The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-14 00:00:00

THE 8U N,

referred to the services of the missionaries and their
successful efforts in colonising New Zealand ; but, if
he was rightly informed, the Church Missionary
Society had intimated to their missionaries at New
Zealand that they were forgetting their duties in
becoming proprietors of land instead of preachers of
the Gospel. It would appear that, whatever other
virtues the missionaries possessed, they had not the
virtue of self-denial; for they had absorbed to them-
selves, he believed, 96,000 acres of land—(Hear)—
and, having done so, they disputed the right of
others to acquire land, and stirred up the natives to
resist any attempt on the part of others to obtain it.
He believed the disputes with the natives, which had
resulted in the loss. of so many English lives, were
owing entirely to the intrigues of the missionaries,
and that to them alone were to be ascribed the hatred
and disgust which had been engendered in the minds
of the natives to the British rule. There was but

7 -
little hope for peace in the colony while these mis-
sionamies, with the bishop at their head, were ranging
themselves against the governor; and for his part he
hoped the Government at home would make Governor
Grey dictator, until he succeeded in putting down
their opposition.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) At all
events, he trusted that what had occurred in New
Zealand would be a lesson to the Government not to
send out any more bishops to our colonies.—(Hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL hoped that in solving the diffi-
cult problem of how far constitutional institutions
were applicable to a mixed race of aborigines and
settlers, the Government would not take their instruc-
tions from the Hon. Member for Montrose. Consti-
tutional liberty would be at an end in the colony if
the bishop were not to be permitted to address a firm
and respectful remonstrance to the Secretary of State
against any act of the Government of the colony. He
could assure the Hon. Member for Montrose that the
fear of losing the 6001. a year allowed him by the
House of Commons would not deter Bishop Selwyn
from acting in accordance with what he felt to be his
duty. That Right Rev. Gentleman represented a
body of persons of whom all who had held the office
of Secretary of State had spoken in the highest terms.
It must be remembered that we obtained New Zea-
land by treaty, which treaty was negotiated by the
missionaries. We had ostentatiously disclaimed the
right of sovereignty over the country. The question
was debated by the New Zealanders, when the matter
was proposed to them whether they should or should
not make the treaty—those who would have dissuaded
them from it, arguing that the object was to deprive
them of the land; but the missionaries assured them
that that was not the object. The New Zealanders,
in their own language and peculiar mode of expressing
their ideas, said, " We quite understand you ; the
shadow of the land goes to Queen Victoria, and the
substance remains with us." It could not be denied,
seeing the part they had had in negotiating it, that
the missionaries had the full right to express their
sense of the treaty of Waitangai, and to protest
against any infraction of it.
Mr. AGLION BY said that several exaggerated
statements had been made respecting the Bishop of
New Zealand. He could only say that he much re-
gretted the protest which had been issued by that
Right Rev. Prelate. There was a great deal of
difference between the rights and privileges of office,
and the mode in which those rights and privileges
were exercised.—(Hear, hear.) He was extremely
sorry that the bishop had thought it consistent with
his duty and episcopal character to threaten to go
amongst the natives to explain to them what he con-
calved to be their rights, a course the only effect of
which could be to estrange them from the Govern-
ment and the settlers.—(flear, hear.) With respect
to the Church missionaries, all who had perused the
Parliamentary report must be aware that they did
not deserve the exaggerated praise which had been
bestowed on them in the course of that debate. They
were not all of that character and standing which
properly belonged to missionaries of the Church ; on
the contrary, many were extremely ignorant, and some
had shown themselves by their conduct to be tainted
with personal motives wholly inconsistent with their
clerical character.—(Hear, hear.) It should be re-
collected also that when a Wesleyan missionary
became a purchaser of land he was immediately
recalled.—(Hear, hear.) Hew had the Church mis-
sionaries conducted themselves ? It was a matter of
notoriety that they had purchased 96,000 acres of
land.—(Hear, hear.) A justification of this course
had been attempted, on the ground that it was neces-
sary they should provide a maintenance for their
families ; but he believed the feeling was very
general that they had transgressed the rules of the
Church society. The aborigines, he admitted, were
an active and intelligent race ; but neither did they
deserve the high eulogium which they had received.
It should not be forgotten that during the war they
had slain and mutilated their prisoners for the hor-
rible purposes of cannibalism.—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to the Bill before the House he was quiteiwill-
ing to concede the power given to to the governor;
and all disputes between the settlers and the company
might be safely, in his opinion, left to the arbitration
of that functionary.
Sir E. BUXTON was of opinion that the Bishop
of New Zealand had done his duty, and nothing
more.—(Hear, hear.) He (the bishop) had come to
the conclusion that the Government intended to

trample on the treaty of Waitangai, and it was his
duty, therefore, to inform the natives of their rights,
and the mode in which they might constitutionally
obtain redress. He trusted that the Right Rev. Pre-
late's exertions, and the good feeling of the people of
England, would cause that treaty to be respected in
all essential points.
Mr. PLUMPTRE was willing to admit that the
missionaries had gone somewhat beyond bounds, but
then they had families to support; and it should be
recollected that a thousand acres of land in New Zea-
land was a very different thing from the same quan-
tity in England. There might have been something
wrong, but still it was hardly fair to treat with such
severity men who had proved themselves ready to
sacrifice their lives in the cause in which they had
embarked.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said he had not the honour
of a personal acquaintance with the Bishop of New
Zealand, but from all he had heard he believed the
Right Rev. Prelate to deserve all the encomiums
which had been passed upon him. Still he must re-
gret that the bishop should have addressed a formal
communication to the governor, announcing his in-
tention to use all legal and constitutional measures to
inform the natives- of their rights and privileges as
British subjects, and to instruct them in their mainte-
nance by all legal and constitutional means.—(Hear,
hear.) Why, this was informing them that he dif
fered from the executive Government, and also tempt-
ing them to petition the Crown. He must say, that
in his opinion this was a most unfortunate step on the
part of the bishop. It was impossible for his Noble
Friend to abstain from expressing, in temperate and
respectful language towards the bishop, but at the
same time in that firm and decided language which
was due to himself and to, the situation he held, his
deep regret that the bishop should have announced
his determination to such an effect. There was a
formal announcement on the part of the bishop to
begin a course of agitation.—(Oh, oh.) What was
it in common language but agitation, that a
bishop should tell the people to get up petitions
and to lay them before the Crown ?—(Hear, hear.)
With respect to the question whether any other docu-
ments had been written on the subject, and whether
Governor Grey had expressed any opinion with regard
to it, he begged to reply that there was no other
papers on the subject in the Colonial-office beyond
what were contained in the book on the table. He
believed that the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
agreed in the abstract opinion of his Noble Friend
respecting the tenure of land. If the Right Hon.
Gentleman looked at the papers, he would find
that it was scarcely possible to guard the accredited
rights of the natives more scrupulously than his Noble
Friend had done. The bishop was not justified then
in saying that his Noble Friend laid down the abstract
principle that all land was to be given to the Crown.
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Liver-
pool said that he regretted that the municipal institu-
tions were to be retarded. That was not the case.
On the contrary, the municipal institutions were to
be enlarged, and it was proposed to communicate the
municipal franchise to the aboriginal natives who re-
sided within the municipal district, by giving them a
certificate. With regard to the further progress of
the Bill, what he proposed was, that, as it was im-
portant no doubt should exist in the minds of the
people of New Zealand as to the principle of the Bill,
it should be read a second time on Monday next, so
that the affirmation of the principle might be sent out
to the colony, the discussion of the details in Com-
mittee being deferred till after the recess. He hoped
there would be no objection to that course.
Lord CLIVE did not think that the Right lion.
Gentleman fairly interpreted the design of the bishop
when he said he wished to agitate the colony.—(Hear,
hear.) In looking over the papers, he observed that
they had not Governor Grey's opinion as to the
bishop.—(" Yes, yes," arid cries of " Read No. 42.")
It was but fair that the Bishop of New Zealand, as
representing the clergy who had a substantive and
independent character of their own district from the
Crown, should inform the natives of their just rights,
in order that they might be protected.
The Earl of ARUNDEL said, it seemed very
strange to him that any bishop should be censured for
giving instructions to those under his charge as to
the propriety of petitioning the civil power for their
just rights.—(Hear.)
COMMERCIAL DISTRESS AND CURRENCY
COITTEE.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
he found it utterly impossible to include in the Com-
mittee the names of all
but thosehe w who,ould he
ask thou
the pht,
ermhadis a
fair claim to be on it; -
sion of the House to allow the Committee to consist
of twenty-six Members instead of twenty. Twenty-
six was the number that sat on the Committee of
•1840-41.

LON DON,

Mr. HUAIE said there was not a man in the city
of London who did not consider this Committee as a
mere cloak.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see any oc-
casion for augmenting the number of the Committee
beyond what the established practice of the House
required. But he did not see the necessity for a
Committee at all. They had Committees in 1832,
1836, 1837, and 1840, and between 14;000 and
15,000 questions had been asked. The whole subject
was therefore exhausted. He believed they were
wrong in attempting to carry on the monetary affairs
of the country by the assistance of a bank which be-
gan without any capital. The Bank of England was
vicious in principle. They required the Bank to dis-
count bills without a shilling, for they had nothing
but the Rest.—(Hear, hear.) It was observed, with
great truth, that the Bank traded on its credit. The
value of property was now less by 250,000,0001. than
it was at the commencement of the year, owing to
their monetary system. They were leaning on a reed
which was not able to stand by itself. In October
last, a few days after the letter of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, there were only 1,100,0001. in notes in
the Bank of England and its twelve branches. What
a paltry sum that was to support the credit of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) And at that moment the
Bank had 20,000,000/. out in liabilities, so that any
two men possessed of 500,0001. might have brought it
to a stand.—(Hear, hear.) That was not the state in
which they ought to be. He saw no use of this Com-
mittee, and he would therefore move that its appoint-
ment be postponed till the 4th of February.
Colonel SIBTHORP seconded the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
would repeat that he merely desired the appointment
of the Committee, in order that it might be deter-
mined what documents should be called for, so that
such documents might be ready for the Committee
when they should meet after the recess.
Mr. EWART supported the amendment.
Mr.F.IMACKENZIE considered that some Scotch
Member or Members—the Member for Glasgow, for
example—should be named on the Committee.
Mr. HERRIES said it would now appear that the
range of inquiry to be entered upon by the Commit-
tee was far more extensive, far more general, than
had been indicated by the Government, in seeking the
consent of the House to its appointment.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not think this a fair or straightforward
course on the part of the Government, if their desire
was to create a case for modifying or superseding the
present system.—(Hear, hear.) As to mere in-
quiry, that really seemed to have been exhausted
by the former Committee, which elicited from infinite
witnesses no fewer than 16,000 answers to questions
upon every possible theory connected with the sub-
ject of currency. The House, however, were called
upon in nominating a Committee of 26 gentlemen,
to enter upon a new ocean of theory, with no visible
bound or limit.—(Hear, hear.) After sitting two
years they produced nothing but a huge volume.
They offered not the slightest opinion on the question.
After this experience, was the House prepared to
launch again into an inquiry of the same sort, leaving
on the public mind an impression that it was the
desire rather to evade than to prosecute the investi-
gation ? He believed that if the Committee was ap-
pointed it would lead to no satisfactory results. It
was not nominated on a principle to inspire con-
fidence, and on that ground, if on no other, he should
certainly hope that the appointment would be post-
poned. As one of the Members named upon it, cer-
tainly, if the Committee were now appointed, he
must decline to serve.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment
Against it 146

Majority -89
Lord G. BENTINCK said that he should propose
bat other names be added. In the list were eight
Members of the late and present Government who
would be handed together against any alteration
in the Bank Charter Act. There was a most re-
markable exclusion of Members who voted against
that Bill. He remarked among others the exclusion
of the Honourable Member for Oxfordshire, who had
predicted the consequences of this Bill, as well as
that of the Hon. Member for Paisley, who had made
similar predictions as to the drain of gold on the
first great demand for foreign corn. And how was
Scotland represented on this Committee ? Why,
only by two Members, while the West Riding of
Yorkshire was represented by three. Neither of
those Scotch Members were connected with joint-
stock banks in Scotland, or with the commercial in-
terests. Out of 105 Members, Ireland was only
permitted to place one Member on this Committee,
although that Member might be said to represent the
commerce of the north of Ireland ; but he was not
connected with the banking interests. The Member
for the metropolis of Ireland was peculiarly fitted to
be placed on the Committee. Lancashire ought also
to have been better represented, and the Bank of
England which was to be put on its defence ; and,
with the exception of the Honourable Member for
Westmoreland, the Bank was unrepresented. Mr.
Muntz was also excluded, perhaps from his known
skill in cross-examining a bullionist witness. He
should propose to leave out the words twenty-six, and
to add thirty as the number.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
must resist the motion of his Noble Friend, on the
ground that the extension of the Committee was
calculated to prevent its usefulness, and he had
regretted to make it so large although he had used

the precedent in a similar inquiry. The only question
was the number of the Committee, and he would not
go into the names which should compose it. He
should oppose the increase of the number.
Mr. T. BARING suggested that the Committee
should consist of only eight Member, to be selected
from the late and present Administration, and that
the inquiry should be limited to the Bill of 1844.
[hat would simplify the question, and ensure a more
speedy and satisfactory report upon it.
The House divided—
For the original motion .... .. 136
For the amendment •• 45
Majority
On our re-admission into the gallery we found
Mr. FORBES moving that the debate be now
adjourned.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
objected to the adjournment.
Lord G. BENTINCK again objected to the con-
stitution of the Committee, composed as it was of
placemen and ex-placemen.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said the question was should twenty-six Members be
the number of the Committee, and it would be com-
petent for the Noble Lord to move the substitution
of any names for those which were proposed to be
nominated.
Mr. `VALLEY said he should support the motion
for the adjournment of the debate, and thought the
Government ought not to hesitate to consent to it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said what he wished was, not to proceed with the
nomination of the committee to-night, but to give his
Noble Friend opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) an oppor-
tunity of proposing any names he may think fit. He
would therefore postpone the nomination of the Com-
mittee until to-morrow (this day.)
Mr. F. SCOTT urged the nomination of more
Members connected with Scotland on the Committee.
An HoN. MEMBER thought the opponents of the
measure of 1844 should be represented on this Com-
mittee, or its labours would not gain the confidence
of the country.
Sir G. GREY said that the House had decided
that twenty-six should be the number of the Com-
mittee, and his Right Hon. Friend had agreed to
postpone the nomination of the Committee until to-
morrow (this day.)
Mr. REYNOLDS complained that so few Irish
Alembers were proposed by the Government to serve
on this Committee.
Mr. DISRAELI supported the amendment.
Mr. OSBORNE gave notice that to-morrow (this
day) he should move to substitute the name of Mr.
Reynolds for that of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. CALEY remarked that the whole value of
this inquiry would depend on the constitution of the
Committee. As it was, he did not hesitate to say
that it was not fairly constituted. The upholders of
the Bank Charter Act should appoint one-half of the
Nlembers, and the opponents of that Act should
appoint the other half. If the number were fifteen ha
had no objection to a Member of the Government
being appointed as the fifteenth. As the Committee
was proposed, two-thirds of its Members were selected
from gentlemen favourable to the Act of 1844, and
one-third only from those who were opposed to it.
Captain HARRISS hoped the Government would
consent to modify the Committee between that time
and to-morrow.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had
already stated he did not intend to press the nomina-
tion of the Committee that night. As far as he could
do so, he had, to the best of his judgment, named a
perfectly fair Committee ; but it would be open for
any gentleman to move to substitute other names for
any he had proposed.
Mr. HERRIES inquired whether the Ohancellor
of the Exchequer would permit other games to be
moved without notice ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
would fix the nomination for Wednesday. Hon.
Gentlemen could therefore give notice of any names
it might be proposed to substitute to-morrow (this
day).
The motion for adjournment was then withdrawn.
It was then arranged that the Committee should
consist of twenty-six Members, to be nominated on
Wednesday.
NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT BILL.
This Bill was brought in by Mr. LABOUCHERE
and read a first time.
The House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.

It is rumoured that Mr. Moore has accepted the
seat on the Irish bench vacant by the death of Mr. Jus-
tice Burton,