The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-19 00:00:00

NEW ZEALAND AND LORD STANLEY.

Mr. MASTERMAN presented a petition from the City of
London, praying the House to make some reparation to the
New Zealand Company for the injury they had sustained in
that colony:
The petition, on the motion of an HON. MEMBER, was
ordered to be printed.
Mr. G. W. HOPE then rose to move for certain papers re-
lating to New Zealand, and to answer the charge which had
been made by the New Zealand Company against the Noble
Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. He commenced by
stating that he believed it was fully understood the other night
that the general question relating to the affairs of New Zealand
should be left untouched until after Easter, and he therefore
proposed to abstain from taking up that past of the subject, and
he could not but hope that Hon. Members who followed him
would follow his example. lie made no apology for trespassing
upon the time of the House, because he felt it to be his duty to
give, and the House to hear any explanation he might be en-
abled to make to the personal charge which had been made
against his Noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies. He
had felt anxious to open this part of the New Zealand question,
fot, when he last addressed the House on the subject, he did so
with some degree of warmth, which could not be deemed ex-
traordinary, because improper conduct had been imputed to a
Noble Friend, who, he was sure, was quite incapable of it. He
had no doubt he should now be able to give such an explana-
tion of the matter as would not only satisfy the House
but the Honourable Member for Cockermouth himself.
Now, the charge that had been made against his Noble Friend
at the head of the Colon'es, if he understood it rightly, was
this, that he had come to an arrangement with the New Zea
land Company in Slay, 1843, and that having undertaken to
give certain instructions to the Governor of New Zealand, he
had given those that were inconsistent with them ; and that, in
short, he had given one set of instructions to the New Zealand
Company, and another to the Governor. Now he felt satisfied
that he should be able to show that those charges were totally
unfounded, and that the Noble Lord had acted
in the only way he could do towards the Com-
pany, consistent with his duty. It was not his
wish to go into personal communications or discussions, but he
would refer at once to the letters that had passed upon the
subject. The first letter was written on the Bth of Slay, after
a communication and interview with the Noble Lord. That
letter referred to a proposal on the part of the Company to
purchase land at Auckland, to the appointment of a judge, and
to the formation of a Government on the island, and then it
referred to the Company's title to land. The arrangement at
first proposed a conditional title should be granted on the
Company purchasing the land, and in case the Company should
ask for greater rights, and they could net be given, or that the
Company had to make compensation, that then the Crown
was to assist the Company in making any bargain. The Noble
Lord at once assented to the proposal for the purchase of
land at Auckland, as would be seen by the letter he would
read. The Hon. Gentleman then read the letter, showing
that the proposal had been made and agreed to. The ar-
rangement proposed referred to those three points he had al-
luded to only ; and thus matters stood at the time of the
death of Captain Hobson. On the 15th of June, 1843, a
letter was written to Lord Stanley by Captain Fitzroy,
containing five questions; three of those questions referred to
the arrangements he had previously noticed, the other two
related to different subjects. Now, what was the course Lord
Stanley had pursued? Why, with respect to the three first points,
Captain Fitzroy was referred to the correspondence ; and with
respect to the others, he was told that they referred to an in-
complete arrangement. A 3 to the correspondence which the
Noble Lord had been charged with keeping back, it had been
made confidential, in consequence of the proposal being re-
tailed, which was the substance of the letters, after Captain
Fitzroy had sailed. No instructions had been shown to the
New :Zealand Company, except those to which he had referred,
and those instructions had been given without reserve. He
wished to avoid every irritating topic. The question was, how-
ever, whether the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial-
office had been guilty of an intentional decep-
tion, in keeping back this correspondence? The New
Zealand Company having received the correspondence,
on the 12th of February, said, in reply, on the 29th, that they
regretted that Lord Stanley appeared to have understood the
agreement in a different sense from that which they had at-
tached to it. Now, he must direct the attention of Hon.
Members to a letter written before that period. In that letter
he found a passage in which the New Zealand Company stated
that they had the greatest reliance on Captain Fitzroy's inten-
tions ; and, as regarded the Noble Lord, so far from stating
that this was an act of gross deception, the letter concluded by
stating that they left the matter in his Lordship's hands, with
entire reliance on his good faith. He hoped that the effect of
a calm and temperate consideration of the subject would be to
induce Gentlemen to withdraw the charges made against the
Noble Lord, for the first time in his life; for let that Noble
Lord's faults and failings be what they might, until now no
man ever charged him with duplicity.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. C. BULLER said he could assure the House that he
rose with the greatest pain to make any remarks in reference
to the conduct of the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley), but the
statements of the New Zealand Company had been publicly
made, and by those statements, if he had any regard for his
character, he must publicly stand.—( Hear. ) He was nut
there to ask for any vote of censure with regard to the Noble
Lord's conduct, but to defend certain statements made by the
New Zealand Company, complaining of substantial wrong done
to them by the Noble Lord, with respect to the matter to which
the motion referred. Those statements had been before the
public a whole year; and though the Noble Lord was in that
House when it was first made, he had not brought the matter
before the House. It was not their fault that the matter
had been brought before the House. It was elicited by the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) reading a letter of the New
Zealand Company, which he had endeavoured to turn against
them ; and he should be extremely glad if the discussion that
evening should clear a public question from those bitter and
acrimonious allusions with which it had been mixed up. He
had felt that the Hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of
State for the Home Department was placed in a very difficult
position ; and in order that he might have the fullest advan-
tage in reply, he should close by moving, as an amendment, for
all correspondence which had passed between Lord John Rus-
sell and the New Zealand Company. Now the complaint which
he had to make on that occasion was that by the transactions to
which the Honourable Gentleman had adverted the New
Zealand Company had suffered substantial wrong. In
order to juvify this complaint, it would be necessary for
him to call attention to the agreement of the 12th of May,
1843, and to point out the differcn'te between that agreement,
and the agreement for which it was substituted with the Noble
Lord the member for the City of London. The agreement
between Lord John Russell and the New Zealand Company
was to this effect:—Having acquired a little land, by certain
purchases, which they said they had made from the natives of
New Zealand, prior to the assertion of her Majesty's authority
in the island, it became necessary that the Company should
make some arrangement with respect to those claims. There
never was any dispute as to the way, in which those claims were
to be adjusted; but it was agreed that an amount should be
taken proportioned to the expenditure which had been
incurred. Now the difference which arose was this—
They imagined that the agreement with Lord John Russell
made their claims dependent only on one inquiry—namely, an
inquiry before an accountant ; whereas Lord Stanley said that
there was a court established in which their claims must be in-
quired into, and that they must go there to determine the
validity of their purchases from the natives. A long, and, he
was sorry to add, a warm controversy took place on the subject;
and, while it lasted, the operations of the Company were totally
suspended, and, their title being discredited, no land could be
sold. Of 14,000 inhabitants of the colony, 10,000 derived
their title under the New Zealand Company, and depended on
them for their secure possession. Lord Stanley made them
twe offers, neither of which did they accept. On the death of
Captain Hobson, the Governor of the colony, when a new
Governor had to be sent out, it was proposed that a fresh ar-
rangement should be made, and negotiations for that purpose
were entered into. On the Bth of May a letter was trans-
mitted by Mr. Sorties to Lord Stanley, containing the pro-
posals of the New Zealand Company. This document was
prepared by both parties—it reduced their views to writing.
On the 12th of May an answer was received from the Hon.
Gentleman opposite; and if all the rest of the correspondence
had been conducted in the same spirit, the negotiation would
have hada very different result. What he complained of was, that
from that hour the spirit of the letter to which he had referred
was deviated from.—( Hear, hear.) The spirit in which the
Government acted was everything in a matter of this kind.
Lord Stanley stated that he was prepared to issue instructions
to the Governor of New Zealand, founded on the proposal of
the Company themselves. They were naturally anxious to
know what those instructions were ; and 'on the part of the
New Zealand Company he went to the Under Secretary for
the Colonies. A letter of the 19th of May, enclosed two letters,
which he called the agreement as to the instructions.
The first letter was dated the Ist February, and the second the
26th of June, 1843. It was a painful and a difficult task to
occupy the attention of the House with such a matter, but he
was desirous not to make accusations, but to state specifically
what were the faults they found with the Colonial Secretary,
and to place before the House how the second instructions of
February, 1843, differed in spirit and in letter from the first.
The first objection they entertained was against the proceed-
ings of the Government as to the land at Auckland ; they looked
en them as having been a distinct violation of the letter of the
agreement. The two great objects of the Company in taking
land in the neighbourhood of Auckland were, first, that they
might be on good terms with the Governor; and, secondly,
that, in obtaining it through the Government, they should get
rid of any further trouble with respect to proving their title.
The Company never intended to make any purchase of it of
the natives in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Their letter to
Lord Stanley was worded entirely in accordance with that
view ; they said the Company would abandon their claim to
&0,000/. worth of the land they had already purchased,
if credit were given them for an equal amount
of land in the neighbourhood of Auckland. The Company
were ready to abandon their claim, not to sell it ; they aban-
doned their claim not to any specific fifty thousand acres of
land, but to 50,0001. worth of the whole quantity they had
purchased elsewhere, and to the whole of which they were en-
titled. There had never been any dispute as to the quantity
of land to which they were entitled. Therefore, the terms of
the agreement fully bore out their meaning, which was, sup-
posing the claim of the Company amounted to one million of
acres, they would only claim 930,000 acres, as they were to get
the other fifty thousand in the neighbourhood of Auckland.
Instead of the Company selecting its land in a certain district to
the southward, it, for the purposes of the Government itself,
suggested by Lord Stanley himself, asked to be allowed to select
a portion of it in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Now, they
contended that this claim had been specifically set aside by Lord
Stanley's instructions of February, in which he directed the Go-
vernor to ascertain if the title to the land to be granted to the
Company could be satisfactorily proved by them. The Com-
pany charged this as a distinct violation of the agree-
ment.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was entitled
to a certain quantity of land in the south ; they abandoned the
claim to that land, for fifty thousand acres in the north, and
then they were required, for these fifty thousand acres, to go i
before the Commissioners and establish their title to t
Another resolution was one much more at variance with the
spirit of the agreement. It was of the greatest importance to
the Company that the Government should interfere itself to
put an end to all the disputes with the natives. As long as the
natives imagined that the Company (which they knew was in
disfavour with the Government) was the party they had to
contend with, the Company knew that the demands of the
natives would be raised to a very great amount, and that they
should have all kinds of difficulties in making arrangements with
them. The Company, therefore, wished the Government to
make the arrangement with the natives, that their claims might
be extinguished for a reasonable sum. They asked the Govern-
ment to do its best to aid the agents of the Company in effect-
ing these arrangements with the natives; and what they meant
v..as, that the Government should act for the Company as it
would have acted for itself.—( Hear, hear.) And what was
Lord Stanley's answer ? It was a most frank and cordial ac-
ceptance of the proposal, and his letter stated his readiness to
give instructions to the Governor to settle with the natives the
title to lands in the colony. But afterwards it seemed doubts
arose ; he did not know Who expressed those doubts, but the
Governor applied to Lord Stanley for further explanations.

Those explanations were given, but they conveyed a great qua-
lification of the readiness with which he had accepted the
first proposal, and it was a very different answer
to a man, asking another to do his beet for him, when he
said, he would do his best, or when he said he would do it
"so far as it could be done with propriety." The qualifi-
cation he added to his second instructions completely nullified
the premise he had given by the first. It was exactly the sort
of qualification attached to a promise there was no inclination
to keep ; the spirit of the promise to do his best was
totally altered and vitiated. He now came to the
third point, and that the most important one,
with regard to the title to the lands. Captain
Fiterov wrote on the subject to Lord Stanley, in terms which
showed that he ( Captain Fitzroy) had totally misconceived his
original instructions; and he must say it was exceedingly hard
that the New Zealand Company, which in this matter was
obliged to trust to the honour of the Government, and the settee
and spirit of its officer, should not have been informed of these
misconceptions on the part of the Governor. The Govern-
ment was bound to have told the Company that the Governor
had found some ambiguity in their instructions, which had led
to a total misconception of the arrangement between them ;
that they had done their best to correct that misconcepth n,
and that they wished the Company to see if they had com-
pletely settled it. That was the course a Colonial Secretary,
anxious for the good of the colony, and anxious to fulfil his
engagements with those who trusted him, should have pursued.
He should have told the Governor, in terms as gentle as he
pleased, that he did not understand the matter, and that he
(Lord Stanley) would set him right. Substantially he (Mr.
Buller) granted that Lord Stanley did set the Governor
right, but he did it in such a manner that he could
attribute it to nothing but that the instructions had
never been acted on.—( Hear, hear.) His Lordship
referred the Governor to his original correspondence, which the
Governor must already have seen fifty times, and which it was
evident he had already totally misunderstcod. Lord Stanley's
explanation of his instructions opened the whole question of the
validity of the purchases; it at least implied a doubt on the
subject ; and as Lord Stanley must have known he was
dealing with a man capable of misunderstanding a
great deal, he ought to have made his instruc-
tions as clear and intelligible as he possibly could.
But, then, what was to be thought of the words that had been
used by the party of whom he had been speaking, in the let-
ters to which he had been referring ? If anything could con‘
firm the fact that he was right in his construction of these ob-
servations, it was the words he had quoted ; but then the same
letter added, " I confess that I concur in the view taken by
you." Now, what was he (Mr. B.) to infer from these
words, but that the view taken by the Governor on this ques-
tion was a wrong view ?—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, if Lord
Stanley had thought proper to consult the New Zealand Com-
pany, a very different result would have followed. Therefore,
what the Company complained of was, that without any notice
to them as to what was to be the proceeding in their regard,
rules had been adopted which gave the Company reason to
complain of a want of an observance of good faith towards them.
—( Hear, hear.) Therefore the Company complained of a want
of observance of good faith towards them, and alleged that
this agreement of Lord Stanley's was nothing more than so
much waste paper, and that the Company had not not got their
title to their grant.
An Hoe. MEMBER—Aye, not an acre.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. I3ULLER—WeII, the result of all this was, that the
Company were placed in the position of plaintiffs instead of de-
fendants.—( Hear, hear.) Ins'ead of the Company having
got even a conditional title to this land, and let those who ob-
jected to them establish their claim, it was the Company who
were compelled to prove their claims.—( Hear, hear.) He
would not now particularly allude to the affair of the Wel-
lington district, though the Company had been told that they
would be aided in asserting their rights to it, though a title
could not be promised to them.—(Hear, bear.) The Company
had tried to make a purchase of that district from the natives,
and they had been told that they were entitled to do so, and
therefore entered into the necessary contracts, yet, strange to
say, they never could get it.—( Hear, hear.) He would not
now feel inclined to allude to the Nelson country, but that he
had almost forgotten that the Hon. Gentleman opposite was
now more than three months and a half behind him (Mr.
Buller) in information upon this subject.—( Laughter. ) Well,
then, passing from that, the next assertion was that the Govern-
ment could make no grant of land until they had heard
from their agents : but although that difficulty was interposed
still there could be no question as to the title of the Company.—
( Hear.) Vet, notwithstanding all that, and that their title
was clear, the Commissioners still refused to make any arrange-
ment, for some reason or other.—(Hear, hear.) On these
grounds, then, he (Mr. Buller) was warranted in saying that
Lord Stanley's letters did not convey to that House the infor-
mation required.—( Hear, hear.) There was another point to
which he wished to make allusion, and it was the last he would
trouble the House with. He had, said that the complaint of
the Company was, not as to the extent of land to which they
were entitled, but as to the fact itself.—( Hear, hear.) He
had before him one of the letters of Lord Stanley,
in which that Noble Lord said "he was ready
to fulfil all the conditions promised by him, provided that the
other conditions were complied with." That letter was dated
the 12th of May, and by it, it appeared that Lord Stanley ad-
mitted the rights of the Company. But what was the result
of all those negotiations? Why, this, that notwithstanding aU
the instructions that had been issued to Captain Fitzroy, nine
months had been suffered to elapse, and yet those conditions
had been allowed to remain unfulfilled.—(Bear, hear.) He
had spoken upon this subject the other night, and he had made
use of the same words, namely, whose fault was it that this
question had been raised ? Was it not Lord Stanley's ?
( Hear, hear.) Well, then, he had endeavoured to find out
what step the Government would take on the subject, and be
presumed he was to look for his answer to the letter of the 9th
of May.—( Hear.) But if so, there again arose another dill-
crilty ; and who then was to decide upon this question of the
moral rights that should exist between man and man, if the Go-
vernment did not interpose and protect the rights of the Company?
Why dial they resort to that means of intercommunication?
Obviously because the matter was important. If, then, it
was important, why did they not consider other parties to the
agreement? Why did they not communicate with the New Zea-
land Company ? By not making this communication they had
seriously impaired the spirit and efficacy of the original agree-
ment. The Noble Lord had rendered himself liable to the
charge of having rendered that agreement totally void and in-
efficacious. Nine months ago the whole dispute ought to
have been for ever settled. He (Mr. Buller) trusted that he
had stated this matter to the House without any exaggeration.
He felt that he was on his own defence, having agreed to the
report of the New Zealand Company.—( Hear, hear.)
He felt that they bad been unhandsomely treated in the
matter ; and he thought that he had made out to the
satisfaction of the house that there was sufficient irregularity
in this transaction to warrant the course he had taken. He
would not affect to disregard his position on that occasion—he
would not affect to say that he would not feel great satisfactiop
should this charge not be sustained, but he feared that tie
Noble Secretary for the Colonies had acted in such a manner as
to forget both his duty to others and himself. The Hon. Gen-
tleman concluded by moving as an amendment for the produc-
tion of all correspondence that had taken place between Lord
Stanley and the New Zealand Company.
Mr. G. W. HOPE trusted the House would not expect the
Government to give any later dispatch than that which had
been laid before them. He regretted that the Hon. Gentleman
had not followed the course which he (Mr. Hope) had done—
of cenfiiiing himself altogether to the question before the
House. The Hon. Gentleman had thought it necessary to refer to
the original agreement, and the Hon. Gentleman had made re-
flectionsas to the course pursued by Lord Stanley. Now the
House would recollect what were the circumstances of the set-
tlement of New Zealand, and in what condition the people were
placed at the time Lord Stanley undertook the affairs of his
office. New Zealand was settled contrary to the wishes and
intentions of the Government. The New Zealand Company,
in 1839, sent out an agent for the purpose of acquiring land
by purchase, and concurrently with that, they sent out a large
body of settlers to take possession of that island. In conse-
quence of that expedition having sailed, the Noble Lord,
then at the head of the Colonial Department (the Marquis
of Normanby), determined upon sending out persons to treat
with the chiefs for the sovereignty of the Island, upon this
understanding that if they obtained the sovereignty of the
Island they would recognise no titles previously acquired by
Europeans. The difficulty, therefore, which the Noble Lord
had to contend with, in respect to the New Zea-
land Company, arose out of that arrangement.
He now came at once to the principal points alluded to by the
Hon. Gentleman. He had never, until he heard it from the
Hon. Gentleman, understood that it was to be made a ground
of objection to the Government by the New Zealand Com-
pany, that the land taken in exchange for the 50,0001. was
land which ought to have been retained by the Company.
Now, he had always understood that it was expected that the
Government was to receive something in return. The Hon.
Gentleman said he had applied to see the instructions which
had been sent out, and they were shown to him. Those instruc-
tions were directed to one point only, and the
main instructions were directed to the Governor.
The Hon. Gentleman then dwelt (and this he made the
gravgpnen of his charge) on the point that the demands made
by the Company had been refused. Now, there seemed to be
some misunderstanding and misapprehension on this head. He
admitted that the information upon it was imperfect, but be
could only state that, as far as the information in his posses-
sion went, he did not find any demand made by the agent of
the Company from Captain Fitsroy which was refused by
him, or that there was any misunderstanding as to how it was
to he carried out. Now, whatever observations might be made
respecting Captain Fiteroy, his strict honour and the truth
of his reports were never called in question.
On the 29th of January he wrote to Lord Stanley, stating that
he had had an interview with the principal agent of the New
Zealand Company, and that there was every prospect of ad-
justing the claims of the Company. There was no demand
made which was refused—there was no difference as to the con-
struction of the arrangement, or as to the instructions which
had been given. He did not think that a more complete answer
could be given to the Hon. Member. Then as to the question
of dereption—he admitted that the Noble Lord was as liable
to err as other persons ' • but the question was as to the inten-
tion to deceive. The Hon. Member said that the Noble Lord
ought to have been explicit in his instructions ; but they
were given by referring to the correspondence itself. It was
impossible to give more precise or direct instructions as to
what was the understanding of them. But then it was said,
why were they not communicated to the Company ? Why
there was a doubt, and if that doubt was not solved in favour of
the Company, they might be referred to them ; but as it was
solved in their favour, where was the use in referring them?
lf, as was admitted by the Hon. Member himself, there was en
evident desire to correct the error of Captain Fitzroy, and hav-
ing (as he thought he had) proved this, lie (Mr. Hope) did
not think he was called upon to do more than to show that
there was no ground for charging his Noble Friend within
o-
tentional breach of faith, or a wish to deceive.—( Year, hear.
Mr. R. TREVOR said that his real object in rising was
simply this—that as the Hon. Member for Liskeard had volun-
teered to explain an expression which he had used on a former
debate, a communication to that effect was made to him by a
mutual friend, and he was aware of the answer which had been
sent to him on the occasion, on the part of Captain Fitzroy's
friend, arid he was happy of having an opportunity of acknow-
ledging his courtesy that evening ; and he might say, at
the same time, that he congratulated the Honourable
Gentleman opposite, and the House, on the improved tone in
which the debate was carried on that night.
Mr. SHEIL--With regard to Captain Fitzroy, I do think
that the reflections which have been cast on him will not in the
slightest degree affect him, as a gentleman of Captain Fitz-
roy's head seems to me to be a very fit representative of the
Colonial Secretary.—(Laughter.) With regard to the inten-
tions of Lord Stanley, my Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr.
Buller) has abstained from dragging them into that debate,
but it must be remembered that, with the possession of the best
intentions unfitness for a particular department may unhappily
be associated.—(Laughter.) The whole case lay within a
very narrow point. In Lord John Russell's letter of May
1840 it is stated " the result of Mr. Pennington's investigation
you will perceive is that undersuch arrangements the Company
are entitled to receive 531,924 acres of land." "Entitled to
receive," mark that, and that " hereafter they will be entitled
to a further portion of between vo,ono and 500,000 acres."
Now this fact must be borne in mind by the House that the
Company were already admitted to be entitled to 500s000 acres.
This must be borne in mind when you come to the letter of the
B'h of May, which contains the proposition of the Government.
The Company proposed to accept 50,0001. in lieu of 50,000
acres of land, to which they were already :entitled__
that was their claim. It was emphatically and most expressively
worded, and was full of significance. It was that upon which
his Hon. and Learned Friend relied, but to which the Under
Secretary of State did not advert. The Company were to
relinquish their claim to 50,000 acres of land. That was the