The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-21 00:00:00

Member to move that the clause should be struck out.
( Laughter, and cries of " Divide, divide.") •
Mr. GILLON said, as his object was to thruw out the Bill
altogether, he should move that the Chairman do now leave
[ the Chair._( Laughter. )
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division
took place, the motion having been withdrawn.
On our admission, we found the LORD ADVOCATE on
his legs moving an amendment to reduce the jurisdiction of
the Court from 1001. Scots to 51. sterling.
Sir W. RAE opposed the amendment. The want of
such Courts was loudly complained of. The people of Scot-
land were willing and anxious that the gentlemen of Scotland
should have power to decide in these small matters. It was
not to be left in the power of one man to decide the questions,
as many gentlemen must be present in order to form a Court,
and they would be obliged to give reasons for their judgment,
which was not the practice with the Sheriff. The individual
would then have the choice of two Courts, and the Sheriffs
would like that, as it would show that those who resorted to
their Courts came before them willingly.
Mr. WALLACE could not allow the statements of the
Right Hon. Member for the county of Bute (Sir Wm. Rae),
to remain uncontradicted. It might have been his practice
when Sheriff of Edinburgh, to decide causes without assigning
his reasons, but he would tell the Hon. Baronet this was not
the case now a days in Sheriffs' Courts—in which, happily,
there had been reformations, although there was still a great
deal to effect; he, therefore, confidently asserted that Sheriffs
did assign their reasons in all difficult cases in small debts-
Sheriffs' Courts, and in this, as in all other respects, are
superior to the Justice of Peace Courts, where reasons were
not assigned generally, just because the ignorance of the ma-
gistrates rendered it very wise on their parts not to expose
themselves by assigning reasons. The fact is undeniable.
The justices of peace in Scotland are too ignorant of the law
in the present day, when surrounded by clever, intelligent
professional men of the provincial bar, to venture to explain
anything they do not previously consult their clerks upon.
And of what materials are these said clerks composed ? A return
now in his hand showed what very learned folks justice of
the peace clerks were in Scotland —it shewed that a class
of men totally incompetent to the duty were employed.
For instance, there were shop-keepers, retail merchants,
Messengers-at-Arms, Bank Agents, Clerks to Road Trustees,
Tax Gothe.rers, Ministers of the Gospel, and a host of School-
masters ; and, besides .these, absurd as some were, and lu-
dicrous and unjust as others must be held, there was yet a
far more objectionable class, who in England are called Land
Agents, and in Scotland Factors. The Hon. Baronet said it
was a competing and equal Court. 'The Hon. Member for
Falkirk had set that point at rest ; but he (Mr. W.) insisted
it was a vicious Court—an incompetent Court, and, therefore, a
vicious one. It was found, since passing the Reform Act,
that by the means resorted to by these Clerks of Courts, and
by the very nature of,the Court, the ten pound voters could be
intimidated and coerced ; and this was the cause for wishing to
extend the jurisdiction. It was a Tcry jab in one sense, and
a Justice of Peace Clerk's in another; the object in the one
case being of the very worst political character—in the other,
an attempt to further their own interests at the expense of the
public good. The Bill had been properly designated in la,it
Session, " The Justice of Peace Clerks Bill," and this would
be best proved by the fact of the Members of the House
having been canvassed by voters in'writing, and personally, by
a Justice of Peace's Clerk, who was very likely present, or in
the lobby, in a manner no less active and formal than was
but too customary in the case of private Bills.—( Hear. )
The Hon. Baronet the Member for Bute had alluded to peti-
tions in favour of this Bill. Now, lie would meet this with
the assertion of these petitions being, one and all of them,
not only been get up by Justice of Peace Clerks, but having
actually been put into the hands of those who presented them
by Justice of Peace Clerks. So true did he know this to be,
that he challenged Members to deny this fact, as well as that
of the general canvas by a Justice of Peace Clerk, in favour of
the Bill. It was ruinous in its eria!trileilt—it was a political job
and juggle—it was every thing which had been said ag•4iesti t
by the Lord-Advocate and the Member for Falkirk, and there-
fore lie would oppose it now, and in every stage.
Tim House then divided,
Ayes
Noes
M,jority for the original clause —9
Mr. GILLON again moved that the Chairman do leave
the Chair, and the Committee then again prepared for a di-
vision, but none took place, and the Bill was reported.
Sir W. RAE moved that the report be received.
The LORD ADVOCATE opposed the motion.
After a conversation, in which Sir J. Graham, Mr. Goul-
burn, Lord Stanley, Mr. P. Thomson, Mr. Fox Maule, and
Mr. Wallace took part, the report was brought up, and the
Bill ordered to be read a third time on the 11th of July.
NEW ZEALAND.

Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from an individual
claiming to possess large landed property in New Zealand
against the New Zealand Bill.
Mr. BARING moved the second reading of the Bill. The
Hon. iNlember was almost inaudible in the gallery. We un-
derstood the Hon. Gentleman to complain of the undeserved
difficulties thrown by Government in the way of the Colonial
Association for the management and sale of lands in New
Zealand, and for applying the proceeds to the encouragement
of emigration—the withholding the charter from the Associa-
tion, Lc. ; but from the buzz in the House we could not col-
lect the tenor of any contiaued portion of the Hon. Gentle-
man's speech.
Sir G. GREY said lie would decidedly oppose the second
reading. The Association were distinctly told that the Go-
vernment would be no party to the establishment of a rower
which might devolve ou irresponsible persons having no in-
terest in the welfare of those over whom they were given such
authority. They were warned that the Government would
never consent to projectors being appointed with sovereign
power to borrow money at ten per cent. —to go into the market
and raise as much as they might want on the sanction of the
authority of Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Association
had been offered a Charter on conditions which they would not
accept, and now they came forward to claim the assent of Go-
vernment to a Bill which embodied all the objectionable points
which had been refused them in the Charter. He moved as
an amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day
three months.
Sir R. INGLIS said that New Zealand was recognised by
the Crown of England as an independent State, and ssithout
the consent of the chiefs of that country we had no more right
to colonise there than in any other independent State. He
should therefore oppose the Bill.
Mr. HAWES denied that New Zealand was an indepen-
dent State, because it was notorious that the people of that
country were interfered with by the missionaries, who seized
on and disposed of land there as they thought proper. He
was of opinion, therefore, that it would be for the advantage
of the New Zealanders that the present Bill should enable
British settlers to colonise there. In an interview which lie
(Mr. Hawes) had with the Noble Lord the Secretary for the
Colonies, that Noble Lord said that he was hot disposed to
throw cold water on the Bill, and yet now the Government
came forward to oppose it. This he considered a very unfair
proceeding on the part of the Government, and be hoped AO
House would not sanction such a course. The fact was, tlicei
opposition to this Bill arose from the interest of the missiona-
ries. He hoped the House would sanction this Bill, and for
himself he should certainly vote in its favour.
Mr. GL AD S'CONE said that it was not fair to attach such
censure to the missionaries as had been thrown out. The Mis-
sionary Society totally disavowed having sanctioned the con-
duct attributed to the missionaries, and there should, there-
! fore, be evidence to prove the facts alleged before the House
gave credit to the assertions made against the missionaries. He
did not think it was possible for the House to pass a Bill of
this nature whilst it was opposed by the Government. The
subject too involved many considerations of great importance,
which could not be sufficiently attended to at this late period
of the Session, and he thought it, therefore, most unreasonable
to press it forward. -
Mr. WA RD said that the Government had not shown any
disposition to favour the principle of emigration, for they had
made no use of a large fund that was at their disposal for
that purpose. There had been no rational plan proposed on
the part of the Government to put an end to the enormities
which had for so long a time been practised in New Zealand,
and to the. pollutions which were inflicted on the whole social
state of those islands. Now the object of the present Bill was
to establish such a state of society there as would afford pro-
tection
both to the native and to the settler. With respect to
what had been urged as to this country having no right to as-
sert its sovereignty over New Zealand, let him ask what right
had they to do the very same thing with regard to Australia ?
Hear, hear.) No doubt very much of what had been said
with regard to the state of the aboriginies in our colonies was
true, but was that any reason why we should be precluded from
attempting a new system and plan of colonization ?—( Hear,
hear.) None of these arguments constituted a fair and rea-
sonable ground for opposing the second reading of this Bill.
Her Majesty's Government ought to be the last persons to
oppose measure, for they had not originally shown themselves
averse to it, and their vacillating conduct since upon the sub-
ject on various occasions had led to the most distressing doubts
and uncertainties in the minds of the promoters and advocates
of the scheme.—( Hear.)
Viscount HO WICK said he had a right to complain of
what had been insinuated as having transpired upwards of
twelve months ago, on a communication which had been made
to him upon the subject of New Zealand colonize tion.—
( Hear.) From what occurred on that occasion he maintained
that no one could reasonably have supposed that he in any way
pledged himself to favour the present plan. The facts were
shortly these :—About a year ago a meeting had been ap-
pointed between my Hon. Friend the Member for Thetford
and others arid the Noble Lord (Glenelg) the Secretary of
State for the Colonial Department with reference to this sub-
ject, on which occasion the Noble Secretary not being able to
attend, the Noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment sent to him (Lord Howick), as he had formerly been
in some degree connected with colonials affairs, and requested
him to be present at the interview. He attended, and he well
•1 remembered that the Hon. Member and several other gentle-
men stated their views upon this question, but in so vague and
general a manner that no one, hearing of a plan of this sort
for the first time, could ever think of pledging himself in the
slightest degree respecting it.—(Hear, hear.) All that was
said on the part of the Government was that they (lid not see
any objection to founding a colony at New Zealand, but that
there were two points which, in founding such colony, were
indispensable the first was that the subjects of the Crown
should not be inveigled into any scheme by which their lives
and properties would be exposed to risk—( Hear)—and the
second, that due security should he given for the -just
and equitable treatment of the native population.—( Hear,
hear.) In consequence of this the Hon. Member wrote to
him ( Viscount Howick) on these points, and offered to make
the Bill what he (Viscount Howiek) pleased. Ile replied
that lie should be glad to see an unobjectionable Bill brought
forward, but that in its then state it appeared to be open to