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

Hon. Members who had motions on the paper before him
vveuld do F o ton. fn the firt the Hon. Member for
Bolton had amotioorelating to Colonial Accounts.
"- - - - -

Those explanations were given, but they conveyed a great qua-
-I.fieation ef the read;ness with which he had 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 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
Fitzroy 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 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 misconcepti„n,
and that they wished the Company t• 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 misunderstood. 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 HON. Meareea—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.) Instead 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 bad been told that they
would be aided in asserting their rights to it, though a title
could not be promised to them.—( Hear, hear.) 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.—(Near, 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.) 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
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.) Ile
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 ?
( Hear, 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
of 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 othqr parties to the
agreement? Why did they not communicate wills 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. He
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, but 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-
flections as 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 perpose 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 lie 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 50,000. 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 lie made the
gravamen 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 he carried out. Now, whatever observations might be made
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 33 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?
If, as was admitted by the Hon. Member himself, there was an
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. )

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 with the forms of business.
A letter was written by the Chairman of the New Zealand
Company. There 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—com-
plete in all its parts—was entered into by the
Government on the one side, and by the Company
on the other. The Honourable 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, what 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.
Does the House follow me ?—(Hear, hear.) Am I not right in
saying that this was a complete agreement ? Were there sot
two parties to it, the Government and the New Zealand Com-
pany? Was it not the duty of Lord Stanley, when doubts had
been raised, to communicate those doubts to the Comp..ny ?
Was not that the ordinary course in the common affairs of life?
If A and B were about to enter into an agreement, which was
to be carried into effect by C, and certain doubts had been raised
by A, was 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 " confi-
dential." That word of great import and great potency. Yes,
that word " confidential " was written at the head of a private
interpretation of a public agreement.—( Hear, hear.) Was the
interpretation private ? If not, why mark it " confi-
dential ?"—( Hear, hear.) 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 Member for Cockermouth stated that on the Ist of
February, 1843, 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 gestat? 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 Hon. 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.—
( 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?
Mr. HOPE—I did.

Dr. BOWRING infors4d 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. Woald the Hon. Me:ober
consent to withdraw it ?

Mr. C. 13ULLER replied in the affirmative.
Air. Al ACKINNON under those circumstances begged to
postpone his motion till the fiat Tuesday after the Easter
recess.

Mr. SHEIL—Oh, then, it must be my want of perspicacity
that I did not understand the Hon. Gentleman.—( Laughter. )
I certainly 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, but 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 he
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 Under-Secretary
for the Colonies. He read a document, or rather the fragment
of a document—of a public document dated the 29th 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 lion. 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)—why did you not read before
you came down to the House? Why is it that this hiatus valde
de/lendus occurred ?—( The Hon. Gentleman went en 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 mal-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 ought to be written, in letters of gold, in the Colonial-
office.--( Great cheering.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL commended the tone which
had been used by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, and depre-
cated that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun-
gamin, 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 Hon. 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 considerable tract of land, to which in the first place they
were required to make their title good. 'The Noble Lord at
the head of the Colonial Department had been 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 fade title which they
had derived from the Colonial-office. But the terms
of that title were such, that the Company refused
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-
bquired that the native titles to these lands should be cleared.
'I he extent of the districts would be understood when he
stated that it extended over five degrees of latitude, and
20,000,000 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 41. 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, 1642, 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 had 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. BULLER—That is my view.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—His (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 cern-
plete right. That was the proposition which was made in the
letter of the Sth May, and to which the letter of the 12th was
an answer. Here was the first question between the Govern-
merit and the Company. The Hon. Member for Liskeard took
occasion to criticise the spirit of Lord Stanley's instructions,
because he said that it would be his duty to see that the Com-
pany satisfactorily proved their title to the land. The question
between them was, who was to prove the title to the land. lie
contended that it remained an open question now. The Go-
vernment maintained that it was the Company's duty to clear
the titles to the 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 jiwie 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
were full
Member
ambiguity. Therem
of the intended meaning of the words therein? They were to
give the Company a primt facie title to the land, until
a stronger and better title couldiehbere
for Liskeard
saidßu t
that the
theca Honourable
very
arid
words Learnede
were five points of complaint against his Noble Friend, Lord
Stanley. Three of these were disposed of by the admissions
•f 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 cre ited a baseless
phantom, which ho would presently lay.--( A laugh.) The
letter of Feb. 1, 1844, recited by the Hon. Member for
Liskeard, showed upon the face of it tr
alininat wasimeinptariotper
y ag
eccaoononc,toch:, andituecdt
construction
uacutenesspit
, gentlemenaegnsrvoehueogmhel:ia,
agreement.
—p au(
propert a i
res v ean ntod indignant cries of " Oh,
no wish to imputes g
members of the Com-
mittee of having wilfully miconstruel the agreement. —( Hear. )
accuseo,e motives. (Ironical
cheers.) Hu did not
They had the instructions before them on the lst February. It
was important that the House should remember this, for the
lion. and Learned 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-
tions from beginning to end which had taken place between
them and the Colonial Office; and having4thisknovidreodtt to the
e,whart
sli
Colonial
ah
ieaayln do? 1 o
melancholy
On the 29tthalliceesFeneuhnrtiticair.
terms
the affairs of their
, 4, they w
s
-- After giving a
long
Company, and proposing that the Government should take
the matter into their own hands, they went on to state " Wo
make these suggestions with a full reliance that they will be
entertained by your Lordship in that spirit of candour and
Office
in
confidence which your Lordship has always evinced for the well-
being of the colony; and we, therefore, rely with confidence
on your Lordship's co-operation. We have felt it to be our
dirty to the public to lay this suggestion before your Lordsh4f,
and we leave the matter in your Lordship's hands, with
entire reliance upon the benevolence and justice which

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 hint 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 'vas 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 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
associated.—(Laughter.)be The whole Case lay within a
very narrow point. In Lord John Russell's letter of May
18-10 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 400,000 and 500,000 acres."
Now this f ict 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
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 sigaificanoe. 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 1414 That was the

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 19, 1845.

will influence your Lordship's decision." Now, had the
Noble Lordd, 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 the 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 taxing 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 asked whether it was fair that they should have the matter
mioted now? But had he net 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 iu the matter?—(Cheers. )
Mr. HUTT merely rose to correct an observation which the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had just made. The Hon. 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.—(Rear. )
It was too late to enter into the details of the case, but had he
time, he would correct at least half a dr zen statements
which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had made in the
course of his speech.
Captain RO US 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
reople of this country had, and no Company had any right to
interfere with them. He 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 for 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 whale 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 speech 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, he 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.—( Lauehter. ) 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 had 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 gone 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.) lie could not reconcile
that declaration now with the communication made to Lord
Stanley on the 29th of February. The New Zealand Com-
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 he 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. AGLIONBY 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 he 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 he had evinced to avoid any extraneous
circumstances, it was quite fair for the Right Honour-
able Baronet (Sir R. Peel) to refer to these documents?
The whole policy pursued by the Government towards the New
Zealand Company would come before the House after Easter,
and he would net 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.
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 Howiek, Mr. Hodgson Hinde, Mr. Morrison, Mr.
Pakingten, Mr. Gibson Craig, Mr. Lascelles, and Mr. Wyse.
On the motion of Mr. AGLIONBY 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 1838 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 M.
Eugene Sue's name familiar to all English novel readers;
and his fame will be, doubtless, greatly extended by
the appearance of his hi,torical romance, untitled " De
Mohan ; or, The Court Conspirator," an English edition
of which, in three voluircs, has just been published by
Mr. Colburn. The Court of Louis XIV. has I.Y corn,.
proverbial for magnificence and political intrigue, and
M. Sue could, therefore, have scarcely selected a better
subject than the very attractive oni of which he has
made choice. The groundwork of his story may b.,
found in the details of the remarkable conspiracy in
which the Chevalier 1)e Rohan—the handsomest man
and most extravagant prodigal in a Court where beauty
and extravagance were the best recommendation—lost
his life. The prominent characters are Louis XIV.,
his beautiful mistress, De Montespan, and most of the
great Officers of State—the partisan Latreaumont—the
philosopher Vanden Euden' and a great number of other
evell•known personages, who were either concerned in
the conspiracy or held office under the Sovereign. The
work affords the most lively picture that has ever been
published, not only of the Court of Frtahrneocseeidheaautneceetlhiioilsr
of ti
eventful
period,upn a
o but
oneutofof h
the statete n
ofos thet
kingdom,romantic and
be will
looked narratives
that ever came into the hands of the novel reader,
of the Stamps and Taxes, accom-
panied
, bty:xlSelhre.Pressley,Exchequer
yesterday,adai interview
!)owning-street

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

THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND V. N'GREGOR.
The further arguments in this part-heard Scotch ap-
peal were resumed and concluded to-day.
Their Lordships postponed their judgment.