The Sun. — London, England, 1845-07-22 00:00:00

tleman concluded by moving that this House regards with regret and apprehension the state of affairs in New Zealand ; and that those feelings are greatly aggravated by the want of any sufficient evidence of a change in the policy which has led to such disastrous results. The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst continued cheering. Mr. WARD seconded the motien. Mr. G. %V. HOPE said he would first address himself, in replying to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, to the personal • matter contained in this question. He felt now, as on for mer occasions, that Lord Stanley had, from the beginning to the end of this matter, been much aspersed. The first charge brought against his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) by the Hon. and Learned Member (Mr. C. Buller) was, that of not submitting the instructions to the New Zealand Company which had been dispatched to the colony on the 7th of June. In reply to this he might say that the minutes on which the instructions to the colony were based had been submitted to a private meeting of gentlemen connected with the Company, and they were agreed to by them. The dispatches were founded on these minutes, and the charge of bad faith in reference to this matter was therefore entirely unfounded. Nothing was kept back or held private from the deputation of gentlemen who had applied to the Colonial-office for information on the subject. This explanation he deemed quite satisfactory, and he should be surprised, if any member of the deputation could be found who would deny the statement of what took plane. There was one Gentleman present, who was a member of that deputa tion, and who would much astenish him (Mr. Hope) if he denied the truth of this.—( Hear, hear.) He had now dis posed of this, one of the greatest charges against his Noble Friend. And what did these deputations, of which so much was said, advise? They advised that a kind and cordial spirit should be manifested in all transactions with the natives, con sistent with the interests of the colony. The Hon. Member here read an extract from the instructions to Captain Fitzroy, to the effect that there should be, as far as practicable, an amicable settlement of all points pending between the natives and the New Zealand Company, and that he (the Governor) should prevent anything like exorbitant demands, either on the part of the Company or the native chiefs. There had been no deceit, therefore, manifested here. Mr. C. BULLER—I did not say deceit. I said we had been kept in the dark. Mr. HOPE—The Hon. and Learned Member says he did not charge his Noble Friend with deceit, he only charged him with keeping the Company in the dark regarding thesein structions. That this was not the case he thought he had al ready shown the House—( Hear, hear)--though, on this point, his Noble Friend had suffered attack and obloquy as if he had done something highly derogatory to the interests and privi liges of the Company.—(Cheers.) He could further point to the instructions given to the Company by the Government, as showing that there had been a desire to meet the bona fide claims of the Company, as far as it was consistent with the obli gations and honour of the country. The Hon. and Learned Member only read a portion of the instructions to the House, to which he objected. He did not read that which referred to what he (Mr. Hope) had just adduced. He would, therefore, read that "Zportion of the instructions, to show the House that they bore out the construction he had put upon them. The Hon. Gentleman read a passage from the instructions recommending that it was necessary that effec tual steps should be taken to settle amicably the claims - of the Company consirtently with the rights of the natives.—( Hear.) Before those instructions were dispatched to the colony a depu tation waited upon his Noble Friend, and he (Lord Stanley) made no hesitation in communicating the nature of the dis pa'ch. Yet he waseharged with keeping back information—a charge which he must say was most unjust.—( Hear, hear.) Complaint had been made by the Company on an award being recommended that its acceptance would place them in a worse position than otherwise, with regard to the natives. In 1843 this was the course resolved on. It was then, in instructions sent out to Capt. Fitzroy, stated that he should co•opera.te with the agents of the Company in arranging with the natives about the sale of lands. In accordance with those instructions Capt. Staines was appointed as Commissioner; and he would read a portioa of a dispatch of the 19th of July, on the result of this appointment. The extract read by the Hon. Member was to the effect that in every arrangement about the lands with the natives, the Company, in every cage in which there was any doubt about title, should have sufficient compensation for all improvements that had been effected.—( Hear, hear.) The Commissioners acted in the spirit of this instruc• lion, and proceeded to award fairly between the natives and the Company, the Government considering that this was the course best calculated to settle these unfortunate differences. The lien. and Learned Member, in describing the state of the colony, quoted entirely from a letter of Mr. Cowley, but had nut referrsd to other important letters and communications that had reached this country. He had not referred to the letters of Lloyd's agents and others, who bad at least equal means of information. He had limited himself to the com munication of one mien, in order to draw a frightful picture.— ( Hear, hear.) And what he had read was more calculated to show the character of the settlers in the north and north-west of the colony, than to prove that there was any great danger. Sailors and the y erha that had been sent out from Parkhurst Pe nitentiary had been represented as exciting disorder in the colony, but in these statements lie believed there was no little exagge rat iota in what had been said about the subordination of these parties, and employed to excite sympathy, and to spread alarm as to the con Litton of the colony. These youths from Park hurst, of which complaint had been male, l:ad been placed in that penitentiary in order to reclaim them from their bad habits, and they were sent out thee as it was not considered safe to turn them out loose here, :n order to give them a chance of escaping bad habits. That very day his Noble Friend had received di,- patches from Auckland, dated the 25th, and stating that dtse fection only extended ton portion of the tribes, and that there was strong hope that all the d:ffieulties would pass over without any serious commotions. A letter hid also been received which stated that since the last instructions from the colony the North Star had arrived with 200 men, which arrival had done much to calm the minds of the settlers, and that the news from the disturbed districts represented matters as much quieter than they were. This dispatch was from no agent of the Govern ment, but. from a gentleman who stated in a very independent manner what he saw. But the Hon. and Learned Member says that his latest date from New Zealand is of the 28th; now he (Mr. Hope) had information a day later. In a news paper, published there on the 29th, which he had received, it was stated that the 200 troops had art ived in the North Star steam-packet, accompanied by six field pieces; that the forts had been placed in a proper state of defence ; that block-houses had been erected, and every step taken to place the settlement in a proper state of defence.—( Hear, hear.) It was further stated that there was an imp-eyed feeling of security in the colony, and that the natives had made no further opposition. He would sate this-to the House, in opposition to Mr. Cor mack's statement,. which had been adduced by the lion. and Learned Member. But it was said that, in furthering and pro tecting the interest s cf Auckland, they had neglected Wellington. This was not true, for as soon as the troops arrived from Sydney a portion were immediately sent off to Wellington, in order to protect the interests of that settlement. It was not right, therefore, to charge the Government with culpable neglect. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman complained of the military force placed at the disposal of Now Zealand. Why, when the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London was at the head of the Colonial Department, and application was made to him for a military force for the colony, a hundred men wasthe total force allowed them; and when the colonists complained that the force was too little, they were told they could be sup plied with no more. Lord J. RUSSELL—At that time. Mr. HOPE—The military force had since averaged from 150 to 2)0 men. The available force in the Australian colo nies altogether had formerly been 1,600. In 1843, it was 2,400 ; and now there would be an available force of 4,000 men ; that was, whenever the regiments on their progress from India and this country had arrived there. This, he believed, was a competent force to maintain the authority of the Queen in the colony; and to defend the settlers in the islands from the attacks of the natives. There was, however, no proof that any confederation of the natives would take place—that they would unite against the settlers and require any great demonstration of military power. The native tribes had never yet united, nor, in his opinion, would they do so, unless something was done to give them strong cause to com bine their interests and sympathies in a combined system. This brought him to the point that the acts of the natives had re sulted from the policy of the Government; that the disaffec tion in the colony was to attributed to this alone. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had quoted Mr. Busby in support of this opinion, and yet that gentleman, in another portion of this statement, attributed the difficulties which had arisen to the disposition of the natives to deny the sovereignty of this country, and to overthrow the authority of her ilfajesty. It was said that Captain Fitzroy had been supported by his Noble Friend, such as no Governor was ever supported. Now he wanted to know the authority for such a statement. This was not the case. So far from its being so, he had been stalled into question on many material points. On his financial proceedings, in the sale of lands, in the raising of the militia, in the expenses of his Go vernment, and in forming laws lay his council in a hurried and unsatisfactory manner,—on all these points he had been called in question. With regard to Mr. Shoulbread, his secretary, to whom reference had been made, he had, no doubt, been charged with malversation in his office; but he was bound to state that upon an investigation taking place there were no grounds for the charge. tlr. Shoulbread resigned his office, as Captain Fitzroy had expressed himself that he had no confidence in him, yet he (Mr. Hope) must say he saw no reason whatever for this course. It was hard that a gentleman's prospects in life should be ruined upon a mere suspicion, which was not founded in truth, and be had recently been appointed to the Governorship in the West Indies. The Honour able arid Learned Member next complained of the place where the capital had been fixed. In answer to that he might refer to instructions sent out by the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) to Captain Hob son. Captain Hobson was instructed to fix the capital in the territory belonging to the Government, and not in that of the Company. The Hon. Member then read an extract from the instructions in question to that effect. It was clear, therefore, that Captain Hobson went out with instructions to fix the capital in Government land. Auckland was in consequence selected, and he was hound to say it was the best that could be selected, for the purposes of trade and commerce. To abandon that, as had been proposed, would have been, in his opinion, a most fatal and ruinous course. The municipal institutions had also been referred to, and complaints had been made that they were not assimilated to those of England. This was never intended. The municipal dis tricts were tracts of country mapped out for the purposes of colonial Government, and had no analogy to sueh;,institetions 24 those that went by the same name in England. The Hon. Gentleman then briefly referred to the charge against the Government of imposing a tax upon this Company's settlers, and justified the course which had been taken in that matter by reference to what had been done in Canada under similar circumstances. This, however, he considered had been fully ant in the previous debate, without his going further into the objection at present. It had been shown that there had been no breach of honesty and good faith towards the Colony or the New Zealand Company by the Government. There was one other matter, to which the Hon. and Learned Member referred, and on which the Hoe. Member for Lam beth seemed to lay considerable emphasis on a previous occa sion—he meant the vote given by himself (Mr. Hope) in the Committee of 1840. The question, as it seemed to have some importance attached to it, he should be happy to refer to. w It was, wheth er i t wise course to recogni s e the indepen den' e of N ew Zealaan s d ) and he was of the same opinion now, for he thought it amo unwise course. B u t new th e lien. Gentlem an turned round , d you are inconsistent, you supported the i n d e pendence of New Zealand then, and why turn round now, and advocate a di fferent e policy l could only repeat, th a t h e was still of th e same b u tle • that independence havin g b een aeknowledsd, i t would nosy came be still more unwise to adopt a different syst7em to the conclusion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's.H nowo and what the Hon. and Learn e d Memberds address, %i e n : ri-hed as ring dropping." Those words mi g h t be u very ex tended sense—( Laug'i ter )—and h e losiieve it that the,Foria. and Learned Member meant as much by them, namely, t ob tain fur the Company itself the laud they wished to become en tiled to. That was the principle of the policy which aline pressed upon them, and yet the lion. and Learned Memb ir said, strangely enough, that no change of policy had occurred. He ( Mr. Hope) would say this, that if the Government were in error in the policy they had adopted, they had to blame the pp /icy of the Noble Lord the Member fir London, who had pre. N , F Ae s tgA o m rt arar, at,piti: hee ins tructions rg to the Governor i ii Noble Lord said the instructions were \ ' not, then, go into the instructions given L, , tif it were necessary to do so, he should `ham at his policy went to the very principle ..:, right in the land, and that the Crown had s them of it. If lion. Members would S , .1* r -.! 'e.(kftic, Lo :`-;70 1 141"Al OPiti 4 06th - he aa tißrs h to-1 diM THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAI. EVENINpr, JULY 22, 1845. take the trouble to examine the minutes of the .reports on New South Wales of that period, they would find abundant evi dence of the results of the change of policy referred to by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The Noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, had once referred with considerable force to a speech of Sir George Gipps, who was considered, by a majority of the Committee, a person whose opinion on this subject might be desirable. He was applied to by Capt. Fitzroy, and he ( Mr. Hope) would read the evidence of Sir George Gipps. ( The Hon. Gentleman then read the extract.) It was stated that this (the sovereignty) was one of the causes that would unite the natives against the Government. It was certain that it now created great discontent, and if they adopted a different line of policy—a policy inconsistent with that pre viously pursued—it would only bring ruin upon their interests in that country. Mr. ROEBUCK said that as he had had some share in drawing up the report of the Committee on this subject, he should wish, and he trusted to be pardoned if he addressed a few words to the House. It seemed to him, that when they considered, the mode in which that unfortunate country was connected with this, a mode of connexion equally injurious to New Zealand and to Great Britain, the evils which oppressed it would be found to have had their origin in the conduct pur sued by the Government in all time to that • country. When Captain Cooke was sent out to make discoveries, he took possession of this island in the name and on the part of Great Britain. He was an authorised person; because it might be laid down as an important doctrine, that no one, except a per son specially instructed by Great Britain, could usurp such a right in the name of that country. He thought it necessary to put this on the broad principle before proceeding with his case. Well, Captain Cooke went and discovered New Zea land, and Great Britain then acquired what might be termed an imperfect right, which, however, by subsequent acts might have been perfected. Afterwards they lost possession of it, be cause no one, retaining authority from this country, was left in the island. It was true that certain runaways from New South Wales went and resided there from time to time. It was true that mariners called there, who attended the whale fisheries, and certain missionaries went there for the purpose of labouring in the vineyard, and there they also fixed their tem porary residence. None of these acquired a foot of ground, and New Zealand still remained unpossessed. And why ? Because the right of Great Britain to the country had not been per fected. But Great Britain, not only not contented with this virtual cession of the island, publicly declared it to be without her territories. Thus it was clear that if any foreign nation had stepped in, as they had not perfected their right of dis covery, Great Britain would have been obliged to succumb, because she had made no declaration of her right. But she might say " we have recognised them as the independent people of an independent country, and we shall see that their rights are not invaded." They were acknowledged by Great Britain, and now he came to the New Zealand Company's connexion with the country, and before he had done, he thought he would put the case in such a position that the Hon. Gentleman would be puzzled to answer. The New Zealand Company said "We went out to a country which you have acknowledged to be an independent and sovereign one, and we bought land of the sovereigns of that country, paying a fair price for it, and; there fore, we consider we have a perfect title to the land, but when you come afterwards and take possession of it, you say you have had possession of the country, but we say we think this our private property, bought according to the very forms on which you place so much weight—those forms which Lord Stanley so often refers to. We bought the land and we paid for it, and you have no right to look into the contract. We claim the land and deny your right to publish any proclamation that can be regarded over Europe as challenging our right to our pur chases in a free country." He should like to see the question brought into a court of law—say the Queen's Bench, and its decision upon it.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But what did Great Britain do under the government of the Noble Lord the Member for London ? What were the next stages in this fat ce ? and a curious farce it was. The Govern ment enlarged the commission of the Captain-General of New South Wales. They declared that his jurisdiction should ex tend to all territories in New Zealand, and then they further granted a commission to Captain Hobson to go out as a sort of deputy-captain-general. They gave him consular power, and not only that, but they furnished him with ambassadorial powers to treat with the native chiefs for their submission to the power of Great Britain. But the farce went on. Cap tain Hobson went out, and then began ti,at other extraordi nary two act farce commencing with the treaty of Waitangi. After this. they had Captain Hobson employing his various arts to induce the chiefs to cede the sovereignty of the country. Let them but think of the document obtained by Captain Wakefield from the chiefs around Wellington, and to urge with a grave and serious aspect such an instrument as ceding the sovereignty of a country. They (the Government) :aid the purchase of the land was a fraud and they would have nothing to do with it. but he maintained that the selling of the :and was a fraud.—( Hear.) It was a fraud on the civilized werhl.—( Cheers ) They said that the purchase was dis honourable, but where was the sense of honour in their Iran sections with the New Zealand Company? But now he would rem ark upon the part taken by the missionaries apart pe enliarly marked, as they had used every me Ins, by hands and wit, to get these verb documents signed. He repeated that their conduct was peculiarly marked in their inteicoune with ;be aborigines. Bat how did they get there ? Why in this tray. There was at the time a great organ zetion abread for emancipating the negroes, and there was a mass of organization and other sentimental bubbles afloat, ind so the missionaries got to New Zealand. ire should be shut up to the -end of the session in Committee, and that would he the end of it. [ls had had sufficient ex erience of this. In the Aborigines Committee, what oc cerred? When the report was made, Lord Normanby said, we cannot stand against this. In the result, General Hobson wat sent out. To obviate the claims of France our prior claims to discovery was set up. This was the origin of the New Zealand Hobby— ( Hear, hear)—from which no one had gained but the missionaries.—( Hear, and a laugh.) They had written an account of the Christian doctrine, and had translated it into the New Zealand language ; which, however did not contain a sufficient number of wards to express the ideas, and these were written in a jargon which the New Zealanders could not nederstand, but he could because he knew English.— ( Hear, and laughter.) But simple as the missionaries were, they took care of themselves.—( Hear, and laughter.) One _entleman of this bedy acknowledged that he had obtained a bit of land—which turned out to he 90,000 acres, Another had 100,000 acres.—t, Hear, hear, and a laugh.) The mi+sionaries were the real cause of all the misgovernment. 'the great evil at the root of all colonial government was, that when a Ministry came into power, they said, we must have a Colonial Secretary, and they immediately placed in office some man of Parliamentary influence, with est regard to his know le ige or capacity. But there was a power behind, and, in this case, the missionaries were that power.—( Hear, hear.) Such influence was sometimes overcome by a man of great strength of mind, great sagacity, great patience. But Lord Stanley was not such a person.—( Hear, hear.) The missionaries had been the cause of the differences between this country and France in Otaheite.—( Hear, hear.) They went abroad under the pretence of spreading the religion of peace, and they spread only war and dissen.ion. He did not blame this Government for all that had occurred. Preceding Governments, from the 52d of Geo. 111. down to Lord Normanby were equally to blame.—(llear, hear.) He thought that the Government should take the territory into their own hands, and give the colonists a charter for self-government. such as was possessed by the colonists of Rhode Island. When the first settlers of the New Zealand Company were about to leave the Thames, they had agreed upon a form of Government amongst themselves which they undertook to obey. In this they followed the example of those pilgrim settlers who adopted a form of government which was now reverenced throughout America as much as Magna Charta was in England. He said thus much in justice to the New Zealand Company, although he did not approve of all their proceedings, and especially of their taking out emigrants without providing for their settlement— ( Hear, hear.) A land tax had been spoken of. But upon whom was the tax to be levied? Who owned the land ? ( Hear, hear.) It could not be alleged that individuals amongst the tribes owned it, nor that the tribes themselves were the owners. Each tribe occupied, from time to time, certain spots, which they cultivated as long as they would bear culti vation, when they moved off to another spot more fertile. But they did not possess the land as the savages of North America formerly possessed theirs ; for the latter used the land as hunting grounds, and lived upon it. But it was absurd to say that the New Zealanders possessed the land from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain, as the people ofthis island possessed Britain, or the Hon. Gentleman opposite possessed his paternal estates. He thought the course which the Government ought to pursue was to take the land on the part of the Crown—to give to the natives a liberal pro tection, and such reserves of land as would be amply adequate to their comfortable subsistence amonst the civilized settlers. This was the only thing which could be done to soften that fate, to which the New Zealanders, like all savage races coming in contact with civilised men were approaching, that of certain extinction. But if the proposed land tax were imposed the result would be. that the land would become that of the Crown by forfeiture within twelve months.—( Hear.) That was a fiction which he would not say was undignified—the term was insufficient to express its character. It was rather worthy of that term to which the Noble Lord himself ( Lord Stanley) had given authority—that of "thimble rig."—(hear and laughter.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who was very imperfectly heard throughout, concluded by entreating the Government to adopt the policy he had recommended. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it was not his intention to enter now into a lengthened discussion of this ques. tion, which had been already, in the course of this session, suffi. ciently considered by the House. Now he was quite prepared to admit with the Member for Liskeard, that there were many of the persons who undertook the scheme with the most disin terested motives, and yet it appeared from the book on the table, that there were persons who realised 6 per cent. on their outlay. He mentioned this because there was a great deal in the conduct of the Company which was deemed culpable by the Government. In 1839, when under the conduct of Captain Wakefield, the New Zealand Company had made purchases unwise in their character of the natives. The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had distinctly chal lenged him, on the ground that the New Zealand Company had not been guaranteed by the Government. In 1839 the New Zealand Company had applied to the Government for a recog nition of their authority. On this application the Government had expressly stated that they would not rec"gnise their pro ceedings, yet in spite of these proceedings the New Zealand Company had made purchases of the natives of lands to statin g which th ey were alone entitled, and on the 2d ew that Ze t a h l e a y nd wer C e om i p n an p y oss h es a s d ien is o s f ued eer a . prospectusofAlaythe N fain lands, to which they had no t the s lig htest title. They had applied to the Government for a recognition of this title, but Lord Normanby, under the ad vice of Capt. Hobson, had replied, that the Government could not do otherwise than acknowledge that the treaty of Waitn g r was a valid treaty. Yet i n s pi te o f all this the New Zealand a Company had instructed their agent, Capt. W a k e fi e ld , to make purchases of lands of the native s , who were perfectly entitled to the sovereignty of their own estates. They had made these purchases at a time when the sovereignty of there lands was fully recognised by the government of this Company. Lord Normanby had expressly recognised the sovereignty over the wastes of New Zealand, end it was quite incompetent for the agents of the New Zealand Company to enter into any arrange ments which disregarded the rights of the natives. This treaty was made in 1810, with the full cognizance of the New Zealand s f Me - Company, and housed the expression advisedly ; he yet asserted that the 'country wally bound to observe the terms o f th at yfau agreed, stated that this treaty was on e treaty. i,e rofr Lolnridn re the o e t n e t r i ms l u of th r a e t ed t : e a a r t , y d the had theN ex o p b e e s L ie o d rd his lm approval I of the treaty, and had p b e r o r s t e o e f t i t o h n e common community who were s_oand. Their rights had been recognised by the G overnm ent. which ought to be observed, as the inhabitants of New Zeal On the 1 9 th November the that t m he u r c e h we e r n e ti n tl o ed me t m o New Zealand Company's agent had entered into an arrange meat with th e nat i ves , i n t h e f u l knowledge of the terms of the tr eaty of W is expressly stipu lated aitangai. In that treaty entitled to any lands when it : th at the Company should not he which we re not granted by the Crown. Yet, any dis pute arose, th ey en d eavoured to establish it as a sort of condi tion, that th e l ands they sought to obtain were to be allowed by the express c0:18,4A ~f the natives. That this was the case was i expressly apparent from the con , ent et the Noble Lord himself, i ' and a letter of Air. Vernon Smith, vihich expressly stated the terms of the agreement to the Company. To this the chairman of the New Zealand Company replied, fully stating that the Company took the land under the supposition that the Crown had to give its app , obatio n to the purchase. The Commissioner of Land Claims had to ascertain on what grounds the Company had to make their claims to the lands entered upon by the ar rangement of Col. Wakefield. By an in•p tttion of the agree ment with the natives it was evident that no agreement had been entered into by the Company. But a Commissio n on the part of the Crown lands had authorised such steps to be taken as would validate the purchase of the lands. He would not fatigue the House by reading letters which showed that the New Zealand Company had agreed to make their purchases of lands for a considerable sum—not 5001.—but for a considerable sum ; and if this deposit was to be made, how was this claim to be satisfied? and he thought that it was quite contrary to the principle of this agreement that the New Zealand Com pany should take this land first under their original right, and secondly on the principle of national law. Now, what did the Noble Lord the Member for London say to this subject ? Why, he said that he would guarantee any grant to which a superior title was not shown. It was, therefore, rather too much to say that the New Zealand Company's views had not been carried out to the extent which they themselves had laid down. It had been suggested that the Noble Lord had not kept faith with the Company, because he had not fulfilled good faith in the award of the 18th May. Now, what was the fact ? The Noble Lord had determined that the title to these lands should be shown by the possession of the natives. A Commissioner had accordingly been appointed to investigate the titles of the natives to the several districts, for which he was responsible. When, therefore, the Commissioner had in vestigated this award, there was to be a subsequent agreement, on which the title of the New Zealand Company was to be based. He would venture on no further explanation, because he thought that it was unnecessary. He had shown the nature of the treaty of Waitangai, he had shown the nature of the de gree of civilisation to which the natives had advanced, and he had shown that it was a treaty into which the agent of the New Zealand Company had solemnly entered, which had been gua ranteed by the Government, and for which the previous Go vernment was responsible. Mr. LABOUCHERE denied that this was a question be tween the Government and the New Zealand Company. It was the duty of this House to inquire what was the policy of the Government with which, as Secretary of the colonies, he was connected. He did remember the anxious desire of Lord Nor manby—an anxiety in which he had most deeply participated— that the inferior race should not be crushed by the superior race, and he was prepared to say that nothing had been more opposed to the policy of the Government of wich Lord Nor manby was a meraber, than to violate the terms of the treaty of Waitangai. He would contend that it was owing to the documents which the Government had put upon the table that had caused all the confusion and misfortunes of New Zealand. He found by the dispatches of Lord Stanley that the instructions of Lord Stanley were contrary to the instructions of that House. If it was the wish of the House to conciliate in that country they would have adopted a very different course of policy. He did think the same course of justice and fairness should be adopted towards the people of New Zealand as had been existing between this country and France, or in America. He did not mean that nice points upon any sub ject should be allowed to form diffieultiev in the way of le2,islating for a half savage people. (Hear, hear.) But he did think that substantial justice should be done as between the natives and the settlers, and this could be very easily done without injury to the prosperity of this coun try, or without the necessity of sending out a larger body of armed men. He did think it would be absurd to regard the aborigines of New Zealand as if they were the inha bitants of a state as civilized as that of England; but the mode by which the Government proposed to fine those people was an absurd mistake. ( Hear, hear, and cheers. ) The levy of a tax was proposed, but the absurdity of such a measure must be apparent to any person who considered the present state of the aborigines of that country.—( Hear, hear.) He would not detain the House further on the present occa sion. He would give his vote in favour of his Hon. Friend near him, for he did think, that if the House was so taken up by party conflicts, he feared it would go far to shake the confi dence of the public in that House. Sir R. INGLIS contended that the labour of the missionaries in New Zealand had produced great results, and he was sorry to hear the Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard permit him self to speak slightingly of those missionaries. Believing that the question raised by the New Zealand Company was raised to support the interest of the Company as such, and for no other object, he should give his support to her Majesty's Gove rn ment. Mr. AGLIONBY regretted being obliged to obtrude him self upon the House upon this subject, because his feelings were very strong upon the matter. Ile thought that a Committee would he a much better tribunal for the investigation of the subjects which had been brought under the considera tion of the House by the Attorney-General, than that House was. The Hun. and Learned Gentleman had dealt in gross exaggeration. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had said, that the purchases of fund by the New Zealand Company had been unfairly made. This was entirely without proof. The Company had paid every farthing which had been awarded by the Commis-ionee of claims. In one case, after the title to the land had been conveyed, the Cempany paid 7,9001. for what was called good-wild. The Company had desired peace, and had made every conces4ion to the Government short of a concession of their honour. They had never concealed anything from the Government. He believed that no one would dare to say in the presence of the Noble Lord the Member for London, that the New Zealand Company had misled him. They had done no such thing. Everything was open to him, and the Noble Lord knew this. The Noble Lord, when he was in office, might have had every document connected with the Company merely for the asking for them. The safety of the colony had been and should be the first object of the Company. They coupled the condition with the monopoly. If the House wished for in formation nothing would be refused. With regard to the Hon. Member fir Oxford, I.e would assert that no aggravation was conceded. But until he had evidence to the contrary he should believe that the motives and actions to carry on their designs were rendered abortive by the proceedings of the Church Missionary Society ; and Ile opposition of that Gen tleman had been a prevailing opposition. The Hon. Gentle man then read a memorial from that society. Sir R. INGLIS asked whether this was according to the custom of the Church Missionary Society. This remark would justify any imputation on their character? Mr. A GLION BY would say that in the absence of the reli gious inducements of the popular safety there was something to consider beside the religious prejudices of the people. By the decision of the Government they had settled 200,000 acres of land on these persons, and between the several parties it had come to this whether they would or could not colonize New Zealand. But he was obliged to yield in order to rebut the feelings of those whose judgment he very highly respected. He had listened to the observations of the lion. and Learned Member of the Board of Trade, and was quite conscious that the adhesion of the India Company would be quite sufficient, but in the event of aggression should be granted. On the 21st December last it was agreed that the advantages should be divided; and assured to those who felt a very conscious sup position that a division would settle the question. Mr. HOPE said that he had supplied a full report of the proceedings of the Government, and he thought that when he had supplied the whole document, extracts se ere unnecessary. The motion for the adjournment of the debate was then put and agreed to. FEES (CRIMINAL COURTS) BILL. Mr. B. ESCOTT moved the second reading of this Bill. Mr. CRIPPS seconded the motion. The ATTORNEY-GENRAL opposed it. Mr. HUME supported it. Mr. B:ESCOTT explained, and Sir J. GRAHAM expostulated. Mr. DARBY remonstrated with the promoters of tote Bill, which was eventually postponed. TURNPIKES ROAD (SCOTLAND) BILL. On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill, Mr. PRIN GLE wished to reserve the second reading, as a great number of Scottish Members were out of town. Mr. P. M. STEWART trusted that the Hon. Meniber, as he did not object to the Bill, would allow it to be read a second time, and take the discussion in Committee. The Unions (Ireland) Bill was read a second time. The Jurors' Book (Ireland) Bill was read a third time . The report on the Va'uation (Ire and) Bill was brought up, and ordered to be committed. The report of the Committee of Supply was received. SLAVE TRADE (BRAZIL) BILL. On the order of the day for going into Committee on this Bill, Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that as this was a very im portant measure, he trusted before the House would pi •uceed further in it, that any correspondence yet unproduced woi tld be laid before the House, and he should therefore move the t the House do not resolve itself into Committee on the BILL this day, in order to give Government an opportunity of layin g any other correspondence relative to the question before the EL ,use. Sir R. PEEL hoped that the Hon. Member would allow the Bill to go into Committee, and if any papers corm ected with the slave trade, not already laid on the table, con* Id be found, they would be produced before the third reading- Mr. HAWES hoped that if any other correspondent e ex isted, it would be laid on the table, and he thought those Hon. Members belonging to the mercantile community ought to en tertain similar views. Sir ROBERT PEEL said he had stated he would be' ready to acquiesce in the postponement of the third reading o f the h ß a il t l w i e n e o n rd t e h r e to G p o r v od er u n ce ze a n n t y coofriretshpeonßdreanacia and her elthathadtake Majesty'splaee o an ug d h h t e th tr a u t ste the h c a o t r r eth e sp p o n a p d e e r n s c e w w o u a l s d o b It; v l e a Government. T gre A a l t r im H p o U r T t a c teh, ve ry cA t. ff d e e in e i t r a a a l l t y means Corn 't w u f p were the House, as it was really a matter of moment t! I' at the House should oee be tE i i r t e L o w r e m s oa e il dd d b o en that t t h h e ei f smu the bojset ma C de aP p t ar l a ' m EH e ting down the slave trade. Mr. HUME objected to the matter going further v, ti thout additional information being furnished. Sir R. PEEL said the Government could not bring foi rward the Bill at an earlier period of the session, from the press of. ether business. Colonel SIBTHORP had been eighteen years in the 1i ouse, and never saw the Hon. Member for Salford asleep at 'hi 3 post before. They were now called upon, at half-past one, t $ force measures 'of the greatest importance through a thinly at, tt mded House. Why did not the Hen. Member move the a. ij °ern ment ? Mr. MILNER GIBSON thought he should not be di , is tharg ing his duty if he allowed the Bill to proceed without tb, e pro duction of the correspondence he had called for. He • would therefore move the appointment of the Committee on Ti au trsday next. The motion having been seconded, Sir R. PEEL expressed his willingness to postpone • going into Committee on the Bill till T hursday next. Mr. M. GIBSON called for the production of Mr. 3i !lice's correspondence relative to the right of search. Sir R. PEEL said, as these negotiations had been tunsuc• cessful, he thought it would be inconsistent in him t o pro duce it. Mr. HUME said the country was anxious to know' upon what grounds the trade between Brazil and this count r y had been suspended, and he therefore hoped the correspm a fence would be laid on the table of the House. Sir R. PEEL said he had no objection to the producti mof all papers which would not be injurious to the public writ :e. The Stamp Duties Bill then passed through Committee , and the report was brought up. JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL. On the reading of the order of the day for the third re a 'ling of this Bill. Sir R. INGLIS objected to the passing of the Bill at this late hour, being now two o'clock, and he would divi slt i the House.—( Hear, hear.) Colonel SIBTHORP had for many years looked up o a the Gentleman a t th e h ea d o f h er MajeAv s Government ar t &sin cere Christian and Protestant. But he had been compe aed not to regard him any longer in that light—( A laugh)— and he should never again be surprised at any Bill which that : Right Hon. Gentleman might bring in, if it were even to di !stray the Protestant Church, and to bring in infidelity in its - place. — (Laughter,) He would support his Hon. Friend th , s : Mem ber for Oxford, who was really a Christian and a Pr at estant —(Laughter)—in recording his vote against the Bill.. -.‹Hear, hear, and laughter.) Tho House then divided, when the numbers were— For the third reading ... ...... . ... ......... 44 A4ainst it ... ........................ 1 The Bill w i‘ a lk s i a n e rl e t o Y i:ain ......... third .... ......... .......cipa — ss I (. The Bonded Corn Bill was re a d a t hi rd time and pas' ;ed. TAXING MASTERS COURT OP CHANG. :FtY (IRELAND) BILL. Sir ROBERT FERGUSON hoped that this Bill : would not be pressed on at this late period of the sessio: a, con sidering the magnitude and importance of the measure. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for Ireland hoped th e Hon. Baronet would not oppose the Bill, as a taxing officer f bJ • that Court in Ireland was very much wanted. Sir WILLIAM SOMERVILLE said he had to compl a 'n of the very late period of the session at which this meastrE./ was introduced. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said he should also protest against Bills of this sort beitig introduced at so late a period of the session, and, therefore, he would support his Hon. Friend in his opposition to the Bill. The question was then put, and the House went into Com mittee on the Bill ; a resolution was then agreed to for a grant of 1,0001. a year from the Consolidated Fund. Report to morrow (this day). The Compensations Bill was read a second time. The Drainage of Estates Bill was read a second time. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at Two o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 21. ROYAL ASSENT. The Royal Assent was given to-day, at a quarter before Ire o'clock, by Commission, to no less than ninety-three Bills, among which were—the Assessed Taxes Composition Bill, Sir Henry Pottinger's Annuity Bill, the Timber Ships Bill, Bankruptcy Declaration Bill, West India Islands Relief Bill, Seal-office Abolitionß ill, Public Museums Bill, Scientific and Li terary Societies Bill, Canal Companies Carriers Bill, Dog Stealing Bill, the Infeftment (Scotland) Bill, Banking (Scotland) Bill, Statute Labour ( Scotland) Bill, Arrestment of Wages ( Scot land ) ( No. 2) Bill, Schoolmasters ( Scotland) Bill, Banking (Ire land) Bill, Constables Public Works (Ireland) Bill, Glossop Gas Bill, the Glasgow Bridges Bill, the Totnes Markets and Waterworks (No. 2) Bill, the Wolverhampton Waterworks Bill, the Lyme Regis Improvement Market and Waterworks Bill, the Dundee Waterworks Bill, the Blackburn Waterworks Bill, the Hartlepool Pier and Port Bill, the Kendal Reservoirs Bill, the Manchester Improvement Bill, the Chelsea Improvement Bill, the Belfast Improve ment Bill, the Agricultural and Commercial Bank of Ireland Bill, the Quinborowe Borough Bill, the Forth and Clyde Navigation and Union Canal Junction (No. 2) Bill, the Manchester Court of Record Bill, the Reversionary In terest Society (No. 2) Bill, the Kevingham Drainage Bill, the Shepley Lane Head and Bansley Road Bill, the Har well and Streatley Road Bill, the Winwick Rectory Bill, Lady Sandys' (Turner's) Estate Bill, the Kidwelly Inclosure Bill, and the following Railway Bills: Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) (No. 2), London and Greenwich, Belfast and Ballymena, North British, Lancaster and Carlisle, York and North Midland (Harrogate Branch), North Woolwich, Guildford Junction, Waterford and Kilkenny, Exeter and Crediton, Bridgewater Navigation and Railway, Sheffield and Rotherham, Edinburgh and Glasgow, Newcastle and Darlington (Brandling Junction), Southampton and Dorchester, Eastern Union, Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr ( Cumneck Branch), Dundalk and Enniskillen, Eastern Union ( Bury St. Edmunds) (No. 2), Londonderry and Enniskillin, Chester and Birkenhead Extension, Whitehaven and Furness Junction, Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale, Great North of England and Richmond, Blackburn and Preston, Leeds and Thirsk, Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester, North Wales, Taw Vale Railway, Manchester and Birmingham ( Ashton branch), Ashton. Staly bridge, and Liverpool Junction ( Ardw ick and Guide-bridge branches), Eastern Counties (Ely and Whittlesea Deviation), Manchester South Junction and Altrincham, Trent Valley, London and Brighton (Horsham Branch), Ulster Extension, North Wales Mineral, North Union and Ribble Navigation Branch, St. Helen's Canal and Railway, Great North of England (Clarence and Hartlepool Junction), Great Western (Ireland):(Dublin to Mullingar and Athlone), Cockermouth and Workington, Richmond ( Surrey), Cork and Bandon, Liverpool and Manchester, Great Southern and Western (Ireland), Preston and Wyre, L) nn and Dereham, Middlesborough and Redcar, Dublin and Drogheda, Newry and Enniskillen, Dublin and Belfast Junction, with a branch to Kells, Waterford and Limerick. The Commissioners were the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Iluccleuch, and Lord Wharnclige. Messengers from the Commons brought up several Bills. THE PENINSULAR ARMY. The Duke of RICHMOND begged leave to present a peti tion from the veteran officers in the Peninsular campaign, request ing their Lordships to recommend to her Maj sty such rew.,rds as they might think proper. The petitioners said they would not trouble them with the details of their services—the thanks of both Houses had been often voted to the army in which they served, and which was the best proof of the high nature of their services. The walls of Parliament had often echoed with most melancholy forebodings that the British army would be obliged to fly to their ships for refuge, and that they would be forced to return to their native land, defeated and disgrac. d. But the transcendent abilities of his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) had averted that great calamity, and the Penin sula was freed and the flag of England was planted on the soil of France. Every man must admit the claim of those brace officers. How gallantly they opposed the victorious legions of Napoleon—men brought up and educated in war. He did not say that even the refusal of the prayer of the petition would have any effect on the British army, for they would ever feel bound to maintain the honour of their Sovereign. The natural bravery of the soldiers, their enthusiasm, and the esprit du corps which existed among them—the feeling that each in dividual had, that upon the success of his own personal exer tions depended the fate of the day—would always make the soldiers do their duty. But he asked, as an act of duty—as the payment of a debt of gratitude—the granting of the claim which the petitioners sought. He concurred with those petitioners ; but, at the same time, he must say that he had no wish to impute blame to any one, still less to his Noble Friend (the Duke of Wellington) whom he had always regarded with feelings of admiration and respect. He blamed not those who had conferred medals on the brave men of Waterloo, nor on those who had fought in China and India, but he asked was it right that.these brave men whom he repre sented should be left with no other marks of glory than their wounds ? Why should not these soldiers receive equal com pensation? He felt personally complimented by those brave men having placed their petition in his hands, and hoped their Lordships would think fit to grant its prayer. The Duke of WELLINGTON said the petitioners had done him but justice in stating that he had never mentioned the war in the Peninsula except in praise of the conduct of the officers who served in it ; but, with all respect, he did not think either House of Parliament could properly interfere in a case of this description. Some years had now elapsed since these same petitioners had made an application to him—it was in the year 1840, and upon precisely similar grounds. He then stated to these officers the position in which he stood towards them and towards the Government for a considerable number of years. He stated to them, that for several years he had reported to the Government their conduct as members of the Peninsular army, and that their conduct had been brought under the notice of their Sovereign. He further stated on that occasion that rewards to the army was not a subject in which he could interfere. These were acts for the Sovereign and for the advisers of the Sovereign, and did not come into his province. He recommended to these gentlemen at that time to make their application at the proper quarter, but upon inquiry upon the present occasion he found they had not done so. Nearly the whole British army served in that war. The two Houses of Parliament returned their ) thanks to that army, as it had served in no less than sixteen distinct engagements. Medals were struck in commemoration of distinguished actions in the Peninsula on no less than nineteen different occasions,and were distributed to no fewer than 1,300 officers. A new system of promotion was now instituted by means of special brevets, as a reward to those officers who had particularly distinguished themselves. Officers of inferior brevet rank were allowed to retire on superior rank, and to re ceive the pay and allowances attached to those ranks. These were solid boons conferred by the public on these individuals. There were among the Noble Lords present, no less than seven Noble Lords who had been promoted to the Peerage for distin guished military services, rendered either by themselves or their fathers, or grandfathers, and not less than 400 Orders of the Bath had been conferred on officers serving in the Penin sular army, being very nearly one-half of the whole num ber. The late Sovereign had been pleased to confer a medal on every individual who served in the battle of Waterloo, which honour had not been conferred before. The battle of Waterloo was attended with circumstances of a peculiar nature. Its issue was peace, after a war that had been waged for upwards of a quarter of a century, and the natural expecte , tion was that war would henceforward be at an end. The distinction of the Order of the Bath was originally con ferred on the Peninsular army, but lately it had been extended to other armies and especially to the last Indian armies. This was the history of the grant of this medal—it was for the good conduct of the troops, and granted in order to induce activity and good soldiership in the army. Its benefits had been found in the Indian campaigns and also in the late war in China. The British army had been engaged in fortified rivers and against fortified forts in operation against a numerous and in telligent people. They suffered greatly, not only from the dangers of actual warfare, but also from the fa4ignes of march ing and the scorching heat of the climate. The troops were suc cessful—successful at all points, and the result had been the en tering into a negotiation which would lay the foundation of a lasting peace with that great and important country. The be nefits that might be expected to arise from the treaty between this country and China were incalcu l able. He spoke to their Lordships of the army in the Peninsula, not as an unfavoured, but a distinguished and well-rewarded army. But while they remembered the deeds performed in the Peninsula they must remember that other expeditions were equally renowned ; let them' but call to mind Egypt and Calabria, and say, equally er deservingenotth of rewards effi ocerrseanrgdasgr And he i in those glorious campaigns must not forget the fleet, while entertaining the question of the merits of the army: the fleet of Gr ea t B r it a i n h a d ma intained its glory fully as emi nently as the army, and yet a general medal was never dissemi nated among the fleet. Yet, there Lad been great naval vic tories—there were the actions of the First of June, of Cape St. Vincent, and the Nile, but did ever any one hear of medals being granted f or t h ose ill ustr i ou s affairs? While, therefore, such obstacles presented themselves to the prayer of the present petition, he should feel it his duty to oppose it. The Marquis of LONDONDERRYsaid that the House and the entire country must feel that the admirable speech of the Noble Duke who had preceded him, was an unanswerable reply to the petition laid on the table by the Noble Lord opposite ; anything, therefore, he could add woald be only superfluous. Nevertheless, he was desirous of expressing his opinion of the practice of officers asking for decorations by peti tion—in one word, he would say that he considered it unworthy the character of British officers.—( Hear, hear.) Officers ought to trust to the Crown for their rewards, the House ought never to interfere. He looked upon the decora tions worn by officers with far greater respect when they were conferred by the Sovereign, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief. British officers did themselves little honour by supplicating for honours to which they considered they were entitled. Would any of the officers engaged in the victories in the Peninsula have petitioned for such a boon as that now sought? He never regretted anything so much as when he heard that these officers were going to petition that House to award them medals for their services—the more so when the petition came from the hands of the Noble Duke. He maintained that it would be unconstitetional to grant the prayer of the petition ; and if it were granted, the officers, when they grew old, and sat by their fire-sides, could not but look upon them as not spontaneously granted by their country, but at their supplication. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM held that the petition was was sd some shed their most bloodr e s pe e i t o f respectfully e w s e o r r y d i e e d e . of All theirth e e s o e o o t ry individuals,asked f w or h , o memorial that they had done their country service in the six teen engagements in question. He demanded nothin g mor e than tht the decoration which they sought might be awarded them ; they sought no other reward. Their Lordships must surely think that many of these officers felt cause for not re maining in the station in which they now were. He was sure that there was not one of those who signed the petition who would not wish that every officer who fought in Egypt should have a dosoration.:He felt that he had a right to ex. press his opinion with respect to the petition, and would conclude by moving that it should lie on the table.. DERRY AND COLERAINE RAILWAY. The Earl of WICKLOW presented six petitions in favour of the Derry and Coleraine Railway Bill. IRISH COLLEGES BILL. Lord CREMORNE presented a petition, signed by 9,000 of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Cork, against the Irish Col leges Bill. He would at the same time take the opportunity of stating to their Lordships that his opinion was entirely in avour of that measure. Lord ELDON presented a petition from the University of Oxford against the Colleges (Ireland Bill). Lord STANLEY presented four petitions, one from 13 pro• fessors of the Belfast Academical Institution ; one from the managers of the same institution, signed by the secretary on their behalf ; one from the Literary and Scientific Institution, and another from the inhabitants of the same city, generally. Lord STANLEY, in rising to move the second reading of the Bill for the establishment of provincial colleges in Ireland, said, that he need net remind their Lordships that her Ma jesty, on delivering her speech at the opening of Parliament this session, recommended that the promotion and encourage ment of education in Ireland should form a prominent feature of their consideration. In accordance with that gracious re quest he now had to lay before the House a Bill founded on principles of liberality towards Ireland, and with prospects of leading to infinite benefits. It was a measure which, brought forward with the best intentions of her Majesty's Government, had been received in the Lower House with support, if not cordiality, and if not passed with unanimity was at least agreed to by a great majority. In the course that had been pursued by Governments for the last half century in granting a liberal education to the country one great omission had been made. While the means of instruction were liberally accorded to the highest and the very lowest ranks, that class which re quired it chiefly had been overlooked—he alluded to the middle class. In using that term " middle class," he meant that class just below the highest, and just above the lowest class. But while the opportunities for education had . been but tardily and narrowly extended to the middling classes of the entire kingdom, if there were one part where such education was more necessary than in another, it was in Ireland. There the discordant elements of conflicting creeds, national prejudices, and political acerbities, rendered a system of united education more especially necessary, and yet, with the exception of the Belfast Institution, there was no esta blishment whatever but Trinity College, Dublin, where mem bers of both religions, Catholic and Protestant, could be edu cated together. And although in Trinity College there were at present, he was happy to say, more than one hundred Roman Catholics receiving education on the kindliest terms with their fellow students of the antagonistic creed, yet the establishment was an exclusive—he would not use the term " sectarian" institution. It was for the pur pose of supplying this deficiency, of remedying the evil ales likely to increase, that the present measure had been introduced. ' And he was sorry to observe that a petition had been just pre ented by a Noble Lord near him (Lord Eldon) from several members of the University of Oxford, deprecatory of the pro , osed measure, and urging that the old system, as originally a dopted in the English Universities, should be applied to all a cademical institutions, and never departed from.—( Hear; tear.) Such a proposition might be very suitable to a ountry where no religious institutions existed, but was wholly incompatible with a policy for conciliating animosities and cementing religious differences. He was aware that a sys tem involving the principle of endowing the Roman Catholic Church (for he was ready fully and frankly to declare his adop tion of that alternative) he was aware that such a system met the disapprobation of many whose opinions and even prejudices should be respected. He ( Lord Stanley) was willing to admit that science should be the handmaid of religion, and while he deprecated the extension of that apothegm to every instance, such as of followers ofdistinctive religionsassembled for instruc tion in one institution, he was not favourable to the proposition of some, that the doors of an exclusive establishment should be thrown open alike for all persuasions. Thus, it had been suggested as a remedy for the present deficiency in educational opportuni ties in Ireland, that Trinity College, Dublin, should be free to all denominations, even to the admission to its corporate rights. And here he wished to do an act of justice to an Honourable and Learned Gentleman, from whose political principles he almost invariably dissented. In the year 1825, Mr. O'Connell stated, in evidence before a Committee of that House, that he deprecated, as an act of gross injustice, the diversion of the funds of 'Trinity College, Dublin, to the Roman Catholics ? The effect of such a system would be, not only acerbity between the three novel and the one existing college, but a spirit of individuality, if he might so express him self, would spring up and induce the Presbyterians to fre quent the Presbyterian College, the Protestant the Pro testant, and the Roman Catholic the Roman Catho lic, for the purposes of the Roman Catholic religion, or other extraneous requirements. In that opinion he (Lord Stanley) cordially concurred, but, on the rejection of such a proposition, how could they devise a satisfactory substi tute? Would they establish in Dublin three colleges, one for Presbyterians, one for the Church of England, or Episcopalians, and another for the Roman Catholics ? At the period when the Irish Education scheme was first mooted, in 1821, there was a proviso that all persons should be compelled to attend the services of their respective churches every Sunday. That clause was, however, subsequently struck out, • because the Members of the Church of England and of the Presbyterian denomination said it would be a sin to recom mend persons of the Roman Catholic persuasion to attend their church. Would that tend to do away with the charge of pro selytism and of unsettling the minds of the young men in their colleges? Would it be likely to tend to reconcile the good feel ings of persons of different religious persuasions, by introduc ing a system which would have a tendency to proselytism ? He would never consent that such a system should be introduced. He wished to speak with all respect of the memorial presented by a Noble Lord front the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland. He agreed with the Noble Lord that the House was bound to look to the weight of argument contained in the objections of the memorial. He did pot think that the House was bound to yield to them. Was the faith of the Roman Catholic student in danger when he should ba called upon to attend a lecture on anatomy ? Some more stringent objection was necessary. It seemed perfectly reasonable to him that the 'State should pos sess the power of appointing the president and vice-president of these colleges, and should also have the power of appointing the professors. Nor did he believe that there would be the smallest danger that the Crown would abstain from ap pointing persons to hold the office of professors who, whatever creed they might belong to, if competent to fulfil their duties, would be passed 'over on account of their religious persuasion. He shouldfegret to see the ap pointment of professors other than those whom the Crown should provide. He thought, also, that the Crown should possess the power of discharging them ttom their situations. He did not think it would be wise to establish any religious distinctions within the walls, or to insist on the establishment of any theological institutions. He considered, however, that it was the bounden duty of the State to afford every possible facility for the religious education of youth. The system of education which would be promoted in :these colleges would be the Tutorian system. He had heard it urged against this system of education, that the young men would be taken from under the eye of their parents, and scattered over the town where the college was situated, and taken from the care of their tutors. It was not wise policy, however, to bring up young men in monastic seclusion for several years, and then to turn them loose at once, exposed toall the temptations of the world. Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast, and Dublin were all populous towns. He did not think that there was such an absolute security for that purity of morals, which showed either Oxford or Cambridge a model for imitation. The proposed colleges were to be placed in great towns, and there existed many reasons for so doing, and whether the young men were confined, as at Oxford and Cambridge, or were let loose, as at other colleges, rely upon it no greater control would be obtained over the morals of the young men. Those institutions were intended merely for the middle classes of the State—a very large portion of those who would send their sons to these institutions were residents within the town. The advantage of an academical education, with the blessing of parental superintendence, would be simul taneously obtained. None of the professors within the colleges were to reside within the walls. He would inquire, then, what would be more natural than that the professors living in the town should open houses, where the pupils from the country might be sent to reside. The professors would afford them all the advantages of domestic supervision. The religious educa tion of the young men would be amply provided for by the ap pointment of persons duly qualified to instruct them in their dif ferent religious principles. When the different feelings of the community, with respect to the Protestant and Roman Catholic religion, was roused, within a short time the means for the en dowraent of religious teachers would be amply provided, without in the slightest degree interfering with the duties of the students. Every facility, consistent with sound policy, had been provided for the establishment of religious education. The parties who endowed the religious establishments might make their own provisions, to a certain extent, and the students although possessing diversified religious opinions would bane the same opportunities as others of earning the rewards and competing for the honours as the other students.—( Hear, hear;) He had stated the grounds on which it was objectionable to have religious institutions in colleges. Every facility had been afforded for the religious education of the youth. In a country in which it was impossible to educate according to the principles of many religious creeds, divided into a number of religious denominations, he entreated the House to take the only course by which they could ensure the advantages of secular education. He had that faith in the feelings of both Protestants and Catholics, that he was sure they, from their private sources, would not fail to provide for the instruction of their youth in those different religions for which it was impossible the State could provide. He was satisfied that if the Bill were re jected, their refusal would operate with the most disastrous consequenees. The advantages which would be provided for generations yet unborn, by institutions liberally endowed from the funds of the nation at large, were incalculable. The inesti mable advantage of an education at once literary, scientific, moral, and religious he might also add, would by the proposed measure be secured to all 1 reland. The Earl of SHREWSBURY was of opinion that the measure before the House had been properly described, when it had been termed " a gigantic scheme of Godless education." They had gained a victory once over fanaticism and blind pre judice, yet by some strange fatality they were now about to abandon the principle for which they so long contended. The people of Ireland asked why were they Christians to be edu cated like heathens, without the knowledge of God, and the Government answered them, because we are the vassals of the Protestants of England, who declare that your religion is super stitious, and your worship idolatrous. Was this a safe answer to give to the people of Ireland, and was this the way to treat people whom they were so anxious to conciliate? Surely the Government would not argue thus. But yet the Government, the strong Government, which, in spite of prejudice and fanaticism had carried the Maynooth Bill, now yielded to this unworthy opposition, and forced this Godless educa tional system on the people of Ireland. It was a mere mockery to talk of the Irish being able to provide religious instruction for the pupils in those colleges. The poor Irish had already so many calls upon them, that they were not at all able to meet any new ones; they had to main tain their priests, and to build suitable edifices for the celebra tion of their religious worship, and, considering their poverty, and all the claims upon them, it was wonderful how they did so much. In short, it was impossible they could supply the large resources necessary to carry out the scheme: Before they were in a condition to furnish those funds, generation after genera tion would have passed away, and they would have experienced all the evils of this most miserable and defective system of edu cation. The Government had thought proper to provide a re ligions education for early youth, was it less necessary for early manhood, when the passions were getting strong and required the restraint of religion—when the reason was beginning to develop itself, and was most inquisitive and frequently most sceptical in faith, and if not instructed would readily yield to scep ticism? It had been said that this measure was devised to pro testantise Ireland—be disbelieved the allegation, and thought th 3 Government was actuated by more unworthy motives. The Noble Earl then alluded to the strong and unjust prejudices which prevailed among the people of England against the Ca tholic religion, which they designated as idolatrous and vicious. And how could this be otherwise, when their ministers, their spiritual teachers, their guardians, preached such canting non sense as was spoken by the Rev. Mr. Alford, the incumbent of Rugby ? The Noble Earl then read passages from a report of the sermon of this person at the Church of St. Matthew the Evangelist before a large; congregation, just previous to the third reading of the Maynooth Bill. The preacher described the Catholic religion as idolatrous, as vicious in morals, and politically wicked ; he said, murder was sanc tioned by its tenets ; that perjury was countenanced, and that idolatry was enjoined; and, in order to prove the truth of what be said, he quoted the creed of Pope Pius the Fourth. But what did he do? He interpolated: the text in the most gross and shameful manner, and added many words, upon which his argument depended, and without which his argument would have no foundation. He would not trouble the House with these things, but the Roman Catholics had been so often accused of crimes and misdemeanours, arising from their creed, that he thought it right to rebut them. The Noble Earl then read again from the sermon of Mr. Alford, which the congrega tion, in admiration of its ability, begged might be priated and published. He there quoted the creed of Pope Pius, show ing clearly that the word worship had been interpolated. The Noble Lord also read from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, showing that, so far from Roman Catholics being enjoined to worship idols, they were enjoined not to give any creature the honour which only belonged to God ; and pastors were commanded by the Council to instruct their flocks to this effect. Images were only countenanced because they created a more lively impression on the mind, and that the sufferings of Christ, and the exemplary conduct of the saints might be brought more vividly before the understanding. By this Council it was expressly commanded that saints were only to be invoked so that they might intercede with the Almighty by their prayers, and surely ne Christian could feel dissatisfied at the practice of bringing the exemplary lives of the saints and fathers of the Catholic Church constantly under the notice of the faithful. Lord KENYON interfered, and said it was irregular, and contrary to the rules of their Lordships' House, to read a sermon there which had been delivered elsewhere. The LORD CHANCELLOR desired the Noble Earl to proceed. The Earl of SHREWSBURY proceeded. There was not one point of evidence to bear out the assertion of the Noble Duke. The Noble Earl was proceeding to address their Lordships with respect to the question of superstition and ido latry, when Lord BROUGHAM interrupted him by saying, Really I begin to agree with the Noble Lord on the cress benches. There must be some limit to our debates. The Noble Earl is going into questions which have no reference to the debate before us. The Earl of SHREWSBURY said when he heard the Noble Lord opposite speak as he did with respect to the mea sure, he could not avoid occupying their time at the length he had done. But would the Noble Lord (Brougham) promise never to introduce anything that was irrelevant ?—( Laughter.) Lord BROUGHAM would promise not to go into that which had no relation to the subject before their Lordships, namely, a defence of the Roman Catholics, in a debate having reference simply to education. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, the Noble Lord had better proceed. The Earl of SHREWSBURY then resumed, and promised that he should not detain their Lordships at much greater length. He held that he was simply giving utterance to the opinions which prevailed in Ireland. He hoped that they would make a careful and searching inquiry, and not allow them selves to be carried away by popular declamation into measures which could not fail to lead to the injury of the country to which the measure before them referred. He called upon the Government not to act as a vascillating Government, but as anxious to serve and promote the interest of the country in every way in their power. As a proof of their sincerity, he wished they would withdraw the Bill intended to be applied to an unfortunate country, and bring forward in its place a mea sure which would meet with the wants, and which would not outrage the feelings of the majority of the people of Ireland. Lord BROUGHAM had no intention of treating the Noble Earl with disrespect, but he conceived that he had fallen into error with respect_to the views he had taken. There was no thing so vexatious, and he often heard arguments carried out to a great length, as a speech of the greatest ability where the talents of the excellent speaker only win him on his way away from the question. It was the greatest of afflictions to have an able speaker turning his back upon the question, and dragging on his arguments far away from the question uader consideration. It was under that impression that he (Lord Brougham) interrupted the Noble Lord. What con nexion could there be between the abstract merits of the Catholic religion and the question before them ? It looked as if there were to be professors against the Roman Catholic religion to discountenance Popery and to denounce the religion. The Noble Earl (the Earl of Shrewsbury) took occasion to pass very high eulogiums upon the Roman Catholic religion, forgetting that either this or the other House of Parliament were the very last places where one should enter into a dis cussion upon the merits of any religion—:a matter for which a man had only to answer for to his Maker. A discussion between Catholicism and Pro testantism was very far beside the question before them. • They were, however, to have a discussion on this mea sure, to-night, because there was a protest on the minutes, which the Noble Earl thought it his duty to answer, and to try to prove that this measure was quite distinct from the May nooth question, which many supported who thought fit to oppose this measure. The Noble Earl said that he spoke against the Roman Catholic religion ; he (Lord Brougham) had supported the Maynooth question, but was he at the same time to set aside any portion of his own religious belief? He rejected the Roman Catholic religion on account of its immoral tendency— he would not say its immoral results. He held this to be one of the greatest measures in its apparently beneficial cease quences, that ever had been brought before the Parliament of the United Kingdom. To be told that the Roman Catholic clergy were against it was absurd. If all the Roman Catholic clergy and laity, and all the Protestant clergy and laity were gainst it, he would not the less support the views which were taken by those who introduced this measure. He did not support this mea sure a bit the more, because the Roman Catholic clergy had thought fit unfortunately to withdraw their support from it. fie was not one of those who thought that they were never to promulgate education, without connecting religion with it. He not only supported this doctrine in Ireland, but also in England.—( Hear, hear.) He was of opinion that the children ought to be taught their ciphering or what was necessary at the school, but that the clergyman, belonging to the religion to which the parents adhered, ought to teach religion to the children. He was not one of these who said that this was a triumph of his principles, because the Government had decided in favour of the principles adopted in the University College and against the doctrine upheld in King's College. No, he thought that that did not apply to Ireland where circumstances were quite different. Was it excluding religion to say that there was a school where natural philosophy and mathematics were to be taught to the children from ten o'clock till four, and that then these children were to go home to their parents, who would have an oppor tunity of teaching, either themselves or through their clergymen, the religion which they professed, to their children ? They who cared for no religion would provide for all creeds in discriminately, they would not be anxious for the observance or distinction of any religion, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Pres byterian, Mahometan, Hindoo, Baptist, Anabaptist, and all and every persuasion, would be allowed to be followed indiscri minately and evasively. Secular knowledge could be taught without religion. Could any man doubt it ? What did custom, what did precedent prove ? When a French master, a dancing mistress, a fencing ma s te r , o r o th er suc h t eac h ers of useful or ornamental accomplishments were engaged, did the parents require a man capable also of imparting religious know ledge ? Surely if dancing and fencing could be harmlessly taught apart from religion, Greek and Latin could as satisfactorily be im parted. Another objection to the Bill was that propounded by the Noble Lord opposite in presenting some petitions that evening, requiring and urging that no religion should be adopted that was not founded on the system pursued at Oxford and Cam bridge. The promoters of such an argument evinced the most profound ignorance, for at Oxford and at Cambridge the most opposite systems were pursued. Thus in Oxford he ad mitted the principle of exclusive high Protestant teaching was adopted, and the Government measure was in direct contra distinction to it ; but in Cambridge the system was the very reverse—men of all creeds could pass any examination except that of graduating, and take any honours, even to that of a wrangler, and stopping only at that of a fellowship, when the subscription to the articles of our Church was required. But he must go a step farther and say, that the prospect of danger was exaggerated, and, indeed, unfounded ; and the longer he lived the more he regretted that at the time of car rying the Union the Emancipation was not conceded also. The endowment of the College of Maynooth was not included in the Emancipation of 1829, and hence he was convinced had arisen all the grievances; in Ireland, It had been said the Roman Catholic prelates and priests were obnoxious to the measure, and Would oppose it with all their vigour as well as use all their endeavours to thwart it. To such a statement he replied Ow/at Judaus :Apella 1" " Credat ay, quis eredat I" —( Loud laughter. ) In 1825 Lord Francis Egerton proposed that an annual grant should be conceded of 250,0001. to pay the Catholic clergy. Between 1,200/. and 1,5001. for the archbishops, 4001. to 8001. to bishops, 500/. to deacons, and 1501. to the parish p r i es t s. H ere was a great scheme, endow ing the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. And yet it was now urged that the present measure was a novelty, and that that Nobie Lord to whom he had referred had departed from his original principles. When that accusation was urged he took occasion to inquire into the circumstances, and he .found, on reference to the votes, the facts he had just stated, He would quote the testimony of the dead as well as the living on this subject. He might, perhaps, be permitted to pause for an instant, and to cast an eye over the memory of that illustri ous man who had just departed from among them ; and it had never fallen to his lot to know of any man of a more unsullied honour and spotless integrity conjoined with such great excel lence, as his illustrious friend who had now paid the debt to nature. Of all men he held the opinion most strongly and most consistently to give liberty to oppressed Ireland by eman cipating the Catholics—to give equal rights to all her subjects, so that there should not be one law for the rich and another for the poor. :To take the mischief from the hands of the mischief maker—to endow the Catholic religion liberally, but prudently, was one of the darling objects of the life of the estimable man who was now departed— " Ut maliguum cessare faciam otiosus reddam." No man had ever lived more respected for his opinions and con sistency, and died more respected than Earl Grey. Lord ELDON considered that when the Noble Lord who moved the second reading of the Bill, said it was without any religious distinctions as to sects, he would referd him to one of the last clauses of the Act. According to his opinion, he had also, in reading the petition, mentioned the name of Cambridge, and it was not to be found in it. Lord BROUGHAM explained. The Earl of CA RNARVON felt it his painf'ai d u ty t o differ to-night from those Noble Lords with whom he was in the habit of voting. He felt sure that they had the welfare of the country at heart. He agreed ten what fell from his Noble and Learned Friend, that it, was impossible to overrate the importance of the measure before the House. He could not satisfy his mind, that whatever might be the intentions of her Majesty's Government, that the, proposed measure wou ld not be a severe blow struck at religion. He would contend that on public grounds they were bound' to bring up the scholars in such a way as would render them good men and good citizens. It seemed to him, that as the State gave the best secular education that it could, so it should give to the youths the best religious education of which they might be sus ceptible: In every regulation the State was bound to advance the public good, and the popular interests could not be more effectually served than by training the youth up in religious feelings. The institutions ought to he founded on such a plan. His Noble Friend bad presented a petition from certain res pectable men at Oxford, who opposed the measure on reli gious grounds. They felt that their duty to God and their country tompelled:them to come forward on that occasion. He complained that no greater religious character had been given to the Bill. The Noble Lord had alluded to the sub ject of separate colleges. He quite agreed with him, that the harmony and good feeling likely to result from such a union were very desirable. But he could not consider that a mixed assembly of youths holding different religious opinions, was likely to conduce much to harmony. Separate collages did not involve unjust ascendancy. There was no likelihood of the Protestant' or Catholic clergy men co-operating to carry it out. The Catholic hierarchy denounced it, Mr. O'Connell; flounced it, and th ere cou ld b e but little doubt that it woul .;- be ultimately a failure. The O'Connell; people of Ireland accepted th Vayndoth g ran t as a f avour bet regarded this measure as a cu It:„ When they saw suc h names as that of Bishop Murray enl ^ t t ed in 'hostil i t y aga i nst the Bill, could they doubt but that the; measure was hurtful to the re ligious feeling" of the people an d was considered as most in judicious? The professor of history would naturally give a colouring to faits according to his religion, and that colouring would be stronger whore people's prejudices were most sensitive. He did not much see the necessity of a Catholic or Protestant professor for geology or anatomy, but he would certainly wish to see a good Christian fill the chair. He objected to the great patronage which the Bill conferred—and did not think the power of nomination in the Crown afforded any guarantee against the propagation of improper doctrines. This had been found to be the case in foreign universities. The great objection he had to thlle, Bill was that there would not be any religious instruction a t , h or any religious endowment, at least for several years, en t i . e ri would be a reproach to this country. Religious instr u Q e t fse should not be y left "to the hazard of the die." Th ° "ibis should, as resects these pupils, stand in loco parent e r Bill gave the bishops no veto, nor any other power whate l l y over professors, however wicked or infidel their principles. was not insensible to the difficulties with which the fines* was surrounded, and gave credit to the Government for courage in bringing it forward ; but he could not help t hi ll that the provisio n for religious instruction was inadequate, and th a t some means m i g ht be t h e which would remove this cardinal objection front ;), Bill. Education resembled the giant in the ; Ls tales, who killed his parents. Education was Peen''''gs if not properly managed, but could be rendered most service,,,,, and efficient by being well directed.—( Hear, hear.) ' 1 ; Noble Earl then alluded to the question of education in Fr a f l iss i and said he was happy t o see th a t re li g i on was rev iving in country. On last Easter Monday there were 1,000 Coning nicants in the church of Notre Dame; and the prorin; churches of France, whi c h were some years ago deserted, n t e li 'crowded. He co u ld on ly repea t t h at h e did no t suspect tp i;l the Noble Duke and the Noble Lord at the head of the Col° o o l Department had any other obj ec t i n v i ew i n b r inging fore; the measure tha n t o b ene fit th e country. He should th erei i s cto move, and he did so with grea t p a i n , that the Bill be re adt " day six months. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE considered that the n ie f l e ; sure before the House was but an instalment of the Wal t . which he hop e d th e G overnment i nten d e d to b estow upon land. The great object of the Bill was to secure the eduel' i of the people of Ireland ; the second was the necessity of Pr ° ; . , portioning that education to the different classes of whinh,.„ o ciety was composed ; the third—and on which this queSti b - as mainly hinged—of laying down this system in a inorie,, t should make it acceptable to all classes, preventing the o'", which they tendered from being loaded by regulations and 1 1 1, which might turn conscientious men from receiving t benefits which it was intended to confer. Some people Wer e a 5 opinion that the education of the great mass of the p e ople w o neither proper nor covenient ; but the contrary opinin° ri f r prevailed. The second point—that of providing education :( the middle classes. Whilst they had provided the roeseloo education for the poorer classes they had neglected the educe is of the middle classes by leaving its support to the class whit' fl ii was intended to benefit. Thre was now a demand not ° among the laity but among the clergy of Ireland, for son i :j thing, ou the part of the Government, which would an by the means of instruction in the practical sciences, t .; which men might earn their own livelihood ; an d s of permanently useful to society. This, then, was the objectsthe present measure, b u t l e t hi m t e ll t h e N o bl e . L o rd. n.; this desirable object would n ot b e e ff ec t e d if th a t edua nro ti was made sectarian in the sli g ht es t d egree . If th er e eter s roe fessors appointed to teach o ne re li g i on , an d co ll eges i n whwm. - „e, religion was ta ug ht, the wors t resu l ts cou ld not f a il to With respect to th e p e titi on f rom some o f t h e mem b er s 0 '. 4 . 0 . University of Oxf or d, c l auses h a d b een i nserte d , making ling vision for the re li g i ous i nstruc ti on o f t h e pup il s, without 07tbe it exclusive. He mus t a d m it th a t t h ere was one part the Bill upon which he looked with apprehension—he ntearL" si'e appointment of the w h o l e o f th e pro f essors b y h er hin`7 o . Government. He did not question the motives of the ment ; he had no doubt —nay, he was sure it was their inteet7o it was to their interest to appoint men well qualified to per f , ° o their duties ; b u t th ere was a di spos i t i on i n I re l an d, vriL i s, could not be well rooted out, to attribute every appointreo" and especially appointments of this kind, to Governreen t i c tronage. He hoped that a provision would be introdueef l , b il e se the Bill, now or at an early period, for concentrating eh,* be colleges into the form of one national university, wh,„i c %itf was convinced, would effect the greatest good. 1 1 — 0 College, Dublin, might be made the focus, bat , there was an objecti on t o th a t course, a college ° lv be erected in the vi c i n ity o f D ublin, w here 0 , 0 heads of the .other colleges might meet at one ern a r igt centre for the management o f h er a ff a i rs , an d f or confe_.r degrees on those who d eserve d th em . I t s h ou ld b e a eolierol itself, but the representation of the three colleges. _my carrying out of this sugge s ti on cou ld no t f a il t o h ave a dries tory effe ct upon Ireland.—( Heir, hear, and cheers.) P e Asr he concluded, he wished IS a :press that a system of see" td , education would also be most desirable to that cent to It should be in accordance with the feeling of the country if afford education to every class of her Majesty's subjeets' a le this Bill was carried ou t w ith care it wou ld g i ve t o the P e i cini an influence much wanted in th a t coun t r y. He corn i 'd supported this Bill, at the same time wishing that they WO give it the utmost care in it s ultimate operation. He thansi, their Lordships f or th e a tt en ti on which they had afforded s.i to Lord CLIFFORD wished to offer his unfeigned gr atited d e l o the Noble Lord who had introduced this measure. He b3 f tiO hesitation in gi v i ng hi s support to t h e secon d reading °'thef Bill. He thought it absolutely necessary, however, that the should disabuse the people of Ireland of the notion tha t raid people of this count r y were th e i r enem i es. H e w ishe d his Noble Friend opposite would consider before he ` b day press his amendment that this Bill should be read tins six months. Lord BEAUMONT said that he did not intend to en t re into the details of the question, because the remarks wh ich would have made were more eloquently laid before thee 3 be ip the Noble Marquis near him. He could not, however' Os distinctly stating his unqualified approval of the measure. b y approval of it was not founded on the narrow g r ounds tak en the Noble Lord w h o i ntro d uced it, that it was partieulpie suited to Ireland. H e approve d of i t for the great 'willed, which it contai ne d, app li ca bl e equally to England and Ire',ll, namely, the abandonment of religious tests, and the rem of by mixed educ a ti on , o f those animosities which arose out hi! sectarian differenc es . Th a t was t h e c hi e f ground o f 0 approval. His Noble F r i en d b e hi n d hi m had trea t he this question as a Roman Catholic question, but nth (Lord Beaumont) was of o pi n i on that it s hould 85 7: t bis be considered a Protestant question. He thought tha'fio. Bill most properly took away from the pries's that power ° i t v terference with secular matters whi c h th ey a t prese nt 1n° 9t . ,, 0 p1 ,1 properly possessed. He would n o t d e t a i n th em , a nd be p d to only state that it was the o n ly measure th at cou ld be 8 1 , P 11 , - bad Ireland in its present state ; an d, wou ld t o H eaven that i t be carried out in England. The Bishop of NORWICH said that from what be i t) heard all his scruples were g one , an d h e wou ld no t hest e nlit giving this measure his most unqualified support. Het rpallf that this measure would t en d t o create t h ose bon d s to i r e which should exist bet ween the people of this country an ° tc y land ; and he th oug ht it would introduce into that collo the spirit of Christianity, which should prevail there. . Lord LYTTELTON said that he wished to ask a questloo the Noble Lord (Stanley). There was a clause in tbe vir g which provided that such s t u d en t s as were d es i rous of reeelps religious instruction could att a i n it. O ne wo uld thin.k pot they need not attend any re li g i ous i ns t ruct i on if they d i d 4o o think proper. In another clause it provided that the r e nbe should be approved of by th e parents or guardians !"'' tho pupils. He wished t o k now if the pupil should rea l/ e O4 sanction of his parent or g u a r di an , an d whether the gof er body then could compel the pupil ? a 1 " Lord STANLEY said that faciliti es s h ou ld be affnr - l e b the giving religious instruction. C om p u l s i on did no t r est governing body. The original motion for the secon d rea di ng was then P -sit ai l 1 carried without a division, and their Lordships aciP ur r Twelve o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIOOI (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Comte') MONDAY, JULY 21. POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL"i p r Order for Third Reading r ea d ; M ot i on made, and Qu est t o oro o r posed, " That the Bill be now re ad a second :"--A, e , O proposed, to leave out the word " now," and at time the ead tl ] t TP tion to add the words " upon M onday next:"—Question 'd:" the word ' now' stand p ar t o f t h e Question . " The Mouse dude MAJORITY—AYES, 33. r Baring, W. B. Flower, Sir James leNeill, Din,„i eao a Benbow, John Forester, G. C. W. Meynell, CaP":jef Bentinck, Lord G. Fremantle, Sir T. Pringle, Ales 3l e l Bowes, John Fuller, A. E. Roßeston, Col on Brotherton, Joseph Goulburn, Henry Rous, Captallll truce, Lord E. H Imes, B.! Clerk, Sir G. Henley, J. W. Clive, Viscount Hussey, Thomas Cripps, W. Hutt, William Dick, Quintin Jones, Captain Duke, Sir J. Lincoln, Earl Wortley,wSc Stuart,oa r t t b , uTi F tz ti r t a joni , n r do, i l l 01, 9 5 t, .s. 4, r ad. Cardwell, YAW F. Duncombe, 0. Lockhart, William Mackenzie, IV.' MINORITY—NOES, 7. Berkeley, Craven Wakley, Thomas Tsag n „tail lu Berkeley, Grantley Wawn, J. T. H as ti e , Arc- Mitealfe, Henry Yorke, Henry B. Dundas, F. Sheridan, H. B. JEWISH DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL IP ) ; Order for Third !Reading read ; Moti on ma d e , an d QueotiOa to po do. o f posed, " That the Bill be now read the third time :"-- 180- ette,, the • proposed, to leave out from the word " now," and at natbo,,,' the Question to add the words " upon this day three ra n y„ e ath . Question put, " That the word now' stand part of the ' 4 " The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 44. Aglionby, H. A. Graham, Sir J. Muntz, G. r• t Baring, W. B. * Greene, Thomas Nicholl, trn i fi s cOa D Bentiuck, Lord G. • Hamilt on , W. J. N or thi a nff, , .1 . , Bowes, John Hamilton, Lord C. O'Connell, % tin Bowring, Dr. Hawes, Binjamin Pechell, CaP Brisco, M. Herbert, Sidney Peel, Sir R: . Brotherton, J. Hinde, J. H. P use y, PhiliP c. Cardwell, Edward Howard, P. H. S m ith, T. 13. ir I V ' Clerk, Sir George H ume , J ose ph Somerv ille,. -... Cripps, William Hutt, Willi am T h es i ge r, Slr,;! . Ferguson, Sir R. Kelly, Fitzroy Warburton , ~,, Fitzroy Henry Lincoln, Earl o f W aw n, Jona '. Flower, Sir J. M`Neill, Dun can TELLI''' Forster, Matthew Masterman, John Young, Jo l lir. 0 FrevErmtle, Sir T. Moffatt, Geor ge Mackenzie, Goulburn, Henry Morris, David MINORITY—NOES, 11. Acland, Sir T. Dickinson, F. H. Tolionacl. J°ll° Borthwick, Peter Henley, J. W. Buller, Sir J. Y. Hope, Alex an d er T EL , EI tS ' -- Darby, George Pringle, A. Inglis, Sir - ": 0 1 Col°. Dawnay, W. H. Spooner, Richard Sibthorp, _s --- MARRIED. i." On the Ist inst., at St. Paul's Church, lialifll-%2 rote". Scotia, Lieutenant Walter Francis Robinson, to COlo 4 ' third daughter of Captain Maynard, R.N., o inalif 9S ' I? Scotia. f lot Or On the 16th inst., at Cl on t ar f Ch urc h, Brevet - l‘lter O'Connor, the 25th R eg i men t, t o J ane , on ly pug,„, Mrs. Lawton, of Clont ar f, D u bli n . of reP On the 16th inst., at Banff, John Stevenson, ESA' 10 15 don, to Charlotte Eliza, third daughter of James P Esq., Banff. 13' gr. $ On the 17th inst., at St. S av i our ' s , Southwark , -, el- AO Jackson, of High-street, Borough, t o Elizabeth' daughter of Mr. S. B. Jaze, of Spitaltields DIED. soP si t On the Bth inst., at HeNord, in Cornwall, Roberoistooo Charles Sholl, Esq., colle c t o r o f h er M a j e sty's ab that port, aged 16. e r , taio On the 4th of May last, a t Sh o l a p ore , r e , - Fraser, Esq., sth Madras Light Cavalry. 1' of A l On the sth inst., Caroline Augusta, the e eer Corpe, Esq., of Kenningto n - common . e Y oolh" On the 7th inst., at Ab er y s t w ith, Mary An il 0? daughter of the late Rev. Evan James, of Stepney' Ale On the 16th inst., at Killevbegs, Donegal, Irelza" der Murray, Esq , M.P., of Broughton. a re, 11- 04 1 u On the 16th inst., in Woburn-place, Busse , a ) sauna, relict of Francis Thwaites, Esq., aged 83' ire' Tby On the 16th inst., at Ashbourne, Derbyslai r- ' Armett, Esq., of the Lowe, Congleton, Cheshire. $ Ll On the lith inst., at Evington, Kent, Sir SW . "' Honywood, Bart., aged 38. , of 1 - 19 1 J i4 1 .15 { Lorelon : Printed and Published by MURDO - XO , ,0- No. 112, &ram', Printer, at ne Sun Oke e 'vottalii Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in ill ° Middlesex, Tuesday, July 22, 1545. t k (I,ty s tit 7, Ti ( koni A new Obse: and Re nithe Pr} big Youth s 14. o l 'aZllo l T he All A ' e n to% Dk° 13 , 1 4. 4-,ltto fir . Dar e d \titho BIRTS. On the 19th inst., at Pall-mal H l, the Countess of Dull w eor't of a daughter. • IRO On the 11th inst., at Argyle-squa r e, Mrs. J °ll/1 h l, Parker, of a daughter, still-born. pug' On the 16th inst., at Liverpool, Mrs. ThomeS o f of a son. he Is di On the 17th inst., at Clare Priory, Suffolk, t Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, of a son.