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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNE-SDAV EVENING, MARCH 19, 1845.

nnar him (Mr, 12.”-;,-,,,) h' ter..' Ch9n".llnrc

. . .
bat " • • . ;
to Larct of the system that they should be so Con-
nedlaughte'r.) They had plenty to do with their money,
tifliertritlherefore he (Mr. Hume) would make every allowance for
mad. He would read the House an extract from a suggestion
ee
• bY hinielf to Lord Ale or in reference to this very
s -n p
re.e f nee. He then hoped that there was no occasion to
t,'"'n4 the Noble Lord th,t Chancellor of the Exchequer of •
Ctpleslge whieh he hail given some time aim to do ais ay with
Oen tY, and h•t ,:tig!..r.pstet! thP !Tr) ri •t y, at le ist.
p""lng every manh d thst %o duet-tax fur one
jet, to who a p
d that "Pint a 'dttonal windows, without any increased duty,
of itself 112 considered would be a veil' great retie
nhe3oth of J y, 1834, certain clauses were brought up
subject, the and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then
:01(1 that his (Mr. llume's ) recommendation would occasion
lossp__do the revenue, as its only effect w:uld be to prevent
ph,dn 'ease in the houses already taxed. Agreeably to that
ge the elauses were introduced into the 8.11. ‘ll, hat was
wio:_aosequence? Why this, that those who had s' ut ap their
"ws to the utter exclusion of fresh air, as sooli as they un-
tfio,'"od that although the tax should be continued, yet that
sp„„•e who had paid the tax for one year might be allowed to
Ilia" additional windows without increased expense, they
theirl, and allowed fresh air to be admitted throughout
sith eutes. A few years afterwards, however, the Chancellor
e Exchequer considered it to be his duty to re-assess all
tatose bonses. And what was then the consequence ? The
ain'til'otiell had beet 1,200,00 J-L, was raised to 1.700,00 U The
44 were again shut up, and many houses were altogether
(so and the tax again fell in consequence of that pre sure.
ealinnse grounds he thought this one of those taxes which
114", Pr immediate correction by the House ; and he thought
ese„';' say plan were submitted to the House for a more equal
arid--" of this tax, that plan ought to be a general
Ile _le equal charge upon the rental of the houses.
'leer!" not have an opportunity of making an amend-
hopedGovernment refused an inquiry, but he
frotn that his Noble Friend would receive some assurance
take the Right Hon. Baronet that this subject would be
antler the immediate consideration of the Government
the view of modifying the tax.
Assisi BARING said he should be obliged to trouble the
th with a few observations, in consequence of the remarks
fere e iMputations of the Hon. Member for Montrose, in re-
i to himself, and to the office which he had the honour
ht holding °_,idinf; under the late Government. The Hon. Member
hat
emitted that that office was a most difficult one,
adios should not accept of that admission. His
%pro" of the duty of a public servant was this—to
Lit Jtu to the Acts which had been passed by that House ;
,4e. did not think that any course of getting money would
a.ftsfactory to the Government or to the country, if the
telr of the Government were violated by it. In this case,
tor 'tiled that the Government had pledged itself in the man-
stated by the Non. Member for Montrose. The House
heard ad
the Hon. Member read his own speech to Lord
th,,, but they had not heard the answer which Lord Al-
tai]: had returned to him. He (Mr. Baring) perfectly re-
Ro:ted the Hon. Member bringing the question before the
the tbut he did not remember, and he would not say, that
"19siiiiR1JM°Dle Lord (Lord Ahhorp) had concurred in those pro-
D F—Re ad the 30th of July.
etitt;: "ARING was perfectly aware that the Noble Lord's
The tis were fully carried out by those appointed to do so.
41,..s CT. Member for Montrose seemed to think that the No-
flu!' had been deceived by the officers of the Stamps and
1.04'; but no one was less likely to be deceived than the Noble
• (kr. ~,The Hon. Member for Montrose had also said that he
fase, Daring), the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had wanted
fhtiiij,l:fid had acted unon she instructions in the clauses of
tete a manner never acted on before. That was not the
18,4;"-taat clause was acted on in the same way in 1835 and in
(it He admitted, indeed, that an additional survey—
lice „ear, hear," from Mr. Hume.) What was the construe-
thaelt upon those clauses by the Hon. Member for Mon-
tritilltwoself? His construction was this—that by the clause
given to open windows without any additional tax.
alsii;;PPosing that parties had opened windows under the.e
iftitae4l_, and supposing these parties had never. originally.
domed the proper number of windows—supposing that their
&r:ead tweet windows and they had only returned fifteen,
efeseL°Wkl the neonstruction past upon the clauses by the Hon.
ki),.„'" for Mnntrore act upon that cane ? Were they to open
'ass nre windows—were they to cheat the revenue—he would
tat;
it cheat—he would say evade the proper payment of
baseil; and was it to be said that proper measures should not
theerl to enforce the proper amount which they ought to pay
retenue? He was sure that that reading of the Act
toedniever been contemplated by the Noble Lord. The Noble
timed never had any intentions like those constantly re
tilVbt,t) by the Hon. Member for Montrose. It was stated
l", he (Mr. Baring) was anxious for au Inc eased tax,
ilarCait he had caused a survey for that purpose. That was
!asre..-"Y correct. He found that it would be necessary. to
las: e the amount of the window-tax ; but he thought st was
hirqin the first instance, to see that all parties paid the tax
Nit' fore he should levy any additional duty upon other
ltraeZ and for that purpose he had caused the survey to be
..ttosew7d with. But his Hon. Friend the Member for Moo-
n!, 8 Mistaken in supposing that the survey had then been
for"N the first time. The survey had been going on long
N 4ed Re (Mr. Baring) had been informed that whole streets
get C iu the payment of the tax, and he did not see that parties
those streets should be exempt—especially when they
Itithg°ing to make an additional charge upon other parties.
~
`setie'egard to the grievances of the tax, they
all knew per-
trisi*eil that there was no tax existing which had not its
"er-ileest The Hon. Member referred to particular cases of
akesewiees, but it was imposs:ble for him to . answer individual
ttle er(Mght forward by Hon 'Members.
.They had heard of
44141 et ages of direct over indirect taxation, and yet, as in
litaiititie, the Hon. Member for Montrose was the very first to
Tie of the unequal pressure of direct taxation.
th• '`I,IMIE—Not if you tax the rental.
"ARING—Oh, the Hon. Member said " tax the
elas., if' He happened to know that the:Hon. Member for
Wq„.°4 had complained in no set terms of the injustice of
2 eswile'estaa. He had known some of the largest houses in
',A4IT'd which were taxed scarcely anything; arid it was
Schl well known that many gentlemen's seats did not pay so
Nut to the tax as the village inn beside them.. He did not
m‘clb 'bi,°,,,re was injustice in this, but he must admit that this fact
L'etiTreeed an impression on the public mind which the
-,l....ember for Motrose was not slow to take advantage
Ciaet: near, hear," from thatue, and laughter.) That
ti,tefs;2owsidered it so unfair it was done away with in
'tese-i'me to the window-tax. If, however, that house-tax
at enforced and this window-tax abolished every oue
of
l'aire"ew anything of the circumstances must know that the
s would pay more in that case than they did at
.Writh regard to the Committee on this question he
ito bo • think it would be of that utility which the Noble Lord
4id;7. it would, and if, as he thought, the Noble
tao
tptention was to take the sense of the
altogether
w:. (mae propriety of repealing the . tax
;Ns r_' Baring) for one would not, in the present
'e;cli me revenue, be prepared to assist him. If they went
mittee on this subject, it would be but a waste of the
i.`ave,-„"tee, and would lead to no useful result. But if the
,‘'ess ",teerit instead were to consult their officers, with the.
Zal4l,...witigatin the grievances of this tax, he thought it
'old "'the preferableg plan. Under those circumstances he
oArrflat think of voting with the Noble Lord.
ii„WAKLEY rose amid loud cries of o"
divid. e.'d'
aearl„"'et Member, after the lapse of a few minutes, obtained
%.",.g• He wished to know if the tax was abandoned by
;NI n'etrsment ?—( Laughter.) The late Chancellor of the
Sthle.eT had 'certainly made one of the
in nth
lame defsnces
Mr. Wakley) had ever heard House. This
tit as universally condemned. Everybody said it was
unequal one, and pressed heavily upon the
t Rai ti, aS!es of society. ( Hear, hear, and cheers. )
that
I ortildrnitted by all the tax was inj to health,
'4,114 With re'schief, But the Chancellor ofurious the Exchequer

lien. Members who had nsntione nn the nsrese before him
Isolton had a motion relating to Colonial Accounts.
Dr. BOWEING informed the Hon. Member that he had
postponed his motion for a fortnight.
Mr. :MACKINNON said. the Hon. Member for Li-keard
had also a motion before him. Would the Hon. Member
consent to withdraw it ?
Mr. C. BULLER replied in the affirmative.
Mr. M ACKINN ON under those eircum4ances begged to
postpen • his tnetion ell the tir t Tueaday after the Easter
recess.
NEW ZEALAND AND LORD STANLEY.
Mr. MASTERMAN presented a petition from the City of
London, praying the eouse to make same reparatien to the
New Zealand Company for the injury they leid sustained in
that colony:
'The petition, en the motion of an HoN. MEMBER, was
ordered to be printed.
Mr. G. W. HOI'E 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 Eastsr, and he therefore
proposed to abstain from taking up that part of the subject, and
he could not hut hcpi- that Hon. Members who followed him
would follow his example. He made no apology for trespassing
upen 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. Ile
had felt anxious to open this part of the New Zealand euestion,
fot, who n 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 Colones, if lie understood it rightly, was
this, that he had come to an arrangement with the New Zea-
land Company in May, 1843, and that having undertaken to
give te rtain instructions to the Governor of New Zealand, he
had given those that were ineons;stent 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 May, 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 not be given, or that the
Company had to make compensation, that then the Crown
was to Desist 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 Hen. 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, 1813, 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 ea% referred to the correspondence ; and stith
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-
ca led, 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 deeep-
.ion, in keeping back th s correspondence? The Nee
Zealand Company having received the correspondence,
on the 12th of February, said, in reply, on the 29th, that they
greyed 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 thy left the matter in his Lordship's hands, with
entire reliance on his geed faith. He hoped that the effect of
a calm and temperate consideration of time 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 not
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 jus:ify 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 difference 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, wh ch 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 Lard 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

ist'''to a - m -chief. ..
l'
91 House
tliteleii, e that there was no hope of getting rid of it validity of their purchases 'from the natives. A long, and, he
tithizi. ; and from all the admissions of the Right Hon. was sarry to add, a warm controversy took place on the subject ;
Oil ,sen opposite, he was induced to hope that the remission and, while it lasted, the operations of the Company were totally
et s tx Would be comprehended in their next scheme.— suspended, and, their title being discredited, no land cou'd be
!ttle.ttind a laugh.) He would recommend it to the electors sold. Of 14,00 inhabitants of the colony, 10,000 derived
;IN t awhile to bestir themselves—he would recommend their title under the New Zealand Company, and depended on
Z'tls 1° form an " Anti-Window-tax Association"—( Hear, them for their secure possession. `Lord Stanley made them
Zaslal.lo)—for there was no tax which operated more inju- two offers, neither of which did they accept. OR the death of
latelP2o the health and morals of the people. It was the Captain Hobson, the Governor of the colony, when a new
ttititiii is, t,ttlease and vice.—( Cheers. ) He himself had recently Governor had to be sent out, it was proposed that a fresh ar-
ciatsee",oe parish of Marylebone. In a large house. herangement should be made, and negotiations for that purpose
1;t He :' the highest story, where there was no window. at were entered into. On the Bth of May a letter was trans-
n t,h2nind there a human being without any covering muted by Mr. Somes to Lord Stan!ey, containing the pro-
ir, Q." the floor. It was the body of a.female, 78 years of posals of the New Zealand Company. Thie. document was
tit tlie bas he was informed, the widow of a captain prepared by both parties—it reduced their views to writing.
. 14,:elis' "I'd Navy.—(Hear, hear.) She could not On the i2th of May an answer was received from the Hon.
t 40 allowed to die in that state of utter destitution, if Gentleman opposite; and if all the rest of the correspondence
Zelfedr bours were acquainted with her situation. He be- had been conducted in the same spirit, the negotiation would
Lte et "at the want of light in the upper part of the house have had a very different result. What he complained of was, that
it':es °lot the causes of her remaining alone, and not inquired from that hour the spirit of the letter to which he had referred
as. 61,..1 ~the Noble Lord persevered in dividing the Hauae was deviated from.—( Hear, hear.) The spirit in which the
t,efssth Waliley) would vote with him. But he would G'overninent acted was everything in a matter of this kind.
'''tiss• ssr4 the government would hold out some hopes of the Lord Stanley stated that he was prepared to issue instructions
et tie Ill" ttef the tax.—( Hear, hear.) to the Governor of New Zealand, founded on the proposal of
01.1. a wir,R, EEL said that before he went into a consideration the Company themselves. They were naturally anxious to
`ea .7"w-tax he should state, that the Government had know what those instructions were ; and on the part of the
st thea -
careful and comprehensive review of all the taxation New Zealand Company he went to the Under Secretary for
titlt, ii"niintry before they submitted their financial measures the Colonies. A letter of the 19th of May, enclosed two letters,
1,711. re . ele, and that the window-tax had not been left out of which he called the agreement as to the instructions.
asieh 4:"*.---(Hear, hear.) They thought that the taxes The first letter was dated the Ist February, and the second the
elk' heY had repealed were those the remission of which 26th of Juni, 1843. It was a painful and a difficult task to
Othere most advantageous to the country. He admitted occupy the attention of the House with such a matter, but he
k7ll of were inequalities and inconveniences in the appli- was desirous not to make accusations, but to state specifically
ts3ht it, igle window-tax ; but all the arguments for its repeal what were the faults they found with the Colonial Secretary,
-• see'` as forcibly be alleged in favour of a remission of and to place before the House how the second instructions of
Netitit4,-,41--- Honar hear. ) He did not think it his duty, February, 1843, differed in spirit and in letter from the first.
tititilef„"!! the . Member for Finsbury, to give a specific The first objection they entertained was against the proceed-
I% e, he
~90 repeal of this tax or of that—( Hear)—at the same ings of the Government as to the land at Auckland ; they looke)
:-.-(l:_tt not deny the great inconvenience of the window- on tt.em as having been a distinct violation of the letter of the
144 koatt'j• ). It had been recommended by the Hon. Member agreement. The two great objects of the Company in taking
II itliese Se, In the course of this debate, that there should be land in the neighbourhood of Auckland were, first, that they
httad icssient of tenpence in the pound upon all houses in the might be on good terms with the Governor; and, secondly,
es,..t're mi:?Rdom. But the Hon. Member overlooked that the that, in obtaining it through the Government, they should get
Stettsl easte.leeh he made the basis of his calculation included rid of any further trouble with respect to proving their title.
IL ettietTa of the value of 2/. per annum.—( Hear.) There The Company never intended to make any purchase of it of
asesaile burdens on the people quite as onerous and as objec- the natives in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Their letter to
,LI qo4e_the window-tax ; and it would be the business of Lord Stanley was worded entirely in accordance With that
(edit be
s',,ment to consider how these and other burdens view ; they said the Company would abandon their claim to
ile'arcl burnelievest...4Hear bear.) He gave the Noble Lord 50,000/. worth of the land they had already purchased,
It-hie reea9 credit for the manner in which he had pro- if credit were given them for an equal amount
Asa diai !Awn, but he hoped the Noble Lord would not press of land in the neighbourhood of Auckland. The Company
114171; 1-IAI7 . were ready to abandon their claim, not to sell it ; they aban-
Nill., LorA S said that if be thought the motion of the doned their claim not to any specific fifty thousand acres of
oie'ays..t4 tt,nplied a pledge of the House for the repeal of the land, but to 50.00 N. worth of the whole quantity they had
lie!, tar %Ce would not vote for it. As it was, however, purchased elsewhere, and to the whole of which they were en-
c.:laid sot:mrotttee to inquire into the operation of the tax, titled. There had never been. any dispute as to the quantity
eti,
telei s • for a. of land to which they were entitled. Therefore, the terms of
lia f'l4 tlic, HITHORP could look upon the motion only as the agreement fully bore out their meaning, which was, sup-
the ,_ll4 h-ere Peal of the window-tax.—( Hear, and laughter.) posing the claim of the Company amounted to one million of
G„ not. 1;.,d with astonishment and regret the statement of acres, they would only claim 9:50,000 acres, as they were to get
1464444 'ember for Finsbury, and he thought the Hon. the other fifty thousand in the neighbourhood of Auckland.
furthertleJ lf{ht, in his official capacity, to follow up the in- Instead of the Company selecting its land in a certain district to
asset:_— yi
Oh a lUn upon uear. ) 'There had been a great deal of con- the southward, it, for the purp ises of the Government itself,
u'vllli-'
fortes the part of the Government as to the remit- suggested by Lord Stanley himself, asked to be allowed to select
44 ~_.4g hupou cinnamon and copaiba—( Laughter )—but a portion of it in the neighbourlp.od of Auckland. Now, they
the rtrolile. he remission of duties affecting the comforts of contended that this claim had been specifically set aside by Lord
Aftetion,---h.(lear, and laughter.) He would net vote for S anley's instructions of February, in which he directed the Go-
ate
1., 13-gtasur he thought it wood he of no use. %Tenor to ascertain if the title to the land to be granted to the
Itos t,l, 64 LICOMBE said, that on the ground which Mi- Company could be satisfactorily proved by them. The Com-
iii, ands hatedt he would not vcee for the motion, for he did pany charged this as a distinct violation of the agree-
as% 9411,t, t anything could be got by inquiry.—( Hear.) n,ent.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") It was entitled
tieetteet ' uents wanted no inquiry. They had already had to a certain quantity of land n the south ; they abandoned the
it valoite*Peh_ri.ence in that way ; and when he heard that claim to that land, for fifty thousand acres in the north, and
,s 4 an, -s ..a9 a tendency to prevent the repeal of the tax, then they were required, ior these fifty thousand acres, to go
as.:'!r. n''''lttlonal reason for hi . voting against it.
'VD "). Wlt before the Commissioners and establish their title to it !
41 . out t . ...L.
%.... 0
justifyl AMS thought a sufficient case would be
, see the repeal of the tax if a Committee wete spirit of the agreement. It was of the greatest importance to
Another resolution was one much more at variance with the
s _ .
Wral SUN
ethe Company that the Government should interfere itself to
k• 'ate c CAN then replied. The Right Hon. Gentleman
0 14ncktllor . put an end to all the disputes with the natives. As long as the
;,e ethat he of the Exchequer had been pleased to tell natives imagined that the Company (which they knew was in
4% " not represented a pauper constituency. Now, disfavour with the Government) was the party they had to
ttAtArtittate
oaware that either Ply mouth or Portsmouth was contend with, the Company knew that the demands of the
45ant. PIA was Pauperism; but the Right Hon. Gentleman's natives would be raised to a very great amount, and that they
'his I,tuetts were argument in favour of his motion. lf his should have all kinds of difficulties in making arrangements with
I.,teatta,Ztere paupers, why did the House subject them to them. The Company, theref ire, wished the Government to
' ti 'Par. hear 1
p °use ta . • s make the arrangement with the natives, that their claims might
en divided, when there appeared— be extinau,shed ior a rea:onable sum. They asked the Govern-
. 4:tehset 91 ot ion
' e. .. 93 . ing these arrangements with the natives; and what they meant
o_ t
„a; :•
44, lir set„f 1 wily against the motion —46 was, that the Government should act for the Company as it
atae4-• Hopr to the lone, y,' would have acted for itself.—( Hear, hear.) And what was
'tLord N
htt neat
Q[A the "que'tintt sir. Nlackinnoti, whose mo 'on 'tanley's answer ?It was a most frank and cordial ao-
kinlktuve rha-t e PaPer, to withdraw it. because it was of im- ce'lance of the proposal, and his letter stated his readiness to
tile s'ation whrit
,delay should take Place in. removing the give instructions to the Governor to settle with the natives the
urecret,..
0_ nab been
.14 MC v, t the mai°
Ck nies.
thrown upon his Noble Fr:end: title to lands in the colony. But afterwards it seemed doubts
INNON would de t '
acce o this appeal, if those .lanatons.
arose; he did not know who expressed those doubts, but the
Governor applied to 1.,,0rd Stanley for further exp i

proposition made. The letter written by Lord Stanley ac-
ceded to that proposition. These are the plain facts, intelli-
gible to persons not even conversant w;th the forms of busities;.
A letter was written by the Chairman of the New Zealand
Company. 'I here was an answer. A proposition was made on
the one hand and accepted on the other, and there the matter
rested. An arrangement, a complete arrangement—coal -
e!ete in all its part,,—was entered into by the
Government on the one side, and by the Company
on the other. The tionouiaSle Gentleman said there
was no agreement, but an assumpsit ; bat I should think,
though the practice of the Colonial-office may be a little sharp,
that that sort of special pleading is now abandoned.—( Hear,
hear.) There was a complete agreement. That must be ad-
mitted on all hands. Now, chat takes place. A person is
appointed to carry it into effect on behalf of both, mark that,
on behalf of the Company on the one hand, and on the Go-
vernment on the other. That individual wrote to the Noble
Lord to say he had doubts about the conclusion of the agreement.
Dues the House follow me ?—(Hear, hear.) Am I not right in
saying that this was a complete agreement? Were there not
two pat ties to it, the Government and the New Zealand Com-
pany ? Was it not the duty of Lord Stanley, when doubts had
been raised, to comrnurricate those doubts to the Comle.ny ?
Was not that the ordinary course in the common affairs of li;.e?
If A and B were about to enter into an agreement, which was
to be cart ied into effect by C, and certain doubts had been raised
by A, wan it not the duty of C to make these doubts known to
B ?—( Hear, hear.) Would it be fair for Cto leave Bin com-
plete ignorance? But what do you say to the word " cet.fi-
dential." That word of great import and great potency. Yes,
that word " confidential " was written at the head of a private
tnterp elation of a public agreement.—( Hear, h?ar.) Was the
interpretation private ? If not, why mark it " confi-
dential ?"—( Hear, Lear.) The Under-Secretary of State
had not said why that word " confidential " was written.
A most extraordinary fact had been disclosed. My Hon.
Friend the Memb& for Cockermouth stated that on the Ist of
February, 1643, the Company. for the first time, became ap-
prised of the existence of those instructions. Was not the
effect of those instructions of a secret nature ? Were they
Secret then ? Was not confidence a most important incident
in this matter ?—( Hear, hear. ) Was it not one of the facts
—was it not one of the res gestce? But in the copy that had
been issued from the Colonial office to the Company, the word
" Confidential" was erased. —( Hear, hear, and ironical cheer-
ing, from the Ministerial benches.) Why, my lion. Friend
informs me that the word " Confidential" was originally
written on that copy, and that with a studious but most in-
felicitous solicitude the word " Confidential " was erased.—

I Those explanations were given, but they conveyed a great qua
,ss se, readteess Jill w hieli he ha , accepted the
first proposal, and it was a very different answer
to a man, asking another to do his best 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 quaiifi-
ca'ion he added to his second instructions completely nullified
the promise 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
Fitzroy wrote on the subject to Lord Stanley, in terms which
showed that he ( Captain Fitzroy) had totally misconceived his
original instructions; and be 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 sense
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 mis mneepti n,
and rh't they wished the Con-warty to see if they had corn.
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 truste4 him, should have pursued.
Ile should have told the Governor, in terms as gentle as lie
pleased, that he did not understand the matter, and that he
( Lord Stanley) would set him right. Substantially he ( Hr.
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 misunderst od. 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 oh
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. 1I.) to infer from these
words, but that the view taken by the Governor on this ques•
tion was a wrong view ?—( Hear, hear.) Veil, 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 How. M BER— Aye, not an acre.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BULLER—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, hear.) Tne 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 diffie.ulty was interposed
still there could be no question as to the title of the Company.
( Hear.) Yet, 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
whim he wished to make allusion, and it was the last he would
trouble the House with. He hat 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 all
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.—( Hear, 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?—
(li.ar, hear.) Well, then, he had endeavoured to find out
what step the Government would take on the subject, and he
presumed he was to look for his answer to the letter of the 9th
f May.—( Hear.) But if so, there again arose another diffi-
culty ' • 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 did 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 had 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. Ile
would not affect to disregard his position on that occasion.—he
would not affect to say that he would not feel great satisfaction
should this charge not be sustained, hut he feared that the
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 net followed the course which he (Mr. Hope) had done—
of confining 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 Cum-
pany, that the land taken in exchange for the 50,00 C/. was
land whets 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
grava:nen 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 he
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 Fitzroy which was refused by
him, or that there was any misunderstanding as to how it was
to be carried out. Now, whatever observations might be mode
respecting Captain Fitzroy, 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
c 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 lion. 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?
If, as was admitted by the Hon. Member himself, there was art
evident desire to correct the error of Captain Fitzroy, and hav-
ing (as he thought he had) proved this, he (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 with in-
tentional breach of faith, or a wish to deceive.—( Hear, 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
dehate, 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, and 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. SHElL—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 Fi• z-
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 4t10,0 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 wl.en you come to the letter of the
B'h of clay. which contains the proposition of the Government.
acresth,sh,ieoas
Secretary
rdie:it.doaao,nrsf
itahlollaeatfinitrid wasdsc,tl
L State
to which
dl
ilewdotdfi
wasch e theym ph yreandalmreoasclty
The Company proposed to accept 50,000/ . in lieu of 50,000
aticwalel
Friendns significance. iafidcvarenerti
advert. The
Tblt
hu
et wtaocs thatowmh pi,,ahnuyp theo
were
ev
eh
Underictho
"entitled—
that expressivelytiti ed
relinquish their claire to 50,000 acres of land, That w.
AC

( Hear, hear.) Do you deny that ?—(" Hear, hear," from
the Treasury benches.) Do you deny it ? After a pause.)
Then you don't deny it ? Tell me why? Is the House satis-
fied with the explanation that has been given? I think not.—
( Hear, hear. ) Will you tell me why the word was inserted?
Air. HOPE—I did. . .

Mr. SHEIL—Oh, then, it must he my want of perspicacity
that I did not understand the Hou. Gentleman.—(Laughter. )
I certsinly heard nothing—not even a plausible suggestion for
the introduction of the word "confidential " in the interpretation
of a public document. The interpretation was that upon which
the Government was to act ; then why not convey it to the
other party to that agreement—the New Zealand Company?
Did the interpretation of Lord Stanley differ from the agree-
ment? Surely, when doubts were raised, the other contracting
party should have copies of the discussion which took place
thereupon, and should be allowed to state his reasons and plead
his case.—( Hear, hear.) Is there not a great difference be-
tween proving a title as plaintiff and defendant? I say, is there
not a great difference ?—( Hear, hear.) If I agree to sell
A certain lands, on condition that he won't dispute the
title, would it not be a departure from the agreement
if A afterwards said, " You must prove your title." By
the agreement of the 12th of May, the onus probandi
was taken off the Company, bat by Lord Stanley's interpre-
tation the onus probandi was thrown on the Company.—
(No, no.) You say " No."—(The Right Hon. Gentleman
read an extract from the agreement in proof of what ho
stated.) By the first agreement, I repeat, the onus probandi
was removed from the Company, and by the interpretation
—the clandestine interpretation—the interpretation behind the
backs of the parties—the surreptitious interpretation—the
onus was shifted from the shoulders of the Noble Lord and
thrown upon the Company.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor-
General) would tell them whether there was not a difference
between the lessor of the plaintiff and the lessor of the de-
fendant. Is there not in this respect a distinct
departure from the terms of the agreement? I
was a good deal surprised by the Uder-Secretary
for the Colonies. He read a document, or rather the fragment
of a document—of a public document—dated the 29sh of June,
1844. It is impossible the Hon. Gentleman could have read
the rest of that document, or that he would have taken care to
convey to the House the informat'on which it contains. He
asked the House to accede to Lord Stanley's interpretation ;
but the Hon. Gentleman did not read this part of the docu-
ment. It appears by this final instruction of Captain Fitzroy,
recently conveyed, that the agreement was interpreted—at
least in some of its parts—in a sense different from that which, in
the first instance, attached to it.—(Mr. Hope—" Read on.")
Why did not you read on?— ( Hear)--w by did you not read before
you came down to the House ? Why is it that this hiatus valde
defiendus occurred ?—( The Hon. Gentleman went on to read
the document.) " With the hope that no practical evil had re-
sulted from this misunderstanding, yet. it was not the less fatal
to our utility as a Company, and it must be owned was most
injurious to the interests of a colony which was then in its in-
fancy."—( Hear, hear.) Do you wish me to read any more ?
The rest of the passage relates to the mad-administration of
the colony. It has been stated that notwithstanding many de.
fects in the Government of the colony, the people
of New Zealand had made a remarkable pro-
gress in civilisation. The Colonial-office has pub-
lished documents, one of which is of great interest. It is
the speech of Napiera, one of the native chiefs, at a meeting of
the chiefs. He says—" Speak your words openly—speak as a
man—do not say one thing and mean another." Sir, these
words (meta to be written, in letters of gold, in the Colonial-
office.—( Great cheering. )
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL commended the tone whic'a
had been used by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, and depre-
cated that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun-
garvon, who stopped much more suddenly than he had antici-
pated, and failed in giving the slightest elucidation of the
question under the consideration of the House—in fact, the
Right lion. Gentleman had not furnished him with materials
to comment upon. It did not touch the specific charge against
the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department. Now
what was the question with which the House had really to deal?
These were the instructions which had been sent out by the
Noble Lord in order to regulate the settlement of the country.
It was necessary to state these instr uctions in order to under-
stand the dispute between the New Zealand Company and the
Colonial- office. The New Zealand Company had purchased
a very consieerable tract of land, to which in the first place they
were required to make their title good. file Noble Lord at
the head of the Colonial Department had Wen exceedingly
anxious to save the Company from uncertainty and expense in
conveying their titles to whoever might be purchasers from
them. It was true that the Noble Lord had professed to make
good a prima facie title to the New Zealand Company.
This would give no particular advantage, the House might
say, to the Company themselves, but it was of immense
advantage to the Company, in giving them an opportunity of
preceding other proprietors of land. This title was
preferred in 1842, and it gave them a selection
of a very large tract of country. :In giving them,
however, this prima facie title, Lord Stanley required
the Company should clear the native titles. The Company
had remonstrated against this obligation, but yet they had
proceeded to carry out the prima facie title which they
had derived from the Colonial-office. But the terms
of that title were such, that the Company refuted
to accept them without modification. But on the Bth of May,
1843, a letter was forwarded to the Colonial Office, which con-
tained a proposal precisely of the same tenor as that which they
had previously refused. The Company were invested
with a power over lands to a considerable extent.
Those lands did not include Auckland or Wellington, but they
chose to make settlements at those places ; and the only point
which they particularly desired to reserve, was their ability to
convey these lands without limitation. The Colonial-office re-
quired that the native titles to these lands should be cleared.
The extent of the districts would be understood when he
stated that it extended over five degrees of latitude, and
21,000,000 of acres. There was only one arrangement into
which the Colonial-office had agreed to enter, and which at
all affected the interests of the Company ; and that was—that
they should expend 4/. for every acre which they should dis-
pose of. The Government only required that the Company
should make their title good. In doing this, it should not be
forgotten that the Colonial-office had given a prima facie title
to all the land which they possessed. Now it happened that
Auckland was not within their district at all ; yet, so desirous
were they of a settlement at Auckland, that in their proposal
of the Bth of May, 1842, they made the proffer of 50,000 acres
of land, 10,000 in the town, and 15,000 in the neighbourhood.
The other 25,000 they took in dispersed lots in the country dis-
tricts. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for
Liskeard had laid great stress upon the claims of the Company to
50,000 acres of land. Undoubtedly they hid a claim by reason
of their title to a certain number of acres within their own
district. They proposed to exchange a portion of the land to
which they were entitled.
Mr. C. ItULLER—That is my view.
The SOL ICI T Olt- CENE RA L is ( the Solicitor- Gene-
ral's ) view was, that they were willing to give the Government
50,000 acres of their own land, but he held that they were
bound to show their title to it, it being in fact compulsory on
them to establish their claim to the land by a settled and com-
plete right. That was the proposition which was made in the
letter of the sth May, aed to which the letter of the 12th was
an answer. Here was the first question between the Govern-
ment and the Company. The lion. Member for Liskeard took
occasion to criticise the spirit of Lord Stanley's instructions,
because he sail that it would be his duty to see that the Com-
pany satisfactorily proved their title to the land. he question
between them was, who was to prove the title to the land. He
contended that it remained an open question now. The Go-
vernment maintained that it was the Company's duty to clear
the titles to are land. These instructions were in the very
spirit of every letter that had passed from the Government at
home to the Governor of New Zealand. And, he would ven-
ture to say, that so far from being different from the spirit of
the letters, that they were most consonant with the
agreement entered into with the Company. Lord
Stanley, in his letter to Captain Fitzroy, first of all
referred to the arrangements, and the principle inculcated was
to allow the Company a prima facie title to the lands for the
purpose of facilitating them in their settlement, and of enabling
them successfully to resist the claims of other parties. If they
looked at the letter of the Bth of May, 1843, could they doubt
of the intended meaning of the words therein? They were to
give the Company a prima
,facie title to the land, until
a stronger and better title could be established.
But the Honourable and Learned Member for Liskeard
said that these very words were full of ambiguity. There
were five points of complaint against his Noble Friend, Lord
Stanley. Throe of these were disposed of by the admissions
of the Company itself. The other two could be best under-
stood by the House from his reading one of their own letters,
from which he would show that they had created a baseless
phantom, which he would presently lay.—( A laugh.) The
letter of Feb. 1, 1844, recited by the Hon. Member for
Liskeard, showed upon the face of it that it was concocted by
gentlemen who had, at all events, ingenuity enough, and
acuteness enough, to put a proper or an improper construction
upon the agreement.—(Cheers, and indignant cries of " Oh,
oh.") He had no wish to impute motives. --(lronical
cheers.) Ile did not accuse the members of the Com-
mittee of having wilfully misconstrued the agreement. —( Hear. )
They had the instructions before them on the Ist February. It
was importast that the House should remember this, for the
Hon. and Leal ned Member for Liskeard said the Noble Lord had
violated the agreement in his instructions. The New Zealand
Company, then, had the instructions before them on the Ist
February, 1844. They knew what their agreement was—they
knew what their rights were, and they knew all the negotia.
Lions from begienieg to end which had taken place between
them and the Colonial Office ; and having this knowledge,what
did they do? On the 29th February, 1:44, they wrote to the
Colonial Office in these ter ms After giving
long and melancholy account of the affairs of
Company, and proposing that the Government Sl*
the matter into their awn hands, they Went can
make these suggestions with afull reliance
entertained by your leseasnip in that se'
confidence which your Lordship has al,
being of the colony; and we, the,-
on your Lordship's (tee:operation
duty to the pehlic to lay this
and we leave the may
entire reliance uror

will influence your Lordship's decision." Now, had the
Noble Lord, been guilty of a breach of good faith, did the
House think the New Zealand Company would have written
to him in these terms?—( Hear, hear.) Now this was the
case, and these were tl.e circumstances under which this
charge was made against the Noble Lord in strong
and unmeasured terms. Why did the Honourable
Member for Cockermouth suffer the Noble Lord to

sit amongst them a whole session without tatting him
with this breach of faith Why did he allow the Noble Lord
to remain there a whole session without bringing forward this
matter ? The first time the Hon. Member brought the matter
forward was when the Noble Lord had gone to another House
—when the Noble Lard's back was turned.--( Cheers.) Now,
he a,ked whether it was fair that they should have the matter
in oted now ? But had he not satisfactorily shown that what-
ever unfortunate disputes had arisen between the Noble Lord
and the New Zealand Company, the Noble Lord had always
acted impartially and fairly in the matter ?—(Cheers.)
Mr. HU PT merely rose to correct an observation which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had ju=t made. The Hun. and
Learned Gentleman said the New Zealand Company did not
bring the matter forward until after the Noble Lord's back was
turned. Now, so far from this being the case, the Committee
was only appointed in April last, on the understanding that the
Hon. Member for Cockermouth would refrain from saying one
word in the House in relation to the disputes between the
Colonial-office and the New Zealand Company.—( Hear.)
It was too late to enter into the details of the case, but had he

tune. he would correct at least half a d. zen sta'ements
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had made in the
course of his speech.
Captain ROUS would pledge himself, when the question of
New Zealand came before the House after Easter, that the
Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department
would be fully acquitted of all the charges that
had been made against him, nit only in the
eyes of that House, but in those of every unbiassed individual.
—( Hear, hear.) The fact was, the character of the New Zea-
landers had been totally misunderstood by the Committee that
sat upon the subject. In 1839 the independence of New Zea-
land was recognised by this country, and it was not until after
certain persons had formed themselves for the purpose of trading
and profit in that country, that a Captain was sent out by Eng-
land to prevent any quarrels or misunderstandings between the
people of New Zealand and the new settlers, and, as by " the
stroke of the enchanter's wand," the whole of the forests and
minerals of New Zealand were made the property of the Crown.
The New Zealander had as much right to his property as the
people of this country had, and no Company had any right to
interfere with them. Ile would undertake to prove that all
that had been done with respect to New Zealand was at vari-
ance with law, equity, and common sense.
Lord I NGESTRE, having been connected with the New
Zealand Company fsr some years, felt bound to say that the
acts of that Company had always met with his approbation,
because he was convinced that they were for the benefit of the
colony. He believed that the whole dispute had arisen in a mis-
understanding ; but when he said that, he could not forget that
that misunderstanding had affected the Company to a great
extent in their endeavours to do good.
Mr. AGLIONBY felt bound to say a few words, in con-
sequence of his being so pointedly alluded to by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman opposite. The Hon. and Learned Soli-
citor-General's speee'a was more like that of a retained advo-
case with his brief than the speech of a Member of that House.
He (Mr. Aglionby) was sorry to hear the ironical cheer with
which the Hon. Member for Liskeard was met when he said he
was connected with the New Zealand Company. There were
persons connected with that Company, as eminent as any
person sitting on the Treasury bench. The Solicitor-General
had totally misrepresented the affairs of thal Company. He
was misunderstood by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General
with respect to what he had stated as to the difference on the
agreement. He had said, if there was a difference of opinion
about it, the concealment of it was wrong. If the Noble Lord
were present he should speak at more advantage, because no
man liked to listen to charges involving another in his
absence, and this was the feeling he had now to contend
against. He still maintained there was a difference between
the agreement and the instructions, and that opinion the
New Zealand Company had stated at the time, as publicly as
they could do it.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, be felt he should declare that
the impression on his mind was one which was shared in
by the Noble Lord who had proposed the motion, and that
was, that at all events there had been no intention of decep-
tion in this matter.—( Hear.) And from all that had been
heard in explanation, from the Under-Secretary for the Home
Department, it would appear that the same feeling existed on his
part as well as on the part of several others who had since left
the House.—( Hear, hear.) On the opposite benches he be-
held some Hon. Members who, he believed, held the same
opinions, for they appeared to express assent, though three or
four of them on the front benches were members of the New
Zealand Company, and, if he mistook not, three or four of

•
those who sat on the second bench were also members of
the same Company._( Laughter.) But the Hon Member op-
posite (Mr. Aglionby) had complained 'that while he
had been put in possession of some letters from Cap-
tain Fitzroy, there were others which bad been withheld.
The Hon. Gentleman said he laboured under great disadvan-
tage because of the absence of the Noble Lord, and that had he
been present the Hon. Gentleman would have spoken with
more freedom.
Mr. AGLIONBY never said that he would have spoken
with more freedom.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The whole of the last session th
Hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of referring to this sub
jest. The Committee did not examine evidence until the 23d
of May, and the second examination was in the month of June.
Surely, in moving for the appointment of the Committee, an
opportunity was afforded of challenging the conduct of the
Noble Lord.

Mr. HUTT said it was understood that, in moving for the
Committee, the question of Lord Stanley's conduct should not
have been gene into.
Sir R. PEEL—If they had thought his Noble Friend's
conduct exhibited a want of faith, the duty of Gentlemen op-
posite, to the Company, was to ask for an explanation. They
now said that such was the breach of faith which had been
exhibited by Lord Stanley, that, had they been aware of it,
they would have refused to hold communication with
his Noble Friend on the subject of the affairs of
New Zealand.—(Hear, hear.) He could not reconcile

that declaration now with the communication made to Lord
Stanley on the 29 h of February. The New Zealand Corn-
pany said, " We leave the matter in your Lordship's hands,
with entire reliance on the benevolence and justice of your
decisions in the affairs of the Company." How could this be
reconciled with their conduct now ? His Noble Friend was
the natural protector of those who had a right to be protected.
He had acted on the impression that it was his duty to
do justice to the natives of New Zealand. He
(Sir R. Peel) agreed with the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth (Mr. Aglionby) that the members of the New Zea-
land Company were entitled to great respect, as they were
men of high honour and influence. His Noble Friend had
run the risk of offending these parties in the course he had
taken. He believed that the sense of justice in
that House and in the country would put a
fair construction on the acts of his Noble Friend.

He did, therefore, trust that those statements would go into the
country together with the observations which had been made
upon his Noble Friend.
Mr. AG LIONBY said he hoped the House would allow him
one moment for explanation, for he was anxious that the
statement made by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)
should not go forth to the country with the mark of his high
authority without a statement of what really had occurred.
Immediately after the discussion to which the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had referred, he went to Lord Stanley, and had then ex-
plained to him the circumstances which had occurred at that
meeting ; and he, therefore, thought that in this instance at
least the Company were not to blame.
Mr. MANGLES said that be should not have said a word
in this debate but to express his opinion of the tone of the
speech of the Hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General. He
thought that it was quite unnecessary to threw so much acid
into the debate as that Hon. Gentleman had infused into his
speech. He thought that it would have been better to have
imitated the tone and temper of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller); but it should be recollected
that the cheers of :that House were not always to decide the
merits of any particular question.
Mr. RICE TREVOR would not have said a word but for
what had transpired, which had a personal reference to his
friend, Captain Fitzroy. It seemed to be imputed to him that
he had had a secret communication with Lord Stanley between
the Bth and the 12th of May. He could only say that the
communication with Lord Stanley had been on the 26th, 27th,
or 28th of June, and that there was nothing in this corres-
pondence of a clandestine character.
Mr. CHARLES BULLER asked whether, after the great

carefulness which be had evinced to avoid any extraneous
circumstances, it was quite fair for the Right Honour-
able Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to refer to those documents?
The whole policy pursued by the Government towards the New
Zealand Company would came before the House after Easter,
and he would not now trespass further on the attention of the
House than by saying it would be found that the conduct of
the New Zealand Company towards the natives was humane

and generous.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES quoted the words of Pro-
fessor Merivale, in his lectures on Political Economy, in the
University of Oxford, relative to the New Zealand Company.
Never in the history of civilised man has there occurred a
commercial undertaking in which the love of gain was made so
subordinate to every higher faculty of the human mind—never
was there any commercial undertaking so continually guided by
the laws of justice and humanity ?
Sir R. PEEL said a few words in explanation, and as-
serted that the conduct of Lord Stanley was solely actuated
by a kind feeling towards the natives ; and that the Noble
Lord had, at the same time, been desirous to discharge his
duty in a manner consistent with the interests of the New
Zealand Company.
The question was then put and carried.
THE PORTLAND VASE.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, March 18.
The House sat to-day to bear appeals. The Peers
present were—the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham,
and Lord Campbell.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL obtained leave to bring in
a Bill for the Protection of Property contained in Public
Museums, Galleries, Cabinets, Libraries, and other Public
Repositories, from malicious injuries.
On the motion of Mr. SHAW, the following Members were
nominated as the Select Committee to inquire into the merits of
the atmospheric system of railways :—Mr. Shaw, Mr. Bingham
Baring, Lord Harry Vane, Sir George Clerk, Mr. Francis
Baring, Viscount Mahon, Sir Charles Lemon, Mr. Hawes,
Viscount Howick, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, Mr. Morrison, Mr.
Pakington, Mr. Gibson Craig, Mr. Lascelles, and Mr. Wyse.
On the motion of Mr. A GLIONBY a return was ordered
of all claims for land preferred before the Commissioner of
Land Claims in New Zealand, by or on behalf of any persons
who were in 183 S missionaries, catechists, or schoolmasters of
the Church Missionary Society.
The Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill went through Com-
mittee and was ordered to be reported this day.
The Customs Duties report was brought up and received.
The other orders of the day were then agreed to, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'Clock.

NEW WORK, BY EUGENE SUE.—The great po-
pularity of " The Mysteries of Paris" has made Iv
Eugene Sue's name familiar to all English novel rep •
and his fame will be, doubtless, greatly exte-
the appearance of his historical romance, er
Rohan ; or, The Court Conspirator,"
of which, in three volumes, has f,-tist,
Mr. Colburn. The Court of Lop:
proverbial for Ilan';',liiCellee ar
M. Sue voila, therefore, b•
subject than the very •
made choice. The ',-
found in the detai'
which the Chev- •
and most exf-
and e,r err
1113 l;r
hip