The Sun.
London, England, 1840-09-07 00:00:00

Zln alll.

LONDON:
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1840.

The Committee appointed " to inquire into the
statements contained in the petition of the merchants,
bankers, and shipowners of the city of London,
presented May 22, 1840, respecting the coloniza-
tion of New Zealand"—these are the words of
the appointment—seems to us to have prcceeded
more strangely than any Committee we ever recol-
lect. One naturally supposes that when a Commit-
tee is appointed to inquire into the statements con-
tained in a petition of merchants, bankers, and
shipowners of London, that the petitioners should
be examined, or at least persons deputed by them,
and authorised to speak in their behalf. Now
not one of the few names to the petition appears
amongst the witnesses examined by the Committee,
nor is there amongst them the name of a single
nierehant, banker, or shipowner of the city of
London.

The following are the names of all the with
nesses :—July 13th, EDWARD GIBBON WAKE
FIELD, Esq. ; July 16th,
EDWARD GIBBON
WAKEFIELD, Esq. ; July 17th, EDWARD GIB_
BON WAKEFIELD, Esq. ; July 22d, EDWARD
GIBBON WAKEFIELD, Esq.; and July 24th
EDWARD GIBBON WAKEFIELD, Esq.
Out of
six days that the Committee met, EDWARD GIB-
BON WAKEFIELD, Esq., was examined on five of
them, and on three of them no person else was
examined. " Him first, him last, him greatest.',
The other witnesses were SAGE BANISTER,
Esq., who was Attorney-General of New South
Wales thirteen years ago ; Mr. JOHN BLACK ETT,
a mate in the Navy, lately returned from New Zea-
land"; JOHN WARD, Esq., Secretary to the New
Zealand Land Company, and apparently a double
of EDWARD GIBBON WAKEFIELD, Esq.,
a Director of the said Company ; DANDESON
fOATEs, Esq., Lay Secretary to the Church Mis-
sionary Society ; the Rev.
JOHN BEECHAM, Se-
cretary to the Wesleyan Missionary Society ; the
Rev. SAMUEL HINDS, a member of the New
Zea,land Association, got up by EDWARD GIB-
B.Q.N WAKEFIELD, Esq.; Mr. CHARLES EN-

DERBY, a person largely concerned in the South
11 Sea Whale Fishery ; Wm. HUTT, Esq.. M.P., a
Director of the New Zealand Land Company ; and
Mr. BUSBY, a resident in New South Wales, who
has visited New Zealand on two occasions.
These were all the witnesses examined by a
Committee appointed to inquire into the allega-
tions of a petition from merchants and bankers of
London. But the Chairman of that Committee, Lord
ELIOT, and the minority who diligently attended it,
thought these were quite enough, and that they
had given sufficient information to warrant the
Committee in recommending a whole series of le-
gislation on a most important subject, embracing
questions of international law, and involving a di-
rect cause of quarrel with France. So ripe was
Lord ELIOT, under the forced culture of ED-
WARD GIBBON WAKEFIELD, Esq., that he
laid the draft of a report before the Committee,
of which that prodigious legislative genius, Mr. B
HAWES, of Police Act notoriety, moved the adop-
tion, but which the Committee, as we stated on
Friday, refused, and, as we shall some time or other
show, most properly refused to adopt.
A Sunday print, which has taken up this sub-
ject as warn: lv as EDWARD GIBBON WAKEFIELD
himself, states, we see, that that draft report was "an
able document," " that it is strictly founded on
evidence," the evidence, namely, of EDWARD
GIBBON WAKEFIELD, Esq., and JOHN WARD,
Esq., " that it embraces the whole subject, and
suggests a complete plan of future legislation." It
embraces, too, we are told, " the deliberate opinion
of those members of the Committee who alone per-
formed their duty by diligently inquiring into the
matter submitted to them, and will have as much
weight with the public as if it had been re-
ported by the majority." Another Weekly print,
engaged in the same trade of puffing off
certain Land Companies and their schemes, pub-
lished on Saturday, after the Ttmes, Lord aka's
rejected draft, as:" the Report of the Parliamen-
tary Committee." Is this blundering stupidity, or
sharp dishonesty ? We are afraid, from the
strong feeling which has been evinced throughout
on this subject, that it is the latter. What,
however, will our readers think of this Report, and
of the case made out to the satisfaction of the
Noble Chairman of this well-informed Com-
mittee, when we state, though the Committee was
moved for by Lord ELIOT to inquire into
the allegations of London merchants, and was
granted on that ground, that the real object of in-
quiry, and the only thing actually inquired into,
was a dispute between EDWARD GIBBON WA KE-
FIELD, Esq., or the companies amid societies he
had formed or suggested, and the Colonial Office ?
Under a completely false pretext and a deluding
motion, this gentleman was summoned before a
Committee to make out his own case ; and if some
of the accused members of the Government sat as
judges, and could cross-examine him, amongst
the judges sat also a virtuous minority, who num-
bered themselves amongst the accusers. The

Spectatcr confirms this remark by endeavouring to
make it appear that Mr. WAKEFIELD gained a
great victory. We differ from that opinion. We
only now quote the assertion of a fight, to show
what was inquired into, as we have before shown
who were the witnesses ; and beg leave to ask our
readers if such inquiries, answered by such wit-

messes, can possibly furnish a proper basis for " a
complete plan of future legislation ?"
The person who obtains a Committee conducts

:s deliberations. Who induced Lord ELIOT to

move for a Committee to inquire into a dispute be-
tween Mr. WAKEFIELD and the Colonial-office,

under the pretext of inquiring into the allegations
of shipowners, bankers, and merchants of London,
which make no reference to that dispute, we know
not ; but it must have been by his Lordship's
own authority, if not by his device, that ED.
WARD GIBBON WAKEFIELD, Esq., was the first

and chief person examined by the Committee. Wha

induced the Chairman to summon Mr. WAKE'
FIELD to give evidence concerning a petition o
London merchants ? Whatever other places that

gentleman may have visited, he is not known to

have visited New Zealand, and could have no
facilities for giving informazion on the statements
of London merchants concerning it. All that he
is asked about the petition and its statements is as
follows :

" CHAIRMAN—YOU have seen the petition which
has been referred to this Committee ?—I have.
You are acquainted with the subject to which it re-
!ates ?—I am considerably acquainted with it, having
paid attention to it for some years past.
" Can you give the Committee an account of the
steps by which the p►esent state of things in New Z •a-
and has been brought about ?—As far as my memory
vill enable me, I shall endeavour to do so."

Thereupon the witness launches forth into a
history of his connection with the subject of colo-
.,izing New Zealand, the Companies he had been
connected with, and the quarrel which had grown
up betwixt them and the Government. The re-

suits of his evidence are even more curious than
the nature and mode of the investigation. Into
►hem we shall hereafter enter, but we must

now stop.

We have confiaed ourselves on

this occasion to a brief account of the ori-
gin of the Committee and its mode of in-

quiry. The person who moved for the Committee,
and conducted its deliberations, was Lord ELIOT.

and as we had formed an opinion that, as times go,
l►e is a respectable young nobleman, we regret to
see him lending himself to such a precious piece of
delusion. As to the so-called Liberal Members
who were engaged in the scheme, and the Liberal
Journals who have upheld it, our readers will know
wetter what to think of them when we have laid
before them some of the evidence, which we shall

fo to-morrow, on which was founded " the able

Report."

The last letter of SYDNEY SMITH to CHARLES

JAMES LONDON, is a far more severe satire on
the Established Church and the grasping Bishops,
than any article, pamphlet, or book ever written
by a layman. The reason is obvious ; those who
are behind the curtain know what is going on ; and
Churchmen, like thieves and pickpockets, when
the plunder is not equally divided, naturally split and
tell tales of one another. This is the case in the
present instance. The pious Bishop of LONDON,
with an income of 20,0001. a-year, and something
more, and the " attenuated Prelate" (as the fa-
cetious sinecure functionary of St. Paul's describes
the Archbishop of CANTERBURY) with 30,0001,
a-year, being afflicted at the sight of such vast
masses of fellow-creatures living without GOD in
the world, resolved to reform the Church, and
began with the drones in the cathedrals. This, of
course, brought a hornet's nest about their ears, and,
to the credit of the leading drone in the hive, he has
buzzed and stung admirably. The Bev. SYPNEY
SMITH, indignant that the idle Prebends and
Canons should be robbed while the idle &shops
are allowed to escape, has stuck to the Bishop of
LONDON ;or the last four years, and has clearly
proved, with the assistance of the Bishop, that
of all the systems by which mankind have been de-
luded, that which is called the Established Church of
England is the most nefarious. He and the pious Pre-
late have proved that while petitions are presented to
the House of Lords from the Clergy, as containing
their spontaneous sentiments, they are only emana-
tions frorn the Archdeacons and Bishops ; that the
Clergy of the Church of England are the most
monsatmenes-
slaved of the human race, that they put their
to doctrines which they deny ; and that while the