The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-24 00:00:00

THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

Mr. H. J. BAILLIK rose to put a question to the noble
lord, the member for London, with regard to the New
Zealand Company. It would be remembered that a bill
had passed last session, giving a constitution to the colony
of New Zealand, which contained a clause confirming a
large grant of money to the New Zealand Company, which
was to be paid out of the land sales of the colony. Againit
that claim the right hon. baronet the Ntst Commissioner
of Works protested, on the ground Ahat the claim of the
New Zealand Company was founded on fraud, which he
would be able to prove if papery, for while he moved, were
laid on the table. A few days ago he (Mr. Bantle) asked
the right boa. baronet if he was prepared to prove
the charge of fraud he had made against the New
Zealand Company last session, and to which he replied
that there was no necessity for proceeding with the charge,
because the papers on the table proved the fraud beyond
the possibility of doubt. That answer being made by a
member of the cabinet must be supposed to be the, answer
of the government, and they must be of opinion that the
charge of fraud was substantiated. The question he
withrd to ask was, whether the government intended to
leave the New Zealand Company in the enjoyment of the
fruits of that fraud, or whether they meant to take any step
to deprive them of the sum to which they became entitled
under the act ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—In the course of lasi session, when
measure relating to New Zealand was under discussion,
right hon. friend stated his opinion that a fraud had
en committed, and moved for papers from which 'he
would be enabled to make out a case of frank: and urged
t the necessity for the production of those pa ..e. a reason
for delaying the bill. The house, howevezi not concur
e. in what w requested by my right bon. d, and the
bell pasted. I may add that I heard the sta at made by
the right hon. gentleman the member for Dinitwieb, and
I thought the amusement pmpoad was a fair one for
all the parties concerned. My right hon. Wend the other
day, in answer to a question of the a Ileum, staled
the papers on the table proved the caswished to tasks
out, but, as parliament had decided the 'question, and the
government saw no reason for disturbing that decision, h
was not disposed to take any step in the matter.
Mr. MANGLES said that as this was a question involv-
ing the personal honour of some members of the house, he
lisped he might be allowed to say a few words. (" Order,"
mid " No.")
' The SPEAKER said the hon. gentleman could only go
illa if no hon. member objected.
Mr. V. SMITH rose to order, sad said that nothing was
Esse lationvenient than chance discussions such na it was
paeipmed to bring en. There was no imputation on any
111111114bef either in the question or answer, which was the
Oaf ground on which any member ought to be allowed to
raises discussion; but there could only be a refereace to de-
bates of last session.
Lied J. RUSSELL said the words to which the hon.
objected had not been used now, but in tomer
Catbstirbut, if the hon. gentleman made any observations,
his right hon. friend would reply, and the whole question
would be discussed without preparation or notice,. and he
submitted that it would be better not to go on. (Hear.)
Mr. AGLION ST said the noble lord was mistaken, for
the words in question had been used now, and not Ave
Minutes ego. The bon. gentleman opposite stated dia-
ridy that the right hon. baronet had reported a few days
that a fraud bad been proved. He (Mr. Aglionby)
labs prepared at the proper time to meet all the charges
whisk had been made. .