wondered how long British rule long_British would continue in India, if the civil and military functionaries of the East India Company were to submit for an hour to such premeditated acts of defiance and rebellion as had been openly committed, not once, but repeatedly by the chieftains of New Zealand? Fortunately, our policy in India presented a remarkable contrast to our policy in New Zealand; and it would have been well if the determination exhibited by Sir C. Metcalfe, in hanging up in the midst of a Mussulman population not only the actual assassin of Mr. Fraser, but also the native prince who had paid for his assassination, had been exhibited by the British Governor of New Zealand in dealing with the authors of the massacre of Wairau. Mr. Colquhoun observed, that the argument of Mr. Hope on the first night of this debate was a perfect demonstration that Lord John Russell had put the same construction on the treaty of Waitangi, and on the agreement of November 1840, as had been put upon them by Lord Stanley; but it was insufficient to prove that the condition of New Zealand was so favourable and so flattering that it did not require the notice or interposition of Parliament. On the contrary, it appeared to be so full of danger, that Parliament was imperiously bound to consider whether it could not find a remedy for it. He looked upon it as a proof of the inefficiency of our system of colonial government, and called the House to consider whether it could not devise an advantageous reform for it. He lamented the form in which Mr. Charles Buller had worded his motion, but thought that the treaty of Waitangi, even though it were unwise, ought to be religiously observed. If the natives were strong, they would compel us, and even if they were weak, our own sense of justice ought to induce us, to adhere to it. If the House confirmed any such propositions as those which Mr. C. Buller had brought forward with regard to a population which he described as savage and cannibal, and others as warlike and intelligent, and if the Government seized upon the lands of that population on a principle of policy which Mr. C. Buller had ably expounded, and which Sir R. Inglis had still more ably refuted, it would strike a blow against English colonization and English honour more severe and violent than any which had been previously inflicted upon them. He called upon the Government, in conclusion, to cease to defend the past, and to declare how they intended to change and modify the future. Mr. Sheil pointed out the injustice of Lord Stanley's conduct in not carrying out the engagement made by Lord J. Russell in 1840 with the New Zealand Company. It had never been disputed that that company had made a large outlay of money in consequence of that agreement; and yet, owing to the interference of Lord Stanley, who put upon that agreement a sense which Lord J. Russell had publicly repudiated, it had never yet received a single acre in return. That was a great fact," which no sophistry could elude. He then analysed the constitution of the committee of the last Session which had inquired into this subject, and which, he contended, was most unfavourable 66 to Lord Stanley. It consisted of ten Conservatives and five Whigs, and yet it came to a report strongly inculpating that noble lord. Lord Stanley had stated that the report of that committee was not unanimous, and that it had been carried by narrow majorities. In those majorities were to be found the names of Mr. Milnes, Mr. Charteris, Lord Jocelyn, and Lord F. Egerton, all supporters of Her Majesty's Government; and so strong was the conviction of the last nobleman, that he absolutely moved an amendment on the report still more condemnatory of Lord Stanley even than the report itself. The committee's report produced no effect upon the mind of Lord Stanley, although it did upon the mind of the public. When it was found that the Government would not act on the report of a committee of its own nomination, the great merchants of London assembled and agreed to a petition, which was also denunciatory of the conduct of his lordship, and which called upon Parliament for immediate redress of the injuries sustained by the settlers in New Zealand. That That petition was presented by John Masterman, was signed by George Lyall and John Pattison, and would be supported by Lord John Russell. Here was another "great fact;" the bankers, the traders, the great merchants of the capital of the empire, and of the metropolis of the commercial world, denounced the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. What would be their answer to it? Would they tell the House that their policy had been successful? They could not, for the colony was on the verge of ruin, its treasury was bankrupt, its trade and agriculture had been stopped, the settler had been converted into an exile, and was now trembling for the safety of his family from the lawlessness of the savage, which the timidity of the Government had nourished into ferocity. As Lord Howick told them last evening, the blood of Englishmen, profusely shed, cried out against their policy; and he, therefore, trusted that the decision of the House would be such as would prevent the interests of New Zealand from being administered in future in splenetic authoritativeness, and in fractious sophisti cation. Sir J. Graham concurred with Lord Howick in tracing the difficulties of the present state of affairs in New Zealand to two causes-the first, the contentions which had arisen as to the proprietary rights of land; and the second, the absence of all control over the lawless spirits now in that island. He then entered into a narrative of some length, to show that the contentions to which he had alluded arose out of the binding efficacy of the treaty of Waitangi, and its inconsistency with the compact made between Lord J. Russell and the New Zealand Company. He justified the conduct of Lord Stanley at great length in the whole of these transactions, and observed that though he did not wish to inculpate Captain Fitzroy in order to exculpate the Government, he must mention the circumstances in which that officer had disobeyed the instructions of Lord Stanley, in order to justify his recall. readily admitted that great allowances ought to be made for the difficulties of Captain Fitzroy's position, but still he thought that He it was impossible to overlook the disobedience of orders of which he had been guilty, in issuing an inconvertible paper currency, in refusing to incorporate into a militia the settlers and such natives as they could place reliance on, and in repealing all the customs' duties of the island. Mr. Sheil had commented on several divisions which had taken place in the committee of the last year, and had concluded that they turned on points impugning the conduct of Lord Stanley. They were on two resolutions the one impugning the conduct of all previous Governments, and the other the local Government of New Zealand. In reply to Mr. Ellice's question as to the construction Government intended to place on the treaty of Waitangi, he observed that by that treaty the Queen was entitled to all the rights of sovereignty in New Zealand, consistent with her engagements to its inhabitants, which were, that they should be protected in their lands and possessions so long as they wished to retain them, and that they should enjoy all the rights and privileges of British subjects. He thought that that treaty ought to be religiously observed. What Government intended to do with respect to land in that colony was this,within a time, to be limited, to call on all persons, whether natives or settlers, to come in and prove and register their titles, and at the expiration of that time the right of the sovereignty of the Crown to all unregistered lands would accrue. After the registration it would be open to the local Government to place a small tax on all waste lands to which a title had been made out, and in this manner he thought - that the Crown would become possessed of a large portion of unoccupied land. With respect to the New Zealand Company, instructions would be sent out to put them in possession of land within the limits assigned to them; and in pursuance of the arrangement of 1843, they would receive it on a prima facie title, liable to be upset when a better title was produced. He admitted that the present state of affairs in New Zealand required to be met by an increase of force there. To the question, what institutions were to be given to New Zealand? he replied, that it was the wish of Her Majesty's Government to give municipal institutions to all the settlements of the New Zealand Company. The plan of giving to the island a representative government was full of difficulty, for it was premature to admit the natives, and dangerous to exclude them. As to the law of succession to land and the law of primogeniture, he replied that as a principle of law, British emigrants carried with them British law to whatever colony they went, and that any departure from that principle was an exception from our general system. He then recapitulated the difficulties with which Lord Stanley had had to contend in the management of New Zealand. If he had erred, and he did not admit that he had, he had done so from the humane and generous motive of maintaining the interests of the unprotected natives. The proposition then made to the House was to condemn the policy of Lord Stanley, and to pass a censure on his "splenetic authoritativeness and official sophistication." Such a proposition the Ministers considered a censure upon 1 themselves; and as they felt that they did not deserve it, they entertained the strongest confidence that the justice of the House would protect them from it. Lord J. Russell had entertained a hope, on the opening of this debate, that the time had at last arrived when the difficulties of this young colony and the means of rescuing it from them would be considered, but that hope was disappointed; for Mr. Cardwell and Sir J. Graham had both involved the question in party and political considerations, by declaring that if Lord Stanley was now in a position of some difficulty, it was owing to the mistakes of his predecessors. As the blame of the whole of these transactions was thus thrown upon him, he gave a detailed history of his connexion with the New Zealand Company, and of the proceedings which terminated in the treaty of Waitangi. He insisted that the obligations of that treaty, and the engagement which he had made in November, 1840, with the New Zealand Company, were not incompatible with each other, and in confirmation of his own opinion quoted that of the Select Committee of the last Session. His advice to the Government was"execute your treaty both in spirit and in letter-don't injure the aborigines, but, on the other hand, don't break faith with the New Zealand Company." He then entered into an examination of the conduct of the local Government of New Zealand, and contended that though it might not have erred in intention, it had erred gravely in judgment. He argued that from the improper indulgence with which the natives had been treated with respect to their titles to land, and to the abolition of customs' duties, they had been encouraged to form a deliberate design to abandon our sovereignty. It, therefore, became necessary that the Government should tell the country what they intended to do. It was its duty to see that a colony, in which there were 14,000 British born subjects and 100,000 natives, should not be endangered by the maladministration of any person at the head of the Colonial Department. He then animadverted on the plan of government which had been opened by Sir J. Graham. His singular scheme for placing a local tax on wild lands would not give satisfaction, as it was already known that the nonpayment of that tax was to be a ground of confiscation. The fears of insurrection in New Zealand had been ridiculed, as weak and visionary; but he had no hesitation in saying that a real insurrection would, in all probability, follow such madness and injustice. His opinion formed upon recent events now was, that the Ministers ought to take means for introducing, within a year, or eighteen months at most, from this time, a representative government into New Zealand. He expressed his readiness to go into committee on this subject with Mr. C. Buller. If the House entered into that investigation, it would console itself, within a very few days, with this reflection-that although it was engaged in a task that was unpalatable to the Government of the day, it was laying the foundation of a great colony, perhaps of a great empire, which would extend English institutions, English love of liberty, and the English name and language to the most distant parts of another hemisphere. Sir R. Peel, after some observations on the importance of the present question, and of the colony recently established in New Zealand, proceeded to remark that the real question at issue was whether the House would leave the care of that colony in the hands of the Executive Government, or take it into its own especial direction. The House was now in possession of the intentions of the Ministers with respect to the future Government of New Zealand, and was therefore capable of judging whether those intentions were worthy of support or not. Representative government was, in his opinion, suited to the colony of New Zealand. The colony was not a penal colony, and therefore the objections which existed to such an institution in New South Wales at an early period of its history did not exist in New Zealand. He did not, however, think that it would be wise to establish a representative system there in connexion with a proprietary company here, as it would have a tendency to render the government of the colony more complicated even than it was at present. He considered that it would be most important to maintain the New Zealand Company in its present powers. He thought that it might be made a useful in strument in the administration of New Zealand, not interfering in affairs of State, but aiding the Government as a great commercial company in regulating and promoting emigration. He then proceeded to oppose the motion, on the ground that it affixed, and was intended to affix, a censure on Lord Stanley, and entered into the land question, defending the proceedings of Lord Stanley upon it from their commencement to their close. If, under such circumstances, they passed a vote of censure, they would pass it upon one who had not yielded to the influence of a powerful party which had many supporters on both sides of the House, but who considered that the regard due to the honour and good faith of his country, compelled him to maintain a national engagement, which controlled the avidity of the powerful and the strong, and guaranteed the rights of the weak and unprotected. Mr. C. Buller made a concise reply to the arguments of Her Majesty's Ministers, which he designated as a singular specimen of shabby and miserable shuffling, as bad as Pennsylvanian repudiation, without its openness and boldness. They had given no guarantee to the House that the past misgovernment of New Zealand would not be renewed; for, instead of giving the settlers a representative system, they fobbed them off with municipal institutions. The House then divided, when the numbers were— For the committee. Majority against it. 172 223 51 The New Zealand question, though it underwent so full a discussion in the debate of which the foregoing summary has been given, again became the subject of a lengthened investigation, in the House of Commons, towards the end of the session. A strong sensation was excited in the public mind by the alarming intelligence which continued to be received from New Zealand of the hostile |