HOUSE OF COMMONS NEW ZEALAND.

Wellington Independent, Volume I, Issue 42, 17 December 1845, Page 3

HOUSE OF COMMONS NEW ZEALAND.

July 23, 1845. hiu *L Uleß « l «eni a representative government£l2o,o23 worth ef land when they had not a ainirfe acre in their potion, and with having i nduc ed a number of Wiring men to go to New*z2aSlta their employment, with whom they had broken faith m*t grossly. If the Government would aUow him to adnse them, he would tell them t<, send out at once a thousand soldiers in two of those Thins of the.l,ne which we-e now cruising in the channel -to deprive the New Zealand Comply of their paying them a reasonable remuneration for the loss of!,! * ««?»**»«»*« finish filers the right ?orf £ C 1 • landß ;t0 put an tnd t0 the PWtec. Mr. Ward replied to the atUcke which Captain Rous had nude on the Directors of the New Zealand Company. He den.cd that the doctors had broken faith with the labourers who.v ihey had earned out to N< w Zealand. Those labourers had left their native country to get rid of toe-pressure which they endured at home, and, until the bight of this mi.un erstanding with the Colonial Office fell upon them, nothing could be mure prosperous ihin their new country. He was inclined to ngre. with Cent Rous in the or jections which he had made to the establishment of a representative g, vernment in INew Zealand. He thou-ht tha municipal inst tntioneon a mure extensive >cale than ih«s<s w.,ich existed in this cou: try, and fi ted for the. wants of a rising colony, would be the best foim of government for Nrw Z-.aland. If he. ha.j had the conducting of the case for the New Z aland ComUdny, he would not have pressed tY>r a division upon the last debate. He wfuld have takm the admie. sions of .Sir Robert Pe.l and Sir Jamrs Gralum in a generous and comprehensive an-! w. uld have left upon them ihe respoasib.li y of <eoouciliag those admissions to their tutme practice.

Mr. G. Palmer txplained at tome length the man. ner in which the New ZcaUnd C« mpiny obu.ned the title to their land from the New Zealand A*eociaiion, and urged that it ou,ht to be respected by the Kritish Government, tie ca 1.-d up.m the Govrrnment to give to ihi set l;is in that colony ihu protection wbith tiny required and di'.-erveil, and which they had been preven ed from piovidtng tor themselves by ibe orders tf ihe lucal Gov<r ni;nt:

Sir. C. Napi r said, that Lord Stanl. y's iiegltct to punteh theauihnisof the massacree at W H irau. had led to the Me tneknchoiy catastrophe at Rsssell, which was foreseen by every man who lnd the le.ist acquaintance with New Zealand. He consi dered it a disgrace to this country tbat on iwo occasions, wherein the livesof Britisa subjects in New Zealand had been in jeopardy they had only been rescued from destruction by the accidental presence of a Frenca c rvette and an American schooner. He then entered into a detailed criticism of Captain Fitzroy's conduct and despatches, and complained that the »ir of New Zsaland stetmd destructive of the jud?ii ent of every officer employed there. After cen uring the loulish declaration of Lieutenant Morgan, that he expected that his corvette of 18 guns, stationed in an open roadstead, would be surprised by a host of naked savagts, he concluded by recommending Commander D. Robertson to the patronage or the Admiralty. Had all the officers upon that station been animated by ihe same «a lant spirit, the Bay of Islands would still have beea in our possession.

Viscount Ingestrie gave a brief history of the occurrences at the interviews which rec ntly tot k place, fi st between *ir R. Peel and tne deputation from the iNew Zealand Company, and afterwards between the same depu atitm and Lord Stanley. He was unwilling to say anything harsh of Curtain Htzroy, with wh in he haJ sailed as a messmate, and whose fiietuUhip he bad long enjoyed ; but he could not refrain trom expressi m his regret that Captain Fi z oy's career in New Zealand had not fulfilled the expectations which lie had formed of it.

Mr. Hawes said, that all the New Zealand Company wanted was, tliat the Goverumrnt should issue precise and definite instructions to the Governor of tlmtiMand , He put it to the House whether Sir R Peel's speech on the last debate could be conside ed by any person who heard it to expiese his full concurrence in the policy of the Colonial Office; and, if not, whether the New Zealand Company had not a right to appeal against tsir Robert's determination not to interfere with the discretion, i<r rather the iudiscretion, of Lord Stanley ? He thought the pol cy of the Colonial Office for some time past had been to put down the Nt*v Zealand Company. He whs sorry for it; for he was covinced that nothing would be a greater m slot tune to New Zeaiand than the loss of that Company. Sir R. Pfel, after defending Mr. Stephen from some imputations that had been cast upon him in the course of the debate, eulogised the g«llant conduct of Commander Robertson, which he publicly announced should be rewarded immediately with promotion in his profession. He then directed his at ention to the motion before ihe House, and contended that great responsibility rested on the head* of those who had again biought it forward. The only ground assigned for doing so was, that the language held by Sir James Graham and himself during the last debate was at variance with the course subsequently pursued by tne Government. He should make no criminatory attack upon the New Zealand Company. He still thought that, if it could be brought to act in harirony wiih the Government, it would be a useful instrument in promoting colonisation. He was not piepured to depart from the terms cf the

letter which he had addressed to Viscount Ingeetrie He would not supercede Lord Stanley in the control of the Colonial Office. He believed that Lord Stanley was animated by a desire to promote the interest* of the New Zealand Company, so far as he could consistently with his d«ty ts the Crown, and with pood faith to others; He had nothing to do now with the miserable controversies of 1842 and 1843. The only ijueetion before the House was. whether the correspondence which had passed between Lord Stanley and the New Zealand Company, was in conformity with the assurances which he had given in hh speech, not on his own part personally, but after fu I deliberation and concert on the part of the Cabinet? He then read an extract from the irutruetione of Captain Grey, for the purpose of showing the conciliatory spirit in which they were couched to the New Zealand i Company ; and proceeded to show that he had made no deelaratious with respect to the future government of New Zealand, which Lord Stanley • had not endeavoured to carry out, He had said that in hie opinion representative government was the best mode of governing distant colonies. He had said further, that in the present state of New Zealand, looking at the dispersion of its scanty population, it would be difficult to give effect to any system of representative government; but he had likewise added, that under existing circumstances the beet plan would be to form municipal institutions, with extensive powers of local taxation for local purposes. He had further expressed a hope that these municipal institutions would form a germ of a future representa'ive system. He then showed- that- Lord Stanley's instructions to Captain Grey contained precisely similar declarations. Lord Stanley expressly declared that the principle of representative government was a good one, but regretted that the circumstances of New Zealand prevented its application. But here, he would ask, how it happened that the deputation of the New Zealand Company, if it disapproved of the instructions of Captain Grey, did net state to Lord Stanley its objections to them ? At that time the instructions were not sent out—ihsy might have beeu modified—but no; that was not the object of the Directors; it was better to bring them forward as the grounds of a new motion in the House of Commons. He next asserted that he had mads no declaration on the land question and on the relations of the. New Zealand Company with the Government inconsistent with the instruc tions drawn up by Lord Stanley. After all the controversies upon this eubj-ct the real question involved in this debate was " Shall the Government in this country euar antee, in certain localities in New Zealand, certain rights over land to the New Zealand Company ? " He thought that the claims of that Company should be liberally mrt on the pare of th?. Government; but he said distinctly that the Government would not do this the Governm nt would not undertake here, in the absence of all surveys and of all m'ormation as to the valid ty of the claims of the natives to assign to the New Zealand Company one million of acres, and it would not undertake by the sword to dispossess the natives of that quantity of land. He then urged that the Government had been plunged J into its present difiScu ties with respect to New Zealand by acii g on the principles conta n d in Lthis iepnit on the principle's contained in the [ report on the and by founding it* I 1 cldima to the land, ou the right o( ct-s-ion, which was very questionable. If the House was about to censure Lord St<nlpy because he would n<.t vioalate the Treaty of Wattangi. it was about to do as great an injustice Lord Stanley as to she natives themselves. Not even to gain the concert and co-optration of tne New Zealand Company would he bivak the puolic faith, which had betn unw sely pledged lo the native chiefs of the colony. Mr. Rtebuck gave a brief explanation of the remarks which he had made on a former evening upon the conduct of Mr. Stephea. Lord John Russell commenced his speech, like Sir Robert Pe.il, by an eLquent tribute to the great merits of Mr. Stephen, as Uudsr Secretary of the Colonies, He then complained that t<iis hid been made too much a question between the New Zealand Company and Lord Stanley. He denied that any responsibility rested on Mr. Buller for bringing this motion forward a second time at the present adv.iiiued period ol the se-sion ; on the contrary, he took blame to himsrlf that he had not earlier taken' t£e S"n»e of the Hou.se on the miegovernment of New Zjalaud, which evru then he *a» must end in" some duaster. Putting out of view, however, the intere-ts of the New Zealand Company, and the true meaning of the agreement which he bud made with it, thsre was this great question still to be decided by the House :—" Does the state of New Zealand create apprehension because there Ihs been no change in the policy which occasioned it?" That was a question on which the bouse of Commons ought to give its opinion. The present lamentable state of affairs in New Zealand was to be attributed to the conduct of the Governor appointed by Lord Stanley, whose repeated to the natives had led them to believe tbat they could destroy the Sovereignty of the Queen in New Zealand. He denied that the recall of Captain Fitzroy relived the Government from its responsibility, for there was no pledge given that the policy of the Government would be changed. The speech of Hr Robert Peel gave no indication of a change-of policy. His speech was less satisfactory tl'.an that which he had made before, for the lormer was the result of his own reflect ons, and the combination with Lord Stanley. Lord John Russell then commented at great length upon Sir Robeit Peel's argument upon the subject of the representative government of New Zealand, and the settlement of the land claims, and afterwards proceeded to say that, if this was a question affecting New Zealand alone, and if the House were to act indej endently of party, it would decide that the policy which had been pursued was erroneous, and must be altered. But when Sir Robert Peel identified himself with his party, and with Lord Stanley, it was quite evident that the interests of New Zealand would be sacrificed! and those of party would be triumphant. The Government, however, would be obliged to alter its policy in New Zealand, as it had altered the policy of Lord Stanley in a country nearer at home. The time would come when Sir Robert Peel discardiug the pride, pique, and obstinacy of hii colleague, would determine to do justice to New Zealand ; but in the meantime the colony would be txpostd to great risk, until the

colonials were treated as the ions, and not as the enemies, of their country. The amendment of Mr. Ruller was then negatived by a majority of 155 over 89 voices. The Ctfmm ttee of Supply wag postponed ; anii the other orders of the day being iheu disposed of the bouse adjourned.