the Company who were compelled to prove their claims.—( Hear, hear.) He would not now particularly allude to the affair of the Wel lington district, though the Company bad been told that they would be aided in asserting their rights to it, though a title could not be promised to them.—( Hear, hear.) The Company had tried to make a purchase of that district from the natives, and they had been told that they were entitled to do so, and therefore entered into the necessary contracts, yet, strange to say, they never could get it.—(Near, hear.) He would not now feel inclined to allude to the Nelson country, but that he had almost forgotten that the Hon. Gentleman opposite was now more than three months and a half behind him ( Mr. Buller) in information upon this subject.—(Laughter.) Well, then, passing from that, the next assertion was that the Govern ment could make no grant of land until they had heard from their agents : but although that difficulty was interposed still there could be no question as to the title of the Company.— ( Hear.) Yet, notwithstanding all that, and that their title was clear, the Commissioners still refused to make any arrange ment, for some reason or other.—( Hear, hear.) On these grounds, then, he (Mr. Buller) was warranted in saying that Lord Stanley's letters did not convey to that House the infor mation required.—( Hear, hear.) There was another point to which he wished to make allusion, and it was the last he would trouble the House with. He had said that the complaint of the Company was, not as to the extent of land to which they were entitled, but as to the fact itself.—( Hear, hear.) Ile had before him one of the letters of Lord Stanley, in which that Noble Lord said " he was ready to fulfil all the conditions promised by him, provided that the other conditions were complied with." That letter was dated the 12th of May, and by it, it appeared that Lord Stanley ad mitted the rights of the Company. But what was the result of all those negotiations? Why, this, that notwithstanding all the instructions that had been issued to Captain Fitzroy, nine months had been suffered to elapse, and yet those conditions had been allowed to remain unfulfilled.—(Hear, hear.) He had spoken upon this subject the other night, and he had made use of the same words, namely, whose fault was it that this question had been raised ? Was it not Lord Stanley's ? ( Hear, hear.) Well, then, he had endeavoured to find out what step the Government would take on the subject, and he presumed he was to look for his answer to the letter of the 9th of May.—( Hear.) But if so, there again arose another diffi culty ; and who then was to decide upon this question of the moral rights that should exist between man and man, if the Go vernment did not interpose and protect the rights of the Company? Why did they resort to that means of intercommunication? Obviously because the matter was important. If, then, it was important, why did they not consider othqr parties to the agreement? Why did they not communicate wills the New Zea land Company? By not making this communication they had seriously impaired the spirit and efficacy of the original agree ment. The Noble Lord had rendered himself liable to the charge of having rendered that agreement totally void and in efficacious. Nine months ago the whole dispute ought to have been for ever settled. He (Mr. Buller) trusted that he had stated this matter to the House without any exaggeration. He felt that he was on his own defence, having agreed to the report of the New Zealand Company.—( Hear, hear. ) He felt that they had been unhandsomely treated in the matter; and he thought that he had made out to the satisfaction of the House that there was sufficient irregularity in this transaction to warrant the course he had taken. He would not affect to disregard his position on that occasion—he would not affect to say that he would not feel great satisfaction should this charge not be sustained, but he feared that the Noble Secretary for the Colonies had acted in such a manner as to forget both his duty to others and himself. The Hon. Gen tleman concluded by moving as an amendment for the produc tion of all correspondence that had taken place between Lord Stanley and the New Zealand Company. Mr. G. W. HOPE trusted the House would not expect the Government to give any later dispatch than that which had been laid before them. He regretted that the Hon. Gentleman had net followed the course which he (Mr. Hope) had done— of confining himself altogether to the question before the House. The Hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to refer to the original agreement, and the Hon. Gentleman had made re flections as to the course pursued by Lord Stanley. Now the House would recollect what were the circumstances of the set tlement of New Zealand, and in what condition the people were placed at the time Lord Stanley undertook the affairs of his office. New Zealand was settled contrary to the wishes and intentions of the Government. The New Zealand Company, in 1839, sent out an agent for the perpose of acquiring land by purchase, and concurrently with that, they sent out a large body of settlers to take possession of that island. In conse quence of that expedition having sailed, the Noble Lord. then at the head of the Colonial Department (the Marquis of Normanby), determined upon sending out persons to treat with the chiefs for the sovereignty of the Island, upon this understanding that if they obtained the sovereignty of the Island they would recognise no titles previously acquired by Europeans. The difficulty, therefore, which the Noble Lord had to contend with, in respect to the New Zea land Company, arose out of that arrangement. He now came at once to the principal points alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman. He had never, until lie heard it from the Hon. Gentleman, understood that it was to be made a ground of objection to the Government by the New Zealand Com pany, that the land taken in exchange for the 50,000. was land which ought to have been retained by the Company. Now, he had always understood that it was expected that the Government was to receive something in return. The Hon. Gentleman said he had applied to see the instructions which had been sent out, and they were shown to him. Those instruc tions were directed to one point only, and the main instructions were directed to the Governor. The Hon. Gentleman then dwelt (and this lie made the gravamen of his charge) on the point that the demands made by the Company had been refused. Now, there seemed to be some misunderstanding and misapprehension on this head. He admitted that the information upon it was imperfect, but he could only state that, as far as the information in his posses sion went, he did not find any demand made by the agent of the Company from Captain Fitzroy which was refused by him, or that there was any misunderstanding as to how it was to he carried out. Now, whatever observations might be made respecting Captain Fitzroy, his strict honour and the truth of his reports were never called in question. On the 29th of January he wrote to Lord Stanley, stating that he had had an interview with the principal agent of the New Zealand Company, and that there was every prospect of ad justing the claims of the Company. There was no demand made which was refused—there was no difference 33 to the con struction of the arrangement, or as to the instructions which had been given. He did not think that a more complete answer could be given to the Hon. Member. Then as to the question of dereption—he admitted that the Noble Lord was as liable to err as other persons; but the question was as to the inten tion to deceive. The Hon. Member said that the Noble Lord ought to have been explicit in his instructions ; but they were given by referring to the correspondence itself. It was impossible to give more precise or direct instructions as to what was the understanding of them. But then it was said, why were they not communicated to the Company? Why there was a doubt, and if that doubt was not solved in favour of the Company, they might be referred to them ; but as it was solved in their favour, where was the use in referring them? If, as was admitted by the Hon. Member himself, there was an evident desire to correct the error of Captain Fitzroy, and hav ing (as he thought he had) proved this, he (Mr. Hope) did not think he was called upon to do more than to show that there was no ground for charging his Noble Friend with in tentional breach of faith, or a wish to deceive.—( Hear, hear. ) proposition made. The letter written by Lord Stanley ac ceded to that proposition. These are the plain facts, intelli gible to persons not even conversant with the forms of business. A letter was written by the Chairman of the New Zealand Company. There was an answer. A proposition was made on the one hand and accepted on the other, and there the matter rested. An arrangement, a complete arrangement—com plete in all its parts—was entered into by the Government on the one side, and by the Company on the other. The Honourable Gentleman said there was no agreement, but an assumpsit ; bat I should think, though the practice of the Colonial-office may be a little sharp, that that sort of special pleading is now abandoned.—( Hear, hear.) There was a complete agreement. That must be ad mitted on all hands. Now, what takes place. A person is appointed to carry it into effect on behalf of both, mark that, on behalf of the Company on the one hand, and on the Go vernment on the other. That individual wrote to the Noble Lord to say he had doubts about the conclusion of the agreement. Does the House follow me ?—(Hear, hear.) Am I not right in saying that this was a complete agreement ? Were there sot two parties to it, the Government and the New Zealand Com pany? Was it not the duty of Lord Stanley, when doubts had been raised, to communicate those doubts to the Comp..ny ? Was not that the ordinary course in the common affairs of life? If A and B were about to enter into an agreement, which was to be carried into effect by C, and certain doubts had been raised by A, was it not the duty of C to make these doubts known to B ?—( Hear, hear.) Would it be fair for Cto leave Bin com plete ignorance ? But what do you say to the word " confi dential." That word of great import and great potency. Yes, that word " confidential " was written at the head of a private interpretation of a public agreement.—( Hear, hear.) Was the interpretation private ? If not, why mark it " confi dential ?"—( Hear, hear.) The Under-Secretary of State had not ,said why that word " confidential " was written. A most extraordinary fact had been disclosed. My Hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth stated that on the Ist of February, 1843, the Company, for the first time, became ap prised of the existence of those instructions. Was not the effect of those instructions of a secret nature ? Were they secret then ? Was not confidence a most important incident in this matter ?—( Hear, hear. ) Was it not one of the facts —was it not one of the res gestat? But in the copy that had been issued from the Colonial-office to the Company, the word " Confidential" was erased.—( Hear, hear, and ironical cheer ing from the Ministerial benches.) Why, my Hon. Friend informs me that the word " Confidential" was originally written on that copy, and that with a studious but most in felicitous solicitude the word " Confidential " was erased.— ( Hear, hear.) Do you deny that?—(" Hear, hear," from the Treasury benches.) Do you deny it ? ( After a pause. ) Then you don't deny it ? Tell me why? Is the House satis fied with the explanation that has been given? I think not.— ( Hear, hear. ) Will you tell me why the word was inserted? Mr. HOPE—I did. Dr. BOWRING infors4d the Hon. Member that he had postponed his motion for a fortnight. Mr. MACKINNON said, the Hon. Member for Li=keard had also a motion before him. Woald the Hon. Me:ober consent to withdraw it ? Mr. C. 13ULLER replied in the affirmative. Air. Al ACKINNON under those circumstances begged to postpone his motion till the fiat Tuesday after the Easter recess. Mr. SHEIL—Oh, then, it must be my want of perspicacity that I did not understand the Hon. Gentleman.—( Laughter. ) I certainly heard nothing—not even a plausible suggestion for the introduction of the word "confidential " in the interpretation of a public document. The interpretation was that upon which the Government was to act ; then why not convey it to the other party to that agreement—the New Zealand Company? Did the interpretation of Lord Stanley differ from the agree ment? Surely, when doubts were raised, the other contracting party should have copies of the discussion which took place thereupon, and should be allowed to state his reasons and plead his case.—( Hear, hear.) Is there not a great difference be tween proving a title as plaintiff and defendant? I say, is there not a great difference ?—( Hear, hear.) If I agree to sell A certain lands, on condition that he won't dispute the title, would it not be a departure from the agreement if A afterwards said, " You must prove your title." By the agreement of the 12th of May, the onus probandi was taken off the Company, but by Lord Stanley's interpre tation the onus probandi was thrown on the Company.— (No, no.) You say " No."—( The Right Hon. Gentleman read an extract from the agreement in proof of what he stated.) By the first agreement, I repeat, the onus probandi was removed from the Company, and by the interpretation —the clandestine interpretation—the interpretation behind the backs of the parties—the surreptitious interpretation—the onus was shifted from the shoulders of the Noble Lord and thrown upon the Company.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor- General) would tell them whether there was not a difference between the lessor of the plaintiff and the lessor of the de fendant. Is there not in this respect a distinct departure from the terms of the agreement? I was a good deal surprised by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies. He read a document, or rather the fragment of a document—of a public document dated the 29th of June, 1844. It is impossible the Hon. Gentleman could have read the rest of that document, or that he would have taken care to convey to the House the informat on which it contains. He asked the House to accede to Lord Stanley's interpretation; but the lion. Gentleman did not read this part of the docu ment. It appears by this final instruction of Captain Fitzroy, recently conveyed, that the agreement was interpreted—at least in some of its parts—in a sense different from that which, in the first instance, attached to it.—(Mr. Hope—" Read on.") Why did not you read on?—( Hear)—why did you not read before you came down to the House? Why is it that this hiatus valde de/lendus occurred ?—( The Hon. Gentleman went en to read the document.) " With the hope that no practical evil had re sulted from this misunderstanding, yet it was not the less fatal to our utility as a Company, and it must be owned was most injurious to the interests of a colony which was then in its in fancy."—( Hear, hear.) Do you wish me to read any more ? The rest of the passage relates to the mal-administration of the colony. It has been stated that notwithstanding many de fects in the Government of the colony, the people of New Zealand had made a remarkable pro gress in civilisation. The Colonial-office has pub lished documents, one of which is of great interest. It is the speech of Napiera, one of the native chiefs, at a meeting of the chiefs. He says—" Speak your words openly—speak as a man—do not say one thing and mean another." Sir, these words ought to be written, in letters of gold, in the Colonial office.--( Great cheering.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL commended the tone which had been used by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, and depre cated that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun gamin, who stopped much more suddenly than he had antici pated, and failed in giving the slightest elucidation of the question under the consideration of the House—in fact, the Right Hon. Gentleman had not furnished him with materials to comment upon. It did not touch the specific charge against the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department. Now what was the question with which the House had really to deal ? These were the instructions which had been sent out by the Noble Lord in order to regulate the settlement of the country. It was necessary to state these instr uctions in order to under stand the dispute between the New Zealand Company and the Colonial- office. The New Zealand Company had purchased a very considerable tract of land, to which in the first place they were required to make their title good. 'The Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department had been exceedingly anxious to save the Company from uncertainty and expense in conveying their titles to whoever might be purchasers from them. It was true that the Noble Lord had professed to make good a prima facie title to the New Zealand Company. This would give no particular advantage, the House might say, to the Company themselves, but it was of immense advantage to the Company, in giving them an opportunity of preceding other proprietors of land. This title was preferred in 1842, and it gave them a selection of a very large tract of country. :In giving them, however, this prima facie title, Lord Stanley required the Company should clear the native titles. The Company had remonstrated against this obligation, but yet they had proceeded to carry out the prima fade title which they had derived from the Colonial-office. But the terms of that title were such, that the Company refused to accept them without modification. But on the Bth of May, 1843, a letter was forwarded to the Colonial Office, which con tained a proposal precisely of the same tenor as that which they had previously refused. The Company were invested with a power over lands to a considerable extent. Those lands did not include Auckland or Wellington, but they chose to make settlements at those places ; and the only point which they particularly desired to reserve, was their ability to convey these lands without limitation. The Colonial-office re bquired that the native titles to these lands should be cleared. 'I he extent of the districts would be understood when he stated that it extended over five degrees of latitude, and 20,000,000 of acres. There was only one arrangement into which the Colonial-office had agreed to enter, and which at all affected the interests of the Company ; and that was—that they should expend 41. for every acre which they should dis pose of. The Government only required that the Company should make their title good. In doing this, it should not be forgotten that the Colonial -office had given a prima facie title to all the land which they possessed. Now it happened that Auckland was not within their district at all ; yet, so desirous were they of a settlement at Auckland, that in their proposal of the Bth of May, 1642, they made the proffer of 50,000 acres of land, 10,000 in the town, and 15,000 in the neighbourhood. The other 25,000 they took in dispersed lots in the country dis tricts. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Liskeard had laid great stress upon the claims of the Company to 50,000 acres of land. Undoubtedly they had a claim by reason of their title to a certain number of acres within their own district. They proposed to exchange a portion of the land to which they were entitled. Mr. C. BULLER—That is my view. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—His (the Solicitor-Gene ral's) view was, that they were willing to give the Govern ment 50,000 acres of their own land, but he held that they were bound to show their title to it, it being in fact compulsory on them to establish their claim to the land by a settled and cern plete right. That was the proposition which was made in the letter of the Sth May, and to which the letter of the 12th was an answer. Here was the first question between the Govern merit and the Company. The Hon. Member for Liskeard took occasion to criticise the spirit of Lord Stanley's instructions, because he said that it would be his duty to see that the Com pany satisfactorily proved their title to the land. The question between them was, who was to prove the title to the land. lie contended that it remained an open question now. The Go vernment maintained that it was the Company's duty to clear the titles to the land. These instructions were in the very spirit of every letter that had passed from the Government at home to the Governor of New Zealand. And, he would ven ture to say, that so far from being different from the spirit of the letters, that they were most consonant with the agreement entered into with the Company. Lord Stanley, in his letter to Captain Fitzroy, first of all referred to the arrangements, and the principle inculcated was to allow the Company a prima jiwie title to the lands for the purpose of facilitating them in t heir settlement, and of enabling them successfully to resist the c laims of other parties. If they looked at the letter of the B th o f Ma y , 1843 , could they doubt were full Member ambiguity. There m of the intended meaning of the words therein? They were to give the Company a primt facie title to th e l an d, unt il a stronger and better title couldiehbere for Liskeard saidßu t that the theca Honourable very arid words Learnede were five points of complaint against his Noble Friend, Lord Stanley. Three of these were disposed of by the admissions •f the Company itself. The other two could be best under stood by the House from his reading one of their own letters, from which he would show that they had cre ited a baseless phantom, which ho would presently lay.--( A laugh.) The letter of Feb. 1, 18 44, rec ited by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, showed upon the fac e of it t r alininat was ime i np t ariotper y ag e c ca o o n on c ,t oc h:, andituecdt construction u acuteness pit , gentlemenaegnsrvoehueogmhel:ia, agreement. —p au( propert a i r e s v e a n ntod indi gnant cr i es of " Oh , no wish to imputes g members of the Com mittee of having wilfully miconstruel th e agreement. —( Hear. ) accuseo,e motives. (Ironical cheers.) Hu did not They had the instructions before them on the lst February. It was important that the House should remember this, for the lion. and Learned Member for Liskeard said the Noble Lord had violated the agreement in his instructions. The New Zealand Company, then, had the instructions before them on the Ist February, 1844. They knew what their agreement was—they knew what their rights were, and they k new all the negotia tions from beginning to end which had taken place between them and the Colonial Office; and having4thisknovidreodtt to the e,wha r t sli Colonial a h i e aa y ln do? 1 o melancholy On the 29tthalliceesFeneuhnrtiticair. terms the aff a i rs o f t h e i r , 4, they w s -- After g i v i ng a long Company, and proposing that the Gover nment s h ould take the matter into their own ha nds, the y went on to state " Wo make these suggestions with a full rel iance that they will be entertained by your Lordship in th at spirit of candour and Office in confidence which your Lordship has always evinced for the well being of the colony; and we, therefore, rely with confidence on your Lordship's co-operation. We have felt it to be our dirty to the public to lay this suggestion before your Lordsh4f, and we leave the matter in your Lordship's hands, with entire reliance upon the benevolence and justice which Mr. R. TREVOR said that his real object in rising was simply this—that as the Hon. Member for Liskeard had volun teered to explain an expression which he had used on a former debate, a communication to that effect was made to him by a mutual friend, and he was aware of the answer which had been sent to hint on the occasion, on the part of Captain Fitzroy's friend, arid he was happy of having an opportunity of acknow ledging his courtesy that evening ; and he might say, at the same time, that he congratulated the Honourable Gentleman opposite, and the House, on the improved tone in which the debate 'vas carried on that night. Mr. SHELL—With regard to Captain Fitzroy, I do think that the reflections which have been cast on him will not in the slightest degree affect him, as a gentleman of Captain Fitz roy's head seems to me to be a very fit representative of the Colonial Secretary.—(Laughter.) With regard to the inten tions of Lord Stanley, my Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Buller) has abstained from dragging them into that debate, but it must be remembered that, with the possession of the best intentions unfitness for a particular department may unhappily associated.—(Laughter.)be The whole Case lay within a very narrow point. In Lord John Russell's letter of May 18-10 it is stated " the result of Mr. Pennington's investigation you will perceive is that undersuch arrangements the Company are entitled to receive 531,924 acres of land." "Entitled to receive," mark that, and that " hereafter they will be entitled to a further portion of between 400,000 and 500,000 acres." Now this f ict must be borne in mind by the House that the Company were already admitted to be entitled to 500s000 acres. This must be borne in mind when you come to the letter of the of May, which contains the proposition of the Government. The Company proposed to accept 50,0001. in lieu of 50,000 acres of land, to which they were already "entitled— that was their claim. It was emphati ca lly an d mos t express i ve l y worded, and was full of sigaificanoe. It was th a t upon w hi c h his Hon. and Learned Friend relied, but to which the Under Secretary of State did not advert. The Company were to relinquish their claim to 50,000 acres of 1414 That was the THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 19, 1845. will influence your Lordship's decision." Now, had the Noble Lordd, been guilty of a breach of good faith, did the House think the New Zealand Company would have written to him in these terms?—( Hear, hear.) Now this was the case, and these were the circumstances under which this charge was made against the Noble Lord in strong and unmeasured terms. Why did the Honourable Member for Cockermouth suffer the Noble Lord to sit amongst them a whole session without taxing him with this breach of faith ? Why did he allow the Noble Lord to remain there a whole session without bringing forward this matter ? The first time the Hon. Member brought the matter forward was when the Noble Lord had gone to another House —when the Noble Lard's back was turned.--( Cheers.) Now, he asked whether it was fair that they should have the matter mioted now? But had he net satisfactorily shown that what ever unfortunate disputes had arisen between the Noble Lord and the New Zealand Company, the Noble Lord had always acted impartially and fairly iu the matter?—(Cheers. ) Mr. HUTT merely rose to correct an observation which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had just made. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said the New Zealand Company did not bring the matter forward until after the Noble Lord's back was turned. Now, so far from this being the case, the Committee was only appointed in April last, on the understanding that the Hon. Member for Cockermouth would refrain from saying one word in the House in relation to the disputes between the Colonial-office and the New Zealand Company.—(Rear. ) It was too late to enter into the details of the case, but had he time, he would correct at least half a dr zen statements which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had made in the course of his speech. Captain RO US would pledge himself, when the question of New Zealand came before the House after Easter, that the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department would be fully acquitted of all the charges that had been made against him, nit only in the eyes of that House, but in those of every unbiassed individual. —( Hear, hear.) The fact was, the character of the New Zea landers had been totally misunderstood by the Committee that sat upon the subject. In 1839 the independence of New Zea land was recognised by this country, and it was not until after certain persons had formed themselves for the purpose of trading and profit in that country, that a Captain was sent out by Eng land to prevent any quarrels or misunderstandings between the people of New Zealand and the new settlers, and, as by " the stroke of the enchanter's wand," the whole of the forests and minerals of New Zealand were made the property of the Crown. The New Zealander had as much right to his property as the reople of this country had, and no Company had any right to interfere with them. He would undertake to prove that all that had been done with respect to New Zealand was at vari ance with law, equity, and common sense. Lord I NGESTRE, having been connected with the New Zealand Company for some years, felt bound to say that the acts of that Company had always met with his approbation, because he was convinced that they were for the benefit of the colony. He believed that the whale dispute had arisen in a mis understanding ; but when he said that, he could not forget that that misunderstanding had affected the Company to a great extent in their endeavours to do good. Mr. AGLIONBY felt bound to say a few words, in con sequence of his being so pointedly alluded to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite. The Hon. and Learned Soli citor-General's speech was more like that of a retained advo case with his brief than the speech of a Member of that House, He (Mr. Aglionby) was sorry to hear the ironical cheer with which the Hon. Member for Liskeard was met when he said he was connected with the New Zealand Company. There were persons connected with that Company, as eminent as any person sitting on the Treasury bench. The Solicitor-General had totally misrepresented the affairs of thal Company. He was misunderstood by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General with respect to what he had stated as to the difference on the agreement. He had said, if there was a difference of opinion about it, the concealment of it was wrong. If the Noble Lord were present he should speak at more advantage, because no man liked to listen to charges involving another in his absence, and this was the feeling he had now to contend against. He still maintained there was a difference between the agreement and the instructions, and that opinion the New Zealand Company had stated at the time, as publicly as they could do it. Sir ROBERT PEEL said, he felt he should declare that the impression on his mind was one which was shared in by the Noble Lord who had proposed the motion, and that was, that at all events there had been no intention of decep tion in this matter.—( Hear.) And from all that had been heard in explanation, from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, it would appear that the same feeling existed on his part as well as on the part of several others who had since left the House.—( Hear, hear.) On the opposite benches he be held some Hon. Members who, he believed, held the same opinions, for they appeared to express assent, though three or four of them on the front benches were members of the New Zealand Company, and, if he mistook not, three or four of those who sat on the second bench were also members of the same Company.—( Lauehter. ) But the Hon. Member op posite (Mr. Aglionby) had complained 'that while he had been put in possession of some letters from Cap tain Fitzroy, there were others which had been withheld. The Hon. Gentleman said he laboured under great disadvan tage because of the absence of the Noble Lord, and that had he been present the Hon. Gentleman would have spoken with more freedom. Mr. AGLIONBY never said that he would have spoken with more freedom. Sir ROBERT PEEL—The whole of the last session th Hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of referring to this sub jest. The Committee did not examine evidence until the 23d of May, and the second examination was in the month of June. Surely, in moving for the appointment of the Committee, an opportunity was afforded of challenging the conduct of the Noble Lord. Mr. HUTT said it was understood that, in moving for the Committee, the question of Lord Stanley's conduct should not have been gone into. Sir R. PEEL—If they had thought his Noble Friend's conduct exhibited a want of faith, the duty of Gentlemen op posite, to the Company, was to ask for an explanation. They now said that such was the breach of faith which had been exhibited by Lord Stanley, that, had they been aware of it, they would have refused to hold communication with his Noble Friend on the subject of the affairs of New Zealand.—(Hear, hear.) lie could not reconcile that declaration now with the communication made to Lord Stanley on the 29th of February. The New Zealand Com pany said, " We leave the matter in your Lordship's hands, with entire reliance on the benevolence and justice of your decisions in the affairs of the Company." How could this be reconciled with their conduct now ? His Noble Friend was the natural protector of those who had a right to he protected. He had acted on the impression that it was his duty to do justice to the natives of New Zealand. He ( Sir R. Peel) agreed with the Hon. Member for Cocker mouth (Mr. Aglionby) that the members of the New Zea land Company were entitled to great respect, as they were men of high honour and influence. His Noble Friend had run the risk of offending these parties in the course he had taken. He believed that the sense of justice in that House and in the country would put a fair construction on the acts of his Noble Friend. He did, therefore, trust that those statements would go into the country together with the observations which had been made upon his Noble Friend. Mr. AGLIONBY said he hoped the House would allow him one moment for explanation, for he was anxious that the statement made by the Right Hon. Baronet ( Sir R. Peel) should not go forth to the country with the mark of his high authority without a statement of what really had occurred. Immediately after the discussion to which the Right Hon. Ba ronet had referred, he went to Lord Stanley, and had then ex plained to him the circumstances which had occurred at that meeting; and he, therefore, thought that in this instance at least the Company were not to blame. Mr. MANGLES said that he should not have said a word in this debate but to express his opinion of the tone of the speech of the Hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General. He thought that it was quite unnecessary to threw so much acid into the debate as that Hon. Gentleman had infused into his speech. He thought that it would have been better to have imitated the tone and temper of his Hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller); but it should be recollected that the cheers of :that House were not always to decide the merits of any particular question. Mr. RICE TREVOR would not have said a word but for what had transpired, which had a personal reference to his friend, Captain Fitzroy. It seemed to be imputed to him that he had had a secret communication with Lord Stanley between the Bth and the 12th of May. He could only say that the communication with Lord Stanley had been on the 26th, 27th, or 28th of June, and that there was nothing in this corres pondence of a clandestine character. Mr. CHARLES BULLER asked whether, after the great carefulness which he had evinced to avoid any extraneous circumstances, it was quite fair for the Right Honour able Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to refer to these documents? The whole policy pursued by the Government towards the New Zealand Company would come before the House after Easter, and he would net now trespass further on the attention of the House than by saying it would be found that the conduct of the New Zealand Company towards the natives was humane and generous. Mr. MONCKTON MILNES quoted the words of Pro fessor Merivale, in his lectures on Political Economy, in the University , of Oxf or d, re l a ti ve t o th e N ew Z ea l an d C ompany . Never in the history of civilised man has there occurred a commercial undertaking in which the love of gain was made so subordinate to every higher faculty of the human mind—never was there any commercial undertaking so continually guided by the laws of justice and humanity ? Sir R. PEEL said a few words in explanation, and as serted that the conduct of Lord Stanley was solely actuated by a kind feeling towards the natives ; and that the Noble Lord had, at the same time, been desirous to discharge his duty in a manner consistent with the interests of the New Zealand Company. The question was then put and carried. THE PORTLAND VASE. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the Protection of Property contained in Public Museums, Galleries, Cabinets, Libraries, and other Public Repositories, from malicious injuries. On the motion of Mr. SHAW, the following Members were nominated as the Select Committee to inquire into the merits of the atmospheric system of railways :—Mr. Shaw, Mr. Bingham Baring, Lord Harry Vane, Sir George Clerk, Mr. Francis Baring, Viscount Mahon, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Hawes, Viscount Howiek, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, Mr. Morrison, Mr. Pakingten, Mr. Gibson Craig, Mr. Lascelles, and Mr. Wyse. On the motion of Mr. AGLIONBY a return was ordered of all claims for land preferred before the Commissioner of Land Claims in New Zealand, by or on behalf of any persons who were in 1838 missionaries, catechists, or schoolmasters of the Church Missionary Society. The Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill went through Com mittee and was ordered to be reported this day. The Customs Duties report was brought up and received. The other orders of the day were then agreed to, and the House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'Clock. NEW WORK, BY EUGENE SUE.—The great po pularity of " The Mysteries of Paris" has made M. Eugene Sue's name familiar to all English novel readers; and his fame will be, doubtless, greatly extended by the appearance of his hi,torical romance, untitled " De Mohan ; or, The Court Conspirator," an English edition of which, in three voluircs, has just been published by Mr. Colburn. The Court of Louis XIV. has I.Y corn,. proverbial for magnificence and political intrigue, and M. Sue could, therefore, have scarcely selected a better subject than the very attractive oni of which he has made choice. The groundwork of his story may b., found in the details of the remarkable conspiracy in which the Chevalier 1)e Rohan—the handsomest man and most extravagant prodigal in a Court where beauty and extravagance were the best recommendation—lost his life. The prominent characters are Louis XIV., his beautiful mistress, De Montespan, and most of the great Officers of State—the partisan Latreaumont—the philosopher Vanden Euden ' and a great number of other evell•known personages, who were either concerned in the conspiracy or held office under the Sovereign. The work affords the most lively picture that has ever been published, not only of the Court of Fr t a hr n eo c se e idhe a au t necee t l h iio i l s r of ti eventful period,upn a o but one utof of h the statete n of os the t kingdom, romantic and be will looked narratives that ever came into the hands of the novel reader, of the Stamps and Taxes, accom panied , b t y: x lS e lhre.Press ley, Exchequer yesterday,adai interview !)owning-street LAW INTELLIGENCE. HOUSE OF LORDS, March 18. The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present were—the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and Lord Campbell. THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND V. N'GREGOR. The further arguments in this part-heard Scotch ap peal were resumed and concluded to-day. Their Lordships postponed their judgment. NEW ZEALAND AND LORD STANLEY. Mr. MASTERMAN presented a petition from the City of London, praying the ,House to make some reparation to the New Zealand Company for the injury they had sustained in that colony: The petition, on the motion of an Hoes. Meereea, was ordered to be printed. Mr. G. W. HOPE then rose to move for certain papers re lating to New Zealand, and to answer the charge which had been made by the New Zealand Company against the Noble Lord the Secretary fur the Colonies. He commenced by stating that he believed it was fully understood the other night that the general question relating to the affairs of New Zealand should be left untouched until after East, r, and he therefore proposed to abstain from taking up that part of the subject, and he could not but hope that lion. Members who followed him would follow his example. He made no apology for trespassing upon the time of the House, because he felt it to be his duty to give, and the House to hear any explanation he might be en abled to make to the personal charge which had been made against his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. He had felt anxious to open this part of the New Zealand question, fot, when he last addressed the House on the subject, he did so with souse degree of warmth, which could not be deemed ex traordinary, because improper conduct had been imputed to a Noble Friend, who, he was sure, was quite incapable of it. He had no doubt he should now be able to give such an explana tion of the matter as would not only satisfy the House but the Honourable Member for Cockermouth himself. Now, the charge that had been made against his Noble Friend at the head of the Colonies, if he understood it rightly, was this, that he had come to an arrangement with the New Zea land Company in May, 1843, and that having undertaken to give certain instructions to the Governor of New Zealand, he had given those that were inconsistent with them ; and that, in short, he had gi ven one se t o f i ns t ruc ti ons t o th e New Zealand Company, arid another to the Governor. Now he felt satisfied that he should be able to show that those charges were totally unfounded, and that the Noble Lord had acted in the only way he could do towards the Com pany, consistent with his duty. It was not his wish to go into personal communications or discussions, but he would refer at once to the letters that had passed upon the subject. The first letter was written on the Bth of May, after a communication and interview with the Noble Lord. That letter referred to a proposal on the part of the Company to purchase land at Auckland, to the appointment of a judge, and to the formation of a Government on the island, and then it referred to the Company's title to land. The arrangement at first proposed a conditional title should be granted on the Company purchasing the land, and in case the Company should ask for greater rights, and they could not be given, or that the Company had to make compensation, that then the Crown was to assist the Company in making any bargain. The Noble Lord at once assented to the proposal for the purchase of land at Auckland, as would be seen by the letter he would read. The Hen. Gentleman then read the letter, showing that the proposal had been made and agreed to. The ar rangement proposed referred to those three points he had al luded to only ; and thus matters stood at the time of the death of Captain Hobson. On the 15th of June, 1843, a letter was written to Lord Stanley by Captain Fitzroy, containing five questions; three of those questions referred to the arrangements he had previously noticed, the other two related to different subjects. Now, what was the course Lord Stanley had pursued? Why, with respect to the three first points, Captain Fitzroy was referred to the correspondence ; and with respect to the others, he was told that they referred to an in complete arrangement. As to the correspondence which the Noble Lord had been charged with keeping back, it had been made confidential, in consequence of the proposal being re ca led, which was the substance of the letters, after Captain Fitzroy had sailed. No instructions had been shown to the New Zealand Company, except those to which he had referred, and those instructions had been given without reserve. He wished to avoid every irritating topic. The question was, how ever, whether the N o bl e L or d at the head of the Colonial office had been guilty of an intentional decep tion, in keeping hack this correspondence? The New Zealand Company having received the correspondence, on the 12th of February, said, in reply, on the 29th, that they regretted that Lord Stanley appeared to have understood the agreement in a different sense from that which they had at tached to it. Now, he must direct the attention of Hon. Members to a letter written before that period. In that letter he found a passage in which the New Zealand Company stated that they had the greatest reliance on Captain Fitzroy's inten tions ; and, as regarded the Noble Lord, so far from stating that this was an act of gross deception, the letter concluded by stating that they left the matter in his Lordship's hands, with entire reliance on his good faith. He hoped that the effect of a calm and temperate consideration of the subject would be to induce Gentlemen to withdraw the charges made against the Noble Lard, for the first time in his life; for let that Noble Lord's faults and failings be what they might, until now no man ever charged him with duplicity.—( Hear, hear. ) Mr. C. BULLER said he could assure the House that he rose with the greatest pain to make any remarks in reference to the conduct of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley), but the statements of the New Zealand Company had been publicly made, and by those statements, if he had any regard for his character, he must publicly stand.—( Hear.) He was not there to ask for any vote of censure with regard to the Noble Lord's conduct, but to defend certain statements made by the New Zealand Company, complaining of substantial wrong done to them by the Noble Lord, with respect to the matter to which the motion referred. Those statements had been before the public a whole year; and though the Noble Lord was in that House when it was first made, he had not brought the matter before the House. It was not their fault that the matter had been brought before the House. It was elicited by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) reading a letter of the New Zealand Company, which he had endeavoured to turn against them ; and he should be extremely glad if the discussion that evening should clear a public question from those bitter and acrimonious allusions with which it had been mixed up. lie had felt that the Hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department was placed in a very difficult position ; and in order that he might have the fullest advan tage in reply, he should close by moving, as an amendment, for all correspondence which had passed between Lord John Rus sell and the New Zealand Company. Now the complaint which he had to make on that occasion was that by the transactions to which the Honourable Gentleman had adverted the New Zealand Company had suffered substantial wrong. In order to justify this complaint, it would be necessary for him to call attention to the agreement of the 12th of May, 1843, and to point out the difference between that agreement, and the agreement for which it was substituted with the Noble Lord the member for the City of London. The agreement between Lord John Russell and the New Zealand Company was to this effect:—Having acquired a little land, by certain purchases ' which they said they had made from the natives of New Zealand, prior to the assertion of her Majesty's authority in the island, it became necessary that the Company should make some arrangement with respect to those claims. There never was any dispute as to the way in which those claims were to be adjusted; but it was agreed that an amount should be taken proportioned to the expenditure which had been incurred. Now the difference which arose was this— They imagined that the agreement with Lord John Russell made their claims dependent only on one inquiry—namely, an inquiry before an accountant ; whereas Lard Stanley said that there was a court established in which their claims must be in quired into, and that they must go there to determine the validity of their purchases from the natives. A long, and, he was sorry to add, a warm controversy took place on the subject ; arid, while it lasted, the operations of the Company were totally suspended, and, their title being discredited, no land could be sold. Of 14,000 inhabitants of the colony, 10,000 derived their title under the New Zealand Company, and depended on them for their secure possession. Lord Stanley made them two offers, neither of which did they accept. On the death of Captain Hobson, the Governor of the colony, when a new Governor had to be sent out, it was proposed that a fresh ar rangement should be made, and negotiations for that purpose were entered into. On the Bth of May a letter was trans mitted by Mr. Somes to Lerd Stanley, containing the pro posals of the New Zealand Company. This document was prepared by both parties—it reduced their views to writing. On the 12th of May an answer was received from the Hon. Gentleman opposite ; and if all the rest of the correspondence had been conducted in the same spirit, the negotiation would have had a very different result. What he complained of was, that from that hour the spirit of the letter to which he had referred was deviated from.—( Hear, hear.) The spirit in which the Government acted was everything in a matter of this kind. Lord Stanley stated that he was prepared to issue instructions to the Governor of New Zealand, founded on the proposal of the Company themselves. They were naturally anxious to know what those instructions were ; and on the part of the New Zealand Company he went to the Under Secretary for the Colonies. A letter of the 19th of May, enclosed two letters, which he called the agreement as to the instructions. The first letter was dated the Ist February, and the second the 26th of June, 1843. It was a painful and a difficult task to occupy the attention of the House with such a matter, hut he was desirous not to make accusations, but to state specifically what were the faults they found with the Colonial Secretary, and to place before the House how the second instructions of February, 1843, differed in spirit anti in letter from the first. The first objection they entertained was against the proceed ings of the Government as to the land at Auckland ; they looked en them as having been a distinct violation of the letter of the agreement. The two great objects of the Company in taking land in the neighbourhood of Auckland were, first, that they might be on good terms with the Governor; and, secondly, that, in obtaining it through the Government, they should get rid of any further trouble with respect to proving their title. The Company never intended to make any purchase of it of the natives in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Their letter to Lord Stanley was worded entirely in accordance with that view; they said the Company would abandon their claim to 50,0001. worth of the land they had already purchased, if credit were given them for an equal amount of land in the neighbourhood of Auckland. The Company were ready to abandon their claim, not to sell it ; they aban doned their claim not to any specific fifty thousand acres of land, but to 50,0001. worth of the whole quantity they had purchased elsewhere, and to the whole of which they were en titled. There had never been any dispute as to the quantity of land to which they were entitled. Therefore, the terms of the agreement fully bore out their meaning, which was, sup posing the claim of the Company amounted to one million of acres, they would only claim 9)0,000 acres, as they were to get the other fifty thousand in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Instead of the Company selecting its land in a certain district to the southward, it, for the purposes of the Government itself, suggested by Lord Stanley himself, asked to be allowed to select a portion of it in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Now, they contended that this claim had been specifically set aside by Lord Stanley's instructions of February, in which he directed the Go vernor to ascertain if the title to the land to be granted to the Company could be satisfactorily proved by them. The Com pany charged this as a distinct violation of the agree ment.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was entitled to a certain quantity of land in the south ; they abandoned the claim to that land, for fifty thousand acres in the north, and then they were required, for these fifty thousand acres, to go before the Commissioners and establish their title to it ! Another resolution was one much more at variance with the spirit of the agreement. It was of the greatest importance to the Company that the Government should interfere itself to put an end to all the disputes with the natives. As long as the natives imagined that the Company (which they knew was in disfavour with the Government) was the party they had to contend with, the Company knew that the demands of the natives would be raised to a very great amount, and that they should have all kinds of difficulties in snaking arrangements with them. The Company, therefore, wished the Government to make the arrangement with the natives, that their claims might be extinguished for a reasonable SIMI. They asked the Govern ment to do its best to aid the agents of the Company in effect ing these arrangements with the natives; and what they meant was, that the Government should act for the Company as ii would have acted for —( Hear, .h , e f a r r a . n ) k And what w a r . Lord Stanley's answer ? It was a rooss cept c t t i r o u f e t t i h o e n sto t pro p h o e s al, o a y n e d rn h o i has t letter tl e sta w t t d h h t t h s ereatr nativesiness ttiios give ins i t a i r t o l e t ; o lands in n no t t h the colony. o:I:J. But p afterwards st i t do se u e b m ts e , d b d u o t u t b h t e s Governor applied ton Lord Stanley for further explanations. ROLLS' COURT, Mach 18. The Master of the Rolls was occupied the whole day with the part-heard case of Ambles v. the Lancaster Railway Company, the arguments on which were not concluded. VIOE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, March 18. Nothing of any interest occurred in any of the Vice- Chancellors' Courts. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Stafford, March 17. (Before the LORD CHIEF BARON.) HEYWOOD r. GREEN—BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE — DAMAGES 1,0001. Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Allen were for the plain tiff ; Mr.Whateley, Q.C., and Mr. Whitmore represented the defendant. After the pleadings had been opened by Mr. Allen, an in timation was given by Mr. Sergeant Talfourd that a com promise had been arranged between the parties, and that he was instructed to accept a verdict for 40s. damages—the cost to be paid as between attorney and client. Mr. WHATELISY, Q. C., expressed his willingness to consent to such a verdict, and to allow that a most unexceptionable character had been borne by the plaintiff for no less than sixty years. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD stated he felt it impossible for him to accept a boon of such magnitude, as the plaintiff confessed only to fifty-four years. The verdict was then taken by consent for 40s. (Before Mr. Baron PLAIT.) CHARGE OF HIGHWAY ROBBERY. William Thompson, Mirfin, and Thomas Plant were indicted for a highway robbery. The prosecutor in this case was Thomas Harrison, a butcher, residing at Batterton, in this county, who was re turning homeward from the market at Leek, with his cart and horse, late on the night of the Bth of January. He had about 141. in gold, silver, and "brass" in his possession, and was accompanied by his dog. As he passed through a turnpike, he observed three men, without bats, but with handkerchiefs tied round their faces, who appeared desirous of escaping his notice. lie made some common-place ob servation, but receiving no answer, drove on, till he was obliged by a hill to slacken his pace, when he again saw the satne men, and being somewhat alarmed by their ap pearance, looked for his axe, which was in the cart, and prepared for defence. Upon reaching the top of the hill, he stopped to breathe his horse, when he found the reins sud denly seized by a man, and looking behind him saw two others, one of whom cried out, " Surrender, sir 1 " and added, " Your money, or you're a dead man in a moment." The prosecutor seeing no pistol in the extended hand of his opponent, thought he would have a struggle for his pro perty, and jumping up, stoutly rephed, " I shan't surren der." The two men then threw large stones, which struck him upon various parts of his body. One of these cut through his hat, and inflicted a severe wound upon his head, on feeling which, he sprang from the cart, and, rushing to the first speaker, whom he positively stated to be Mirfin, struck at him with his axe. He missed his aim, however, and the shaft of the weapon being unfortunately greasy and ill-constructed for the hand, it flew from his grasp, and one of the assailants gained possession of it, following up his advan tage by striking several blows at the prosecutor, one of which caused a deep gash upon the cheek bone, and felled him to the ground. Finding himself incapable of further resistance, he begged for mercy, and offered to give up his money, all of which, with the exception of 10%d., was taken from him, and his watch also, which, however, one of the men returned. One of them, stated by the prosecutor to hare been Plant, said " D— him, cut his head off with the axe, as he would have cut off your's," and struck him on the side with the back of it. They then left him, and he made the best of his way to the house of a man named Timothy Underhill, at Oucott, bleeding profusely. Here he told his story, and de clared his conviction that two of the men who attacked him were Mirfin and Plant, both of whom he had known for a considerable time. Underhill being called, confirmed this statement of the prosecutor with relation to the mentioning these names, as did Joseph Allen, an old shoemaker, who was present. This last witness, however, in answer to some questions put by the Learned Judge, begged to be allowed to make "a candid statement," when he informed the Court that, having lost his consort, and his children being scattered over the world, he felt very unhappy in his mind, and would honestly confess that, on the night in question, he had been sacrificing to the spirit of John Barleycorn, and that Morpheus, in whose arms he had been reposing, was only frightened away by the ar rival of the prosecutor. A policeman, who was on duty at Leek on the Bth, proved the departure of the prosecutor from that town, and said that he was then sober. He also took the prisoners into custody. This was the close of the case for the prosecution. For the defence, it was contended that this was a case of mistaken identity, and a host of witnesses were called to prove that the prisoners were at home, and in bed, at the time the robbery was committed. It appeared that three other men, of the names of Candy and Johnson, had been taken into custody on the present charge, and that the bill against them had been ignored by the grand jury. They had not, how ever, been discharged, and by order of the Learned Judge were now placed by the side of the accused in the dock, when a considerable resemblance was observed in their features. Under these circumstances his Lordship directed an acquittal, observing, on discharging the prisoners, that they left the dock without the least stain upon their characters. NORTHERN CIRCUI7'.—York; March 16. (Before Mr. Justice WtotiT3lAs.) William Jackson was indicted for having, on the Gth of the present month, feloniously assaulted George Wardle, one of :the rural police, and wounded him with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Mr. Wilkins prosecuted, and Mr. Bliss appeared for the defence. The facts proved involved also the charge of poaching, for it appeared from the evidence of the officer, that he had, on the day named, been asked by William Swan, gamekeeper to Mr. Thompson, of Sheriff-Hutton, to lend assistance, and thereupon Wardle went into some land where he was directed to go, and there saw the prisoner, and another young man named Webster, in the act of pursuing hares and trespassing. The prisoner is the son of a farmer who has about 150 acres of land. The other, Webster, who is also a very young man, is the son of a person now holding some land, who is a dog-breaker, and was formerly a game keeper. As stated for the prosecution, these two having crossed a portion of the land occupied by the prisoner's fa ther, went on to the other ground, where the prisoner was seen to shoot a hare and put it in his pocket. Webster had a single-barrelled gun, and the prisoner a double-barrelled one. They then went on, and in another field the prisoner took another hare out of a. snare, and put it into Webster's pocket. After that both shot at a hare in another field, which they missed. On this the officer went up to them and :asked them about the snared hare. Webster said he might look, but the prisoner said he'd be - if he should, and struck him in the mouth, cocked his double-barrelled gun, presented the muzzle, which touched Wardle's cheek, and said if he did not leave, he (the prisoner) would blow his brains out. A scuffle then ensued between the prisoner and Wardle, who both came to the ground, when the pri soner called for aid upon Webster, who, raising his gun, told Wardle if he did not let Jackson go he would knock his head oft' with it. The officer then pulled the snare with which the hare had been caught from 'Webster's pocket ; and the prisoner struck him with the single gun, which he had taken from Webster. By this blow a wound was made on the back part of his head, and from the effects of the blow ho was so stunned as to lie on the ground, for about half an hour, in a state of insensibility. The officer stated further, that he again saw the same two men after he had recovered himself going away with a pony that had been ridden to the place by a boy of the name of Bean, and the prisoner then said to him that if he followed them any further he would give him some pellets. After a very energetic speech from the prisoner's counsel, in which it was contended that the officer had exceeded his duty, and that the story for the prosecution was alto gether most unlikely to be true, and quite undeserving of credit, witnesses were called to show that the real case was one very different, and that the prisoner had acted but in self-defence. Bean, above-mentioned, was the principal witness; but )Webster was also called ; and in their testimony it was positively denied that the latter had any gun at all upon the occasion, and asserted that the blow given to the officer was inflicted with a stick which he himself had carried to the spot. The boy said the officer threatened Jackson to handcuff him, and actually took handcuffs from his pocket after so threatening. This was denied on the other side. For the defence it was stated that there had been bat one shot altogether, and that was at a duck. Sir John Simpson was called to give the prisoner a cha racter, who said he bad known the prisoner's family long, and that they were most respectable. Verdict—Guilty of a common assault.—To be imprisoned for ten days. WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Dorchester, Mareh 15. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.) This was the day fixed for trying the two charges of murder, the bills for which had been found yesterday. These cases have excited great interest in the county, more espe cially in this neighbourhood, and, as a consequence, the Court was most densely crowded, every place being filled directly the Court was opened. Both prisoners were charged with the murder of their children--the one by cutting the throat of her new-born infant, and the other by adminis tering poison to her child, who was about two months old. Betsy Christopher, a good-looking country girl, eighteen years of age, was charged with the murder of her infant child by cutting its throat. Mr. C. Saunders conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended. The fellow -servant of the prisoner was first called. She stated that she and the prisoner had lived with a Mrs. Collins, at Parketone, near Poole. The prisoner had been in the service of Mrs. Collins about a fortnight. She slept with witness, who did notremark anything particular in her person to lead her to the supposition that the prisoner was in the family-way. About half-past five on the 11th of February, witness awoke and found the prisoner standing by the side of the bed. She inquired what was the matter with her, and prisoner replied " Nothing." It was quite dark at the time, and consequently witness could not see anything. Shortly after the prisoner got into bed, and witness went to sleep till about six o'clock. She then awoke, and both she and the prisoner got up and dressed themselves. They then went :down stairs, the prisoner into the kitchen, and the witness into the nursery to attend to the children, she being the nursery maid. Nothing more took place till about eight o'clock, when the prisoner came up to witness and com plained that she felt very ill, and in a great deal of pain. Nothing remarkable was said, and no suspicion was awakened in witness's mind, who advised the prisoner to go to bed. The prisoner said she would, and went. About nine o'clock witness went up to the prisoner and inquired how she felt, and was told that she was worse. She was on the bed. About ten o'clock the witness again went up to see the prisoner, and again inquired how she felt. Witness then observed blood on the floor, and inquiring what was the matter, was told nothing She stood some little time, and then went down stairs. Shortly after the prisoner followed her into the kitchen. She had changed the gown which she had put on when they got up at six o'clock. Her arms were folded, and within them she carried something covered over with her apron. She went out in the garden towards the privy, which was situated near the kitchen door. She remained a very short time, and then returned, but without her apron. Witness now observed that prisoner's hands were bloody, and she asked witness to get some warm water to wash her hands, which she did. Witness did not hear at any time the cry of a child. After the prisoner returned from the privy she said she was better. About half an hour afterwards she again complained that she felt worse, and must go to bed, which witness de sired her to do. She afterwards made her some tea, and took up to her. Mr. West, a surgeon, proved that be was sent for. He A V 14 n. 14 r went to the privy, from which he saw the cons -,vr \ - 14 +0 . was also present, take the body of a new born i i examining it he found that the head had been near] from the body, and was only hanging by some of the .7176' The throat had been cut so as to divide the trachqstaniaghtlig carotid arteries, the oesophagus, and the spinal marrow: I 'W went to the prisoner, whom he found on the bed, and inquired of her if she had had a child. She at first denied that such was the case, but after wards admitted it. She was asked whether she had cut the throat of the child before or after its death. She said it was afterwards. She was then asked with what she had done it, and she produced a knife, which another witness stated she had always carried about her. On exa mining this knife its blade was found to be covered with blood. The surgeon would not undertake to say whether the throat of the child had been cut before or after death. In his judgment the child had been born alive, but the wounds inflicted might have been inflicted after death. Evidence was also given that in an outhouse adjoining the privy the prisoner's gown, which she had first put on in the morning, and the apron which she had carried through the kitchen, were found bundled up together, and saturated with blood. Mr. Justice EuLE, having summed up the case in a very able manner, the jury, after some consultation, acquitted the prisoner of the murder, and found her guilty of concealing the birth. The Learned JUDGE, after an impressive address, sentenced her to two years' imprisonment. Mary Ann Warr was then placed in the dock. She was indicted for the murder of her child, by administering to her a quantity of poison, called white arsenic. • Mr. Stock conducted the prosecution. The prisoner was defended by Mr. Edwards. After hearing the evidence of Mrs. Oastler, with whom the prisoner lodged, and the surgeon who examined the body of the child, the jury almost immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The whole of the business for this county has b. en got through. To effect this, Mr. Justice Erle has again sat the whole of the day trying prisoners in the Nisi Prius Court. Mr. Crowder has also been engaged in trying cases in the grand jury room. Tle Learned Commissioner did not finish his labour till after twelve o'clock at night. BENEVOLENT INSTITUTION FOR JOURNEYMEN TAILORS. The anniversary festival of the Benevolent Institu tion for Aged and Infirm Journeymen Tailors tot k place, last Evening, at the Freemasons' Tavern. Mr. Alderman and Sheriff Sidney in the chair. At six o'clock upwards of 250 gentlemen sat down to dinner in the Freemasons' Hall. On the right of the Chairman sat Mr. Stultz, the President, and founder of, and a most liberal benefactor to, the Institution. On his entering the room he was much applauded. The cloth having been removed, and the usual loyal and pa triotic toasts having been given, and cordially re sponded to, The CHAIRMAN rose to propose the toast of the evening, which was prosperity to the Benevolent Insti tution for the Relief of the Aged and Infirm Journey men Tailors.—(Cheers.) He felt unable to give ex pression to the feelings under which he laboured in rising to propose the toast, and he could only regret that the task of proposing it had not fallen into abler hands. He had been very kindly solicited to preside over the anniversary festival of the Institution that evening, and he attributed the honour conferred upon him to the fact that he had been chosen to fill the important situa tion of Sheriff of the City of London. So kind, however, had been the reception that he had met with, that he felt quite at home among them.— (Cheers.) He felt as if he were among his own family.—(Renewed cheers.) He went heart and hand with them in the benevolent object, the success of which they were met to promote— (Cheers)—and one of the greatest delights he ex perienced from the office he had the honour to hold was this—that it brought him into contact with the members of benevolent Associations like the present.—(Cheers.) The metropolis might be proud of the number of its institutions for the relief of the decayed merchants and tradesmen, and artisans, and among them this institu tion was entitled to take a high rank. It owed its rise to the exertions of one or two benevolent gentlemen, more especially to his Hon. Friend on his right (Mr. Stultz), who in this work of benevolence stood almost alone in this great metropolis.—(lmmense cheering.) It must be delightful to him to see his benevolent exer tions thus responded to—(Cheers)—and he might well feel proud in having been the founder of such an Insti -1 tution.—'Cheers.) If an augury of the future could be drawn from the past, then he should say, that a long course of prosperity was open to this institution. Formerly there had been no class of men so improvident as the journeymen tailors. But a great change bad recently taken place, which might be mainly attributable to this Institution, which en couraged provident habits in the men, and enabled them, by a very small pecuniary subscription, to secure to themselves a provision in old age, or in sickness.— . (Cheers.) He rejoiced to say, that the Society was in a prosperous state. They had between 11,000/ and 12,000/. in the funds—(Cheers)—and they had last year received between 4,0001. and 5,000/. They had lately completed a beautiful and extensive range of almhouses ; but, extensive as they were, those houses were already crowded with inmates, and there was a great call for some extension 'of them. With that liberality which always characterised him, Mr. Stultz had offered the ground whereon to erect more houses, whenever they should be in a position to avail them selves of his offer. (Loud cheers.) That Institution offered to every man connected with the trade the cer ' tainty of being saved from the parish, if he became a contributor to the Institution, and the contribution re quired was so small, that it was absolutely without a parallel in the history of similar institutions.—.(Cheers.) Now, his first duty as chairman was, to ask them to support this Institution by every means in their power.—(Cheers.) Let it not be said that his occu psncy of the chair had been of disadvantage to the Institution. He called upon them to support him by contributing liberally to the funds of the Institution.— (Cheers.) Let them not consider the weakness of the advocate, but the strength of the cause.—(Renewed cheering.) An Institution like . this, for the support of the aged and infirm, appealed to the sympathy of every human being. He hoped that it might increase in strength and power every year—that it might run a long course of prosperity, and reach a good old age.—(Loud cheers.) The worthy Chairman concluded by 'pro ; posing the toast, which was drunk with three times three, and followed by Balfe's beautiful ballad, " We may be happy yet," which was exquisitely Bung by Mr. G. Genge, and honoured with an encore. The CHAIRMAN then proposed the Health of Mr. Stultz, the President, who had contributed in founding and supporting this Institution, no less a sum than 14,5001.—(Vehement cheering.) In fact, the Institution had been most liberally supported. One of the Vice- Presidents, Mr. Hounsler, had contributed 1,0041. to its support.—(Loud cheers.) The health of Mr. Stultz having been drunk enthusi astically, with all the honours, that gentleman, who was received with immense cheering, briefly acknowledged the compliment. The health of the Chairman was then drank and ac knowledged. Various other toasts were given in the course of the evening, and the party broke up about eleven o'clock. Nearly 6001. was subscribed to the charity in the room. The musical arrangements, which were under the di rection of Mr. G. F. Taylor, reflect the highest credit on that gentleman. Besides the ballad so exquisitely sung by Mr. Genge, to which we have already alluded, we cannot close this notice without warmly praising the spirited manncr in which the buffo-duet from the Elisir d'Amore was given by Messrs. Smith and Rennie. It was much superior to the ordinary run of after-dinner singing. AL RESPONSIBILITY I ON the MO AL RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHING TO DOCTORS FOR HOLDING OUT TO THE WORLD THAT POISONS, SUCH AS PRUSSIC ACID, ARSENIC, &c., &c., ARE MEDI CINES WHEN ADVISED OR ADMINISTERED BY THEM. TO THE EDITOR,. SIR,-It does appear to us of the first importance to' the world ,generally to ascertain whether poisons, such as prussic acid, arsenic, &c., &c., have been introduced by doctors with the bona fide view to the cure of dis ease, or for the purpose of making a trade of medicine. Your readers will bear in mind that of all the schemes that could have been devised in order to create a monopoly in medicine, that of doctors declaring to a confiding public that such poisons* as above mentioned were medicines fit and pro per for the cure of diseases when advised by them, was the most effectual. Hear the following passage given in evidence on Tawell's trial. It forms part of Mr. Champney's cross-exami nation by Mr. Kelly:—" The smallest dose which is reported to have caused death was the case of seven patients in one of our hospitals; a dose of 7-10ths of a grain was given to each patient, and they all died in from 30 minutes to three-quarters of an hour." Here is a pretty specimen of the manner in *hick poor patients are experimented upon in the hospitals. We ask, is it not disgraceful? But why, after such expe rience of the deadly character of prussic acid, do our doctors still hold it out to the world as a medicine when " medici nally" administered by them, as they call it, which means after the fee has been paid or " advice." We feel satisfied that thousands are annually sent to their graves by such poisons in the hands of inexperienced medical practitioners. The more experienced know, perhaps, how to give them in doses not to kill at once, but as to their being a cure for any disease, it is, we feel assured, perfectly untrue. Is there not a noble-minded Member of the Legislature to be found who will step in and prevent the havoc which is made is human life by th es e poisons, administered " medicin a lly," by calling for a full investigation of the sub ject? Wicked persons (as in Tit sell's case), when such poisons are found upon them, say, " Oh, I take them medicinally' by the advice of my doctor," and produce a pre scription to that effect, thus at once in a grea t measure setting justice at defiance. We repeat, let there be a full inquiry into this grave and important question—We are, Sir, your obedient servants, MORISON and MOAT, For, and on behalf of, the body of Hygeists. British College of Health, New-road, London, March 17, 1845. The reasons why doctors hold out to the publie poisons as medicines, are made snore palpable by the two prints showing the fallacy of the organic theory under all its forms. To be had of all the Hygeian agents, price 6d, or Is. coloured. No person who cares for his health should be without these prints. FLANDERS MAIL.' Ilitussms, Mauch 15.—The cold continues to be very intense. On the 15th the mercury in the centrigrade ther mometer, at the observatory, at six o'clock in the morning, was at 10 deg. 2 min. A commission has just been formed by the Minister of Jus tice and of Foreign Affairs jointly to draw up a penal code, for the use of the mercantile navy. The Commission consists of seven members. The Chamber of Representatives, in its sitting to-day, re solved to refer to the Minister of Finance the report of the Committee appointed to examine the petition of the sugar refiners, and their workmen, and also the petitions of the workmen at Ghent, proposing the adoption of certain mea sures for the protection of that business. The President stated that he had just received from the President of the Senate a project of law, modifying the corn-law which the Senate had adopted. It was referred to the Sections. The Chamber ad journed till the 2d of April.--Br ussels Papers, March 16. Mr. George nape had an interview with Sir Robert Peel yesterday.