time (an ingenious way of protracting their composition) they put forward a series of objections to the very removal just recommended by themselves, and then meeting these objections very successfully, got back to their former conclusion.

Their next step, continued the noble Earl, after assuming that the monopoly of printing, and the censorship would be removed, was to submit to the Government a mode of introducing the liberty of the press. This was conveyed in the form of six specific recommendations. He would be content to mention the third of these. They had discovered that there was so little disposition to read in Malta, that unless it was helped by Government," an independent newspaper conducted with skill and integrity," could not find support. It being desirable to establish such a print, they entered into a calculation of the chances of maintaining it, and having recommended the interposition of Government aid, for this purpose, they concluded by suggesting that, to obviate any impression of undue influence on the part of the authorities, the reasons of Government for supporting the journal should be stated to the public.

The noble Lord then proceeded to comment upon other parts of the reports in a similar vein, and complained that all the information contained in them, and which might have been had by writing for it to Malta, had cost the country 5,000l.

Lord Glenelg stated, with a view to show the utility of local commissioners, that the Duke of Wellington had, in 1830, appointed a commission to sit in this country, for the purpose of enquiring into

the financial arrangements of the colonies, and the efficiency of the public service there. If that commission, as would not be denied, had failed to make a satisfactory report, it was wholly owing, as he thought, to their inability to obtain at home the necessary information.

The noble Lord then proceeded to say, that the Malta commissioners had discovered the existence of important abuses, and had reported, that the complaints of the natives were well founded. They had ascertained, that the territory, small as it was, was overloaded with extensive establishments, and that the courts of judicature, in particular, though maintained at an enormous cost, had failed, nevertheless, to command the respect of the people.

Great abuses, also, were detected in the management of charitable funds; and the legislative system was represented to be not such as could obtain the public confidence. Large sinecures were in existence, which invariably fell to the share of Englishmen. The Maltese themselves, were not only excluded from the higher offices of the Government, but were treated as an inferior, and almost degraded caste. If the result of this commission did not extend beyond the abolition of this unjust and unnatural distinction between the two races, great good would have been accomplished, and the country compensated for the expences of the enquiry. It was very desirable, in the opinion of the Government, that places of dignity and emolument, in their country, should be thrown open to the Maltese. And it had been resolved to admit them, in future, to such offices as they might be qualified to fill, with salaries equal to about

half the amount of the sums that had been lavished on the English, The Duke of Wellington defended the commission of 1830 with unusal animation, and then proceeded to animadvert to the Maltese commissioners. They were, said his Grace, appointed in September, for the ostensible object of making various enquiries into subjects connected with Malta; but for nearly the first twelve months they did nothing but propose the establishment of a free press in the island. The attention of this commission had been, in the royal order appointing it, called to a variety of subjects connected with the civil government of Malta; but not a single word concerning a free press had been mentioned in their instructions, yet the first thing they did, on landing, was to commence an enquiry into the state of the press. "" Now," continued the Duke, "in regard to this matter of a free press in Malta, I crave your Lordships' attention to the facts of the case for a moment. What is Malta? It is a fortress and a seaport-it is a great naval and military arsenal for our shipping and forces in the Mediterranean. We hold it by conquest, and by treaty after conquest. We hold it as an important port and nothing more. My Lords, if these are the facts, we might as well think of planting a free press on the fore deck of the admiral's flag-ship in the Mediterranean, or in the casernes of the batteries of Gibraltar, or in the camp of Sir John Colborne, in Canada, as of establishing it in Malta. A free press in Malta, in the Italian language, is an absurdity. Of the 100,000 individuals, who compose the population, three fourths at, east, speak nothing but the Mal

Of

tese dialect, and do not understand the Italian language. the 100,000 inhabitants threefourths can neither read nor write. For whom, then, is it? These gentlemen say, that unless the Government support it, a free press cannot exist of itself, and they suggest an expense of 8001. a year in its favour."

The Duke then proceeded to contend, that the only effect of establishing liberty of the press at Malta, would be to furnish Italian malcontents with the means of promulgating their insurrectionary doctrines with impunity. "I did hope," said his grace," that we should have been cured by this time of our propensity to excite insurrection in the other countries of Europe. I did think that we had received a sufficient lesson in these matters to last us for a long time, even for ever, in the results which have taken place through our interference in Portugal, Spain, Italy, aye, and in Canada too." In conclusion, the Duke stated, that he could come to but one opinion on the subject, namely, that the commission was framed for purposes of patronage, and nothing else, and that it was likely to lead to very mischievous consequences.

An association having been formed for the purpose of colonizing New Zealand, under certain grants of territory which had been obtained from the native authorities, an application for a parliamentary sanction to the undertak ing was made in the course of the session. The project, however, for some reason or other, excited a violent clamour in certain quarters, and was denounced by a powerful portion of the press in no measured terms. On the 20th of June,

Mr. F. Baring moved the second reading of a bill to establish a British colony in this part of the world.

Sir George Grey opposed the bill, and was followed by Sir R. Inglis, who contended, that we had no better right to colonize New Zealand, by an Act of Parliament, than to colonize France, The real point at issue, said the hon, Baronet, was, whether by a bill not brought in by government, any body of private gentlemen were to be at liberty, first, to purchase and exercise the rights of sovereignty in a foreign country, and then to frame laws, at their pleasure, for the country so acquired. New Zealand was an independent state, with which we had diplomatic relations, and whose flag we acknowledged.

Mr. Hawes complained of the conduct of government in opposing the measure which had been, at least at one time, countenanced by the Secretary at War, (Lord Howick), It had been said, that New Zealand being an independent state, we had no right to purchase the sovereignty of any part of it by treaty. Now, he saw nothing in that argument. And it seemed to him, that there could be no harm in passing a bill enabling a society to hold lands in France, or anywhere else, provided those lands were honestly obtained.

Mr. W. Gladstone remarked, that there was no evidence to shew that the chiefs of New Zealand had parted with any of their rights of sovereignty. No subject demanded more circumspection, on the part of the legislature, than this. There was no exception to the unvarying and melancholy story of colonization; whenever settlers

from a civilized nation came into contact with the aborigines of a barbarous country, the result was prejudicial to both parties.

On the other hand, Mr. Ward contended that, as Christian legislators, they ought not to delay interference for an instant in the transactions now taking place in the part of the world in question, The Europeans in New Zealand, a lawless and licentious horde, had entailed on that country all the evils of civilization, unattended by any of its benefits. Two thousand such persons, unrestrained by any control, were established there, and committed, with impunity, every kind of outrage. The object of the present bill was, to extend protection to all who should live within the range of its provisions.

The hon. gentleman then proceeded to say, that Lord Howick had given decided encouragement to the promoters of the scheme, and that the last persons who ought to oppose it, were the ministers. During the whole course of his public life, he had never seen so much vacillation and uncertainty of purpose, as had been displayed by Government towards the persons connected with this undertaking, whom he (Mr. Ward) himself, relying on the faith of government, had been a party in deluding.

Lord Howick expressed himself to be very much astonished at what had fallen from the last speaker. No statement of the views of the association had been made to him, but such as was of the vaguest character. All that the members of the government had said upon the subject was, they saw no primá facie objection to the colonization of New Zealand, but that, before consenting to any measure for the purpose, they would require to be

The bill was opposed by Sir Walter James and Mr. Goulburn, on grounds both general and particular. Lord Sandon also found great fault with certain of its provisions, and Mr. Pease said, that, although originally favourable to the colonization of the country, he could not, after perusing the bill, vote for its second reading. Mr. Hutt and Mr. P. Howard pointed out the advantages which would accrue to Great Britain from the measure. The bill was thrown out by a majority of 92 to 32.

An attempt was made this session to persuade the House of Commons to re-consider its decision

with respect to the site of the new houses of Parliament. Colonel Davies, on the 14th of June, made a motion for a select committee on the subject.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, contended, that, after such a lapse of time, the House was bound to look upon the question as closed. There was no longer room for discussion; money had already been voted, and the works had been actually, for a considerable time, in progress.

Upon this subject, it was remarked by Sir Henry Hardinge, that, as the foundation of the edifice would encroach very much on the river, it was indispensable that every precaution should be adopted for rendering it secure.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the House, that no apprehension need be entertained about the security of the foundation.

The House then divided on the motion for a committee, which was negatived by a majority of 97 to 33.