Thursday, June 19.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 197, 13 December 1845, Page 163

Thursday, June 19.

The adjourned debate on New Zealand was resumed by Mr. E. Ellice, who declared that, in his opinion, the Government of a former day had acted unwisely in allowing the first batch of emigrants to sail to New Zealand under the auspices of the New Zealand Company without the license of the Crown ; and that the New Zealand Company had acted with equal, if not greater, impropriety in sending them out without ascertaining the status in which they would be considered by the Crown upon arriving there. He also did not conceal his opinion that in the main the New Zealand Company had conducted themselves with sound discretion in all their relations to their settlers from the time in which they had arrived in that colony. On the other hand, it appeared to him that everything had been done by the Colonial Office that it was possible for any Government to do to mar the rising prosperity of that new colcny. He would not, however, waste time by considering further the occurrences of the past, as his object was to ascertain what the Government intended to do with respect to this colony in future. First of all he wished to know what construction the Government intended to put upon the treaty of Waitangi — a matter most important to the future prosperity of New Zealand. Next he wished to know whether they intended to govern it as a penal colony ; and, if not, what were to be its future institutions i Was it to be governed in the Colonial Office by means of such instruments as Captain Fitzßoy? Not that he meant to join in the cry which had been raised against Captain Fitzßoy. He thought that Captain Fitzßoy's policy was wrong, and inconsistent with that which the country expected to proceed from a gentleman who had been a member of that house ; but he made every allowance for the difficulties of Captain Fitzßoy's position, all of which were not of his own creation. He likewise wished to know how the Government proposed to deal with the New Zealand Company ? Mr. Barkly proposed that the Government should purchase up the interests of that Company. He could not concur in that proposition — first, because it would cost a great deal of money ; and, secondly, because he did not see who were to take the place of the Company in regulating emigration to New Zealand, supposing that it should disappear from the scene. He thought that the New Zealand Company had been of inestimable value in regulating that emigration ; hut at any rate it had a right to know what the Government intended to do with it. He also called upon the Government to give the House some information as to the future expense of this colony. The Government was now sending a regiment there. Why, then, the Ordnance Department must step in — ban neks, commissariats, public works, would be wanted for the troops. His opinion was, that from that day henceforwards the establishment for the colony of New Zealand would cost this country £100,000 ayear. For some time past he had been at a loss to discover the authority under which taxes had been levied in New Zealand. At present it was governed as a dependency of New South Wales. But there was a grave question whether it was a dependency of that colony. Many thought that it had been made an independent colony when Captain Hobson was sent out as its independent Governor. If it were not at this lime an independent colony, did Government intend to bring tn a bill to constitute it one ? If such were the

intentions of the Government, then came another question — how were they to establish a representative council within it ? If this colony should flourish and become populous, it would not be sufficient to send out one regiment, the Government would he compelled to send more, for your settlers would not submit in patience to the absolute despotism of the Colonial Office, nor wa< he clear that he should recommend them to do so. He was told that already insubordination had displayed itself among them ; and the only mode of remedying it was by giving them soma degree of selfgovernment. Again, the Government was eoinsr. to establish in New Zealand a great agricultural colony. It was, therefore, important to consider what the Government intended to do with respect to the title to land within it. Did they mean to establish in that colony all the complicated system of English law on the tenure of land ? Did they mean to establish the law of primogeniture with all its various accidents ? or did they mean to make land a mere chattel property ? If they did not resort to some such change, scenes of great confusion would soon take place in this new colony. He hoped that the House would receive from some member of the Cabinet an answer to some of the questions he had just put; for if the administration of this colony should be left entirely to the Colonial Office, continual complaints of its misgovernment would be forwarded to that House year after year, and grant after grant would be demanded for the support of the forces necessary to keep it in subordination. He doubted whether ' the present difficulties of the colony would have been brought upon it if the agents of the Colonial Office had acted with temper, discretion, and moderation. He thought that Lord Stanley would have acted with greater wisdom if he hud made use of the New Zealand Company for the administration of the islunds, instead of making war upon it. He should certainly vote for going into committee upon Mr. C. Buller's resolutions, more from a sense of justice to the unhappy victims of the poliry which had been pursued iv New Zealand, than from any hope of remedying their past grievances. It was impossible that we should go on further at haphazard with respect to this colony. The New Zealand Company was ruined — their settlers were exposed to the insults and outrages of the natives, and their capital was exhausted by the misgovernment to which they had been subjected. They had a right to appeal to the House of Commons for some remedy; and he called upon both sides of the House, without wasting more time in criminations and recriminations, to enter at once into the grave consideration of that appeal. Mr. Caudwell declared his intention to vote against the motion of Mr. C. Buller. Though he could not acquiesce in the opinion of Mr. E'lice, that it would be a waste of time to enter into a defence of the conduct of the Colonial Department, or into an investigation of the conduct of their assailants, he agreed with him in believing 1 that the rights of our fellow-countrymen in New Zealand, and of the aborigines, were the real subjects of interest in this debate ; and he should therefore endeavour to confine his observations to those topics. Mr. Ellice wished the House to direct its attention to nothing else than the future government of this colony ; but he (Mr. Cardwell) could not understand how the House could consider the future without directing its attention to the history of the past, and to the condition of the present. All the difficulties in which the colony of New Zealand had been involved had arisen from the non-settlement of the land question. At present all the claims to land were settled or were in a course of amicable settlement, with one exception. That claim stood on different grounds from all the rest ; for whilst other settlers only claimed a confirmatory title from the Crown, the New Zealand Company claimed an unconditional grant of land founded on an agreement made with the British Government in November, 1840. He then entered into a deep argument for the purpose of proving that the view taken of that agreement, first by the Select Committee of last session, and subsequently by Mr. C. Buller, was erroneous. He next replied seriatim to the arguments advanced by Lord Howick in his speech of the preceding night, and insisted that those that contended that Lord Stttt ley had put a wrong construction upon that agreement, were guilty of a flagrant wrong and of a gross injustice towards his lordship. That construction was dictated by an overwhelming sense of duty and by the inflexible d> mnnds of justice, and not by anything like official jealousy or petty resentment, as Mr. Buller had represented. He likewise showed that Lord Stanley had neither repudiated Lord John Russell's engagement nor broken his own ; but that he had in every instance been actuated by a conscientious desire to discharge his public duty, without either partiality or prejudice for the natives on the. one s:de, or for the British settlers or the new Zealand Company on the other. He maintained that in justice the house could not assent to Mr. C. Buller's resolutions, and that, even if it could, it would be injudicious to do so, as even Lord Howiek, who had drawn them up, had declared them to require modification from the lapse of time, and as Mr. M. Milnes had denounced several of them as incompatible with the existing circumstances of New Zealand. Mr. Mangles confined > himself to a single branch of the subject. He discussed the policy of the Church Missionary Society and of the Colonial Department with respect to the aborigines of the country, and the effects of that policy on the interests of Great Britain and on the welfare and prosperity of the British settler.-. He entered into a long statement for the purpose of proving that the Church missionaries had been the cause of all the mischief which had occurred in the colony of New Zealand, and called upon the Government of this country to discountenance their policy notr and for ever. He also found fault with the Government for having indulged the whims, and for having truckled to the violence, of the natives ; and contended that it would be compelled to apply severe correctional discipline to them before long, when they had burnt a few more British houses, and massacred a few more British subjects. The want of resolution and energy displayed by Governors Hobson, Shortland, and Fil2Roy, in their intercourse with the natives, was incomprehensible. He wondered how long British rule would continue in India, if the civil and military functions of the East India Company were to submit for an hour

to such premeditated acts of defiance and rebellion as had been openly committed, not once, but repeatedly, by the chieftains of New Zealand ? Fortunately, our policy in India presented a remarkable contrast to our policy in New Zealand ; and it would have been well if the determination exhibited by Sir C. Metcalfe, in hanging up in the midst of a Mussulman population not only the . actual assassin of Mr. Fraser, but also the native Prince who had paid for his assassination, had been exhibited by the British Governor of New Zealand in dealing with the authors of the massacre of Wairau. Mr. Colciuhoun observed, that the argument of Mr. Hope, on the first night of this debate was a perfect demonstration that Lord John Russell had put the same construction on the treaty of Waitangi, and on the agreement of November, 1840, as had been put upon them by Lord Stanley; but it was insufficient to prove that the condition of New Zealand was so favourable and so nattering that it did not require the notice or interposition of Parliament. On the contrary, it appeared to be so full of danger that Parliament was imperiously bound to consider whether it could not find a remedy for it. He looked upon it as a proof of the inefficiency of our system of colonial government, and called upon the house to consider whether it could not devise an advantageous reform for it. He lamented the form in which Mr. C. Buller had worded his motion, but thought that the treaty of Waitangi, even though it were unwise, ought to be religiously observed. If the natives were strong, they would compel us, and if they were weak, our own sense of justice ought to induce us, to adhere to it. If the house confirmed any such propositions as those which Mr. C. Bulier had brought forward with regard to a population which he dsecribed as savage and cannibal, and others as warlike and intelligent, and if the Government seized upon the lands of that population on a principle of policy which Mr. C. Buller had ably expounded, and which Sir R. Inglis had still more ably refuted, it would strike a blow against English colonisation and English honour more severe and violent than any which had been previously inflicted upon them. He called upon the Government, in conclusion, to cease to defend the past, and to declare how they intended to change and modify tbe future. Mr. Sheil pointed out the injustice of Lord Stanley's conduct in not carrying out the engagement made by Lord J. Russell in 1840 with the New Zealand Company. It had never been disputed that that Company had made a large outlay of money in consequence of that agreement; and yet, owing to the interference of Lord Stanley, who put upon that agreement a sense which Lord J. Russell had publicly repudiated, it had never yet received a single acre in return. That was "a great fact," which no sophistry could elude. He then analyzed the constitution of the committee of last session which inquired into this subject, and which, he contended, was most favourable to Lord Stanley. It consisted of ten Conservatives and five Whigs, and yet it came to a report strongly inculpating that noble lord. Lord Stanley had stated that the report of that committee was not unanimous. and that it had been carried by narrow majorities. In those majorities were to be found the names of Mr. Milnes, Mr. Charteris, Lord Jocelyn, and Lord F. Egerton. all supporters of her Majesty's Government; and so strong was the conviction of the last nobleman, that he absolutely moved an amendment on the report *till more condemnatory of Lord Stanley even than the report itself. The committee's report producd no effect upon the mind of Lord Stanley, although it did on the mind of the public. When it was found that the Government would not act on the report of a committee of its own nomination, the great merchants of London assembled and agreed to a petition, which was also denunciatory of the conduct of his lordship, and which called upon Parliament for immediate redress of the injuries sustained by the settlers in New Zealand. That petition was presented by John Masterman, was signed by George Lyall and John Pattison, and would be supported by Lord J. Russell. Here was another "great fact;" the bankers, the traders, the great merchants of the capital of the empire and of the metropolis of the commercial world, denounced the conduct of her Majesty's Government. What would be their answer to it? Would they tell the house that their policy had been successful ? They could not, for the colony was on the verge of ruin, its treasury was bankrupt, its trade and agriculture had been stopped, the settler had been converted into an exils, and was now trembling for the safety of his family from the lawlessness of the savage, which the timidity of the Government had nourished into ferocity. As Lord Howick told them last evening, the blood of Englishmen profusely shed cried out against their policy; and he, therefore, trusted that the decision of the house would be such as would prevent the interests of New Zealand .from being administered in future in splenic autboritativeness and in fractious sophisticat|ea« Sir J. Graham concurred with Lord Howick in tracing the difficulties of the present state of affairs in New Zealand to two causes—the first, the contentions which had arisen as to the proprietary rights of land; and the second, the absence of all control over the lawless spirits now in that island. He then entered into a narrative of some length, to show that the contentions to which he had alluded arose out of the binding efficacy of the treaty of Waitangi, and its contrariety with the compact made between Lord J. Russell and the New Zealand Company. He justified the conduct of Lord Stanley at great length in the whole of these transactions, ard observed that though he did not wish to inculpate Captain Fitzßoy in order to exculpate the Government, he must mention the circumstances in which that officer had dis-

obeyed the instructions of Lord Stanley in order i to justify his recal. He readily admitted that i great allowances ought to be made for the dif- i ficulties of Captain Fitz ßoy's position, but still 1 he thought that it was impossible to overlook ' the disobedience of orders of which be had been I guilty, in issuing an inconvertible paper currency, in refusing to incorporate into a militia the settlers and such natives as they could place reliance on, and in repealing all the customs' duties of the island. Mr. Sheil had commented on several divisions which, had taken place in the committee of last year, and had concluded that they turned on points impugning the conduct of Lord Stanley. They were on two resolutions—the one impugning the conduct of all previous Governments, and the other the Local Government of New Zealand. In reply to Mr. Ellice'B question as to the construction Government intended to place on the treaty of Waitangi, he observed that by that treaty the Queen was entitled to all the rights of sovereignty in New Zealand consistent with her engagements to its inhabitants, which were that they should be protected in their lands and possessions so long as they wished to retain them, and that they should enjoy all the rights and privileges of British subjects. He thought that treaty ought to be religiously observed. What Government intended to do with respect to land in that colony was this, — within a time, to be limited, to call on all persons, whether natives or settlers, to come in and prove and register their titles, and at the expiration of that time the right of the sovereignty of the Crown to all unregistered lands would accrue. After the registration it would be open to the Local Government to place a small tax on all waste lands to which a title had been made out, and in this manner he thought that the Crown would become possessed of a large portion of unoccupied land. With respect to the New Zealand Company, instructions would be sent out to put them in possession of land within the limits assigned to them ; and in pursuance of the arrangement of 1843, they would receive it on a primd facie title, liable to be upset when a better title was produced. He admitted that the present state of affairs in New Zealand required to be met by an increase of force there. To the question, what institutions were to be given to New Zealand, be replied that it was the wish of her Majesty's Government to give municipal institutions to all the settlements of the New Zealand Company. The plan of giving to the island a representative government was full of difficulty, for it was premature to admit the natives, and dangerous to exclude them. As to the law of succession to land and the law of primogeniture, he replied that, as a principle of law, British emigrants carried with them British law to whatever colony they went, and that any departure from that principle was an exception from our general system. He then recapitulated the difficulties with which Lord Stanley had had to contend in the management of New Zealand. If he had erred, and he did not admit that he had, he had done so from the humane and generous motive of maintaining the interests of the unprotected natives. The proposition then made to the house was to condemn the policy of Lord .Stanley, and to pass a censure on his " splenetic autboritativeness and his official sophistication." Such a proposition Ministers considered a censure upon themselves ; and as they felt that they did not deserve it, they entertained the strongest confidence that the justice of the house would protect them from it. Lord J. Russell had entertained a hope on the opening of this debate that the time had at last arrived when the difficulties of this young colony and the means of rescuing it from them would be considered ; but that hope was disappointed; for Mr. Cardwell and Sir J. Graham had both involved the question in party and political considerations, by declaring that if Lord Stanley was now in a position of some difficulty, it was owing to the mistakes of his predecessors. As the blame of the whole of these transactions was thus thrown upon him, he gave a detailed history of his connexion with the New Zealand Company, and of the proceedings which terminated in the treaty of Waitangi. He showed that the engagements of that treaty, and the engagement which he had made in November, 1840, with the New Zealand Company, were not incompatible with each other, and in confirmation of his own opinion quoted that of the select committee of last session. His advice to the Government was — " Execute your treaty both in spirit and in letter — don't injure the aborigines, but, on the other hand, don't break faith with the New Zealand Company." He then entered into an examination of the conduct of the Local Government of New Zealand, and contended that though it might not have erred in intention, it bad erred gravely in judgment. He showed that from the improper indulgence with which the natives had been treated with respect to their titles to land, and to the abolition of customs' duties, they had been encouraged to form a deliberate design to abandon our sovereignty. It, therefore, became necessary that the Government should tell the country what they intended to do. It was its duty to j see that a colony, in which there were 14,000 British-born subjects and 100,000 natives, should not be endangered by the mal-adminis-tration of any person at the head of the Colonial Department. He then animadverted on the plan of Government which had been openedjiy Sir J. Graham. His singular scheme for placing a local tax on wild lands wou'd not give satisfaction, as it was already known that the nonpayment of that tax was to be a ground of confiscation. The fears of insurrection in New Zealand had been ridiculed, as weak and visionary; but he had no hesitation in saying, that a real insurrection would, in all probability, follow such madnesß and such injustice. His opinion, formed upon recent events, now was, that Ministers ought to take means for intro-

ducing, within a year or eighteen months, at most, from this time, a representative Government into New Zealand. He expressed his readiness to go into a committee on this subject with Mr. C. Buller. If the house entered into that investigation, it would console itself, within a very few days, with this reflection — that although it was engaged in a task that was unpalatable to the Government of the day, it was laying the foundation of a great colony, perhaps of a great empire, which would extend English institutions, English love of liberty, and the English name and language in the most distant parts of another hemisphere. Sir R. Peel, after some observations on the importance of the present question, and of the colony recently established in New Zealand, proceeded to remark that the real question at issue was whether the house would leave the care of that colony in thehandfi of the Executive Government, or take it into its own especial direction. The house was now in possession of the intentions of Ministers with respect to the future Government of New Zealand, and was therefore capable of judging whether those intentions were worthy of support or not. Repre-; sentative government was, in his opinion, suited? to the colony of New Zealand. The colony w as* not a penal colony, and therefore the objections) which existed to such an institution in New< South Wales at an early period of its history! did not exist in New Zealand. He did not, however, think that it would be wise to establish a representative system there in connexion with a proprietary company here, as it would have a tendency to render the government of the colony more complicated than even it was at present. He considered that it would be most important to maintain the New Zealand Company in its present powers. He thought that it might be made an useful instrument in the administration of New Zealand, not interfering in affairs of State, but aiding the Government as a great commercial company in regulating and promoting emigration. He then proceeded to oppose the motion, on the ground that it affixed, and was intended to affix, a censure on Lord Stanley, and entered largely into the land question, defending the proceedings of Lord Stanley upon it from the commencement to their close. If, under such circumstances, they passed a vote of censure, they would pass it upon one who had not yielded to the influence of a powerful party which had many supporters on both sides of the house, but who considered that the regard due to the honour and good faith of his country compelled him to maintain a national engagement, which controlled the avidity of the powerful and the strong, and guaranteed the rights of the weak and unprotected. Mr. C. Buller made a concise and cutting reply to the arguments of Her Majesty's Ministers, which he designated as a singular specimen of shabby and miserable shuffling, and as Pennsylvanian repudiation, without its openness and boldness. Ministers had given no guarantee to the house that the past misgovernment of New Zealand would not be renewed ; for, instead of giving the settlers a representative system, they fobbed them off with municipal institutions. The House then divided, when the numbers were — For the committee . . 172 Against it . . . . 223 Majority against it . 51