HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, April 11.

New Zealander, Volume XVII, Issue 1587, 3 July 1861, Page 3

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Thursday, April 11.

[From the “ Tines." New Zealand. Sir ,T. TRELAWNY rose to call attention to the state of affairs in the North Island of New Zealand. Having referred to the circumstances of the dispute between the Ngatiawn and the Waikato tribes as to the ownership of the land on the Waitara river, and the offer by Teira to sell a portion of the hind to the Government, though by the law of the tribe he had no right to sell, the lion, baronet said that the papers laid before the House contained evidence to show that great injustice had been done to the aborigines. They complained bitterly that, while we professed to have given them the rights of British citizens, we had failed to discharge towards them many of the duties of Government, but allowed murderous conflicts to be carried on among them without check. The colonists were anxious to get more land, though they had already what seemed to be quite enough for their purposes, and, from the papers, it would appear that the Government out there were acting under pressure; but when William King refused to allow the land to be sold the proper course would have been to refer the matter home to the Colonial Secretary to see whether or not he approved of land being taken under such circumstances. Some years ago he had protested against guaranteeing a loan, and now he found they were also required to pay a heavy bill for a war which had arisen out of a gross blunder and a gross injustice. There could bo no better opportunity than on going into Committee of Supply, for asking the House to hesitate before endorsing the conduct of the Government, and he should therefore move, “That while this House is prepared to contribute all the aid in its power to the Executive in putting down rebellion in Her Majesty’s colony of New Zealand, they rejoice to hear that the difficult and complicated questions arising out of the Treaty of Waitangi are to be referred to a Special Court for inquiry immediately on the reassertion ofthc (Queen’s authority.” Mr. FORTESCUE said the hou, gentleman had merely given notice of his intention to call the attention of the House to this subject, and had not intimated to the Government the terms or the nature of the proposition with which he had concluded his speech. The hon. baronet had taken for granted all the points at issue. It was not proved but the hon. baronet had assumed that the Government of New Zealand had committed a gross blunder and gross injustice. Any one who read the blue books in a candid spirit would come to a different conclusion. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet represented a very small party in New Zealand who had strongly objected to the proceedings of the Government. But the result of discussion by a free Parliament and a free press in the colony itself had been to approve the policy of the Government by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of the Legislature, and, he believed, by majority of the missionary body, a portion of whom hud very zealously advocated the cause ofthc native chiefs. A verc powerful portion of the clergy of the Church of England warmly advocated the cause of the chief William King, and they did so beyond the bounds of moderation, and with a zeal which blinded them to the true merits of the case, and made them unjust to their countrymen. There were many clergymen who did not concur ,in these views, and the missionaries of the Wesleyan, and of every other denomination, including those resident on the spot where the disturbances —« which no one regretted more than Her Majesty’s Government—had taken place, gave a hearty support to the policy of the New Zealand Government. Such had been the result of discussions in New Zealand itself—discussions which hud been conducted with so much ability and moderation that hardly anything could possibly be added on either side of the question, as might be seen by reference to the reports of the debates in the Legislature which were inserted, though it was unusual to insert them, in the blue book. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet assumed that the Government, in the purchase of a small portion of land, had violated the Treaty of Waitangi. But, if anything was more evident than another, it was that there was definite, precise rule of tribal title; that no such rule could be found in the treaty, and that the consent of all the proprietors which was necessary, hud been obtained, The Treaty of Waitangi had been interpreted in the most liberal way by Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of New Zealand, and every doubt which had arisen in its construction had been decided in favour of the natives. The acquisition of native land in the ease in question had been obtained with the full and free consent of the owners of the land, although the land itself was wild and valueless to the proprietors, being only valuable when acquired by Europeans. It was believed that the chief of the tribe in the Taranaki district had no right whatever to forbid the sale of land, and certainly that right had never been acknowledged by any Governor since English rule was established in New Zealand. The land concerning which the dispute had arisen had really been bought two or three times over, and he believed that it was owing

Government to enforce their rights that the question had been kept open so long. Twenty years ago the Taranaki district was conquered by the Waikatos; and the ground was purchased by the New Zealand Company not only from the Waikatos, but also from resident tribe of the Ngatiawa, to which William King belonged. The purchase was investigated by the Lands Purchase Commissioner, Mr. Spain, who, although with a strong bias in favour of native claims, decided on this occasion for the New Zealand Company. Governor Fitzroy, however, refused to carry out the award of the Commissioner solely upon the ground that compensation ought to have been provided for several of the owners of tha land who were absentees at the time of the transaction. For that refusal Governor Fizroy was censured and recalled by the right hon. gentleman who was now Chancellor of the Exchequer, and who was then at the head of the Colonial-office. Governor Grey, who succeeded him, endeavoured, as far as his power went —and in such a case it was a question of power no less than right—to give effect to the award of Mr. Commissioner Spain. Subsequently there had been various other purchases of land in the Taranaki district by the Government of New Zealand, every one of wliicli Kiul lu'eu efiocteil in the same maiuicv. by the same agents, and on the same principles as that against which William King had protested. That was proved conclusively by the documents in the bluebook, and by the evidence of the head of the Land Purchase Department. In none of those eases was there the slightest recognition of William King’s right to put a veto on the disposal of laud, nor was he even consulted on the subject It was impossible that the tribe at large could pronounce against the sale of land to Europeans, because they Were dispersed in various pets of the country, and were not represented by any head, for King had never been acknowledged by them ns chief. The question of the sale of land had given rise to a very excited controversy, one party taking the enl'ghtcned view that it was for the interest neither ofthc natives nor the settlers that the former should retain possession of tracts of waste laud; and the other, with William King at their head, doing everything in their power to prevent the acquisition of land by Europeans. The feelings of King himself on this question were illustrated by the intention which he avowed to his troops of burning his enemies, as he called those who were willing to sell land to the settlers, over a slow fire, and which he was prevented from carrying into effect only by the intervention of the English Government. The dispute really did not rest on any technical points, but involved the broad question whether Queen Victoria was Sovereign of the country. In 1859 Governor Gore Browne announced that he was willing to purchase land from all parties who could show an undisputed title to the land, anil that he was determined to put down all attempts to intimidate natives from selling their land who wished to do so. The consequence of that proclamation was the present quarrel. A chief named Tcira offered some land for sale to the Government, lie represented the joint resident owners of the land to the number of 70, all of whom were desirous of disposing of it to the Government. The bargain as to this tract of land was made precisely in the same manner in which similar proceedings were usua'ly conducted in New Zealand. There was a gathering of some of the leading men. Will iarn King, who was present, while asserting no claim to the land, declared that he would never permit it to be sold, and then abruptly left the meeting with all his people. Had Ivng submitted any legal claim to the land, it would have been duly entertained under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, but ho chose simply to set the English Government at defiance, and to put a peremptory veto on the sale. That view was confirmed by the opinion of the present Chief Justice of New Zealand. The secret of William King's conduct was, that for some years before the Native King movement was set on foot, he had been at the head of a league established in the neighbourhood of Taranaki lor preventing the sale of land to Europeans and the extension of the English boundaries; and it was not as the head of a tribe, but as the chief of that confederation that he had resorted to arms, to prevent willing owners from selling their land to Europeans. He had done more. The moment he found that the Governor was prepared to assert his rights, he joined the Native King movement, and placed himself and his territory under the protection of the so-called Maori King. Throughout the blue book there would he found no evidence of any expression of native feeling as to the violation of tribal right, or any assertion of a right of ehieft"inship or veto; rights which had never been dreamed of by the natives, but had been invented for them by the ingenuity of their European advocates in New Zealand and in this country; the sole idea in the native mind was, that it was a contest between the Native King League on the one hand, and Her Majesty's authority and supremacy on the other. The only question which was asked by the portion of the Waikato tribe which had joined the rebels wrs whether the laud at Taranaki was placed under the Native King before or after the Governor’s purchase. If it was purchased before William King placed himself under the Maori Sovereign, they said they would have nothing to do with it; but if afterwards, they should consider it part of their dominions, and would endeavour by forcu of arms to retake it. It was said by the most able opponents of the Governor’s conduct that this disputed land title ought to have been decided by some oilier tribunal. (Hear, hear.) The answer to that was. that this purchase had been conducted upon the same principles and by the same agents as any other purchase of laud in New Zealand. The suggestion that a court of justice should have decided upon these claims was founded upon an entire misapprehension of the circumstances of the country and of the state of the native mind. Although the Treaty of Waitangi promised to the New Zealanders all the privileges of British subjects, the natives did not value those privileges, and would not submit to the duties which their possession would impose upon them. The Governors had never had sufficient power to enforce English law or the Queen’s jurisdiction in the native districts, and the consequence was, that in all transactions between Europeans and natives the Queen’s sovereignty was of no hvail, and all questions, such as the restoration of stolen property, the apprehension of criminals, and, still more, the purchase of land, had to he made matters of negociation through the principal chiefs or the missionaries, without any assertion of the Queen’s authority or any order of a court. However desirable it might he to establish a court for the settlement of these questions, the difficulties in the way of the adoption of such a course were enormous; nor would William King have paid any more attention or deference to the judge of such a court than he did to the Native Commissioners deputed hi' the Governor. This purchase was negociated in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and in the same manner as all others had been ; it was conducted by the same gentleman,—a man of the highest character, who had purchased millions of acres for the Government, and it would have been as fortunate as all the others had turned out, hut for the fact that there was in existence a powerful native organization directed against the authority of the British Crown. But for the Maori King League, William King would never have ventured to treat the Governor with defiance; and it was equally certain that such a League existing, a contest must sooner or later have taken plnco|bctwocn the Governor and the natives who supported it. The claims put forward by William King and his supporters were so extravagant that they were utterly repudiated by many of the chiefs; they amounted simply to an assertion against the Crown and against the interests of the natives themselves of the counter-rights of the so-called Maori King. It was as much in the interests of the natives as of the colonists that the New Zealand Government resisted this movement, because nothing could be more fatal to the interests of the Colony than that it should he kept in a stale of disturbance by the vain attempt to assert a national sovereignty. He could not answer fur the unscrupulous feelings of individual Europeans, but there certainly was no disposition on the part of the Government to treat the natives with harshness or injustice. The debates of the New Zealand Legislature, and the opinions of leading politicians in that colony, were all opposed to the separation of native interests from those of the European residents; and every respect was shown both to native feelings and native claims. It was impossible to conceive a more difficult position than that in which the Governor of New Zealand was placed. Obliged to act under a constitution which appeared to have been framed in forgetfulness of the large native tribes within the dominions to which it was intended to apply, he was the head of an ultrapopular Government, in which the executive, where it ought to he strong, was essentially weak, lie had not that command of funds enjoyed by Sir G. Grey and his predecessors for the purpose of conciliating the natives, and for promoting native objects. The revenues of the colony, with trifling exceptions, and oven the sums raised by the sale of waste lands belonging to the Crown, were at the disposal of the Legislature; while his power was broken up and frittered away by the institution of provincial governments, the heads of which were not his delegates, hut were elected by universal suffrage, and were often his political opponents. So far from assisting and supporting his measures, they were often incited to oppose them by feelings of jealousy. In the difficult position in which he was placed the present governor, lie believed, had acted as a man of honour, of humanity, and of discretion; his efforts had always been directed in their behalf against any encroachments by the New Zealand Legislature, and he had never been a consenting party to any transaction inconsistent with the rights guaranteed to them by treaty. His policy had been sanctioned by an overwhelming majority of the educated

The. representatives of the middle island, in which no conflicting interests existed. —a most intelligent and enlightened set of gentlemen,—unanimously supported the views on which he had acted; and at a native conference held last year it was decided, with hardly a dissentient voice, that the Govcunor-General was in the right. If he had been guilty of anything like the conduct imputed to him, the country would have been in a flame from one end to the other. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances he held it was the duty of the Home Government to give their support to the Governor. His lion, friend suggested that a commission should he sent out. Did lie mean that while the natives were in arms anything was to he done to weaken the authority or the Governor and to lead misguided natives to suppose that if they only held out long enough, they would succeed in their misguided endeavours? Could any policy lie conceived which would he fraught with more miserable consequences? (Hear, hear.) As he had before stated, no intention existed to violate, in any way, the rights secured by treaty to the chiefs. This just policy had been inculcated iu despatches sent out by his noble friend, and the instructions would lie repeated if necessary. The Governor had endeavoured, and was endeavouring, to steer between two extremes. On the one hand, he was bound to consult, and on no account sacrifice, the interests and claims of the colonists, at the same time that he must not he blinded by an exaggerated estimate of those privileges. On the other hand, he was bound scrupulously to respect the claims of the natives, while setting his face against the morbid advocacy of their supposed rights and feelings. The duty of the British Government was clear. It was to put an end at as early a period as possible to these hostilities, which, if they injured tins colonists must ruin the native race; and to extend the blessings of British law and of equal dealing to all classes of Her Majesty’s subjects. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SELWYN said a grave responsibility devolved on those members who had been honoured by communications from the colony, as they were hound to do all in their power to prevent the continuance of that unhappy war, which might otherwise spread till it assumed the diastrous character of a war of extermination. He was glad to hear the desire professed by the Under Secretary tor the Colonies on the part of the Government to support the noble declaration of Lord Derby, that it was the duty of England to maintain the Treaty of Waitangi. With respect to that treaty lie would ask the House to hear iu mind first that it secured, not only the individual rights of the natives, hut also all the property collectively that belonged to the tribe; and, secondly, that it was in the power of the natives to hold their property as long as they desired to retain it. Now, two blue-books were published last Session which contained matter even more important in regard to this question than the blue-book of this year to which the lion, gentleman had exclusively directed his attention. In considering the rights which the natives of New Zealand collectively possessed it was important to remember that they were men who had exaggerated notions of the value of their possessions, and who were well informed upon the boundaries of the possessions of each tribe. As to any idcaof its being in the power of any one or more of the natives to alienate to a stranger any portion of; the land held collectively by the tribe, it was plainly inconsistent with the tenure uu which property was held. This was confirmed by the evidence of the witnesses quoted by the Under-Secretary himself, and also that collected by Governor Browne and the Board of Inquiry that lie instituted. Governor Browne stated that the right of tlie natives to alienate land was restricted by the obvious necessity of retaining the unity of the tribe. The hon. gentleman said that the Wesleyan missionaries were all on his side; bnfc the Rev. J. Whitcley,a Wesleyan missionary,gave an opinion which, having been expressed before these disputes occurred, was of the more value, lie said that, if a sale of individual holding took place, the sanction of the tribe was required. Mr. Johnson said lie had been informed by a New Zealand chief that there was not one native in New Zealand who could lay his hand on .a piece of land its large as a table and call it his own. In one instance, he added, the natives wished to have a Crown grant, hut they preferred holding it in common. The Bishop of New Zealand, who had travelled over the island, said he frequently heard complaints that the natives resident in English districts would not fence their land, hut he had seen whole districts abandoned by tlie native owners on account of English cattle trespassing on their cultivations. Long before the Maori movement or the Land League was heard of the desire on the part of the, settlers to possess this land, and the refusal of the natives to sell it, was well known in New Zealand. He would refer, in the first place, to the evidence of Major Nugent, who was intimately acquainted with the habits of the natives. That gentleman said that the Taranaki Ihrald did not disguise the wish of some persons to drive William King and his party away, and that he could not answer for the continuance of tranquility while such inflammatory articles were published, and when people did not disguise their wish to sieze on the land of the natives. (Hear, hear.) One of the despatches of Governor Brou n showed clearly the feeling in the colony and the ground of the dispute, for it stated that the natives had seen the land which they had alienated for farthings resold tor pounds, and that the Europeans coveted the lands, being determined to take possession of them — rede , si possmt; si mm, quoeunque moilu. He subscribed to the statement of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies with respect to Governor Brown. He believed him to have been a most gallant officer and sincere friend of the natives, and he conducted the government under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, but ho was not sufficiently firm in maintaining his own principles. Governor Brown foresaw that the Government must yield to the pressure from without, and then, without investigation or trial, this piece of land was taken possession of by military force, in direct contravention of those collective rights guaranteed by the treaty. The hon. and learned gentleman here referred to several passages in the blue-hooks for the purpose of showing that the consent of about one-fifth only of the proprietors had been obtained, and that William King himself was in possession of a portion of the property on the southern hank of the river Waitara, The hon. gentleman had also said that Wiriinu Kingi had never been recognized ns head of the district in question at all; hut throughout the whole of the blue-books constant reference was made to him as chief, and as having carried on a correspondence and held interviews with successive Governors in that capacity. The hon. gentleman had then gone ou to state that Wlrimu Kingi had never put forward any claim to these lands from the year 1859 to 18G0; but it should be heme in mind that when the original oiler of Tcira had been made in 1859, he said he would not give up the territory, and that ou the 25th of April in that year ho had written a letter to the Governor, in which he used the words, “None of this land will bo given to you; never, never, until 1 die.” The survey, he might add, had, contrary to the rules laid down by the Governor, been commenced without any further communication with Wiriinu Kingi; a proclamation had been issued, and instead of any explanations being entered into, the occupation of the land by a military force took place (hear, hear). Now, ho could not help thinking that there was something peculiarly mean in the whole transaction, when the manner in which the treaty had been preserved by the natives was taken into account. New Zealand had, as every body was aware, been for years previous denuded of troops, and during all that time the utmost forbearance had been exercised by the natives; but now that they were diminished in number, and that wo had increased in strength, wo did not hesitate to take advantage of that circumstance to disregard the obligations which the treaty imposed (hear). The Commiasioners laid down the doctrine that a conquered people lorfcited all the rights they originally possessed—a proposition which the House was not likely to sanction, and which was repudiated by Governor Fitzroy, who said the natives ought to be restored to their rights in all their integrity. They had also the opinion of Governor Brown that this decision was just and also very popular. Since 1848 the natives had been in possession of their property, and he should like to know ou what pretence any Governor was entitled to deprive them of that property ? (hear, hear). The Under-Secretary for the Colonics told them that former Governors had conducted sales in exactly the same manner as had been followed in this case, hut from that statement ho (Mr. Sclwyn) dissented. No case of a similar kind could bo produced. A ictuin ot all cases of native property sold without the consent of the chiefs had been asked for in the General Assembly, but no such return could be given, and ho challenged the Under-Secretary to produce a single instance of the kind. It was in these that they were called upon to take steps to remove the doubts created in the minds of the natives by the ambiguous acts of the Colonial Government, and that thcic should be a declaration on the part of the Imperial Government that treaty stipulations would he maintained; that care should bo taken to explain the mistake that had occurred relative to the proclamation of martial law, and to show that it did not imply hostility to the natives; and that some tribunal should be appointed by the Queen to determine to whom the lanu in dispute belonged (hear). If this were done it would have the eftcct"o( calming the public mind, and preventing a continuance of further disturbances. An expression of the opinion of that House would have its effect in deciding the policy of the Government, and in promoting towards the natives of New Zealand a course of conduct marked by justice and humanity, instead of adding another to the already too numerous instances of extirpation consequent on Europcan^colonization^

further progress of this unhappy war (hear, hear). Lord C. HAMILTON had listened with extreme astonishment to some of the statements made by the hon. and learned member for Cambridge University. The hon, and learned member had passed a high and deserved enlogium upon Mr. McLean, but that gentleman distinctly stated, in a document not included in the blue-book, that the contested purchase of land was only one of several which had been effected in the same neighbourhood, and all of which were conducted and carried out on the same principle. It could not be doubted that the tribe to which William King belonged never possessed the land in question; but even if they had they had long since lost their right to it. Nor was it correct to say that the purchase was made in a hasty manner. Mr. McLean was engaged for nine months in the preliminary negotiations, and before the purchase was concluded Governor Browne satisfied himself by public proclamation that none of the occupiers objected to the proposed transfer. At that time William King did not come boldly forward and make a claim to the land; he merely threatened to prevent the purchase by violent means. The conduct of Governor Browne, moreover, had received the approval not only of both branches of the Colonial Legislature, but of a largo assembly of native chiefs called together for the express purpose of considering the subject in all its bearings. Governor Browne, therefore, deserved praise rather than censure-, and to condemn him upon an incorrect statement of the facts would be alike unworthy of the House of Commons and contrary to English usage. Mr. HUNT moved the adjournment of the debate. Mr. HOPE, amid loud erics of “Divide,” expressed his hope that the Government would turn their atten tion to the appointment of a tribunal to investigate judicially the rights of natives in respect of land in New Zealand. lie found so many contradictions in the papers on this New Zealand dispute that he did not feel justified in giving a decided opinion that the Governor was wrong. Sir M. PETO supported the motion for the adjournment. The debate was then adjourned. The adjourned debate upon the motion of Sir J. Trclawny with reference to New Zealand was resumed by Mr. LONGFIELD, who said that the Governor of New Zealand, having been left to exercise his judgment in critical circumstances, had, with the best intentions possible, been betrayed into an error which had precipitated this country into a war with those whose rights and whose property we were by treaty in every way bound to respect. The motion of the hon. baronet was expressed almost in the language of the Duke of Newcastle, who said in a despatch that he could not clearly make out where the right lay. Notwithstanding this admission, the Government now claimed absolute praise for the Governor. Although he thought that much might he said in exoneration of the Governor’s conduct, yet the despatch of the Colonial Secretary ought to be respected, and therefore, as a means rather of strengthening the hands of the Government than of weakening them, he should support this motion. Mr. LOWE.—I wish, Sir, to say l few words upon the question, which is, in my apprehension, a very plain one, although it has been disfigured, enlarged, and inflated by party spirit to a degree which no one who is not tolerably familiar with such things in the colonics could have imagined possible. The question admits of being stated in very few words. The colony of New Zealand is part of the dominions of Her Majesty, and is inhabited by two races—the English, or European, and the Native, or Maori races—the English race holding one part, and the Maori race the other part of the Northern Island. By the Treaty of Waitangi, entered into with the New Zealand chiefs, the Queen has the right of extinguishing the native title to land. By that treaty, by which she confirmed to the chiefs, tribes, and individuals whatever property they had, it was stipulated that she should have the right of buying up—what we call the right of pre-ernption-i-of extinguishing the native title to land; that she should, in order to prevent collisions and mischiefs of that kind, be the mediator between the settlers and the natives in matters of that kind. In the year 1859 the Government of New Zealand entered into an agreement by which a number of families who were joint owners, as joint tenants, of a large piece of land on the southern hank of the Waitara river, in the settlement of New Plymouth, agreed to sell it to the Crown. The contract was made according to the usual fashion of the natives, the chief laying a mat down before the Governor, which was emblematical of covering the land which he was to have. A chief named William King came forward, and made a claim in this exceedingly pregnant language:—He said, “ The land is theirs,” —that is, the persons’ who were selling it to the Government, —“ but I will not allow them to sell it;” and the whole question upon which the civil war in New Zealand has arisen is whether that chief was justified in making that claim. That is really the whole question which we have to consider, and I must say that when I looked at the papers it seemed to me to be one exceedingly easy of solution. The chief did not give any reasons, did not appeal to any court, or tribunal, or authority. He merely put forward his own will and determination. He spoke like a sovereign to a sovereign, an equal to an equal. He is a subject of Her Majesty, but he spoke to Her Majesty’s representative iu a tone of absolute and unmitigated defiance. If there could he the least doubt upon this point it would be removed by a few extracts which I have culled from different declarations which he made upon this same subject. For instance, on one occasion he said, “ I hold the land in my hand, and I will not let it go.” Again, “ Selling land causes the approach of death,” meaning that there existed a land league—a sort of riband conspiracy—in New Zealand, of which he was a recognized and important member, which would kill all those who sold laud to the English. Again, speaking of the sellers, “ They have floated it, but I will not let it go to sea.” “ What I say is the boundary for the Pakchec (English) is Waitaha,” —a place about 40 miles off’; —“ let them remain there thus issuing absolute orders to the colonists. Again, he wrote to the Governor, “ If you hear of any one desirous to sell land within these boundaries, don’t pay any attention to it; this is all.” He also told Mr. Paris, the Government agent for the purchase of land “ It is enough, Paris; their bellies arc full with the sight of this money you have promised them, but don’t give it them ; if you do I won’t let you have the land, but come and cultivate it myself.” The House will observe that this chief began by saying that he had no property in the land, that the property was in the sellers, but that he would not allow them to exercise their rights, and ends by saying that he will come himself and take possession of the land to which ho admits he has no right, rather than allow it to fall into the hands of the English. This is a very simple ease. It really amounts to this —that tills chief, strong and confident in his power, defies the English Government, and claims a right to intervene between those who wish to sell their land and the Government who wish to buy it, and to forbid the sale. He docs not claim that right under any law or custom, but merely in virtue of his own will and of the power which he can exercise. Out of that all this difficulty has arisen. The Governor sent persons to measure the land ; the measurement was interfered with by force ; one act of violence led to another, and they have led to the lamentable struggle in which we are now engaged. I think I have said enough to show that this is no question of law or right, hut merely a question of the assertion of sovereignty and of defiance of the English power. But there is more behind. At the time of which I have been speaking there was in New Zealand a league, of which William King was a principal member, called the land league, the purpose of which was to prevent any more land being sold to the English. The natives find that as the English occupy more and more land they arc hemmed within narrower and narrower limits, and arc in danger of disappearing before the advancing race, and as a remedy they have entered into this league to prevent the purchase of land by Europeans. They have also set up a native king, and established a confederacy of native States under his authority. These two facts account for the conduct of William King in this matter. He spoke with confidence, because he was carrying out the policy well known to have been agreed upon in the councils of the chiefs, and because he knew that he was asserting that which he had plenty of strength to make good. It therefore seems to me that if this question was to he decided by the New Zealand blue-books I might stop there. I have shown that the reason why we arc at war with the natives is simply and solely because a number of chiefs have combined to set up a native King against us, have intimidated, or if necessary killed those who were willing to sell land to us, and have, by so doing, thrown off their allegiance to the Queen, their Sovereign ns well as ours, and have obliged us to assert the Royal authority by force. But there is in New Zealand a party which sympathizes keenly with the natives. The members of that party think that New Zealand ought to he for the New Zealanders, look it]K»n new colonists as cncroachers and interlopers, and would gladly see them limited to their present position, or even encroached upon by the natives. An hon. member moved that the House he counted. About 20 members were then in the House, but, upon the Speaker counting, it was (bund, in consequence of a sudden influx oi members, that there was a sufficient number present to constitute a House. Mr, LOWE accordingly resumed. He said,—lt appears to me that the conduct of William King only admits of one interpretation, but it has been sought to give another gloss to it. It is stated that in putting this veto on the sale of land ho was exercising a legal

that there is a joint ownership, sometimes in familie and some times in the whole tribe, and that this chief, William King, was acting on behalf of the whole tribe in asserting the right to veto the sale of any part of the property of the tribe. It may be required that such a right should bo strictly proved, and the burden of proof lies on those who say that when parties are willing to contract for the sale and purchase of land, a chief may come forward and forbid the contract. Upon this point it is quite wonderful the quantity of questions that must be made out, and the imperfect evidence by which they can be sustained. You must make out, in the first place, in whom the ownership of this land lies —whether in the tribe or in the families. Then you must make out clearly what the custom is; how the tribe is to signify its dissent to the purchase, whether by a majority or by unanimity ; what are the powers of the chief, and whether he can act independently of the tribe, in which case the tribe would have no power ; or whether he acts as the spokesman and agent for the tribe. Next, it must be ascertained who is the chief; whether he is a chief, admitted to be so by the whole tribe, or only by a section, or only one of several chiefs of sections. These questions involve enormous difficulty, and, when the state of society in New Zealand is considered, the difficulty increases. How does the case stand? X might merely stand on the defensive, and say that no proof has been adduced of any such tribal right as that asserted. I might say that there is no proof that this man, William King, is the chief, it being proved, in fact, that ho is not, or that any agreement had been come to by the tribe, or any part of it, to veto the purchase or that he acted as their agent. The presumptions arc all the other way. About 27 of this tribe went to the south, to Cook’s Strait —some said on a fishing, others stated on a murdering, expedition ; and, while they were away, their land wes seized by another more powerful tribe, by whom the first tribe were broken up and dispersed. While they were so dispersed the New Zealand Company undertook to purchase from the tribe who expelled them this very piece of land among others. The sale was referred to the Commissioners of the Government, who had all the powers of a court ot justice in trying the question. William King was present at the trial, and made no sort of objection to the award in favour of the purchase from the conquering tribe. Then Captain Fitzroy came, and very unhappily, I think, refused to carry out the award, but at the same time he notified his intention to the Natives that he would purchase from them any lands which they wished to sell, thus again showing that he had no idea, after that long examination, that there was any power of veto in William King. Sir G. Grey, who succeeded, acted on the same principle. Afterwards William King applied to the natives who had expelled the old tribe to be allowed to return, and he went to live on the northern side of the river, thus implying that he felt he had no jurisdiction on the south side; and when another large block of the land was sold he never said that he had a veto on the sale, but represented that he ought to have some of the purchase-money ; but his claim was overruled, and he got no purchase-money. That is the position of the man who claims the right ot forbidding any person to sell land 40 miles from the place in question. Yet, under these circumstances it is contended that this man’s right is clear and mani • fest; that he has the undoubted right of veto, which right a great many say never existed in any one ; that he was, therefore, entitled to stop the sale; that consequently we are withholding his right from him, and that this caused the war. Tsow, it was quite clear, even if he had the right, that he put himself in the wrong, because he ought to hare appealed to some umpire or arbitrator to decide between him and the Government. It seems to me clear that he had not the right of vetoing the sale of land which the proprietors were willing to part with ; and, even if he had, I think it is a right which the Government onght not to recognize, ns not being consistent with the Queen’s sovereignty in those Islands, when the Government had the right of pre-emption of these lands. Farther, I can imagine nothing so impolitic as the allowance of such a right. New Zealand is a place where persons who had made money in Australia, and especially in the gold fields, went to settle. They were accustomed to the use of weapons, and if the principle should be acted on of keeping these persons out of the land, and preserving it for the natives, in a few years, or perhaps sooner, the barriers within which we sought to confine them would be overthrown, and a contest of life and death would ensue between them and the natives, the horrors of which it would he difficult to describe. But, whatever may be the origin of our quarrel with the New Zealanders, the time has long passed when we can search very narrowly into the immediate causes of the present war. To do so would be just as absurd as after the capture of Delhi and the disasters at Cawnporc to institute an enquiry as to the precise causes of the mutiny in India. The meaning of the war no one can misunderstand. It is a struggle for sovereignty and dominion. The natives hope to drive the English into the sea, while the English, on the other band, fight for that which they possess, and with the expectation, no doubt, of cowing the whole of the country. The New Zealanders have set up, as it were, a king against our Queen, and have virtually repealed the Treaty of Waitangi by endeavouring to reverse our land policy. That the House of Commons should at this moment and under these circumstances pass a resolution evincing any doubt as to the expediency of the conduct of the Government .would be as bad as if our troops were to undergo two or three serious defeats. A protracted struggle would, in all probability, ensue, and much slaughter would be inflicted. I therefore trust that the House will not agree to the motion under its consideration (hear, hear). Mr. ADDERLEY, having observed that no man’s opinion was more entitled to respect in dealing with colonial affairs than that of the right hon. gentleman who had just spoken, went on to say that if the present discussion proved anything.it was that questions such aa that under discussion could never be usefully debated in the House of Commons, as was evinced by the significant occurrence which had taken place during the right hon. gentleman’s speech. The opposite views upon the question at issue had been most ably represented by the right hon. gentleman and the hon. and learned gentleman the member for Cambridge, whose opinions were deserving of the utmost weight ; but ho must admit that, if the censures of the latter upon the conduct of the Governor of Now Zealand were justified, it would, so far as he could see, be utterly impossible that native lands could be sold at all. But, be that aa it might, it was, he thought, quite clear that the war which was now raging must be brought to a close before the question would really admit of discussion. Wc must proceed upon the principle of castigatique auditguc, and he regretted to say that the probability of concluding the war might be rendered more doubtful if the report of the present discussion were to reach the colony before its termination. He might add that, in his opinion the treaty of Waitangi must be respected, but it should be borne in mind that since it had been entered into the affairs of New Zealand had ceased to be conducted in Downing-strcet; that a representative constitution had been granted to that colony; that its inhabitants were entitled to manage their own affairs ; that their interests had been carefully consulted by the Colonial Legislature ; and that no persons ought to be more concerned for the prosperity of the natives than the colonists themselves. That being so, the first thing he hoped which Parliament would do when the war was concluded would be to revise the Act of 1853. He thought the system should as far as possible be acted upon of leaving the colonists to manage their own affairs, instead of encouraging them to look to that House, involving the mother country in expenses and implicating Parliament in their affairs in a manner that could do them no good while it did us a great deal of harm (hear, hear). Mr. KINNAIRD had heard no answer to the speech of his hon. friend the member for the University of Cambridge on this question. He regretted exceedingly the tone of the Government, and the entire want of conciliation which they had exhibited. There could be no doubt that, however it began, the war must be put down ; but there was no call for the harsh expressions used by the members of the Government who had spoken, He had hoped that some declaration would be made, giving the natives an assurance that the treaty would bo adhered to, and that some measure would bo taken to clear up the misunderstandings that had arisen, but not a word of that kind had fallen from the Government. On the contrary, there had been expressed a determination to press forward the interests of the colonists in contradistinction to those of the natives (hear). Where could the natives of New Zealand look if not to the Queen and Parliament ? And he thought the Undersecretary for the Colonies was not justified in applying the expression “morbid sentimentality” to the interest which manv took in the interests of the natives (hear, hear). He must repeat that he regretted extremely the tone taken by the Government, but saw no use in further continuing the debate. Colonel DUNNE was sure, from what he knew o Governor Browne, that he would never be guilty o cruelty to the natives, and hoped the House would consider the difficult circumstances in which he was placed before it passed a censure upon that officer. Mr. DUNLOP denied that any vote of censure was intended against the Governor. All they asked was that some tribunal should be appointed to settle the questions in dispute, instead of driving the natives to despair and following a course that must ultimately lead to their extermination. The House then divided, when there voted:— For the amendment 84 Against it .. .. .. 38