At all events it has a right to do so. The Colonial Trea surer, in a subsequent speech, had said, "that Auck land upon that occasion sold her birthright for a mess of pottage." It is not the first time I have heard that expression, and I resented it accordingly. I ask in what way did Auckland sell that birthright ? Does the honourable member allude to relief from the New Zealand Company's debt ? Why, in 1854, relief not only prospective, but past, was given by the House. The £45,000 she had paid was to be returned to her, and she was to be then free for the future. How came she to sell her birthright in 1856 ? I was one joEj oE those who voted for the financial policy of 1856. It is one of two votes which I have given in this House which I have now some doubt about, for a reason I will presently explain. Nevertheless, had I to give a vote over again, I should very likely give the same. I gave that vote not by a way of a bar gain. I never dreamt of a bargain. If I had treated it as a bargain, I would not have made such a bad bargain. The Northern Provinces are assumed to have surrendered their hold, under the Constitution Act, over an enormous estate for a paltry £200,000, the Company's debt to be taken by the South. I gave that vote upon principle, and upon nothing else; and upon principle I should very probably give the same vote again. My opinion has always been that it was a great blunder made in the Constitution Act to fuse the ordinary revenue and land revenue to gether. I was always of opinion that whatever might be taken out of the land should be put back in the land, by way of colonisation and of public works ; and not only should it go back iuto the par ticular province, but to the particular district from whence it *»as derived. 