cord, and in the handsomest manner, pro- | an Imperial Act was passed in the last posed the treaty to England, and he enter- Session to remedy the error. Subsequently tained a fervent hope that the calamity which had overtaken that great country would be overruled to the overthrow of one of the most abominable systems which had ever disgraced humanity. MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT said, that silence gave consent, and because the House was not disposed at so late an hour to enter into a discussion upon the Bill, it was not to be supposed that they did not take an interest in the question, or did not fully appreciate the value of the concession made by the American Government. MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD observed that the Bill was not even printed. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, the Bill was in accordance with the terms of the treaty. to the Act arriving in the colony there was a change of Government, and the new colonial law officers found, so ill had the New Provinces Act been drawn, that in other matters the powers of the General Assembly had been exceeded. The law officers of the Crown again expressed their opinion that the law officers of the colony were right in their objections; and this Bill was intended to correct those mistakes. The Act of last Session was accordingly repealed, and the New Provinces Act of 1858 confirmed, and fresh provisions were made respecting the establishment of new provinces in New Zealand. If the Bill made any important alteration, it was in giving somewhat increased power to the Governor, in contradistinction to the Chief Superintendents. The power to assent to Bills would be vested in the Governor, and so far, he thought, it would be an improvement on the present state of the law. He only wished that the provision could be carried very much further, because he was convinced, as he had stated in debate last year, that the powers vested in the Superintendents were very prejudicial to the good government of the colony. It was MINUTES.-PUBLIC BILLS.-1a Parochial Friendly quite impossible to trench upon these Societies; Lunacy (Scotland); Naval and Vic-powers to any great extent by Imperial tualling Stores; Portsdown Fair Discontinu- legislation, but he lost no opportunity of ance; Game Amendment; Bishops in Hea-expressing an earnest hope that the colo Bill read 2o, and committed for Thursday. after One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, then and Mahomedan Countries. 2a New Zealand; Artillery Ranges. 3a Rifle Volunteer Grounds Act (1860) Amendment Public Works and Harbours Act Amendment. NEW ZEALAND BILL. [BILL NO. 104.] SECOND READING. Order of the day for the Second Reading read. THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that by the Constitution Act, 15 & 16 Vict., c. 72, the colony of new Zealand was divided, for the purposes of Government, into six provinces, but power was given to the General Assembly to subdivide those provinces and to create new provinces, if they should think fit, with the same powers as those possessed by the existing provinces. The General Assembly had thought fit to pass an Act, called The New Provinces Act, 1858, exercising that power. The colonial law officers were of opinion that the powers of the General Assembly had been exceeded. The law officers of the Crown concurred in that opinion, and nists themselves would favour the diminution of the powers of the Superintendents. Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. EARL GREY said, that this Bill had been described as one of comparatively small importance and as dealing with small and paltry matters. For himself, he regretted that the Government had not ventured to ask the House to cure some larger defects which he believed to exist in New Zealand constitution. The noble Duke had said that they could not remedy defects without withdrawing privileges from the colony. He did not concur in that view. Those privileges were accompanied with duties and responsibilities. When these extensive powers of government were given, it was understood that the colony was to provide for its own internal administration and its own internal defence. The boon which that would have been to this country had not been realized. There was a large British force, some 5,000 or 6,000 men, now in the colony, and not long since the number was considerably larger. Now, whilst there was a force of 6,000 British soldiers in New Zealand, he protested against the principle that the Imperial Treasury was to be responsible for the military expenses of New Zealand, and yet the mother country was to have no effective control over the policy which made that expenditure necessary. No one could entertain the smallest doubt that the bloody and costly war which had just been brought to a conclusion in New Zealand was the direct result of the errors of our colonial policy -errors for which he admitted the Secretary of State was very slightly responsible, because, under the existing system, he had not the power to control them. What had occurred proved the absolute necessity, that when the Imperial Legislature retained responsibility, they should retain with it the power to protect both our own interests and the interests of the colony. His noble Friend said truly that the system of elective Superintendents was most mischievous. He believed it was the single instance in the British empire of elective executive officers. Against that provision in the Act of 1852 or 1853 he (Earl Grey) vainly remonstrated at the time, and by its operation the Governor was really deprived of all effective control over the measures of the Executive in the provinces of which he was not himself president. He objected to so imperfect a Bill as this. When there were gross and obvious faults in existing arrangements, which had led to unhappy results, the Government did not fulfil its duty in asking Parliament to remedy only minor and technical defects. It ought to be put to the colonists-" Did they wish for the continued protection of England? If they did, they must concur in the arrangements of the Imperial Government which were necessary for their own safety." He was the last person to propose to withdraw the protection of the Imperial Government from the colonies. He thought they had no right to do so. He was persuaded that at New Zealand or the Cape, where there was a considerable warlike population, the withdrawal of that protection would lead to a dreadful war of extermination, because the settlers themselves would not have strength to impose on the Natives that respect and fear which was necessary in order to govern them. But if it was wrong to withdraw protection, it was equally wrong to place the military power of the empire at the disposal of the colonists, and deprive the State of all means of controlling and moderating the policy of the colonial Government. THE EARL OF DESART said, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Earl, both as to the propriety of continuing our protection of the colony, and of retaining the means of asserting our authority over it. With reference to a clause which he (the Earl of Desart) had introduced into the Bill of 1852, it was intended to obviate the inconvenience of introducing a new system amongst an almost barbarous people. It was never intended to be a permanent provision; but it spoke well for its expediency that it should have been made the foundation of all subsequent legislation for colonies similarly situated. LORD TAUNTON said, that the tendency of the existing law was to paralyse the central authority. He admitted that the constitution of New Zealand was an anomalous one, and could only attribute the fact of its having worked with so little mischief to the excellent character of the colonists themselves, who were composed of some of the best of our English and Scotch population. They had thus endured a misgovernment which few other of our colonies would have allowed to exist. But, notwithstanding this misgovernment, he was not prepared to advise Parliament or the Crown to annul the present constitution of New Zealand, without some clear proof on the part of the colonists that they themselves desired it. It was no light thing to trifle with the liberties of our colonies, and to cancel the charter once conferred upon them; nor did he blame his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office for hesitating to take such a step. With regard to the defence of New Zealand, he suggested that it was possible for the Secretary of State to indicate plainly to the Government of New Zealand that he would not advise the Crown again to undertake the defence of the colony, unless such a policy was pursued towards the Natives as was likely to tend to peace. LORD LYVEDEN agreed that it was necessary to grapple with this question, but the noble Duke was nevertheless quite entitled to bring in a Bill which did not deal with the question, being intended for quite another object. With regard to the defence of the colony, it seemed to him that the fault was the same in every case. The Colonial Office asked the local Government to adopt a certain course; they generally refused to comply; then a time | receipt of that communication the colonial came when they asked for troops to de- Legislature repealed the measure. fend the colony, and the troops were at once sent. He thought it was quite within the power of the Imperial Government to prescribe terms in such a case, and this was the course which he thought should be followed. This, however, was no reason why their Lordships should hesitate to pass a Bill, the object of which was merely to correct certain technical errors in former legislation. He wished to know from his noble Friend whether he was prepared to lay any further despatches on the table as to the proceedings of Sir George Grey in the colony. THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE said, it was sometimes dangerous to lay papers before Parliament while subjects were still pending and despatches might meanwhile go out again to the colony. Sir George Grey had recommended measures of considerable importance to the Home Government. Some of them had been adopted, others rejected, and others, again, were under consideration. He was willing to lay on the table all such papers as might now be safely produced, and he would undertake to withhold none which might be published without prejudice to the public service. With regard to the Bill under discussion, it did not profess to be one for the better regulation of the Government of New Zealand or for the improvement of the constitution; and unless pressing exigencies arose, or the local Legislature themselves recommended such a course, he should propose no measure for the amendment of the existing constitution. To do so would be to depart altogether from the system introduced respecting the colonies some years ago; a system which, whether right or wrong-and he believed that in the main it had led to beneficial resultsshould not be altered without further experience of its working, and better reasons for such an alteration than had been hitherto adduced. He had generally found the colonists amenable to reason; and when they showed the temper referred to by the noble Baron (Lord Lyveden), it was generally owing to the authoritative and dictatorial tone assumed towards them by the Home Government. As an illustration of this, he might refer to a recent money Bill on which the inhabitants of one of the colonies set great store. He wrote a despatch, pointing out in temperate and conciliatory language that the Bill involved a breach of faith; and immediately on the EARL GREY thought that authority ought to accompany responsibility. This country was put to great expense for military purposes in New Zealand, and therefore ought to have power to call upon the colonists to take steps to make fair and proper laws. If a choice were offered between doing so and the withdrawal of British soldiers from the colony, there could be no doubt as to the decision. He believed that oppression and injustice had been practised towards the natives of New Zealand, and that was a matter upon which this country had a right to express an opinion. THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE supposed that his noble Friend did not wish him to utter threats which he did not intend to carry out. The noble Earl had recom. mended him, if the colonists refused to correct certain faulty parts of their system, and declined to pass a law in accordance with his views, to withdraw all British soldiers from the colony. Judging from past experience, the colonists would refuse to act upon his demand; and if he carried out the threat, the inevitable consequence would be an internecine war between the settlers and the natives, which would excite the horror of the people of this country, and call down their indignation upon the Government which allowed such a state of things to occur. Motion agreed to. Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next. PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL-[BILL No. 96.] Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments read. LORD KINNAIRD moved, That the said Report be now received. THE EARL OF MINTO moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed. Their Lordships had not yet had an opportuity of discussing its principle, although the measure was one of great importance, and one that could stand alone. A large party considered that, in consequence of Forbes-Mackenzie's Act, there had been a great improvement in the habits of the people, and that there was much less intoxication. He (the Earl of Minto) believed, that if there was any improvement in that respect, it was among LORD WODEHOUSE observed that the natural effect of the restriction which had been imposed by previous legislation on licensed houses was to encourage the sale of spirits in unlicensed houses. It now appeared that clubs were being formed in Scotland to enable parties to obtain refreshments on Sunday, and he could not help thinking some of the clauses in this Bill were directed against drinking in private houses. The Bill was not framed with the view of providing proper police regulations for public-houses, but to repress what the authors of the Bill con those classes that were least affected by | into that country certain regulations for public-house legislation-the middle and putting down the illicit sale of spirits higher classes. But his great objection which had been tried with advantage in to this sort of legislation was this, that England and Ireland. whereas he admitted that some little good was done by making it difficult to purchase drink, the evils produced by this system were prodigious. In proportion as the law was carried out with vigour there arose a system of drinking in unlicensed houses, and houses of that kind sprang up, producing evils that it was hardly possible to calculate. The number of convictions was large, and many persons were fined and imprisoned; and he was told that soon after the Act came into effect it was found necessary, in more than one large town, to build a new gaol or a new set of rooms, to contain the ad-sidered the crime or sin of drunkenness. ditional prisoners. He had other objections to the Bill. Formerly the magistrates had power to mitigate the penalties, but under this Bill they would not have that power. Then, as the Bill now stood, there was no appeal from the decision of the magistrate. Another objection was, that the magistrate would have power to convict on the evidence of a single witness. If they passed this Bill, they would be following up a bad course of legislation, and he hoped that their Lordships would think twice before they agreed to it. Amendment moved, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Motion, and insert "the House do now again resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill." LORD KINNAIRD trusted their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of the noble Lord. This measure had been for two Sessions before the other House of Parliament, and had been referred to a Select Committee; it had been carefully considered and approved at county meetings in Scotland, and a great number of petitions had been presented in its favour; and on the Motion for going into Committee in their Lordships' House it had also been fully discussed. The Bill, in fact, merely carried out the recommendations of a Royal Commission, which had been appointed because there were certain restrictions under the existing Act which were deemed to be oppressive. It was proved before the Commission that that Act had wrought great good, and led to a great diminution of drunkenness in Scotland; and it was now proposed to introduce He greatly objected to giving to one magistrate the power of imposing penalties; and he also objected to the provisions regarding "shebeens." He should support the Motion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Minto). THE DUKE OF ARGYLL thought the speech of his noble Friend (the Earl of Minto) might have been all very well if directed against the principle of the Bill on the second reading; but he hoped their Lordships would not now be induced to retrace their steps and recommit the Bill. The main object of the Bill was to give power to make regulations to put down unlicensed houses. It also proposed to relax the law as it stood under the Forbes Mackenzie Act, enabling hotel-keepers to provide excisable liquors for balls and parties. It was quite true that they could not make people moral by Act of Parliament, but neither could they make people healthy by Act of Parliament; yet they had passed most important measures for drainage and other sanitary improvements. EARL GREY thought that the Bill should be recommitted, upon the ground that it instituted new and vexatious proceedings, and therefore required further consideration. Some of the clauses were most extraordinary. Clauses 17 and 18 proposed to suppress unlicensed trafficking in liquors, and then the following clause enacted that it should be considered sufficient proof of selling in an uncertificated house if any person other than the owner and occupier should be found drunk there. So that any person might be convicted who had the misfortune to invite a friend who got drunk to his house, provided any CONTENTS. Westbury, L. (L. Chan- Hardinge, V. Manchester, D. Bath, M. Hutchinson V. (E. Donoughmore.) Lichfield, Bp. Oxford, Bp. Bagot, L. Brodrick, L. (V. Midle- Chelmsford, L. person would swear that the place was re- |-Contents 68; Not-Contents 22: Maputed to be a "shebeen." Could there be jority 46. a more extraordinary enactment? Another was still worse. Clause 20 enacted, that if one credible witness swore that he had reasonable ground for believing that liquors were trafficked in in a particular house, a single justice might issue a warrant to search the place; and if a quantity of spirits exceeding one gallon was found in it, the occupier was to be deemed a dealer in liquor. There was no investigation-the mere fact of finding the liquor and the evidence of one witness that he had reason to believe that a traffic in liquor was going on was sufficient. Now, supposing such a thing as that there was one justice in Argyll who was not very scrupulous, and somebody went before him, and said, "I believe trafficking in spirits is carried on in Inverary Castle;" the justice might issue a search warrant, and if more than a gallon of spirits were found there, it could be seized, his castle would be deemed a "shebeen," and his noble Friend would be convicted as a dealer in liquor. Some of the most mischievous powers of the Bill were given into the hands of one magistrate. He could not concur in the passing of the Bill with such a clause. Amherst, E. rose.) Russell, E. Colchester, L. Colville of Culross, L. Delamere, L. Digby, L. Foley, L. Lilford, L. Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess- Rossie, L. (L. Kin- field.) Sheffield, L. (E. Shef E. Silchester, L. (E. Long ford.) Southampton, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. Selkirk, E. THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH hoped the House would not agree to the Amendment. So far from the Bill coming upon them by surprise, it had been before Parliament in two Sessions, and been discussed in every county meeting in Scotland, and at all those meetings an opinion favourable to its principle was pronounced. It was no mere fanciful or theoretical measure, but was founded on the Report of a Royal Commission, consisting of very able men, and presided over by Sir George Clerk. Cleveland, D, The Bill introduced no new law in Scotland, because at present, by the common law of that country, it was illegal to traffic in anything whatever on Sunday; and it was only by a decision of the Court of Session, in 1832, that persons were relieved from the penalties which attached to any violation of that law. The Sunday clause was drawn up, he believed, by the Board of Inland Revenue, while the shebeen clause was copied, but with considerable modifications, from the Irish Shebeen Act. On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided: (E. Galloway.) L. (D. Argyll.)[Teller.] Tredegar, L. |