The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-26 00:00:00

JUNE 26, 1852

The Earl of CAWDOR was understood to support
the prayer of the petition.
r.rk, petition was hid upon the table.
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE, in conformity with the
stro❑g objections which he expressed sv:th regard to
some of the provisions of the Bill when it was read a
second time, had now to move two or three amend-
ments, the first of which applied to tho clauses
from 33 to 39, which constituted the Upper Chamber
of the Legislature of New Zealand. Having so
recently stated his obVction to that chamber
being composed of the nominees of the governor of
the colony, he would not repeat those objections on the
present occasion. He might observe, however, that
feeling confident that a better class of members would be
obtained by adopting an elective system, properly re-
strained as regarded qualification and mode of election,
than by acting upon the nominee system; and believing
also, that by imposing a nominee system upon the colony
not only the settlers themselves would be disappointed
in their expectation of the advantages to result from the
new constitution, but the governor would be placed in
the painful position in which so many governors found
themselves, of being obliged either to submit to the
difficulties in which they might be placed, or of resort-
ing to the extreme measure of swamping the nominee
council by the creation of new members; entertaining
these objections very strongly, he begged to move, in
the first instance, the omission of the 331 clause. Should
their Lordships give their assent to that proposition, he
should then move the omission of all the succeeding
clauses to the 3lth inclusive, for the purpose of substi-
tuting the clauses which wore in the Bill of the late Co-
lonial Secretary (Earl Grey), constituting the Upper
Chamber of members to be elected by the local legisla-
tures of the six colonies, established under the other
provisions of the Bill.
The Earl of DES ART regretted to say, on the part
of the Government, that he must oppose the amendment
of his Noble Frie❑d, though he admitted the difficulties
might arise from the proposed constitution of the Upper
Chamber. Without intendi❑g to compare the nominee
chamber to the House of Lords, he might remind his
Noble Friend that the same inconveniences to which he
referred had sometimes arisen in this country from the
House of Lords and the House of Commons differing in
opinion with regard to particular measures; neverthe-
less no one could deny that the system worked well.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, he thought that something might
be created in the colony of New Zealand analogous to
the House of Lords; and considering the great benefit
which this country derived from such an institution—
that in it they had a legislative body which was not
liable to be affected by popular influences, neoessarily
transitory in their character—the alteration which her
Majesty's Ministers had thought necessary to introduce
in the plan of the late Government was, in his opinion,
a most valuable one, and he could not, therefore, accede
to the amendment of his Noble Friend.

The Earl of HARROWBY supported the amend-
ment, on the ground that a nominee chamber would
have no moral influence in the colony, and would prove
a mere instrument in the hands of the Government.
There ought to be two chambers—the one representing
property and the other numbers, and both should be
elective.

The Earl of DERBY said, that however great might
be his admiration of many of the qualities of the great
American Republic, he was not desirous of framing the
constitutions for the colonies of Great Britain upon the
republican model. He quite agreed with his Noble
Friend that property should be represented as well as
numbers, and he believed that the Governor of New
Zealand would be entirely departing from his duty to the
state if he did not take care that the members summoned
by him to the Upper Chamber were men of property,
respectability, and standing, and possessing a large stake
in the colony.—(Hear, hear.) The colony of New Zea-
land was one of the most promising of our colonial de-
pendencies, and he had no doubt that in time there
would arise a class of men, of large property and influ-
ence, who might fairly be said to represent the aris-
tocratic clement in the colony. Then he thought it
would be important that the Crown should have the
power of appointing, not a body of men who would be
the mere representatives of the Government of the day,
but, being chosen in the first instance personally, would
retain their rights of legislation, wholly independent of
the Government, during their lives, not subject to dis-
missal, and consequently exercising a beneficial influ-
ence over the popular part of the Legislature, and over
the Governor as well. That influence would go on ex-
tending and increasing just in proportion as the aristo-
cratic element developed itself; and which element, he
believed, judging from the character of the population
of the colony, would be developed sufficiently to allow
of the application of the principles of the constitution
of this country.

The amendment was negatived, as was also another
amendment of the Duke of Newcastle, providing that
in the case of the Bills sent to this country after passing
the Colonial Legislature, the Secretary of State should
put his veto upon it at once, instead of suspending it for
two years.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE then moved the omis-
sion of the clauses which related to the land sales and
the New Zealand Company, observing, that whether
the charges which had been made against the Com-
pany were just or not, there was at any rate a prima
facie case which absolutely required the fullest investi-
gation; and, under these circumstances, he though it
was not desirable to place a company against whom
such charges were advanced in a more advantageous
position than that they now occupied. But this was
done by the present Bill.
The Earl of DESART must again express his regret
that he felt himself obliged to refuse the assent of the
Government to the amendment of his Noble Friend.
He would not enter upon the question whether the New
Zealand Company had or had not been deservedly accused;
but he could not admit that the clauses in the Bill relating
to that company placed them in any better position than
they now occupied. By the arrangement which had
been made the New Zealand Company would receive
a fourth of the price of the land sold, and were quite
willing to take the certainty which they would have
under the present Bill instead of the uncertainty which
had previouly existed. The last accounts from the co-
lony represented the claimants as perfectly satisfied,
and that in less than twelve months the Government
would have possession of the lands. With respect to
the frauds ho would not prejudge the case.
The remaining clauses were then agreed to. The
Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be
read a third time on Monday.
The County Rates Bill; the Excise Summary Pro-
ceedings Bill; the Woods, Forests, and Lands Revenue
Bill; the Valuation (Ireland) Bill; the Metropolitan
Sewers Bill; the Nisi Price Offices Bill; the Friendly
Societies (No. 2) Bill; the Crime and Outrage (Ireland)
Bill; the Encumbered Estates (Ireland) Bill; the Dis-
tressed Unions (Ireland)
Bill; and the Public Health
Act (1848) Amendment Bill were read a second time.
Lord LYTTELTON presented a petition from the
inhabitants of the Canterbury settlement, New Zealand,
complaining of an attack made by Governor Grey on
the principle on which the settlement was founded, and
praying that the Bill for the establishing representative
constitutions in the colony might pass into a law. The
Noble Lord, after describing the progress which the
Canterbury settlement had made, took the opportunity
of contradicting the statement which had appeared in
several newspapers, that the inhabitants were deserting
the settlement for the gold districts in New South Wales.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
The report on the Suitors in Chancery Bill was re-

ceived. -
The Commons Enclosure Act Extension Bill was read
a third time.
The Turnpike Act Continuance Bill, the Poor-law
Board Continuance Bill, the Inland Revenue Office Bill,
and the Savings Banks (Ireland) Bill went through Com-
mittee.
The Earl of DERBY said there were several Bills
which he wished their Lordships to forward a stage as
soon as possible, and he had, therefore, to propose that
their Lordships should meet for that purpose to•morrow
(Saturday), at two o'clock.—Agreed to.
Adjourned, at a Quarter to Nino o'clock, till this day,
at Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 25.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
.

BISHOPS IN AUSTRALIA.
Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to put a question to the
Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, on the
subject involved in the Lord Bishop of Sydney's remon-
strance, dated May 22, 1850. He wanted to know
whether the Roman Catholic Primate in Australia was
to be permitted to take precedence of the Bishop of the
Established Church.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON was not aware until he
entered the House of what would be the:exact shape of
his Hon. Friend's question, but he was nevertheless pre-
pared to give it a detailed answer. Tho House must
permit him to refer to the dispatches to which his Hon.
Friend's question had reference. The first dispatch was
a circular dispatch of Lord Grey, dated the 20th Nov.,
1847, and in that dispatch these words occur:—" As
Parliament by a recent Act, via., the Charitable Trusts
Act, recognised the titles of Roman Catholic prelates,
and virtually directed that the Roman Catholic Arch-
bishop shall take rank with the Protestant Archbishop'
the Governor is instructed hereafter to address the
Roman Catholic archbishop or bishop by the title of
Your Grace' or ' Your Lordship,' as the case may be."
Some misapprehension arose in the colony as to the
construction to be placed upon this passage, as the prele
liaises did not justify the conclusion. It was thought
that, according to this passage, Archbishop Cole had
precedence over the Bishop of New Zealand, and a
dispatch was forwarded from the colony to that effect.
On the Oth November, 1849, Lord Grey sent another
dispatch on the subject, in which he stated that he looked
upon the Bishop of Sydney as a metropolitan, and there-
fore he considered that the Right Rev. Prelate took pre-
cedence of the Roman Catholic Archbishop. Then fol-
lowed the remonstrance of the Bishop of Sydney re-
ferred to by his lion. Friend, which was received at the
Colonial•office on the 4th of January, 1851, and which
contended that the bishops of the Established Church
were entitled by law to take precedence of all the Roman
Catholic prelates and primates. That remonstrance still
remained unanswered; but he intended shortly to give
his attention to the subject, and to send a dispatch to
the colony communicating the views which the Govern-
ment took of it.
Sir H. INGLIS hoped that his Right Hon. Friend
was able now to state that Government was not pre-
pared to recognise the precedence which the Roman
Catholic Archbishop claimed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON could give no further answer
than that which he had already communicated to the
House.
Sir H. INGLIS said that he should bring the subject
under the notice of the House, should he get a seat In
the next Parliament.
CONSTITUTION-HILL.
Mr, T, DU WiSkied $o 40k 04 first CQPI'
U