The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-21 00:00:00

Wiling

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 21, 1845.

The House of Lords did not sit.
The Commons met at four o'clock.
Lord INGESTRE moved the bringing tip of the report on
the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway on the
broad gauge line, in favour of which the Committee had
decided.

Mr. COBDEN moved, as an amendment, " That a Select
Committee be appointed to inquire whether, in all future Acts
for the construction of railways, provision ought to be made
for securing one uniform gauge, and whether it would be prac-
ticable and expedient to bring existing lines of railway in Eng-
land, and lines now in course of construction, into uniformity
of gauge, and if so, to report upon the best mode of carrying
these objects into effect in the present session of Parliament.'.'
Colonel Woon supported the amendment.
Mr. SHAW, as Chairman of the Committee, entered into a
most eloquent and lucid statement of the reasons which had
determined the Committee to decide in favour of the broad
gauge line. The Right Hon. Gentleman, who was greeted
with enthusiastic cheering during the course of his speech,
concluded by calling upon the House to support the decision of
1 the Committee.

Mr. LABOUCHKIU thought that the House ought to up.
hold the decision of the Committee.

Sir G. GREY thought that the Great Western should have
an independent line as well as the Birmingham Company.
Sir G. CLERK supported the decision of the Board of
Trade in opposition to that of the Committee.
Sir T. WILDE, as representing the interests of the people
of Worcester, supported the broad gauge line.
Sir Gxoftox CLERK explained that the Board of Trade
had distinctly pointed out to the Great Western Company the
objections to the change of gauge, and that it was not until
a full hearing that the Board of Trade had decided.
Mr. WARD denied that he was operated on either by
personal canvass or by private interest. He had nothing to do
with either of the Companies, but he considered that a question
so large ought not to be decided incidentally by a Committee,
but by the Legislature at large.
Sir T. ACLAND thought that if the question of gauges
were to be taken up, it should be taken up gravely ; but it
was not fair to take it up now upon the question
of this particular railway. The question regard-
ing the railway had been referred to the Committee,
and the House would pay the Committee a very ill
compliment if they now raised the question of gauges
to throw the decision of the Committee over. Why
had they not raised this question of the gauges on the Basing.
stoke Bill, when the broad gauge abutted upon the narrow

gauge ?
Sir R. PEEL thought that as a general rule the Minis-
ters of the Crown ought to abstain from interfering in questions
of this sort. H e would exercise no influence to support the report of
the Board of Trade, or to support the decision of the Committee.
He would give his opinion merely judicially. The Com-
mittee had been presided over by a Right Hon. Friend
of his who had been used to judicial investigation,
and looking to all the circumstances of the case, his opinion was
that it would not be wise in the House to overrule the decision
of that Committee.

On the motion that the report on the Oxford and Rugby
Railway Bill be received, some discussion ensued ; but,

eventually, the report was ordered to be brought up by a ma-
jority of 36 ; the numbers being, for the adoption of the report,
79, and against it, 43.
On the reading of the order of the day for going into Com-
mittee, several Hon. Members who had motions on the paper
postponed them, on account of the lateness of the hour. Even-
tually it was determined that it was too late to go into Com-
mittee of Supply, and after disposing of the orders of the day,
the House adjourned at half-past Twelve o'clock.

Thursday night brought to a close the adjourned and
protracted debate on Mr. C. BULLER'S Resolutions rela-
tive to New Zealand, its government and relations with
the mother country, and the conduct of successive admi-
nistrations of our Colonial Department towards it. The
division on the Resolutions was honourable to the abi-

lity with which they had been opened by the Learned
Member for Liskeard, and proved how strong an impres-
sion his speech had produced on the House. For,
although both Sir R. PEEL and Sir J. G RAMA M took up
the defence of Lord STANLEY'S policy, that
is, of his prejudices towards this noble colony,
with the zeal of partisans and the ingenuity
of casuists, the Ministerial majority of the session was
strangely diminiAed. A majority of 57 only, in a
House of 395 Members, acquitted the present Go-
vernment of faults of omission and Commis-
sion less blameable than those of their prede-
cessoft, in dealing with the affairs and colonists
of New Zealand. We have never concealed our
own impressions of the original error in principle,
-and the subsequent miscarriage in details of the first
Government which dealt with New Zealand as a con-
nexion with the British Crown, and employed Captain
HOBSON as its negotiator, in the reign of WILLIAM IV.
and of all the Governments which have since held oif.ce.
Lord llowicx's acknowledgment of this error of vinci-
ple and originally vicious scheme of establishment was
so frank and manly that we have not anotlyzr word to
urge. Even Lord J. RUSSELL, in his speech of much
vigour and cleverness, could not vindieate himself or
his colleagues in administration from the charge of a
misconception of the true character of the New Zealand
connexion, the great responsibilities they were incurring
at every step they were taking in a class of colonial regu-
lations, which required the most matured deliberation
in approaching, in proportion as they were of a character
utterly novel and anomalous. Now, it does seem to us that
even so lately as that recent period at which the tact and
perseverance of Mr. C. BULLER in conducting his mission
from the New Zealand Company to the great office in
Downing-street, pinned Lord STANLEY to the necessity
of finally proclaiming his intentions with regard to that
Company—its pretensions, its position, its demands, and
its future recognition or disavowal—every Ministry, in
the interval we speak of, has equally compromised its Le-
putatiou for prudence, plain dealing, and sound judg-
ment. Here was a colony, to the territorial property
of which we had as undoubted a title as priority of
geog'.aphical discovery and frequent resort and inter-
course with the natives could give us. Our Ministers were
afraid or reluctant, or unprepared to propound their views.
They would not call it a possession of the British
Crown. They would not recognise it as the property of
any other Crown. They would not give protection to
British subject in the Bay of Islands, or at any other
point upon which they were congregated. They would
not ratify their contracts nor guarantee their property.
The colony waxed British and strong in spite of their
neglect. Something they must do. They sent
out Captain Honsoti with powers to treat, and
by that very act they moved as the British
Government towards NeW Zealand as a colony
of the British Crown. From that moment they should
have exercised the rights, and what is far more important,
they stood committed to the duties of sovereignty. The
old reciprocated ties of allegiance and protection were
already formed. On their part the Imperial Government
has, beyond all question, neglected the most important
ofits duties to its British subjects in New Zealand.
• But now came a new, powerful, and wealthy associa-
tionsroruteme aristocrats
(men
raots f
projected and established in London, composed of
capitalists without rank,swoinitheoiAtiltembers of pa
of some manywithoutea
cap ;
ability and honour), and, we are compelled to believe, of
some adventurers without' capital, without rank, of some
'
; ability, and but an imperceptible modicum of honour.
' Here was money subscribed in abundance, and agents of
very differing shades of moral character to force the
largest returns that could be derived from it. With
the exception of Colonel WAKErizzz's very doubtful