

k 





■ 



May if] 



^T^rroLc^^ER, the Earl of Ripov replied 



riot**** fSSt of Directors had not met the sanction or 



.>.(« »ctof the touri ui Brougham expressed an 



•* fof the G°; e a X e iu^n^ fa powVr as this which the 



t SeCrfofDirS should be considered and re- 



„ ,—- *«» the . ?Sf«. -The Marquis of Normanby, under the 



JK** 6 ^?Srd Vniroughl recal, withdrew M. notice of 

 3^, unces of Lord^ue b ^.^ { Monday.- 



Jljjon for p*!*™ - , - ■* — *««» nf the Landlords and 



THE NEWSPAPER 



[1844 



moved the s b eC ond reading of the Landlords 



Bill.— Lord Beaumont moved the second 



Te^t5°Coinpensation jkujl j£j- i,uke"of "Richmond supported 



Vm™*^*™*^ should be referred - «*■*«— 

 CbUI but snggestea i details ._ To this Loi 



tbe 



to a select com 

 Lord Portman as- 



- Wicmowand the Marquess of Cl-anricardk spoke shortly, the 

 latter strongly censuring the Lord Chancellor for having assigned 

 personal reasons for resisting the Bill.— Lord Campbell replied, 

 and the motion for going into committee was negatived without a 

 division. 



Friday.— The Marquess of Normanby, on the understanding 

 that the President of the Board of Control would be in his place on 

 Tuesday, postponed until that day his question respecting the 

 correspondence between the Government and the East India Di- 

 rectors, in regard to Lord Ellenborough's recall. A great number 

 of petitions were presented for and against the Dissenters' Chapels 

 Bill. 



l * D J;.ndsome of its details. _ . 



JBitteetoWiend son DWICK and Lord Redesdale opposed 



•ented.-The J*n j di ided . for the second reading-Con- 



lhe Bfl ir 25 ^Contentsfw ! Majority, 8. The Bill was then read 



teat*, 27 j > on " 



» ^i^Lord Beaumont laid on the table a Bill, the object of 



M9nd **'Z nlace charitable bequests made to Roman Catholics 



which ™*r f rL ine as charitable bequests made to Protestant Dis- 



on the Mine »<»""* read a first time.-In reply to Lord Col- 



;?- nuke of Wellington stated the Government had 



*-, ^remonstrated with the Court of Directors ef the East 



!^«^inst their threatened recal of Lord Ellenborough. 



;" * nY aeainst their inreaieneui«.aiui ^ Vi « u » UUU i VU gu. 

 jnflU uwnp«! J .f.ui v m not advert to anything on this occasion 



"hth^o^ot'orious, or which is not to be found in Acts of Par- 

 whicft is Boi which has carried into execution this act, 



"llffViniwt call an act of indiscretion at least, this body, as a 

 2E k no knowledge whatever of the instructions under which 

 5i iirer has acted. They have stated reasons for withdrawing 

 Ir hnT as a body, all the individuals composing it— excepting 

 ♦iSl nn the secret committee-have no knowledge whatever of the 

 SSmrtions under which the Governor- General has been acting, or 

 3ihi events which have taken place in that country, excepting 

 th*t hich has been the general knowledge of this and the other 

 Haoae of Parliament, and of the whole of the public in this country, 

 and of the world at large. Yet these gentlemen, having no know- 

 Wtoe of the instructions sent out, have pronounced their opinion 

 onthe conduct of this officer, and have recalled him, thus depriving 

 the Government and this country of the best instrument— the best 

 initrument, 1 repeat it again— that we could find to carry out the 

 duties of that great office, and making no provision whatever, ex- 

 cepting that they should nominate another Governor- General for 

 the performance of these duties— the responsibility of which rests 

 •with Her Majesty's Government. As I have said so much on this 

 aubiect I will, in erder to illustrate this Act, just go a little further. 

 Although I believe that this is the first time in the history of the 

 Corecnaaent of India that this measure of recall by the Court of 

 Directors has been, on their part, carried into execution— and it 

 will be carried into execution— it has more than once been in con- 

 templation, but it has always been withdrawn on the advice and 

 remonstrance of the Ministers of the day, and it is the fact that it 

 has been in contemplation by these same gentlemen in respect to 

 this very same Governor-General in the course of the past twelve 

 months, and that they were prevailed upon to alter their resolution, 

 and not to proceed to his recall. This was previous to the late 

 great operations in Gwalior, of which your Lordships have read 

 with so much satisfaction— operations which I am sure your Lord- 

 ships will have pronounced, from the perusal of the reports which 

 have been made, must have been founded upon the most just and 

 discriminating measures on the part of the Governor- General." — 

 A conversation followed on this subject, in which Lord Brougham, 

 the Marquess of Clanricarde, the Marquess of Normanbv, and 

 Lord Campbell took part.— Lord Campbell's Bail in Error Bill was 

 read a second time, and was ordered to be committed on Thursday. 

 On the motion of Lord Campbell, the Court of Common Pleas Law 

 Process Bill was read a second time. 



Tuesday.— In reply to the Marquess of Londonderry, the E3rl 

 of Haddixgtov said it was not the intention of Government to 

 propose any grant, this year, for completing the harbours of Port- 

 petrick and Donaghadee.— Lord Cottenham moved the second 

 reading of his Bill for amending the relations of creditors and 



v-Jv and ex P lained tnat its object was to extend the remedy 

 *hich had been applied in 1838 to executions on mesne process, and 

 to release debtors from imprisonment in any shape. The Bill was 



tnv d K Up ° n re P° rts ' the one made in lg 32, and the other in 1840, 

 I. . ct ! the names of almost every person whose position entitled 

 flisopimonto especial attention were affixed, and who, although in 

 «cn case dissenting upon other points, unanimously agreed in the 

 recommendations which were embodied in the Bill. He described 



iW5 reports the utt «niin, in morals as well as estate, which 

 imprisonment brought upon the debtor and his family, and showed 



Ma-son Same autnorir y» that this evil, to which about 5000 



tert'ion t P !i annum were subjected, was not necessary as a pro- 

 of tip il°- V 6 . C0Dimercia l interest. He then entered into a review 

 nnnn m atlon upon the sub J^ct down to the act by which arrest 

 of thi^T Pr ° cess had been abolished, exposing the inconsistency 

 tent .hi -a- a " d lnsolvent laws, and contending that imprison- 

 had *ni5rif l! J- 'i Ct i nggreat and most unjust cruelty upon the debtor, 

 Posed lHK ai 5l M a safe 8 ua rd to the creditor. Under the pro- 

 Sethe hen f * / btor Would be compelled to give up his propertv 

 * a comnfn ♦• e t0 whom he was indebted, and would receive 

 *»tinction nf S S in i ff b °° n an immunity from imprisonment. The 

 removed Vnalf between bankruptcy and insolvency would be 

 10 the ordinT , • P unishl "ent of fraudulent debtors would be left 

 a Protpect of n ■ Una,S by which tne contracting debts without 

 for the eomL£ a> ? g them would be treated as a substantive offence 

 <* the measu™ 3 of » jury.— The Lord Chancellor approved 

 than the exisw* Said that nothing could be more inconsistent 

 **t» of Judges ? I two disti "ct laws, administered by two distinct 

 *oxd hoped that • nipts and insolvents.— The Duke of Rich- 

 ^uesti would M mpnsonnient for sma11 sums under the Courts of 

 ha PPyinbein*ahi«t lished h y this Bill.— Lord Dknman felt* 

 5 r the recoverv of 'J i i? ay that ,he monstrous abuses of small Courts 

 Bill-was read a'sec a W0Uld be remedied by this measure. The 



n ^nt. in order th^T 1 " 16 ' and its committal postponed for a fort- 

 ^ht be before tw T Lord Brougham's Bill on a similar subject 



Thursday JK r° rdshi P s at the same time, 

 "^nt meant' to i-=-. ! P <>/_ Wellington intimated that Govern- 



^O'unication S?i i ? Holyhead as the most eligible point of 

 ^Provementofth i Kl * hut that anv ^ rrant of money for the 

 mis *ioners apnointl? ur must de P e " d on the report of thecom- 

 fp^anddenartnr ^ascertain the port best adapted for the 

 2* Edinburgh it ° • e P ackt ts.— The presentation of a petition 

 J^^'ona, rai«Pii ying lor the ad option of some sanitary 

 f^ham. jJa ^ a p a conversation between Lords Campbell and 



Lord Bro L termed Edinburgh the "modern 



burgh 



^PUdiated V?. U0HAM declared that the citizens of Edin- 

 nd Lord P * ,/Lf a PPeHation, and considered it as an in- 



2* 'Modern Athpnc » ? L ^ e . x P re ssed his wonder at this, seeing 

 252 an individual W ho - m the person of Lo,d Brougham, 



inotth 



that 

 pro- 



E r ne »— I/ttd r7i Was an A; cibiades, a Pericles, and a De- 

 Z , f -nor" BUI, the i^\ ELL , moved the committal of his "Bail 

 Hp arRe Pendic • inn bj - eCt -° f which is t0 Permit parties to be 

 ^entered at 8oL& y . lnto the legality of their sentences. 

 S3? ° Ur ,aw S l mt0 ^e subject, expressing his desire to 



52h U !!' Who ^ on excen.nf" 1 ? of .tbe judicial conduct of Rhada- 

 225? k fi "t and trlTi iZ da , SSical aut bority. is said to have 

 *nd£i\ hat this Bil 1' " 1U ; rward s— The Lord Chancellor con- 



the \?"' in ^nded o D ro,flr d H the lriab state ***** and was 

 «Sl!" Thc GoveraET, t? :V , Ir ' °' ( '«»">Hli from the operation of 

 "which ^V! 4 °f the l"w L had . a , comprehensive measure for the 





3iu a ? < ? 1, ; d embrace thT iS- hands of the Attorney-General, 

 * on M th «efore rendor it JeCtS conte »nplated by Lord Campbell's 

 *LZ that ground- h hZ\ UnXK( r >- But be did not onnr, 



|; ar "l was therpf«r • )een bought in to 



idicul 



But he did not oppose 



serve a particular 



ord Bkougham was 



a corn- 

 ground, 

 present 



°us, absurd, and inequitable.— The Earl of 



; 



HOUSE OF COMMONS. 

 Friday. — We gave in our last Mr. Ferrand's statement re- 

 specting Sir J. Graham and Mr. Hogg, and Sir J. Graham's 

 formal disavowal of the charges brought against him. After he 

 had entered into particulars, distinctly and deliberately denying 

 the truth of the allegations, Mr. J. Wortley suggested that an 

 extreme value had been attached to the language of Mr. Fer- 

 rand, and hoped he would get up and say that in censuring Sir 

 J. Graham and Mr. Hogg he had no intention of imputiDg wil- 

 fully corrupt conduct.— Sir R. Perl rose, but as there was a call 

 for Mr. Ferrand, he said he would not stand in Mr. Ferrand's 

 way j and, turning towards him, remarked that he presumed he 

 had nothing to add to his explanation. —Mr. Ferrand : Not in 

 this House. — Sir R. Peel then said that they must apply to the 

 words of the charges the test of common sense. He undertook 

 the office of adviser very unwillirjgly.— The Speaker here inter- 

 fered, and said that according to the rules of the House Mr. Fer- 

 rand should withdraw.— Mr. Ferrand accordingly withdrew, and 

 was followed by Sir J. Graham and Mr. Hogg, amid much 

 laughter. The laughter was redoubled, when Mr. Borthwick 

 was seen hurrying after them, as if anxious to prevent a col- 

 lision in the lobby. —Sir R. Pebl proceeded, and after referring to 

 various cases, that of Mr. Cobbett against himself, and that of Mr. 

 TierneyagainstthethenSpeaker.Abbott.advisedtheHousetotreat 

 the charges as allegations of corrupt conduct, and to censure them 

 by a formal vote, without resorting to ulterior proceedings, such as 

 voting them a breach of privilege, which might involve them in un- 

 necessary conflicts with individuals. Had the charges been capa- 

 ble of any other construction than that put upon them, it was 

 easy for Mr. Ferrand to get up and say so. Sir R. Peel then 

 read the resolutions which he proposed, which, after reciting 

 the charges, declared them to be unfounded and calumnious, 

 and that they did not affect, in the slightest degree, the honour 

 and character of the members implicated. — Mr. T. Duncombe 

 proposed that Mr. Ferrand should be again called in and ques- 

 tioned, but this proposition did not meet with favour. — Mr. 

 French proposed, as an amendment, that as the House had, on 

 former occasions, passed over the accusations of "thimble- 

 riggers," preferred by Lord Stanley against his former col- 

 leagues, and of incentives to assassination, made by Sir R. Peel 

 against Mr. Cobden, it was not expedient for the House to take 

 notice of the language used by members. This amendment was 

 not seconded. The original resolution was then put and carried 

 unanimously. The House proceeded to the order of the day for 

 going into committee on the Factories Bill.— Mr. Duncombe 

 moved that the Bill be referred to a select committee. After a 

 discussion, in which Mr. Ward, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Hume, Mr. 

 Escott, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Villiers, Lord Ashley, and Mr. Cobden 

 joined, the House divided — For going into committee, 145; for 

 Mr. Buncombe's amendment, 42; majority, 103. The Hou6e 

 went into committee on the Bill, and clauses up to 21 were 

 agreed to, when the chairman reported progress. The further 

 consideration of the Bill was fixed for the 10th of May. 



Monday.— Mr. Roebuck raised a brief conversation respecting 

 the recal of Lord Ellenborough from the Government of India.— 

 Sir R. Peel said that the Company had the power of appointing 

 the Governor-General, but subject to the Crown's approval. 

 The usage had been to appoint him by concert between both 

 authorities. The power of recalling him was absolutely with the 

 Company ; they had exercised it now on their own undivided 

 responsibility, and without the sanction or concurrence of the 

 Queen's servants. As to the responsibility which he and his 

 colleagues might have to undertake, he must at present decline 

 to say more than that the Government, whatever in strictness 

 their responsibility might be, would feel it their duty to do their 

 best for the public welfare in this matter.— After some questions 

 put by Mr. Williams, and answered by Mr. Goulburn, the 

 House went into Committee of Ways and Means.— Mr. Goul- 

 burn then rose to open the budget. He congratulated 

 the House on the realisation of those hopes of general im- 

 provement which he had held out in his financial state- 

 ment of last year. He had then taken his calculations of 

 revenue with no sanguine or high-flown anticipation ; the pro- 

 duce had much more than equalled them ; and while a surplus 

 of revenue was obtained on the one hand, on the other the 

 expenditure had been less than the estimate. The surplus avail- 

 able was thus 4,l65,000f. Out of this he proposed to defray the 

 deficit of 2,749,000/. which was left at the end of 1843 ; and there 

 would then remain a balance in the Exchequer of more than 

 1 ,400,000/. With respect to the ensuing year, his calculation of 

 revenue, which in most particulars coincided with that of the 

 year preceding, was 5 1 ,790,000/. The payments to be made there- 

 out would be— for the charges of the National Debt, 30,097,000/.; 

 and for the ordinary service, Naval, Military, and Miscellaneous, 

 17,706,000/.; together, 47,803,000/. There would also be some 

 payments of the character of extraordinaries, being— first, a sum 

 of about 400,000/., which would be payable to the East India 

 Company on account of the Chinese war; secondly, a sum of 

 200,000/., which he estimated for dissents on the reduction of the 

 Three-and-a-Half per Cents. ; and thirdly, a sum of 239,000/. for 

 the redemption of certain national engagements to the South 

 Sea Company, by which redemption there would be a saving of 

 annual interest, beside other advantages to the public. The 

 Exchequer would then have a credit-balance of about 3,000,000/. 

 This having been pretty generally anticipated, he had been 

 pressed from all quarters with recommendations to reduce taxes 

 of all sorts. He would gladly have done so, had he felt that 

 he had a permanent revenue to fail back upon ; but the source of 

 the surplus was not a permanent one : it was mainly the income- 

 tax. That tax the House would have to consider next year, in 

 order to determine whether it should or should not be prolonged, 

 as had originally been proposed, for two years beyond the first 

 thiee; and if other taxes were now to be hastily reduced, before 

 the operation of the tariff could be thoroughly known, the House 

 might be left next year without an option as to the continuation 

 of the income-tax. It was highly desirable to avoid the necessity, 

 heretofore incurred, of borrowing heavily from the bank : he al- 

 luded to the large deficiency bills of former years. He deemed it 

 better policy to apply the surplus of the present year to the aug- 

 mentation of the balance in the Exchequer, than to seek a tem- 

 porary relief in the way of diminished taxation. These were his 

 reasons for resisting the large reductions which were pressed 

 upon him. But there were some articles upon which remission 

 might be afforded, with a fair prospect of making up revenue by 

 increased consumption, and with a probability of increasing 

 the consumption of other articles. The items which he 

 proposed to select for such remission were glass, vinegar, 

 currants, coffee, marine insurance, and wool; upon the ag- 

 gregate of which the amount of duty to be remitted would 

 be 387,000/. a year. It remained for him only to say a few 

 words upon the sugar duties, which he should have to propose a 

 little later in the session. The present Brazilian treaty would 

 expire in November. He purposed, when these duties should 

 come under discussion, to recommend that England sl,OUIa - 

 admit, at a differential duty of 10*. per cwt., the sugar of those 

 states which do not cultivate that commodity by slave labour; 

 thus opening a trade with the extensive countries to the east ot 

 the Cape, and effecting an extension of supply without an infrac- 



tion of principle.— Mr. Humk, though admitting that the state- 

 ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was clear and explicit, 

 dissented from the policy pursued by the Government, especially 

 on the subject of sugar, which he considered altogether a mis- 

 take, and in the maintenance of rarge military and naval esta- 

 blishments during peace.— Mr. Williams followed with similar 

 comments j and Mr. Bell called attention to the operation of the 

 tax on exported coal, which he cor, tended was injurious both to 

 the coalowner and shipowner.— Mr. Baring asked what would 

 have been the state of the revenue had the income tax not been 

 imposed ? He thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should 

 have stated distinctly whether or not it was to terminate at the end 

 of the three years, or be continued for the full period of five years. 

 Hecommentedon theproposedreduction of duties,approvingof the 

 reduction on foreign crffee, but disapproving of the intended in- 

 crease on chicory, which, he understood, was largely mixed 

 with bad coffee, and rendered it not only usable but cheap. 

 These, however, were small matters; not so the contemplated 

 alterations in sugar. If they were really sincere in their abhor- 

 rence of slavery, they would not thus inconsistently and ab- 

 surdly encourage it, for, depend on it, every amount of free 

 labour sugar taken out of the European market would only leave 

 a vacuum to be filled up by slave produce.— Sir R. Peel declined 

 going into details on the sugar question, till the proper time 

 arrived, and advised the House to beware of reductions in our 

 military and naval establishments, which might leave us unpre- 

 pared for any contingency that might arise. Mr. Hume and 

 Mr. Williams always went back to 1792, as if our estimates were 

 to be regulated by the demands of that period, without reference 

 to the progress making by other nations, the introduction of 

 steam ships-cf-war, &c. &c. He entered into statements to show 

 that the coal tax had not been so injurious in its operation; and 

 thought that it was the best policy to wait till next year, when 

 the income tax would expire, before they announced any deter- 

 mination whether or not it is to be continued, as they 

 would then be in a better position for reviewing their 

 financial condition. He claimed credit for the proposed 

 reductions on wool, and on marine assurances, and 

 thought that, seeing the amount was only 400,000/. devoted 

 to reductions, no better selections could be made.— Mr. Labou- 

 chere spoke warmly on the cohtemplated alterations of the 

 sugar duties, which he considered would prove not only fatally 

 impolitic in principle and example, but pernicious in operation. 

 —Mr. S. Wortlk-j and Mr. P. M. Stewart joined in the debate, 

 the latter complaining of the effect which the proposed alteration 

 of the sugar duties would have, and affirming that the foolish 

 regulations of the Colonial-office alone prevented the West Indies 

 from being able to compete with any part of the world.— Lord 

 Stanley defended the Colonial-office and himself, contending 

 that he had, since entering office, considerably relaxed the re- 

 strictions on the emigration of free labourers, especially Coolies, 

 to our sugar colonies. — Mutual explanations having passed be- 

 tween Mr. P.M. Stewart and Lord Stanlev— Lord J. Russell 

 did not think that the Government deserved all the credit claimed 

 for it by Lord Stanley, of having been the first to allow the 

 introduction of Coolies into the Mauritius. He reminded the 

 House that there was a time when the Hill Cooly question served 

 the Ministerialists when in opposition just as effectually as any 

 other for obstructing the late Government. He did not under- 

 stand thc nice morality which would refuse to admit Brazilian 

 sugar, and yet claimed credit for giving greater facilities for the 

 introduction of Brazilian coffee. If we interfered in this way, not 

 only between free and slave labour, but between the species 

 of slave employment, our morality would become the nuisance 

 of the world. He foresaw that the Government were fast coming 

 round to the Whig budget of 1841, with a slight difference, which, 

 would serve to cover their inconsistency for a year or two. In 

 1842, Sir R. Peel had applied the piinciple of "buying in the 

 cheapest market" to onion seed, spices, and herrings ; the time 

 was not far distant, it was to be hoped, when he would apply it 

 to the article which constituted the essential food of the people. 

 If the income-tax were intended to continue for five years, it 

 would have been better to have at once made those reductions in 

 duties which were postponed till next year, and were intended as 

 a compensation for it. As it was, nothing was proposed which 

 was likely to be very dangerous to the financial interests of the 

 country.— Colonel Sibthorp made an attack on the Whigs, who, 

 he said, were turned out never to come in again. In this view 

 he approved of the appropriate reduction of the duty on vinegar. 

 When the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to reduce the 

 duty on marine insurance, he might have considered fire insur- 

 ance, the duty on which was a tax of 200 per cent, en prudence. 

 —Mr. M. Philips approved of the repeal of the wool duty, and 

 pointed out how great an advantage a similar boon would be to 

 the cotton manufacture. He noticed, with approbation, the an- 

 nounced reductions, with the exception of those on sugar; it 

 seemed as if all the morality in the country were centred in the 

 sugar-basin and dissipated in the coffee-pot.— After some further 

 debate, in which Sir H. Douglas, Mr. C. Woon, Lord How'ick, 

 Mr. Hindley, and Lord H. Vane joined, the Chairman put the 

 question, and the House resumed, with the Speaker in the chair. 

 —Sir J. Graham then, in consequence of the lateness of the 

 hour, postponed the committee on the Factories Bill till Friday. 

 Tuesday.— A large amount of private business was gone into 

 in the early part of the sitting, one of the matters which provoked 

 lively debate and divisions being the Bill for the Newbury, 

 Basingstoke, London, and Southampton Railway, the supporters 

 of which, however, carried it through its first stage by a large 

 majority over the advocates of the Great Western branch.— Lord 

 Jocelvn asked Mr. Hogg whether it was the intention of the 

 Board of Directors of the East India Company to lay before tbe 

 Court of Prorietors, or before that House, or the public, such 

 documents as would show their reasons for the recal of Lord 

 Ellenborough from the Governor-Generalship of India?— Mr. 

 Hogg replied that he was not the organ of the Court of Directors 

 in that House, though he had no objection, as a member of that 

 body, to state his individual opinion. It was his belief, that, 

 with regard to the production of papers before the Court of Pro- 

 prietors, the Court of Directors would be influenced by the 

 course adopted by hon. Members themselves in Parliament. 

 He hoped that in the meantime, with reference to what had 

 passed in another place, he might venture to express his hope 

 that the House and the country would suspend their judgment. 

 —Mr. Astell also hoped the House and the public would give 

 the Court of Directors credit for the faithful discharge of its 

 duties. He quite agreed with his hon. friend in reference to 

 what had passed in another place, and however great the 

 authority, and the influence which it Would naturally have, still 

 it was but an act of justice due to the Court ot Directors that the 

 House and the public should suspend their judgment as to the 

 transaction.— Mr. Hume asked Sir R. Peel if he had any objec- 

 tion to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the cor- 

 respondence with the Court of Directors upon the question, for, 

 believing the Court of Directors had acted wisely io the step they 

 had taken, he wanted the public to know whether they were 

 properly attacked or not.— Sir R. Peel replied that he could not 

 say when that correspondence would be produced. — Mr. Fox 

 Maulk moved for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the ad- 

 ministration of oaths in the Universities of Scotland, his object 

 being to abolish the tests which honorary officers arid the pro- 

 fessors in Scotch Universities are now liable to take.— Sir A. L- 

 Hay seconded the motion.— Sir J. Graham, as a Minister of the 

 Crown, felt it was his duty to maintain the entirety and wetym 

 the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, as her Majesty had s ^° r " 

 to maintain it, and he could not, therefore, on IiffM g tou , 

 take any steps which he thought calculated to impair I » 81 ^' J I 

 For these reasons he opposed the introduction 0/ the Bin. a 

 a lengthened discussion the House divided. .^ h ^|™°^! 

 101; against it, 128; majority against bnnpngm «he B {". *'• 

 Mr. Aglionby moved for a select committee, to inquire into the 

 state of New Zealand, which was agreed to. 



