PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 185, 20 September 1845, Page 115

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 18. NEW ZEALAND. Mr. C. Buller agreed to postpone, until after Easter, his motion for papers respecting an incon- 1 Terrible paper currency in the Falkland Islands and New Zealand, in order to make way for Mr. Hope's explanation ; other members also deferring j motions of which they had given notice.

Mr. Hops began by saying that he should limit himself to the charge against Lord Stanley ; and, making some apologetic allusion to the warmth with which he bad spoken before, he expressed his belief that the accusation against Lord Stanley, of producing one set of instructions to the Company and giving another secret set to Governor Fitzßoy, was made in error. He was obliged, in order to avoid impracticable length of detail, to assume some knowledge of the matter on the part of the house. Mr. Hope then recounted the proposals made by the Company to Lord Stanley in May, 1843 — that they should take £50,000 worth of land at Auckland in lieu of 50,000 acres elsewhere ; that a judge should be appointed to the settlements on Cook's Straits ; that the agents of the Government should aid in procuring a settlement of land titles for the New Zealand Company; and that the Company should be allowed a " conditional grant " of the lands selected within certain limits,

subject to being impugned by prior claims. He did not hesitate to say that Lord Stanley accepted these proposals. The correspondence was transmitted to Mr. Shortland, the Acting- Governor, with instructions to expedite the grant of land at Auck,land; the other points being reserved for the newlyappointed Governor. Captain Fitzßoy expressed doubts as to the agreement about the land. The arrangement was then incomplete, and Lord Stanley necessarily answered him in confidence ; setting his misapprehensions right, and referring him on each point of doubt to the correspondence enclosed to the Acting-Governor. The correspondence was therefore marked "confidential;" but when the documents were given to the New Zealand Company for publication, that word was struck out. Mr. C. Buller rose with reluctance to answer the statement made by Mr. Hope ; for it had never been his inclination or his practice to indulge in personal aspersion. He first referred to an expression of his in a debate last week, which had given pain to the friends of Captain Fitzßoy ; and he sincerely apologised for it. He then took some pains to show in what way the charge implicating Lord Stanley now came before the house. He was not standing there for the purpose of asking the house to pass a vote of censure on the conduct of the noble lord the Secretary for the Colonies. What he stood there for was, to justify the conduct of the New Zealand Company, and to prove, by the statements and by the correspondence before the country, that a substantial wrong had been done to the New Zealand Company by the noble lord. The New Zealand Company had made a report to their proprietors a whole year ago containing the statement which had given rise to the present discussion. The noble lord was then a member of the house ; and, if he had chosen, he might have brought the question forward long ago. The Twelfth Report of the New Zealand Company Directors, setting forth the charge, in April last, had been laid before a committee of the house. Lord Stanley had sent in a formal answer. The committee very wisely refrained from meddling with the personal dispute; and Lord Stanley's representatives in the committee took no steps there in relation it. Mr. Buller only referred to this matter to prove that the New Zealand Company had all along publicly charged the noble lord; and they were now prepared to abide by the truth of their accusations. There certainly was some language of a heated character used on a former occasion with reference to this part of the question ; but that had been far from the intention of those who brought it forward. The speech of his honourable friend near him was not of that character. Neither did he (Mr. Buller) nor the house at large give occasion for such feeling. It was created by the right honourable baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) reading a letter supposed to make out some inconsistency on the part of the New Zealand Company in their opinion of Governor Fitzßoy ; which was met by an exclamation that the Company had been deceived, being in ignorance of Governor Fitzßoy's secret instructions. It was therefore not his fault that the subject had been brought before the house in its present form : at the same time, he must express his satisfaction that the Under- Secretary for the Colonies had done so, as he trusted the effect of that evening's debate would be to remove all personal grounds from the ulterior consideration of the main question. Mr. Buller then entered into a very detailed counter-explanation; tracing the whole negotiation with Government, from Lord John Russell's agreement with Lord Stanley's interpretation of it, to the last compromise between Lord Stanley and the Company. The draught of the proposals suggested by the Company was corrected by Lord Stanley, and constituted in fact the joint proposals of the Company and the Government. In a subsequent letter, Mr. Hope himself referred to it as " the agreement of the Bth of May last." Early in June, Mr. Buller went to the Colonial Office to ascertain the instructions issued to the Governor of New Zealand in pursuance of that agreement ; and he was shown a letter to Mr. Shortland, the Acting-Governor; which was, of course, presumed to be the instruction to every Governor until it were revoked. But the second instructions, given to Captain Fitzßoy on the 26th June, 1843, were materially different; and Mr. Buller minutely explained the points ot difference. Captain Fitzßoy understood that in carrying out the second arrangement he was to act under the Government interpretation of the old agreement ; and the Company were not informed at the time of that most fatal misconception on the part of the Governor. The practical effect was, that the conditional title, stipulated to be given in 1843, had never been granted to this hour. That showed Captain Fitzßoy's understanding of Lord Stanley's meaning and wishes. The difficulty arose from a breach, on the part of the Government, of one of the most common rules which obtain between man and man on matters of agreement, namely, that when an arrangement is made between two parties, and to executed by a third person, neither of the parties should offer any comment to such third person as to the execution of that arrangement. Mr. Buller concluded by moving, as an amendment, for the production of all correspondence between the Governor of New Zealand and Lord Stanley.

Mr. Hops deprecated the production of the most recent correspondence, as unfair to Captain Fitzßoy. He charged Mr. Buller with omitting the difficulty which stood in Lord Stanley's way in granting a new title to the lands claimed by the New Zealand Company, the claims of the natives, which could not be overlooked, and which had been guaranteed by the treaty of Waitangi. As to the land at Auckland, it was understood Government were to receive value in return for that grant.

Several other members joined in the debate, but without much advancing the question before the house.

Colonel ßicsTßKVOßacknowledged the courtesy of Mr. Buller's expression of regret in regard to what he had said of Captain Fitzßoy, painful to his relations.

Mr. Shibl said, nothing has been uttered in relation to Captain Fitzßoy in this debate tending to affect his reputation. He appears to me, after perusing the papers laid on the table of the house, to be a most appropriate representative of the Colonial Office [laughter]. It l.as been justly observed, that my honourable friend the member for Liskeard has said nothing of Lord Stanley's intentions. Of his intention* the noble lord has the

best, and almost the only cognizance; but it must be remembered that with good intentions a consummate unfitness for government may be combined. This case lies within a very narrow compass. The first document to which I shall call the attention of the hou3e, is an extract from a letter of Lord John Russell, dated May 20, 1841. He says " the Company are entitled to receive 531,929 acres of land at present, and they are hereafter entitled to receive 400,000 or 500,000 acres more." The house will observe that, in this letter, it is distinctly stated that the Company had a title to a certain quantity of land. That title to a certain quantity of land being admitted, the chairman of the New Zealand Company addressed a letter to Lord Stanley, of the Bth of May, 1843, making certain proposals to Lord Stanley, and among the rest, proposing " that credit be given to the Company for 30,000 acres of land, in consideration of their abandoning their claims to 50,000 acres out of the quantity to which they were already entitled." Lord Stanley, in reply, agreed to the proposal by a letter of May the 12th. This was a complete and perfect agreement; not on assumpsit as it was called a few evenings since, when practice exceedingly sharp was defended by pleading excessively special [laugh]. On the 15th of June, 1843, Captain Fitzßoy, the Governor of New Zealand, who was to carry the agreement of both parties into effect, writes to Lord Stanley, and says, that doubts have been raised regarding the meaning of the contract. Was it not Lord Stanley's obvious duty to communicate those doubts to the Company, and to construe the contract in their presence, and with their cognizance [loud cries of "hear"] ? There were two parties to the agreement, which Captain Fitzßoy was to carry into effect on behalf of both. Why should one of the parties not inform the other of the interpretation to be put on the contract, and on which the agent of both was to act [loud cries of " hear "] ? But Lord Stanley, not contented with not consulting the Company, gives an interpretation of his own, and then attaches the word "confidential" to his instructions. Confidential ! That is a word of great significance and potency. It comes to this — that a clandestine, a surreptitious interpretation was put on a public contract entered into by the Government and the New Zealand Company, of which the New Zealand Company were not npprised. Is this fair and open and upright dealing? Had not the Company a right to know what Lord Stanley was about, and the construction he had put upon the compact ? For several months the Company were kept in the dark regarding these secret instructions ; and when at length they were conjectured to have existence, and called for by the Company, what course does Lord Stanley take ? He sends a copy of the instructions, and erases the word "confidential." This erasure is most remarkable. The word was originally written on the copy sent to the Company, as I am informed by the honourable member for Cockermouth, but it was erased with a studious, but most unhappy care, a deliberate, but most infelicitous solitude. The fact of secrecy was a most important incident in the case. The backstairs character of the business was most characteristic and most essential ; yet Lord Stanley kept back that portion of the leading circumstances of the case and erased — erasures are always suspicious — a word, of all other the most illustrative of his proceedings [hear, hear]. Even supposing that Lord Stanley's interpretation was the right one, still this mode of proceeding was most censurable ; but in point of fact Lord Stanley's instructions were a clear departure from the agreement. The agreement took the burden of proof of title off the shoulders of the Company ; the instructions put that burden upon them [loud cheers]. The instructions invested the order of proof in the Court of Claims, making the Company claimants and not defendants [hear, hear]. Thus the position of the Company was wholly changed with regard to the 50,000 acres to which they were to "relinquish their claims." But Lord Stanley, instead of being satisfied with a relinquishment of claim, required a proof of title, a clear deviation from the contract. But the Under- Secretary for the Colonies tells us, that the Company relieved Lord Stanley from all imputation by their letter of the 29 th of February, 1844. I was astonished at his saying this, for if he had read a little further he would have found that they complain bitterly that Lord Stanley had given a different construction to the agreement, and from that on which they insisted [loud cries of " hear, hear "]. Mr. Hope : Read on. Mr. Shibl : I will. Why did not you read on [hear, hear] ? Did you read it before you came down to the house ? Why is there this hiatus valde deflendus T [hear, hear]. What comes next ? " We hope that no practical evil will result from this misunderstanding" [hear, hear]. I will read on. " But it is not the less fatal to our utility that there should be any possibility of their occurring. It is alike destructive of our energy and prejudicial to the policy of the Government, that in the infancy of a colony we should carry on the all-im-portant work of providing it with inhabitants, without concerting beforehand everything that relates not only to the carrying out of the emigrants, but to the policy to be adopted towards them after their establishment in their new homes*' [hear]. Sir, the rest of the passage relates to the state of the colony — a question into which I will not enter; but I cannot refrain from observing, that in one particular the New Zealanders have made great progress in civilization, for I find among the papers published by the Government an account of a most interesting meeting of chiefs, one of whom, Napera, says to the representative of Lord Stanley, " Speak your words openly ; speak as you mean to act : do not say one thing and mean another" [laughter]. These are words in which so admirable an injunction is contained, that it ought to be written in characters of gold in the Colonial Office [laughter and cheers].

Sir F. Tbbsigkr (the Solicitor- General) went over Mr. Hope's ground, with a lawyer's advocacy, many blunders of detail, and an attack on the Company for not having urged the charge sooner.

Captain Rous attacked the Company for mistaking the "genius" of the New Zealanders: he had been at New Zealand, and could tell all about it.

The disinterested and high motives of the Com* pany were advocated by Viscount Ingbstre, and other members connected with it.

Mr. Aglionby commented strongly on the strange fact, that not only was the correspondence of June 15th and 26th, between Captain Fitzßoy and Lord

Stanley, kept secret, but when it was produced, the word " confidential " was erased, so minutely that at first he could not discover it. That he had tilways considered as a strong aggravation of the case ; for it appeared to him then, at now, that it I indicated a deliberate intention to keep the fact from the Company. >f**^-**? . n^g Sir R. Pskl expressed his belief that Lord Stanley would be acquitted by the house of an intention to deceive, or of any actual deception ; and he attacked the Company because they spoke with contempt of the treaty of Waitangi, as a treaty made with "naked savages," and a fiction. In the course of his speech Sir R. Peel was subjected to a series of interruptions in correction of his statements. He remarked, that of eight members on the front Opposition benches, seven were members of the New Zealand Company. Mr. Mangles rejoined, that the bench opposite to him was chiefly occupied by members of the Government. Sir R. Pbbl represented Mr. Aglionby to have said that he should have spoken with mose free* dom if Lord Stanley had been present. Mr. Aglionby never said so : what he said was, that he spoke with the feeling which generous minds feel towards the absent. Sir R. Peel : Just so. But the whole o&Ust session Lord Stanley was present, and the cqlrge was not made. Why was it not referred fl in moving for the Select Committee ? Mr. Htjtt replied, that it was expressly agreed with Lord Stanley that the moving of the committee should pass without discussion. Sir R. Peel observed, the Company now said that so gross a breach of faith was committed by his noble friend, that if they had. been aware of it they would have refused to hold any personal communication with the noble lord. Mr. Aglionby explained, that it was not the Company that said so : he had said, for himself individually, that he would hold no communication with Lord Stanley to discuss any matters which required plain dealing' or good faith. Mr. C. Buller reproached the Premier with having departed from the understanding at the beginning of the debate, in order to attack the Company. Sir R. Peel said he felt justified in doing so, in order to show that there were reasons why Lord Stanley should use the expression that the Governor should aid the objects and claims of the Company "as far as was consistent with the interests of other parties and with those of the community at large.*' Mr. Monckton Milnes rose merely to repeat a sentiment, and that not his own, which appeared to him to be particularly applicable. It was an extract from a lecture on Political Economy, delivered by Professor Merivale to the University of Oxford, speaking of the Company: — "Never in the history of civilized man has there occurred a commercial undertaking in which the love of gain has been so completely subordinated to every higher faculty ; never has there been in England any commercial undertaking whatever so continually guided by the highest laws of justice and humanity" [cheers]. The motion for papers was agreed to.