The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-05 00:00:00

IMPERI

AL PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 4.

Their Lord3hips assembled at Five o'clock, the LORD
CHANCELLOR presiding.

On the motion of LO-rd REDESDALE, the Represen-
tative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment Bill passed
through Committee.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, June 4.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)l

SUPPLY.
On the motien for bringing up the report on the Com-
mittee of Supply,
__

Mr. WILLIAMS took the opportunity of protesting
against it being understood that to-day's proceedings
should be taken as a precedent in future for taking supply
at twelve o'clock.

Sir H. WILLOUGHBY wished to know what the,
probable expense of completing the new Houses would
be, and whether any further steps were to be taken for
improving the ventilation of the House?
Mr. HAMILTON, in the absence of the Noble Lord
the First Commissioner of Works, was not prepared to
answer either question.

Tho report was brought up and agreed to.
Oa the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair
for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. ANSTEY moved for copies of all correspondence
and papers on the subject of Colonel Outrain s removal
from the office of Resident at the Court of the Guicowar,
or on the subject of the alleged corruption of officers of
the Bombay Government with bribes from Baroda.
The SPEAKER said as the motion was unopposed it
must be moved as an opposed return later in the day.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn, and the
House went into Committee.
On the motion that 17,920/, be voted for defraying the
expenses of Schools of Practical Art,
Mr. WILLIAMS said he highly approved of the
vote, and it was agreed to.

_ .
On the questionthat2,oo64 be voted for the Profes-
sors of Oxford and Cambridge,
Mr. ANSTEY opposed the motion because the two
Universities were of a sectarian character, and ought
not to be supported by the State. He was anxious for
the time when religious discussion would not be tole-
rated in the House of Commons, and on that account he
was equally opposed to the Maynooth grant as he was
to the one under consideration.
WILLIAiJS said there had been reports of the
duties performed by these professors, and he was sorry
to find that not morn than two or three pupils attended
their lectures. He was also opposed to the vote. The
Universities were rich enough without coming to Par-
liament for votes of uublic money.
Sir R. H. INGLIS supported the vote, and reminded
the House that the grant was originally made by the
Crown out of its civil list, and it would be a breach of
faith to withdraw it now,
_more especially as the Crown
received a consideration for the grant.
After a few words from Mr. ANSTEY,
Mr. CARTER said the universities had refused to
give any sca3unt of the large funds at their disposal,
end they had therefore no right to this grant. There
was a distinction to be drown between this grant and
that voted for the London University, because the London
University was hnythingarian, while the two Universities
of Oxfcrd and Cambridge were sectarian.
The Committee then divided, when mere appeared—
For the vote ." 78
Against it ... 8

Majority ... 70
The vote was then agreed to, as was also 3,9571, for
the University of London.
Oa the vote of 7,5004 for the Universities of Scotland,
Mr. ANSTEY objected to the vote on the ground
that two-thirds of the people of Scotland, the greater
portion of whom beloaged to the Free Church, were
prohibited entering these colleges, which were falsely
called national educational establishments. He moved
that the vote bo expunged, and said he should take the
sense of the House upon it.
Mr. HAMILTON thought it would .not be con-
sistent with justice to interfere with a vote of this nature.
Mr- W. WILLIAMS considered that the universities
of Scotland stood in exactly the same position as the
University of London. Tney had been productive, of
vast benefit to Scotland as well as to the United King-
dom, but be objected to the item in the vote for the pro-
fessors of divinity.
Mr. A. ILISTIE also objected to the same item.
Mr. COWAN said a strong case had been made out
for the exercise of more liberality and justice to the
universities in the northern parts of the kingdom.
Lord DUNCAN observed, in reply to the accusation,
that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge were
sectarian in character, that he had himself seen a Dis-
senter attending lectures at the latter institution.
Mr. ANSTEY intimated ho would withdraw his
amendment, and propose that the vote be reduced by
6551., the sum awarded to professors of divinity.
Sir G. CLERK defended the vote. He thought, if
an exception was to be made in favour of any class of
professors, it should be with regard to those who were
immediately connected with ecclesiastical studies, be-
cause a large amount of ecclesiastical property was
handed over to the country by the Scotch universities
on the condition that these votes were to be granted
annually—(Hear.) These universities had no money of
their own, and it would be a gross breach of
faith to withdraw the support which they had hitherto
received from Parliement.
Mr. GEORGE-THOMPSON should vote in favour of
the amendment.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the reduction 16
Against it ... 86
Majority ... ... —7O
This and several ether items—for the Royal Hibernian
Academy (300/.), Royal Irish Academy (3000, Royal
Dublin Society (6,3404), and Queen's University, Ire-
land (1,7100, were then agreed to.
Oa the vote of 3,000/, for the salaries of theological
professors at the Belfast College,
Mr. ANSTEY said he had the same objection to this
grant, for he was Opposed to endowing divinity in any
money. He was determined to
Committee, whatever might be the
explanation of the Government. He moved that the
voto be reduced by the sum of 2,300/.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the reduction 13
ftaokrme tobuetosouse f the
of the public
,Against it
Majority ... 9077
The as agreed to, as well as one of 21,3501.
for the v
elbuildingsw connected with the British Museum.
On the next vote of 52,3434 for salaries and expenses
at the British Museum,
Mr, STANFORD
complained that under a new
arrangement the sulariee of the custodians were fixed at
571. a year, which was not equal to the wages of
mechanics.
mr..GOULBURN said the only alteration made by
them by the day—an arrangement which
they
the trustees was to give these officers a fixed salary in-
stead
noufnliejdatgd was more just and fair, as formerly these
officers received no remuneration when absent from any
cause.
The
agreed augllroevedcedto
A vote
vote of
o was 2
,9 then/.
for the National Gallery,
was
On the motion that 14,9201. be granted for the support
of the Geological Survey,
Mr. CHARTER'S asked the Right Hon. Gentleman
t
the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he had come
to any determination relative to the establishment of a
Geologicala
of the EXCHEQUER said he
matter, but though the Govern-
hmedn Thynsto
ideMuseumreconsidered
t he CHANCELLOR i
Edinburgh?
felt considerable interest in the establishment of
such museums, yet the claimants were so numerous that
they bad not yet been able to come to any decision.
Lord mAnos said that with reference to the former
vote, for the National Gallery, he wished to renew a
suggestion which he had formerly thrown out under the
estab-
lishment of a Gallery of National and Historical Por-
traits, similar to that Which was contained in a part of
Robert Peel relative to the
t P Governmental e of of
Sir
Versailles. Opportunities were occurring
very frequently Whien_.
with a little money to spare
and some one on the 100k-out, we miht very soon make
great men whom the country had produced.
a valuable collection
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
anticipated the ti
u would soon arrive when the whole
subject of the state
of the fine arts and the national
museums of the under the at-
of cotemporary portraits of the
country would come
-tention of Parliement,
Lord would receive full attention. The subject was
one, he knew, In
which the accomplished Prince who
had already the Noble
done so much for .the fine arts in this
country took great interest-, and he thought in the mean-
time it might be safely left to his attention.
wheny the suggestion of
After some further venation the vote was agreed to.
A vote of 4,018/ forcdefraying the expense of scientific
works and experiments
was next agreed to.
Votes of 5,0001, for te erection of a National Gal-
lery in Edinburgh, and 4,0491. for the civil establishment
in Bermuda, were also agreed to.
On th
e motion that 7,747/. be voted for the ecclesias-
Lea' establishments in the British North American
provinces,
Mr. ANSTEY opposed the grant.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that this grant was an ex-
piring grant, and was not to be renewed as the present
recipients of it died. He should not, therefore, oppose
the vote.
Sir J. 2-ARINGTON defended the vote. It had been
first established when religious establishments were in a
very different state in Canada to what they were now. The
grant was distributed equally among all sects, and it was
arranged that as the present recipients died out, it should
not be renewed.
After a few words from Mr. P. Howard, Mr. Newde-
gate, and Mr. A.. H •
Asti°, the Committee divided, when
the numbers were—
For the vote
Against it

•
••• ••• •• 112

••• . ... ... 10

~. -102

Majorit The vote was then agreed to.
On the motion that 12,4°-11. be voted for the Indian
department,
Lir. FORSTER asked the Secretary of the Colonies
what had been done for the colonization of Vancouver's
Island by the Iluclp.on'A Bay Company, in pursuance of
the Royal grant of the island to that company in 1848-9,
or whether he could lay on toe table of the House any
information on the subject?
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that from the return which
had been sent in by the Hudson's Bay Company be had
to inform the
Hon. Gc,ntleelan that 1,200 acres of land
had been sold in the island to nine purchasers at the 1
price of 11., for the rose of colonization. There I
had also been sent ou about 100 agricultural labourers. I
to do more to facilitate the progress of colonization in
had' regretted that they hod not been able
The company
the island, but they gave as a reason for not having been I
able to d 9 more the derangement of everythihg pa that ;

coast in consequence of the discovery of gold in California.
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 19,528/. was then agreed to for the Governor
and Deputy Governor of the West India Islands.
A vote of 33 862/. for the expenses of the Justices of
the West India Islands and the Mauritius was agreed to.
On the motion that 13,780/. be voted for the Civil
Establishments of the West Coasts of Africa,
Mr. ANS I'EY objected to the sum of 400/. included
in this vote for the salary of the chaplain of Gambia.
Ho wished to know the reason why Sierra Leone sup
ported its own parsons and Gambia did not.
Ttie Committee then divided, when there appeared
For the reduction of the vote
Against it
Majority •••
The vote was then agreed to.
A vote of 10,802/. for St. Helena was agreed to.
The next vote was 7,0591. to defray the ecclesiastica
expenses of Western Australia.
Mr. ANSTEY objected to paying the chaplain's sti.
pond and rent, amounting to 3001.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the vote ...
... 114
Against it

... 94
... -88

••• -105

Majority
The vote was accordingly agreed to.
The next vote was for 4911., to defray the expenses o
the establishment at Port Essington.
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the vote, but after a
brief discussion the vote was agreed to.
On the question that 10,0001. be voted to defray the
expenses of the Church Establishment in New Zealand, ,
Mr. ANSTEY moved that the sum be reduced by
1,1901., and declared his intention to divide the Com-
mittee on the vote.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, under
the circumstances, and looking to the hour, had no
alternative but to move that the Chairman do report
progress.
After a few words from Mr. L. HEYWORTH,
Mr. ANSTEY drew attention to certain omissions
which had been made in the estimates of sums that had
in former years been paid by the Treasury, and yet not
authorised by Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
items to which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman referred
were payable under distinct Acts of Parliament.
The CHAIRMAN was then directed to report pro-
gress, and the House having resumed, he did so accord-
ingly, and the report was ordered to be received on
Monday at twelve o'clock, and the Committee to sit
again at twelve o'clock on Thursday.
The Scutch Mills for Flax (Ireland) Bill went through
Committee.
The Pimlico Improvement Bill went through Com-
mittee pro
,formd
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER an-
nounced that the Government proposed to take the
Metropolitan Interments Bill on Monday, at twelve
o'clock, and, if possible, the Water„Bill afterwards.
The House rose at Four o'clock.

The House resumed at Six o'clock.
PETITIONS.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from New
Brunswick atminst the Colonial Bishops Bill.
Mr. LACY presented a petition from a place in
Surrey, praying for the inspection of nunneries.
Mr. COBDEN presented a petition trona Aberdeen,
praying that no alteration might be made in the present
laws relating to the importation of corn.
Mr. GRANTLEY BERKELEY asked the Colonial
Secretary, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, whether it was the intention of the Government
to place colonial sugar on the same footing as foreign
sugar, and to permit the refining of it in bond.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that his lt,gnt Ron. Friend
had lately seen a deputation on this subject, but he could
not say what answer had been given by his Right lien.
.Friend.

NEW ZEALAND BILL.
Sir J. PARING roN, in rising to move that the
House should go into Committee on this Bill, said—
Sir, before moving that yea do leave the chair, I have
several petitions to present in favour of the Bill. One is
from Mr. Fox, who has been nine years a resident of
the colony, and principal agent for the New Zealand
Company. Another is from Mr. Wells, who for eight
years has been connected with New Zealand, being a
resident of Gladstone. The next ie from the committee
of management of the Canterbury Association. Another
is from Mr. Cooke, a nine years resident of New Ply-
mouth. Another from Mr. Garrett, five years in the
colony. Another is from a number of gentleman who
intend proceeding to Canterbury as colonists. The
next petition is from Mr. Gibbon Wakefield, the prayer
of which is directed to the question as to whether
there will be provincial legislatures or a central
legislature, but all the petitions express a strong
desire that this Bill shall be allowed to pass
into a law. Now, Sir, before moving that you leave
the chair, I am disposed to hope that I shall save
time, which I hold to be extremely valuable, by entering
into an explanation of some changes which it is my in-
tention to propose to the House in this Bill. Since the
second reading of this Bill I have received suggestions
from several quarters, but principally from some Hon.
Members of this House, gentlemen of the highest emi-
nence and distinction—gentlemen with whom I have
no political connexion, and whose courtesy and kind
feeling in offering these suggestions in the manner
which they did make it incumbent on me to say that I
should feel myself wanting in duty, as also in feeling,
did I not thus frankly acknowledge) them.—(Hear,
hear.) I must say, Sir, that the suggestions received
from these gentlemen are of tho greatest weight—not
only as coming from men in their position, but also in
respect of their own intrinsic impedance, as well as that
they are entirely free and wholly apart from all party
feeling, and offered entirely with the object of facilitat-
ing th passing of this Bill in the most acceptable shape.
—(Hear.) I might say that my sole object in intro-
ducing this Bill is to give to the inhabitants of New
Zealand the best and most acceptable form of govern-
ment consistent with Imperial considerations which it is
my duty to remember.—(Hear, hear.) The sugges-
tions which I have received have been principally upon
two points. I will, therefore, consider the choice I have
had to make between them, and particularly the Ties_
tion of much difficulty—namely, what is the best mode
of providing government for the different_ provincial die-
Zealand. I have had to
the Bill
tricts of this colony of New
secondly, the suggestpiornectehdaetn,
it
hsAetrocotdo'f alnBd4 '27;.ahenaiclioliisva/ dries--
choose between three alternatives—namely,
of
which I introduced;
in-
stead of taking the Bill as
follow thgiving provin-
cial legislatures, I should rather
the case of Australia, in
the
the
dis-
tinct municipalities;
y
ceived, and to which and,
the
amendmentsblolesworth) apply—that, Ron. Ba-
ronet opposite (Sir
stead of putting into. the Bill a provision for provincial
leave. it to a
municipalities, I should
legislatures or
central legislaturmeeteoteplrPovide for those districts in such
could. Now, Sir, I think the
manner as best they
between th
House will perceive that
ointed out 13"1
as it stands
and the second coursep
after ttitite•—natnely pro-
viding the municipalities precedent of
1842, the distinction is rather one hear.) As I have drawn this
of name
than of fact.—(Hear,
intention
Bill, and as I stated at the time.l drew it, my
these. provincial
„,,districts should be
has been that
by municipa The main difference
titles.
governed
is this, that as I have drawn the Bill the local
bodies are
legislate on all matters connected with local
interests, and
will only be. restricted from legislating on
t
matters of a
difference colonial or
himperhial character.
N
is this--whet er t el
shall legislateewon, tablet
beenpref able b
matters, or only on certain specified ones? Sir, with the
l e
the t o
13giv ill aes to
fullest consimdeursattisoany
I which
undoubtedlyl have
e
this Bill, I
now stands. Looking to the nature of the restrictions,
I must say that these bodies cannot be regarded as colo-
nial legislatures. To the other course recommended by
the Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth), namely, that
the central legislature should control all the localities, I
must say there are very grave and serious objections.
One of them is the obvious 1093 of time, to say noting of
the monopoly exercised, almost invariably, in all such
cases, by the superior or controlling legislature. I be-
lieve, taking preddent and experience into consideration,
you will find that colonial legislatures have not shown
themselves disposed to part with powers once entrusted
' to them, even though their doing so would be for the
benefit of the minor districts. I might, if necessary, ad-
duce the case of Australia; and Mr. Gibbon Wakefield,
one of the gentlemen from whom I presented a petition
this evening, correctly observed that, " in all these cases
prevention is far better than cure."—(Hear, bear.) Sir,
I must submit to the House that, if we are disposed to
give to those different localities the powers of inde-
pendent government for their own interest, it is far
better that we should now lay down broadly and firmly
the basis on which this Government is to be formed,
than to leave them to the uncertain result of the view
that the central legislature may take of the subject.—
(Hear, hear.) I will now, with the permission of the
130123 e, proceed to advert to the fourth plan, if I may so
say, as laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone).
Sir, that Right Hon. Gentleman expressed a very strong
objection to the course which lat the outset expressed
a determination to take as regarded establishing a su-
preme legislature in this colony. Now, I cannot at all
agree in the view of that Right Hon. Gentleman. I un-
derstand the Right Hon. Gentleman to say that " the
powers of these localities should be independent of the
central legislature." If that plan were to be adopted it
would certainly load to great confusion, I believe that, in-
stead of simplifying legislation, you would find it diffi-
cult to define the powers as between the Imperial and
the central legislatures, and that you would give ground
for complaint, which we all should be most anxious to
avoid. Sir, I hold it to be essential to the welfare of
this colony that there should be one supreme legisla-
ture.—(Hear, hear.) Having consulted several gentle-
men of great knowledge and experience—gentlemen who
aro deeply interested in the welfare of New Zealand, as
the petitions presented by me this evening demonstrate--
I am now in a position to state that all those individuals
who feel an interest in the well-being of Now Zealand
unanimously desire that I should proceed with this Bill
us it at present stands.—(Bear, hear.) But anxious, on
any own part, to meet the suggestions which have been
offered to me from different quarters, I submitted to
these gentlemen so int, rested iu this colony whether, if
I were to retain the Bill as it a. t present stands, or to
make certain alterations—to which I shall refer—they
would accept the Bill with or without the alterations?
and the answer was that these alterations would not
only be approved of but. gladly accepted.—(Hear, hear.)
I have determined, therefore, on an important altera-
in the Bill as it stands in regard of localities. Instead
of the superintendents of these colonies being no-
minated by the governors, they shall be elected
in the different colonies by the same constituencies
es the as.ennblies.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the
question of elk taws executives, the Noble Lord (E 1
tsret) who preckdeci tne in the Colonial Department laid
it down that anything like an elective executive was
_Un-
known to the British constitution. Now looking at th