THE OLD BAILEY ACQUITTAL.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 197, 13 December 1845, Page 164

THE OLD BAILEY ACQUITTAL.

[From the Times, June 21.] The whole of the facts and arguments that bear upon the New Zealand dispute are now before the public, and a review of them will bear out the opinions we have from time to time, both before the debate commenced and during its progress, felt called upon to express. We are confirmed in our view that, whilst the New Zealand Company is not exempt from blame, for having carried out settlers to a distant country before it had in its own hands the means of fulfilling the promises which it held out to induce them to emigrate, its failure to complete its engagements is to be attributed to the fact of its meeting with opposition instead of support from one who thinks far less of the consequences to others than of the pleasure of victory to himself, and far more of thwarting any one who dares to dispute his will than of helping those who were the sufferers from ttie quarrel. To lift the Colonial Secretary out of the difficulties in which, in order to involve others, he had involved himself, required the whole energy and aid of Government ; and Sir Robert Peel had to put forth more exertions for his rescue than were lately required to draw out of the mire the other gentleman who had deserted to him at the same time. By dint of making it a ministerial question, and by the addition of some promises of reparation, a majority of such an amount as will save Lord Stanley from the absolute necessity of imitating a well-behaved dog was obtained. But an escape by a vote which 26 could have turned the other way, and this when it was plainly admitted that it was a vote of censure on his colleagues as well as himself, is a warning which his lordship would do well to study. Even he can hardly " lay the nattering unction to his soul " that every one of the 223, to whom he now owes his place, esteems him personally for his amiable disposition, or approves his conduct with respect to New Zealand.

That there would necessarily be some difficulty in reconciling the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi with those entered into by Lord John Russell in the agreement which he made with the New Zealand Company nine months after the treaty, we do not think his lordship succeeded completely in disproving ; but that he took the best means in his power for that object we are ready gladly to admit, when we find him declaring that he " eagerly seized an opportunity offered by the honourable member for Dartmouth, of endeavouring to allay these differences, and by some practical measure to effect such an arrangement that the Government on the one hand and the Company on the other might both strive to benefit this country and New Zealand." Lord John Russell says he was under the impression that the agents of the New Zea* land Company had purchased large quantities of land from the natives; and the Company had doubtless done so, although noi with sufficient caution to exclude rival titles. The course of events and the subsequent, conduct of the Local Government, whicl was sure to be influenced by the knowledge which Captain Fitzßoy had of Lord Stanley's private sentiments, put these rival! titles at a premium, and impeded a settlement. If we concede that Lord Johr. Russell tied the knot, we can see thai; he had a desire to untie it. Lord Stanley , who could have cut it, had pleasure ir. tightening it. At length Governor Fitzßoy is recalled but Lord Stanley cannot even perform thin most necessary act without protesting thai: his nominee is in no way in fault on any oT the points at issue with the Company. ' In the course of the late debate Mr. Cardwell proclaims that it is unfair to charge Lord Stanley with the Governor's breach of agreement made to the Company ; and Sir James Graham " claims on the part of the Government the benefit of his recal; which has distinctly rested on the allegation that he has disobeyed his instructions." Sir James expressly says that Captain Fitzßoy was ordered to carry into execution the contract of 1543, and to put the Company into possession of the land awarded by Mr. Pennington. This has never yet been done; and it is impossible for the Government to deny that the fault here rests on its shouljders. By ordering Captain Fitzßoy tb fulfil this contract the Government admits its liability ; it cannot excuse its non-per-formance by the neglect of its own servant . Indeed, the Government now at last agrees to execute it ; but it does so by the mouth of Sir Robert Peel, not by Lord Stanley's ; the leading counsel has been obliged to tak s the conduct of the case out of his junior's mismanaging hands ! The phraseology c f the Prime Minister in this particular is remarkably significant: he says not, " Lord Stanley will do so and so ;" he says "we " shall order this, and " we " shall direct that. j Amongst other things which "we" are to do (and the act of the Government is the act of the country so far as its new colony is concerned) is, the taxing of the wastje lands till we get them. How does this differ from taking? Only in its indirectness ; just as a big boy bullies a little one till he gives him his knife, or whatever it may be which the tyrant covets, and does not choose plainly to rob him of. We are further to extend the advantages of the connexion by restoring that concomitant blessing of civilization — taxation. Governor Fitz ßoy's abolition of duties is repudiated, and all the credit which his friend and advocate, Captain Rous, asked for him on the score of his financial wisdom, is demolished by Sir James Graham, who assigns his error in this respect as one of the principal reasons for his recal, his issue of inconvertible paper being another. On the whole, we are constrained to confess that, had there been the desire, there seems to have been the power to have reconciled the treaty and the agreement, the natives and the settlers. Of this opinion has been a Committee, of which a majority were from Lord Stanley's party. A body of leading London merchants, — in other words, of the foremost men of business in the world, of all political parties, have pronounced that" the New Zealand colonists have been exposed to hardships and difficulties in consequence of the policy of the Colonial Office and the local authorities, which call for prompt interference and ledress." After such a double condemnatic n, the escape by a narrow majority, reluctant and constrained as it was, is but an Cld Bailey acquittal.