The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-18 00:00:00

tween the natives and the settlers, as satisfaction for this out-
rage, all of which might have been avoided by Captain Fitzroy
having had the firmness to have put the chief and some of his
followers in gaol for a week.--( Hear, hear.) Captain Fitzroy,
then, in order to show that he was still in earnest, offered re-
wards of 501. for the apprehension of the chiefs of those tribes
who had committed those robberies, and 1001. for the appre-
hension of the first chief, whom he (Mr. Buller)
had mentioned, in reply to which that chief said
he conceived that such conduct towards him on the
part of Captain Fitzroy, was treating him like a pig—.
(Laughter)—and he followed that up by offering a reward of
1,000 acres of land to any person who would bring him Capt.
Fitzroy's head.—( Great laughter.) This part of the subject
might be laughable, but he begged to tell the House he very
much feared the result would be a conflict, at which the Go-
vernment would shudder, for upon them lay the responsibility.
—( Hear, hear.) The Government would also have to bear
the responsibility of results consequent upon their not having
established in that colony those tree institutions which were
the birthright' of every Englishman, but instead of those, the
Government had sent out to govern this colony the enlightened
despotism of Captain Fitzroy, and his assistants.—(Hear,
hear.) And yet, notwithstanding all this, the Government had
paid functiosiaries in every department, though it was generally
supposed that the colony would have been able to defray
its own expenses.—( Hear, hear.) But instead of that, the
expenses of the Government in the Colony now were about
38,000/., not including a debt of 60,0001.—( Hear, hear. )
He (Mr. Buller) had heard that the Government had re-
called Captain Fitzroy, and that, it was the intention to send
Captain Grey in his place. Now he (Mr. Buller) did not
wish to say anything in reference to Captain Grey; but at
the same time he did think, that such a man as Sir Henry
Pottinger, or some person of experience like him, would be
the proper party to send out.—( Hear, hear.) He had now
done with this subject, and he would conclude, by propos-
ing the resolutions of the Committee, which he was willing to
admit, could not be passed without some modification. But
he would call upon the House to tell the colonial officers that
they could not exercise an uncontrolled power in respect
to this colony, without being brought to account for their
acts. —( Loud cheers. )
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said he would detain
the House with only a few words, after the splendid
speech of his Hon. Friend. This was a question not only of
great national importance, but one which would affect the cha-
racter of England throughout the whole world.—( Hear, hear. )
He regretted that he, like every other Member of that House,
knew very little of this subject, when he first became a mem-
ber of the Committee from whom these resolutions had
emanated. He must act upon his own convictions such as
they were. The first consideration which enforced itself upon
a person with respect to the state of this country was the em-
ployment of the surplus population of the country. He had great
regard for colonisation, as it was a matter of vital and
immediate interest. It gave him great satisfaction
when he saw the old spirit of colonisation; as it were, in one
moment, making head. He believed that, notwithstanding
the hard words that had fallen from his Hon. Friend, he would
agree with him (Mr. M. Milnes) that no one Member of that
House would for a moment believe that any Englishmen would
be guilty—for he must use the word guilty—of any desire
to perpetrate injustice on the natives of New Zealand. Still,
however, he did not believe that the feeling which existed in
this country was that the sacrifice of the English population in
New Zealand was to be justified by the preservation of the
savages of New Zealand. After the great detail which had
been gone into upon this subject, he should think it very im-
prudent in him to intrude on the House. He would, how.
ever, call the attention of the House to what Professor
Spain had said upon the question and state of New
Zealand. The Honourable Member then read several
extracts from the correspondence of Professor Spain, in
which the writer slated that the British law and authority in
New Zealand were totally disregarded. The notion of the
value of property held by the natives of New Zealand was
widely different to what it was in civilised society. The whole
matter could not be more clearly put than in one sentence in a
very excellent work by young Mr. Wakefield, in which he said
that the purchasers of land in New Zealand were not purchasers
of land between such and such boundaries, but were purchasers
of all rights, and powers, and authorities within certain limits.
He (Mr. M. Manes) would implore the Government not to
lose sight of this subject, but to do all in their power to better
the condition of so important a colony as New Zealand.
Ile owned he had strong feelings of sympathy with the sufferers
in those distant parts. In England the East India Company
were creating India, when England was losing America. The
empire of Eastern India was a lesson to Governments to trust
to the energy, and sense, and justice, and honour of the Eng-
lish people. Men of all politics and principles were now banded
together, confiding in the intregrity and ability of a public
Company, and requiring that the local Government of New
Zealand should net emanate from the Colonial-office at home.
—( Hear, hear.) The Government of this country was
not capable of adapting circumstances for the benefit
of a distant colony. Men were sent out to a station
of society of which they were comparatively ignorant, and to a
situation which, if occurring and so filled at home, they would
be declared totally unfit for. When Englishmen were so tenacio
of unlicensed authority, and pre-eminent for their love of free-
dom, as well as their impatience of undue restraint, they
should make excuse for the feelings of those who, subject
to the mercy of petty officials, at times gave way to irritation.
—(Hear, hear.) He thanked the House for the attention
with which he had been heard. He had ventured to address
the House on a subject of deep importance, and would con-
clude where he began, by declaring that the only excuse he
had for seconding the motion was a wish to direct the attention
of Members to that great question, and show them they must
meet it with all their hearts and feelings, as a question involv-
ing the interests, not of individuals, but the whole of this
country. They must trust to the honour and energy of the
New Zealand Company, who would doubtless co-operate with
her Majesty's Government, if allowed, to establish in the
Pacific a nucleus of commerce, civilisation, and power, equal
to that which had arisen in the East, and assist in establishing
in those seas an Antarctic India.—( Hear, hear.)
The question having been put,
Mr. HOPE rose, under no ordinary feelings of embarrassment,
not only from a sense of the magnitude of the subject, but of
his inability to do justice to the character of an absent party,
against whom aspersions had been cast in the strongest manner,
reflecting both on his character and motives. He had been
charged with hostility to colonisation, and with hostility to the
Company. As to colonisation the Noble Lord looked upon it
as one of the greatest remedies of the country, but he did not
regard it as a panacea for all evils or a remedy for paupers.
When the present Secretary for the Colonies succeeded the
Noble Lord the Member for London, he found a discussion
pending between the Government and the Company,
but so far from pressing the opposition which was
at that time offered it, he rescinded the in-
structions of the Noble Lord and used his best efforts
to co-operate with the Company. The sentiments then en-
tertained of the conduct of the Noble Colonial Secretary he
(Mr. Hope) found thus expressed in the Parliamentary Re-
ports of last year, page 42 :—" The Directors cannot conclude
this letter (a letter signed by the chairmae, Mr. Somes, now
Member for Dartmouth) without offering your Lordships a
tender of their thanks for the generous conduct you have
evinced towards the Company, and their cordial thanks for
the orders to be issued to the Governor of the Colony." Since
then, every concession had been made that was felt con-
sistent with his duty, and the collision with the Company could
be accounted for solely by the Company making a demand
which involved the interests of a third party, and the ques-
tion of what was the right by which the New
Zealanders held the tenure of their land. Then it
was that the Government refused to concede to an unjust
request, and withheld ttheir co-operation from the Company.
The Hon. Gentleman found it necessary to debase the cha-
racter of the New Zealander as low as possible. He stated
that they were no better than cannibals. There was little
doubt that cannibalism did exist at one time among the na-
tives ; but, on the contrary, the Hon. Gentleman might have
said that, out of the hundred thousand aborigines, at present
forty thousand were professing Christianity. He need not
have charged these inoffensive people with the abominable
vices he had mentioned. He stated also that, in his opinion,
the natives of Near Zealand in every point of view were infe-
rior to the Caffres. This assertion was inconsistent with some
of the statements of his own agents, that there were natives
who owned vessels, were engaged in trade, and who, in various
departments of life, followed the practice and arts of Europeans.
—( Hear.) Why, then, did the Hon. Gentleman say that
these people were in such a debased state ? Why ? Because
it was necessary for him to show that they could have no
rights, or that their rights ought not to be regarded. He
would now allude to the treaty made by the Noble Lord, the
predecessor of the present Secretary for the Colonies, on which
the Hon. Gentleman had commented. He commenced by
making use of those powers of sarcasm which he so emi-
nently possessed, for the purpose of throwing ridi-
cule on all the proceedings that had taken place.
With respect to the New Zealanders, he declared that there
should be an end to the solemn mockery, and he contended
that the whole affair was a farce, and a farce carried on for their
own benefit ; and as it was not convenient to carry it on any
longer with a profit, the time had arrived for doing away with
it altogether. The Hon. Member had admitted this ; also that
the New Zealanders were not competent to be dealt with by
treaty. Now, what was the case? If the Hon. Member says
that onr right was a right of discovery, and that no steps had been
taken to invalidate that right, therefore we must stand upon our
original claims of discovery. He would refer to a transaction
that took place at the close of the late Government in 1839,
with regard to the New Zealanders. He had found a memorial,
in which it was stated that an Act had been passed in the reign
of King William IV., which recognised the rights of New Zea-
land as an independent country. Subsequently Acts for colo-
nisation had been refused on the ground that it was not com-
petent for Parliament to legislate for a territory which was not
within the jurisdiction of the British realm. 'f he country was
not part of her Majesty's dominions, therefore could not be
legislated for. A national flag had been granted to the New
Zealanders, and Mr. Busfield had been appointed as the British
representative ; how, then, could Parliament, after having
solemnly recognised their independence, now consistently re-
voke it altogether, and annihilate all that had been done? The
instructions of Lord Normanby, to which the Noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton had referred, declared New Zealand to
be a perfectly independent country. The treaty of. Waratonga
stated that the family of the Queen was to remain in possession
of the sovereignty, and that the people were to remain undis-
turbed in the possession of their lands, estates, and forest pro-
perty, which they might individually or collectively own. It
was now proposed to set aside the right of pre-emption. As late
as the year 1836 there were 2,000 British settlers in New Zea-
land on lands purchased from the natives, and these purchases
had not been made on a small scale, for out of the 1,000 land-
owners, 750 were possessed of estates, each exceeding 1,000
acres. The New Zealand Company had made all their pur-
chases of land on the faith and honour of the natives, and ;a
good and valid possession had been obtained. The New
Zealand Company had all along proceede4 on the assumption
that the natives were the legal proprietors of the soil, and
could dispose of it at pleasure. The proceedings of Colonel
Wakefield in the purchase of land, from the natives, left no
doubt on their minds as to the subject. He had bought estates,
on the understanding that they had power to dispose of the
waste lands, and it was preposterous to suppose to the contrary..
The treaty with the aborigines had been established entirely
on the strength of the understanding that the . natives had
all
lwdeoruthot dthisuptosteheofuwaatsivteeslawnedrse, antilethiosrfiageiot eistaubuldishleedgbi.teimyoantde
owners. In 1839, it was considered expedient to colonise the
hadwas adoptedstated thatfnr
country, and the method of purchasing land from the natives
he
hee pwuorupl Gentlemanwithou t oppositereard
to the natives, and that the colonial laws would have authorised
his so doing, and he (Mr. Hope) would observe, however, that
the colonial laws referred only to the possessions the Go-
vernment held in the eountry ; and in the treaty it was re-
odsehaveTthaekelninthne. lands
re-
solved that only such waste lands should be secured to the
Crown, as were not required for the use of the natives. This
treaty was made according to instructions furnished to Captain
Hobson, and on the principles already stated. That treaty
was made on the 6th of February, 1840. In
a,a statement fur-
nished at the time, in reference to this treaty, there was a pas-
sage setting forth that the understanding upon which the treaty
was founded, was, that the privileges and customs of the natives
in respect to the land should be preserved to them—that the
land should never be taken from them. This principle did not
depend on one statement, but on statements made by every
party who had had anything to do with the making of the
treaty—not only by the Colonial Secretary, bat by the mis-
sionaries, much as their characters and veracity hadbeen im-
pugned. In fact, every party had given the same interpreta-
On the question of the right to the lands the had
tion to the treaty, who bad been a party to its original
nativesexecu-
tion.
been united, and they relied on the good faith of the Govern-
ment to protect them in their privileges. But the

by a supercilious assumption of superiority. He was also un-
der an obligation to communicate to him all that he was ac-
quainted with as regarded the civilised arts. He could not
conceive that any better proposition could be adopted
than the principles of our own laws, and of all
civilised nations. That law had never asserted t'l- right of
depriving the Indian of his possessions. The law of other na-
tions had been that the Indian was not to be deprived of every
right. At the same time the rights of property among savages
did not assimilate to the rights of property in civilized nations,
and therefore could not be regulated by a similar law. The
principle laid down by several eminent jurists was, that you
were not to deprive the savage of the land he owned, and you
were to respect in him the universal rights of property which
he hitherto possessed. It had been said by some writers that it
was right, in regard to savages, even to limit their appropria-
tion of the land for the purposes of the chase. This rule,
however, had not been applied to the natives of New
Zealand. They had not been interfered with in this
respect. They had not been disposssed of their
lands, but to that extent which all writers on the laws
of nations admitted to be correct in principle. That which
they were in the habit of using as hunting-grounds had not
been interfered with. The real evil connected with the colo-
nisation of New Zealand was the bringing of a strange and a
superior race in contact with the natives ; and the latter could
not stand against the former unless great care was taken. They
( the Government) were bound to protect these people
against the encroachments of the former, and to see that coin-
pensatioa was given them, not for the land that was appro-
priated by the new settlers, but on account of the inferiority
of their position. Was this compensation to be given to them
in money, or was it to be given in the shape of rum, brandy,
muskets, or gunpowder ? He was sure there was not a man
in that House but what would recoil from the idea of such a
compensation. He could not better express his views on this
kind of compensation than by reading a letter from the New
Zealand Company en the subject. The Hon. Member here
read extracts from the letter condemnatory of the practice of
granting compensation of this kind, either in spirituous liquor
or fire-arms, and pointing out the superior provisions
which the New Zealand Company had afforded.
The Hon. Member, after reading the document, said it could
not be denied that the Company had been the best friends the
savage had ever found. It might be said that the Company
purchased land too cheap, but what was the fair value of land
which, in reality, had no p. »e—tney gave more for it than
had been given for the whole state of Pennsylvania. They
thought giving back to the savage one cultivated acre out of
ten was ample compensation—the very best kind of compensa-
tion. The Colonial-office thought they discharged their duty
when they enabled the savage to sell his land at a high price.
It was very hard to preserve the swage when he came into
contact with the civilized man—it could not be done by laws or
regulations—it could only be effected by the force of sympathy.
The laws did not arbitrarily alter the distinctions among the
savage race, but preserved them, and when they took away from
the chief his warlike distinctions, they gave him more solid re-
wards by making him a large landholder. The savage could
be only pre-erved by amalgamation, and the project of the Com-
pany was a large and a sound one, which had been thwarted by
a narrow and a feeble policy. The policy of the Missionary
Society, a, appeared by the evidence of Mr. Dennison before
the Hone- of Lords, was to engross the entire control over the
savage. This policy had nearly ruined New Zealand, and
had entirely ruined Tahiti, and thrown it into the arms of
France. In short, nothing could be more arbitrary than the
views of those missionaries. The Government sent Mr. Busby
to New Zealand, in 1837, as the resident in that country,
and he was directed to acknowledge the esiew Zealand flag—
they then had no flag, but a number of flags was
sent them of which the natives chose the gaudiest. Mr.
Busby got thirteen of these savage chiefs together, who, in a
pompous manner, declared their independence under the title
of the Congress of the United Tribes of New Zealand, and
concluded the declaration in the oddest possible manner, viz.,
by putting themselves under the protection of the Government.
These flags, declaration, &c., were, to use the emphatic and
idiomatic language of Mr. Carlyle, nothing but lies and sham.
Nothing could be more absurd than this declaration of inde-
pendence. So far did these missionaries and this pretended
Congress push their pretensions, that France, seeing the island
so much better cared for by the British Government, was
about to claim it for herself ; and were it not for the prompt
interposition of his Noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) it would
have been sacrificed. When the Company interfered to put
an end to those wretched manifestations, Lord Stanley defended
the conduct of the missionaries, and said that those who dif-
fered with him must resign their posts as Government offisers.
The missionaries, Stack, Williams and others went about ob-
taining the signatures of the chiefs to this wretched treaty of
Waitanga. The chiefs, it was true, signed this treaty, but it was
quite plain they knew nothing whatever about what they were
signing, and, indeed, it was quite plain they did not, for what
man, savage though he might have been, would barter away
the nationality of his country for a blanket.—( Great laughter. )
It might be supposed he was speaking jocosely, but, in truth,
the reward given to the savage chieftain for his signature
was a blanket. The missionaries poked into every hole and
coraer, and by promises and rewards induced those ignorant
savages to sign a paper, of the contents of which they have
since declared they understood nothing. In some of these dip-
lomatic negotiations with savages, where the bargain was all on
one side, a piece of tobacco was thrown in ; and it is somewhere
recorded that one of the chiefs being found fishing in Cook's
Straits, was hooked on board and bought over with a glass of
rum. Yet the act of this assemblage of savage, ignorant chiefs, was
designated by Lord Stanley a solemn treaty, and spoken of in the
same manner as those of Westphalia or Amiens.--( Hear.) But,
as he had already said, the chieftains who signed it had repudiated
it. 'I hey declared they were ignorant of what they were
signing. The Government had, therefore, no right to take
advantage of this treaty. They possessed the right which dis-
covery gave them, and no other. The treaty did not remove
that paramount obligation which superior civilisation had im-
posed on them. Butadmitting for a moment that these signa-
tures were bona fide ones, how could the signatures of some
chiefs in the northern parts of the island bind those who resided
in the southern, as they were not a representative body.—
( Hear.) Captain Hobson only took possession of the southern
island, and therefore it in no way affected the case, and
throughout the whole of the controversy between the New
Zealand Company and Lord Stanley, that was invariably kept
in view by the Company. After the treaty of Waitanga it
was well known that it only applied to the southern island. He
was now coming to the real question. He did not object to the
treaty of Waitanga, or the provisions by which the Act re-
cognising it intended to carry it out, but he would show that
the treaty had been erroneously interpreted, and that her
Majesty was fully entitled to the possession of the waste lands
—and that, too, by the treaty of Waitanga itself. It was
said that they had taken possession of the lands of which the
natives were the rightful owners. But was that the case ?
The country was, when we took possession of it, only in the
hands of what were called " savages ;" and the question was,
what would be their state under the British Government,
and what under their own laws. As they were circumstanced,
it was utterly impossible for them to occupy the soil, and
therefore they could not possess any property. As they could
not possess property, they could net alienate it. And how
was this argument sustained? Why, they presumed that the
natives were in possession of the land, and they
went from one chieftain to another, and be stated,
that he laid claim of the land from headland
to headland. How had they been represented? He would
give an instance. Mr. Coates had stated that Dr. Dakenback
had been refused a piece of land, because he had no Bibles to
give them. This was one specimen of the way in which mis-
sionary reports were made up, and would show to the public
the way in which they were gulled. This statement was made
two years after Dr. Dakenback had published his travels; but
on referring to Dr. Dakenback himself, he found it stated that
the Doctor had desired to go to the top of the mountain, not
because he had no muskets or no Bibles, but because the na-
tives refused to allow him to ascend the mountain unless he
gave them four sovereigns, and he had not at the time so much
gold about him.--(Hear, hear.) The chief claimed the moun-
tain, because he said it was the backbone of his ancestor.—.
( Hear, and a laugh.) Now he (Mr. C. Buller) was very far
from saying that a man might not have a property in his back-
bone —( A laugh)—but it was very evident that in this instance
the claim to the land arose from no sense of the right of pro-
perty, but out of a superstitious notion. But in the question
before the House, it was not so much a matter affecting the
rights of property as the rights of sovereignty. The law re-
cognised no right of property but that which was accom-
panied by occupation. The law was full of precedents
upon this point, and the principle itself had been adopted
by the Government in the treaty of Waitanga. For in the
two documents sent to this country by Captain Fitzroy, it was
explicitly laid down, and the terms used were, " Such lands
as were enjoyed or occupied by the natives." Now, the word
" enjoyed" was of much narrower significance than the term
" occupied," and the Government only engaged to give a
guarantee for the possession of that property which, prior to
purchase, had thus been enjoyed or occupied. This very
plainly showed the sense in which the Government understood
the second article of the treaty of Waitanga. And there was
no doubt that the waste lands which were not occupied by the
natives were in the possession of her Majesty by the right of
sovereignty. He would be one of the last persons in the
world to destroy the rights of another, but he thought that
there was nothing to prevent the assumption of the waste
lands by the Crown to which they properly belonged. The
system which had been adopted of paying the natives for the
purchase of that which they never possessed, was altogether
mischievous. It was the aet of bad friends—he would net say
of false friends—to give large prices to the natives for land,
which would only be wasted in the gratification of their pas-
sions, and was neither more nor less than administering poison
to the system. Prices had been unduly elevated, and to a
certainty they would come down, and it was not in. Bibles or
in gold that the price would be seen, but in rum, gunpowder,
and tobacco; and the only object they would effect would be
administering to the rude and violent passions of the
natives.—( Hear, hear.) He was here ascribing no
such evil tempers and dispositions to the settlers
for it was a rule which invariably came into operation
when a society in a high state of civilisation came into contact
with a barbarous tribe, that the latter were invariably:destroyed.
It had been witnessed in every quarter and country of the earth,
and seemed to be a necessity which could not be overcome.
But in this instance the destruction might certainly be retarded,
if not altogether prevented. Which, he would ask, was the better
mode of securing the interests of the natives—to pay them high
prices for that which was not their own, to enable them by a
wild indulgence of their passions to destroy themselves ; or, by
nurturing up for them a property which might prove useful,
enable them hereafter to enjoy and improve that to which they
were really entitled. By a document which had been laid be-
fore the Legislative Council, it appeared that, out of 60,000,000
of acres, the Government had retained only 1,700,000 acres
for itself, leaving 58,300,000 to the natives, or to be purchased
as the natives might be disposed to sell, only reserving a right
of resumption to the Crown. The evil, however, did not end
here, for by interfering between the native and the white man,
the Government had absolutely destroyed the only benefit
which they expected to achieve. When the Government had
first taken possession of New Zealand, it had appropriated the
whole of the land to itself, but they had been di-
verted from their design ; but this had been the
principle adopted by Lord Normanby, and his Noble
Friend at the head of the Colonial Department
in the late Government ; and the consequence was, they were
obliged to adopt a system by which they had forced
land up V. an acre, which had afterwards so fallen as to cause

arisen with the Government, he took the very measures to im-
plicate them as far as he could, Where had he fixed his seat
of Government? Among the natives ! They did not want
him. They had no desire to be the witnesses of his
greatness.—(Laughter.) He did not go out to govern
the natives but the English settlers, and yet he fixed his
seat of Government among the natives. It seemed to him
(Mr. C. Buller) that .vhatever advantage might have arisen
from the amalgamation of the interests of the natives and the
settlers, that the means adopted to bring it about had the
very opposite tendency. Another evil, of a most mischievcus
character, was the speculation in land—the disposing of parcels
by auction—and the extent to which this system was carried
could scarcely be credited. Advertisements were circulated,
and town land, in consequence, sold at Auckland to an amount
of 38,0001., twenty-one acres alone having brought the dis-
proportioned sum of 21,000/.—( Hear, hear.) All the best
spots in the New Town had, however, been retained for the
Government officers.—( Hear, hear.) And what did the
report of the Governor say to this? He wrote home a dis-
patch, which seemed more like the attempt of a country
tradesmen to run down his rivals, than the report of a man
placed in an important colonial situation. And yet the affairs
of the colony flourished, and they founded new towns at Nelson
and other places. Their first great principle was to supply
land at 20s. an acre, allowing 155., however, to be retained for
the purposes of cultivation, and reserving but the remaining
ss. tor the outlay of capital and as a remuneration for their
labours. The consequence of this was, that capitalists were
induced to embark their property in New Zealand. Roads
were opened in very considerable numbers in the neighbour-
hood of Auckland, and a college for the dissemination of edu-
cation and a bishopric was established at Nelson with the happiest
effect. Emigrants of a better class were induced to leave this
country, and to go out to the new colony, because the com-
pany had shown, by their actions, that the propagation of the
great public objects for which they had been associated was
their first and permanent principle, and therefore, he re-
peated, it was that many persons belonging to the very best
classes in England had withdrawn their property from this
country to embark it in New Zealand. He had read a book
of Mr. Wakefield's, which gave a most interesting account of
the progress of the colony from the first settlement, to the
period when he found it inhabited by persons of a superior
class from Britain, who lived in the greatest harmony with
the natives, of whom there were one or two in every house,
acting faithfully and gratefully as servants.—( Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Buller) thought, if a statesman had wisely re-
garded the state of things described in that book, he would have
done all in his power to assist the progress—( Hear, hear)—
He would have said to the colonists, " Go on in your happy
course and you shall not have to complain of any want of
assistance upon my part ;" and he thought that if any angel
could have carried Lord Stanley over the ocean, and enabled
him to look down with his own eyes upon all that was passing:,
the Noble Lord would not have allowed official jealousy to in-
terfere with prosperity--( Hear, hear)—and certainly would
have done anything rather than excite the passions and
encourage the barbarous cupidity of the natives.—( Hear. )
When his Noble Friend ( Lord J. Russell) determined that it
was right to take possession of New Zealand for the British
Crown, he recognised no right in the savage except to the
ground which the latter actually occupied, and accordingly to
the civilised man no right derived from the savage which the
savage himself had not previously possessed. But his Noble
Friend modified that view by making an allowance in favour of
those who had actually paid for the lands they possessed, and
who had turned those lands to a useful account for civilisation.
He therefore came to the resolution of giving to the settlers the
land which had been allotted to them under native titles, at the rate
of ss. per acre. The agreement of 1840, fully entitled the New
Zealand Company to the confirmation of all their rights.---
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Member then went
into a detailed account of the inquiries under Mr. Pennington,
and the negotiations between the Company and Mr. Vernon
Smith. He read also the communications of Governor Hudson
with Government ; and upon the whole he contended that the
New Zealand Company had a right to hold themselves exempted
from the subsequent inquiries of Mr. Spain. Upon the faith
of the agreement of 1840, they had, by the desire of the Go-
vernment, trebled their capital, and had sent out a large num-
ber of emigrants (nearly 2,000) of the first class, under the
express sanction of the Commissioners of Emigration.—( Hear,
hear.) The consequence of the departure from the agreement
had produced great misery and danger to the natives and to the
colony. If Lord Stanley had got over that spirit of pugnacity
which had damaged every department of the public service
with which he had been connected—if he had been contented
with resisting only wherever his dislikes were fixed—without
desiring to crush—he might have spared himself from wit-
nessing the distress and ruin, which must add to his official
difficulties. If Lord Stanley had answered the first letter of the
New Zealand Company in a conciliatory spirit these evil con-
sequences might have been prevented. The latter agreement
of the Government was incompatible with the former. They
made a grant of land which it was not in their power
to grant to the New Zealand Company, and
it was not intimated to the Company that Lord
Stanley had made a grant of land which it was not in his
power to give. They entered into an agreement in May,
1843, by which it was stipulated that the Government should
give them a conditional title to all the land which would be
selected by their agents. The effect of that grant was to be
their getting immediate possession, and a prima facie title for
those lands, leaving it to the natives to oust them afterwards,
if they could. That agreement was accepted, and the company
were contented; but they did not receive immediate possession.
And in Feb, 1844, they were made acqainted with a secret
correspondence which seemed not merely to deprive them
of all possession, but to render the agreement worth-
less—because it was of importance to the execution of
that agreement that the agents of the Government
should select the lands which were to be granted, and to
which effect Captain Fitzroy received instructions, which
he did not obey. The company then moved for a committee
and they got a distinct answer that Lord Stanley meant
that the grant should be an unconditional grant of
land. They had the committee, and five gentlemen were
taken from his side of the House, and ten from the
other side. The under-secretary objected to the names on his
own side, and struck out three of them, and substituted for
those three the names of gentlemen of whom it was but just to
say, that they had always voted steadily with him.—( Laugh-
ter.) Nevertheless, to such a Committee Lord Stanley and
the Company agreed to leave the question. Considering the
composition of the Committee he thought that the House
would be very much inclined to pay respect to their opinion on
any question of public interest, and particularly on any matter
of controversy with respect to private right that might be referred
to their decision. In the first officer of the Committee the Go-
vernment were angry with them (the Opposition) because they
did not agree with the decision of that Committee. It was a
difficult thing fur a man to know his position in such a case.
He thought a man might feel a great deal of difficulty ; but in
any circumstances in which a man had the sole power of de-
ciding en a matter of personal controversy, he thought that no
man could be too ready to give his candid opinion ; and he was
of opinion that a man ought to be bound by his decision. Lord
Stanley agreed to refer the matter to a Committee, and when'
the decision of the Committee was given against him he refused
to be bound by the decision of those whom he himself appointed.
The Company were to have a conditional grant, as well as im-
mediate possession, which was not given. What, then,
was to be done with the grant ? Were they not
right in saying that Captain Fitzroy had been misled
by Lord Stanley, when, since the time of that agree-
ment, there was not one instance of an attempt to execute it,
when it ought to be carried into effect at least in a week? A
wretched quibble was made that there would be a formal de
wand made upon the agents. Was it necessary, when a man
made a promise, that a formal demand should be made ? Cap-
tain Fitzroy had induced fresh payments to be made to the na-
tives, which was by no means a part of the bargain.—( Hear. )
He refused to confirm the commissions of award, which was
perfectly wrong. For thirteen months that agreement had
remained without any attempt to carry it into effect. The
agreement was a delusion, a snare, and an injury to the New
Zealand Company. The agreement had been entered into
without any intention whatever to carry it into effect. Thus
Lord Stanley had repudiated the agreement of a former Mi-
nister and broken his own. He sacrificed 300,000/. of the
capital of the New Zealand Company, and they still re-
mained without a single acre of land. By that means Lord
Stanley exhausted their capital and put an end to its operation.
That was their cruel treatment to a Company against whom
the Government never brought a charge. What was that,
however, to the misery and ruin which occurred to the
unhappy emigrants who were kept from access to the lands
which they purchased at a high price in England. Lord Stan-
ley might.at least have written to the Governor to take some
little care that those people should be allowed access to their
lands. They were, however, denied access to their lands ;
and they saw fresh tribes coming and establishing themselves
in places which they had never visited before. The emigrants
had their houses pulled down, and their lives put in danger ;
and when they applied for redress the answer was that no re-
dress should be given. There was one systematic refusal of
redress to those people who were suffering under those griev-
anees. The Government made a proclamation, that if any
savage set up a claim the emigrants should be turned out. In
consequence of these and other transactions on the part of the
Government, all the public works had been stopped, and a
still greater evil was, that an immense mass of labourers were
thrown out of employment. The last news was that Captain
Fitzroy, by his own financial mismanagement, had determined
that nothing should be done towards cheapening the Government
of New Zealand. He had gone to several places refusing
to establish the the title to land, and promised to bring the
inhabitants to Auckland, where he w3uld rectify the agree-
ment which they were not satisfied with. He then tried to
force them. It was on these accounts that hardly a ship came
back to this country without some poor labourer who went
out for work to New Zealand, and, being disappointed, came
back to a union workhouse in this country. At the same time
the Government did nothing for the natives—they totally dis-
regarded their real interests. For five months, without the in-
terference of any British law whatever, had 1,500 Europeans
been living in intercourse with the natives, and not the slightest
casualty or dispute had ever occurred between them.—( Hear.)
In fact, they had been living upon such good terms
with each other, the settlers and the natives, that several
European families had two and three of the natives in their
employment, and others had many more.—( Hear, hear. )
But here the Government stepped in with its laws and its in-
terference, causing a disunion and a fight amongst those who
had heretofore lived upon terms of friendship—all about a
trumpery matter of land, and the consequences would be
such, that they would not be effaced without the most dis-
astrous consequences.—(Hear, hear.) A feud of blood had
been caused that never could be eradicated from the mind of
the white man, for he felt that a wrong had been done him,
and that the black man had been favoured in preference to him,
and the result would be, that neither would be satisfied until he
had achieved the extermination of the other.—( Hear, hear. )
Oh, but then he might be met by Hon. Gentlemen opposite
telling him that this had all been the fault of the New Zea-
land Company themselves, and all owing to their own precipita-
tion ; if so, then let him ask how would that excuse apply to
similar eneounters that had taken place in parts of the colony
where the New Zealand Company had never set a foot?—
( Hear, hear.) Now, just let him call the attention of the
House to what had occurred, not very long ago, in the colony.
At the time he was alluding to, a New Zealand chief, who dis-
played a great deal of intelligence in all matters.that. he con-
ceived told against our settlers—(Laughter)—came down
amongst some of those settlers, and robbed them of their pro-
perty, and destroyed their houses, and committed all manner of
depredations, whereupon Captain Fitzroy went with a military
force at his back, to this chief, who made a sort of apology for
what he had done, which Captain Fitzroy said was a most am-
ple apology—( A laugh )—and thereupon he proceeded to ano-
ther district, and encountered another party of natives, whom
he punished for this depredation by fining them ten muskets—
(laughter)—and then, in order to appease the chief, whom he
feared he had offended, he absolutely abolished the only two
custom- houses existing in the colony.---( Laughter.) The mime.
quence of all this lenient treatment to this chief was, that other
chiefs and natives, emboldened by Captain Fitzroy's treatment
of the first one, made a descent upon another settler, a Mr.
Wright, and robbed him of valuable property to a very large
amount, and yet they were not punished by Captain Fitzroy.—
( Hear, hear.) Notwithstanding all this, and that despatches
had been received at the Colonial-office, stating those facts,
yet Lord Stanley sent out orders to New Zealand subsequently,
ordering that the militia that had been raised in that country
should be disbanded, because indeed the natives had
been reported to him to have been a little out of
teaourf
:(30:Hedeiimeaeir:
chauettarhu,daontwd a laugh.) But even this did not
sTahtisisfyia:ltiaisctex.otfraordinary chief, for he very soon after came
d he
down again amongst the English settlers, and in the presence
aggressionnat leengthrlarlsouseadg-Csaaptarn Fitzroy,ear.
sydney ;
and
villa
wouidintateh earnest,resßritish
l t
bahen sent
vir th
fyffo, r soldiersw(ija
be-
)

a serious 1,..s to those who held it. In September, 1844, Go-
vernor Fitzroy issued another proclamation, by which he
had imposed a tax of a penny an acre on all lands which were
not held by the natives, and this had afterwards been increased
to twopence an acre. Now, this was exceedingly strange, for
it was evident that the exemption was not to be extended to the
Government lands, for that would only be imposing a tax on pro-
perty, for which, if it was not paid, the land would be liable to
confiscation, and it was ridiculous to suppose the Government
should impose a tax on their own lands, and then confiscate
those lands to themselves if that tax was not paid. Lord
Stanley had, indeed, spoken in the most glowing terms of the
propriety of Government adhering to the terms of the treaty,
but he had at the same time privately winked at his Colonial
It was done as robberies are always done.—(He
Governor, who in consequence imposed a land-tax —( Al h )
ga was
thatdoing
shortit . —1)
e(
rHi
neda rw,
hheena hear. He asaingi led
earNTobblee case was
at
veryth em
differentw hile
during
iwn
Member for London and the Noble Marquis (the Mar" • Normanby) held the chief power. But how did auplatas)nf
Hobson, the first Governor of the island, after the treaty hadl
been entered into with Government how did he act? Why
his sole object—the only governing idea in his head—seemed to
be the very ludicrous one of impressing the Compauy's settlers
with a very high idea of his own dignity.—:(Laughter.) He
went out, accompanied by 800 persons, to give laws to 10,000
out of the 14,000 Euglish settlers already established, and
thatmight have
instead of soothing any misunderstandings

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAI_ EVENING, JUINE 18, 1845

Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London,
had himself assented to the same doctrine at that
time, being then Colonial Secretary. The Hon. Mem-
ber here read several extracts from dispatches forwarded from
the Government of New Zealand to her Majesty's Govern-
ment, with the opinions of the Noble Lord thereon, approving
of the principle which he (Mr. Hope) had been defending,
respecting the title of the natives of the land. The extracts
would be found in the Parliamentary Papers of 1831, No. 311,
page 10. The statment of the Noble Lord, then, if good for
anything, was a full justification of the terms of the treaty
which Captain Hobson had concluded with the na-
tives—the establishment of the right of the natives to
the soil, and that no purchase of land should be made
unless it was carrried out on a fair principle, with the consent
of the natives, and under the sanction of the Government.
The statement of the Noble Lord in reference to the dis-
patches of Captain Hobson, recognised not only the instruc-
tions which the Marquis of Normanby had previously issued
on this subject, but were still more definite and decided in
their character. Sach were the conditions of the treaty. The
question was, whether the natives had given up their sove-
reignty without some guarantee of the land. He maintained
that they had not, but that they only gave up their sovereignty
on condition that the right to the land should be reserved to
them. Such weee the facts of the original transaction. In
1812, however, he found that the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) admitted that the treaty of 1840 was only a blind, and
that the rights of the natives of New Zealand were so compli-
cated, that he did not understand how they should be treated.
He did not blame the late Government; but the construction
put upon that treaty was originally put upon it by Mr. Spain,
who was appointed by Lord John Russell. The Noble Lord
the Member for London directed waste land to be obtained by
purchase, and therefore recognised the right of the natives to
sell. It had been said that the New Zealand Company ac-
cepted a Crown title, and did not make purchases ; but such
was not the case, for they sent out thousands of persons as early
as May, 1841), to occupy land, for which they paid 170,0001.
Why, the New Zealand Company had laid it as one of their
claims upon the Government that they had expended large
sums of money in the purchase of land there. The Noble
Lord, in his letter to the New Zealand Company, clearly re-
cognised the purchases of the Company ; for he said that the
Company had made large purchases of land, fully equal to
make good any claims they had on the Government. The
lands which the Company bought had been in the possession of
the natives; and they clearly showed that the demand reads upon
Government was altogether futile. The Right Hon. Gentleman
quoted the letter of Col. Wakefield, to show that the purchase
by the Company, and the title of the natives to sell were fully
recognised. J That was not the only construction. The agent
immediately objected, and having brought the natives before
the Court he abandoned the proceedings. Surely, that was a
course which no Government could sanction. Then he stated
that the instructions of the agent had been over• ruled by the
interference of Captain Hobson. And he states what those
instructions were, namely, that it was incumbent on the agents
to purchase the land before they disposed of it. Such were the
instructions, but he was aware that the Noble Lord (Lord J.
Russell) would not be ready to accede to that view of the
question ; and when Lord Stanley came into office he was
bound to abide by these decisions. —( Hear, hear.) Lord
Stanley had been charged with all sorts of dereliction of duty,
but the charge was altogether without foundation. Then
he came to the year 1840, in which it was asserted
that the Colonial-office had altogether neglected the interest of
all parties. Then there was the question of the lands, which
it was asserted ought not to have been conveyed, but he had
shown every legal power had been secured, and there could be
no fault whatever found with those proceedings. He was per-
fectly satisfied, from the whole of the proceedings of Captain
Fitzroy, that he had done his duty. In the case of Warranaki,
for instance, which was a case of reviving the duty to the
slaves of the colony through the influence of Christianity,—
( Hear, hear.) The House would at least be satisfied that
Captain Fitzroy had done all that in him lay towards the
amelioration of the condition of the slaves in the colony. He
now came to the other important settlements of Wellington
and Nelson, and it appeared from the report of the agent of the
Company that all was quiet. The same was the case with
respect to Nelson. He had shown, therefore, that Captain
Fitzroy had put the settlers in the possession of
their lands. That was one of the most important
points. Contradictory statements had been made to put the
settlers in possessiOn of their land, but by the last dispatches it
appeared that Captain Fitzroy had returned to use military
force ia order to take possession of that district,. He, therefore,
felt that all the allegations which had been thrown out were
perfectly without foundation. He now came to a point much
commented on by the Hon. and Learned Member—he meant
the construction put by Lord Stanley on the 7th resolution of
the Treaty. The Hon. and Learned Member said its mean-
ing was perverted by a sort of trick. It would be recollected by
Hon. Members that that Noble Lord had always exp.essed
himself anxious to give the settlers the value of the pro-
perty, but it seemed to him, that the Hon. and Learned
Member objected to their having any land at all. But then
the Noble Lord was charged as being the occasiort'of the.
unforte ',ate occurrences that had taken place in the island.
He thought that a great deal of those transactions rested with
other parties than the Noble Lord. He (Mr. Hope) would
refer the House to the resolution, and the observations made
thereon. He found that the resolution was to this effect,
that the conduct of the New Zealand Company, in taking
possession in defiance of the authority of the Crown, was
highly irregular and improper. The observations were in a
somewhat similar language. But, it was said,
that these dissatisfactions arose out of the detention of

land. He denied this.—( Hear, hear.) The dissatisfaction
had to do with the titles to the land, and not to its detention.
One case of a peculiar character had been referred to, as oc-
curring in the north of the island ; but this was not a quarrel
between the natives and settlers, but between two septs of na-
tives. —( Hear, hear.) And yet this was the only case referred
to by Hon. Members. The Right Hon. Gentleman then re-
ferred to several documents to show that the Company had
professed to purchase lands from chiefs, who them-
selves acknowledged that they had no power to sell
them. It would be utterly impossible to follow the
Right Hon. Gentleman in all his details, or indeed to make
any important portion of them intelligible. He said the
fact was that it was quite impossible to make valid the pur-
chases which had been made in a foreign land without any
serious or careful inquiry into the titles of the settlers. That
the Company had nut inquired with proper caution into the
titles of those from whom they professed to purchase, was
proved in the inquiries instituted by Mr. Spain. He (Mr.
Hope) did not say that the gentlemen who had en-
tered upon the adventure did so with a full knowledge
that they were violating any rights. All he said was
that they had not exercised due caution.—( Hear, hear.) He
would pass over some of the accusations made by the Hon.
Member for Liskeard, and proceed to state what was the actual
state of the colony. The Hon. Member for Liskeard had re-
ferred to the reports of Dr. Evans as representing the state of
the colony. He did not wish to cast any imputation upon the
character of Dr. Evans, but he must say, that he had received
later intelligence, which satisfied him that not in Wellington or
Nelson had there been any violence inflicted by the
natives.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") But in the Bay of
I'lands there had been some symptoms of insubordination
directed, however, against individuals, and not against the Go-
vernment. Capt. Fitzroy stated that the employment of fore 6
was necessary, not so much for the repression of actual violence,
as to ensure future tranquillity and establishing the moral influ-
ence of the Government. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
proceeded to read dispatches and correspondence, from which
he argued that the course pursued by the Government was
forced upon them by the circumstances. Now with regard to
the Government expenses, he begged to say that when the
present Governor went out he found the colony in a state of
bankruptcy, and had restored it to solvency. As
to the appointment of Captain Gray, he begged to
say that the appointment of that gentleman to fill
the place of Captain Fitzroy was the best appointment
that could have been made under the circumstances. The
Hon. Member had called upon the House to pass the re-
solutions of the Committee in a modified form. Those resolu-
tions did contain much that the Noble Lord the Sreretary for
the Colonies had often exressed ilk approval of; hut it w,,uhl
not be for him (Mr. Hope) now to enter upon a discussion of
their merits in detail ; bat he found by a passage in a report of
the New Zealand Company, that they had made a pur-
chase of a large tract of land, which they had found
totally unoccupied, and took possession of without trou-
ble or opposition. So much for that part of the Hon. Mein-
bees charge in reference to the dispatch of Lord Stanley of the
12th of August. Did he believe that these resolutions would
he beneficial to the colonists, no false pride would induce him
to oppose the motion. He believed, however, that such a
motion, if carried, would be most fatal to the colony, and he
therefore gave it his unqualified opposition. lie
believed, that by the measures which the Govern-
ment were taking, the aborigines of New Zealand
would be the more readily brought to associate with the Euro-
peans, and those measures would be the means of abolishing a
system which was grounded on the destruction of the abori-
gines of the colonies.
On the motion of Captain ROUS, the debate was adjourned.

SIR HENRY POTTINGEIt.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up
the report of the Committee upon the proposed pension to Sir
H. Pottiuger.

The report was received, and ordered to lie on the table.'
The other orders of the :day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 17.

Their Lordships sat to-day in a Committee of Privileges. The
Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Shaftesbury,
Viscount liawarden, Viscount Melville, Lord Camoys, Lord
Castlemain, and the Earl of Devon.