with many of the observations of one part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, with respect to the establishment of the New Zealand Company. As for the original formers of this Com no doubt, the duty of the Government to consider the interests of the Maorie population. In doing so, let them look to justice being done them, but do not adopt a procedure which any individual in private life would be utterly ashamed to put for-pany, he believed that many persons had ward. He trusted that the House would not be a party to such a monstrous proceeding. Difficult as the question might appear, they must be prepared to go straight forward; and, in the first place, they must consider the waste lands, as he believed they legally were, the property of the Crown, and treat them accordingly. They should provide, however, just as much land, for the natives in each district as they could, want for the purposes of cultivation, and take care to secure the possession of it to them. He did not suppose that the Government could persist in maintaining the strange conclusion of the noble Lord, that the possession of the waste lands should be considered to rest in the native chiefs. If the Government would at once rescind the proceedings of the noble Lord on this sub-mittee on the Report said that a great deal ject, they would relieve that House from a great deal of unnecessary trouble which must go on increasing as long as this system was persisted in. The Attorney General said, it was not without a feeling of regret that, after the former discussion of three nights on this subect, he found that the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had thought proper to renew it; and, above all, that it should be by a Motion of such a vague and indefinite character, from the adoption of which it was impossible to anticipate any beneficial result. On considering this question, he could not disguise from himself, that but for the existence of the New Zealand Company, and but for the interests of that Company, it never would have been brought forward. He trusted that he should be able to satisfy the House that it was not from any regard to the general prosperity of the Colony of New Zealand, that the hon. Member had called upon it to reconsider the subject; but entirely with a view to the interests of the New Zealand Company. He felt obliged to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath, for having at once pointed out the policy which it was the object of the Motion to have adopted. It was, to compel the Government to abandon the Treaty of Waitangi, and to take possession of the whole of the unoccupied land in the Colony; and then, out of it, to make over a very large portion to the New Zealand Company. He agreed joined it from the purest and the most disinterested motives. With respect to others, however, he believed that they were not insensible to the advantages which the adoption of such a scheme must produce; while others were only led to join it by the anticipation of the profit that would accrue from it as a commercial speculation. The Directors of the Company, in one of their carly Reports, stated that the Colony was not established for political, but for commercial purposes; and from the large blue book it appeared that in a comparatively short time after its formation, it paid six per cent. interest on its capital. This circumstance offered a temptation to persous not influenced by disinterested motives to join it. He said this, because the Com of the evil that had taken place in New Ilis Hutt to Lord Normanby, stating that a lished notions as to the rights of property Colonization Company, as it was then and the division of the soil, and whose incalled, had been formed, and was going dependence had been formaily recognised out to New Zealand to purchase land. by the British Government. If the New Why did the Company apply to Lord Nor- Zealanders answered to this description, it manby at all, if they were going out to could not be deemed absurd, improper, or New Zealand as to an independent coun- unjust, to enter into a Treaty with them. try, to deal with an independent State? And having maile that Treaty with them, Lord Normanby's reply was, that he could on what principle was the Government of not recognise them on the independent this country to attend to the demand of footing suggested, nor sanction the validity hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the Treaty of any purchases they might make on that should be set aside, and the honour of principle. The Company, on this refusal, Great Britain violated ? That, indeed, broke up; and a day or two after this com- would be improper and unjust ; and, hard munication with the Government, the New | Government entered upon so dishonourZealand Company issued a prospectus, dated able a course, the violence and massacres May 2, 1839, at a time when they had not on the part of the natives, which all must acquired one foot of land in the island- so deeply deplore, would not have been setting forth that they had made most ex• without some justification. When the tensive and advantageous purchases of ter- Treaty of February, 1840, became known, ritory, in convenient parts of the island, what said the New Zealand Company? for the purposes of settlement. Again the They said this : Company applicd to Lord Norman by, and “On mature reflection, your directors know again they were told that he would not no other remedy for the evils they have set recognise them on the footing required, forth, than for the Government io take on nor sanction the validity of any purchases itself the duty of occupying all the lands as they might make. In defiance of this re- sole possessors, making compensation to such fusal, however, the Company sent out their persons, as have bona fide acquired property therein." officers with the settlers; and in the months of September, October, and November, of He had intimated, that he thought the that year, Colonel Wakefield, their agent, late Government right in the policy they made purchases extending over several de had pursued in this matter. What, then, grees of latitude, upon deeds which, at all was the Government to do, which, on events, were not more intelligible to the coming into office, found the Treaty of natives than was the Treaty of Waitangi. Waitangi established ? Surely, not to set The independence of New Zealand had aside that Treaty, to violate the pledged for a number of years previously been honour of the country, and, seizing on the recognised by the Government; but the wild lands, transfer them absolutely to the proceedings of the New Zealand Com- New Zealand Company. Nor, was the pany compelled the Government to take Treaty the sole guide which the new Gosteps for the cession of the sovereignty of vernment had to direct their course by. the island, for the purpose of protecting In November, 1840, Lord John Russell the natives. Instructions to this eflect had made an agreement with the Company, were sent out to Captain Hobson, who having reference to all the existing cirissued a proclamation accordingly in Feb. cumstances of the case, in the Eleventh ruary, 1840. Did the Company then say Article of which Agreement the Company that they had been treating with an inde- distinctly and unequivocallypendent State, that the Government had Forego and disclaim all title, or pretence no right to interfere with their purchases, of title, io any land in New Zealand, except and that they protested against the pro- such as may be granted to them by the clamation, as far as they were concerned, Crown, preserving to the tribes and chiefs up to that time? No. "Or, did the noble all the lands which they might individually Lord opposite, then in office, concur with or collectively possess.” them in the representations they now in. This Article the Company, indeed, aftersisted upon, as to the utterly savage char- wards attempted to assume, was condiacter of the natives ? On the contrary, tional; but it was a perfectly clear and the noble Lord described them as tribes unequivocal surrender of any claims they considerably removed from mere bar- might have set up to any land, but such barism, as a nation with advanced ideas as the Crown might thereafter grant of cultivation, and impressed with estab- to them. And the Company had this 66 great advantage in the matter over indi- | perative duty of that House-nct for the vidual settlers, that whereas allotments to sake of the New Zealand Company merely, the latter were limited in quantity, the but for the sake of the people of this Company were to receive from Govern- country—for the sake of a great, and what ment grants commensurate in extent with ought to be a most flourishing Colony, and the amount of their expenditure, at the for the sake of the large numbers of our very liberal ratio of four acres for every countrymen who resorted there, to interpound of money they could show, to the pose for the purpose of inducing the Gosatisfaction of Mr. Penington, the Govern- vernment to withdraw from the policy is ment Land Commissioner, they had laid had so mischievously acted upon, and which, out in the legitimate purposes of coloni- at present, it evinced a determination of zation. The letter of their own agent, adhering to. His opinion was, that the dated the 24th August, 1841, and their sentiments of Her Majesty's Government, reply to it, showed that they were sensi- as indicated by the documents on the Table ble of the justice of this interpretation of of the House, and expressed, so far as he the agreement. The Company complained had heard in that ouse, were unsatisfacthat Lord Stanley had dealt harshly with tory; and that it was, therefore, the duty them; whereas, in point of fact, he had of the House, when they heard the opindealt most liberally, even promising them ions of large and important parties exthat they should not be called upon to pressed with respect to the condition of prove the validity of their titles, but that affairs of that Colony, to take into considhe would give them a prima facie title to eration the policy which it was right to the full quantity of land awarded them, pursue with respect to it. The hon, and and put them in possession of it, unless learned Member for Bath, in remarking where some prior title was established. with respect to the policy which had been True, the agreement was not carried out adopted by Lord Normanby, seemed to by Captain Fitzroy according to the inten- think that it had been founded on an over tions of Lord Stanley, but the noble Lord sensitive regard to the feelings of the should not be assailed for this. Hon. Gen- aborigines ; but he recollected all the cirtlemen opposite demanded a change of po- cumstances connected with the policy of licy ; he did not see how Government could the Marquess of Normanby towards New pursue any other policy, than to respect the Zealand—he recollected the period when Treaty of Waitangi, and adhere, in the libe- Captain Hobson received those instrucral spirit of construction it had manifested tions—and he was well aware that Lord to the agreement made with the Company. Normanby's desire was, that the Colony of Mr. Labouchere had intended to give a New Zealand should present an exception silent vote on this occasion; but after what to what had been almost the general rule had fallen from the hon. and learned previously in our Colonial history, namely, Member for Bath with reference to the that the inferior should not be crushed or conduct of Lord Normanby, under whoin destroyed by the superior race; and that he had the honour to act in the Colonial was, he could assure the House, an impor. Office, he should consider himself as shrink- tant element of all the policy of that noing from his duty to the House, to the bleman. If those instructions which Lord noble Lord, and to himself, if he were not Normanby then gave, and the policy which to make some observations on what the he adopted, had been fairly carried out and hon. and learned Member had advanced. acted upon by Her Majesty's present MinBut first he wished to say a few words as isters, that state of things which had since to what had been put forward by the hon. been presented in New Zealand would and learned Gentleman who last addressed never have occurred; and it was not fair, the House ; that hon. and learned Gentle- therefore, to infer, that because Lord Norman expressed the opinion that the ques. manby had given those instructions to tion before the House was merely a ques. Captain Hobson, all that had since taken tion between the New Zealand Company place in New Zealand was the result of and the Colonial Office: the hon. and them, although his policy had not been learned Gentleman was quite mistaken. carried out in that Colony. Those were There was a much more important ques- his opinions; but he did not rest them tion than that submitted to their decision upon his own view solely, for he was on this occasion ; a question whether the fully borne out in them by the opinion of Colony of New Zealand was not in that the Select Committee which inquired into condition in which it had become the im- the subject, which was composed of many individuals who usually voted with the which could only apply to a country in a Government, and the opinion of which condition similar to that in which England could not be supposed to be swayed by is placed. Let substantial justice be obprejudice. What did that Committee say served towards New Zealand—that only was on the subject of the Treaty of Waitangi? required: if they had looked to substantial It said-and he would remark that it was justice in the interpretation of the Treaty, not the Treaty of Waitangi, but the in- the evils which had since been so much terpretation put by the Government upon complained of would have disappeared long it, which caused the evil that had been ere this time. Nothing could possibly be complained of—it said that the acknow more absurd than to suppose, that a populedgment in the local authorities of the lation of 100,000 natives, who were not right of property on the part of the natives hunters, and did not require large disin land, after the right had been assumed tricts for their support, like the North by the Crown, was not essential to the American Indians-nothing could be more Treaty of Waitangi, and was injurious in absurd than to suppose that this populaits consequences. He (Mr. Labouchere) tion, so constituted, had a right of property conceived that many misfortunes had re- over 80,000,000 of acres, to the exclusion sulted from that interpretation which the of the Government of this country, or of Government had given to the Treaty of the colonists who went out to New ZeaWaitangi; and he regretted to see, that land. It was so directly opposed to sound after the publication of that opinion of the policy, and a wise course of Government, Committee, they (the Government) still that it would only lead to those disasters adhered to the interpretation which was so which had taken place in New Zealand. A condemned by the Committee, and to a state of things which had long continued course of policy founded on that interpre- had been going on from bad to worse, until tation. Lord Stanley continued to adopt acts of a most appalling description had at that interpretation, and that course of length occurred. A British settlement policy, after the publication of the Report had been taken and ransacked; and the of the Committee, which expressed their House had a right to hear from the Goopinion of the injurious consequences which vernment a distinct and satisfactory achad arisen from it. He (Mr. Labouchere) count of the course which it intended to did not consider this a question between pursue. If the House looked to the the Government and the New Zealand assurances which they had, they would be Company ; nor did he rise as the defender found to be anything but satisfactory; for r of all the actions of the New Zealand there was no answer to be found, except Company, although it was his opinion that that a great body of troops would be sent the New Zealand Company and the mis- to New Zealand ; and he (Mr. Labouchere) sionaries might have been rendered very would say, that if that was all, New Zeauseful and beneficial in the advancement land promised to be a very unprofitable of the prosperity of the Colony, by the appendage to us for a few years to come. adoption of a wise policy on the part of There would, if that were the only policy the Government. He did not wish to see to be adopted, be a very great sacrifice of the Governinent at home in subjection to money and of men for a long period ; either ; but he wished to see a course of and New Zealand, instead of being a valupolicy which would render both useful in able adjunct to the commercial greatness of assisting the carrying out of a wise and this country, would only present, for many well-considered course of proceeding in years, a scene of disaster. He agreed with that Colony. He did not agree with the the opinions of several Gentlemen at that hon. and learned Member for Bath in side of the House, as to the notable expethinking that the Treaty of Waitangi was dient of the Government, namely, the waste paper. Far from it ; for although imposition of a land tax for all the waste it was not entered into with a people who lands. They treated the aborigines as if were in a state of civilization, yet it was they were the most civilized country in agreed to by this country, and it ought to the world, in this particular. They rebe adhered to as perfectly as if it were cognised their rights to property in as with France or America, or any other complete a manner as it could be recogcountry. But then it ought to be on fair nised in England in the nineteenth cenconditions; for it would be mere nonsense tury, and they followed up that course by to apply to half-civilized savages, like the the plan of proposing a land tax--another New Zealanders, those rules of property mistake, which every one who knew any thing of such wild countries, knew was only calculated to lead to mischief and confusion. He (Mr. Labouchere) merely rose to do an act of justice to a nobleman who deserved the highest merit for his policy towards New Zealand; but before he sat down, he felt it his duty to allude to another Gentleman connected with the Colonial Office, and whom the hon. and learned Member for Bath thought fit to attack--a gentleman whose name he (Mr. Labouchere) could not pass over, if not in justice to him, in justice to his own feelings-he alluded to Mr. Stephen. He (Mr. Labouchere) brought away from that Office, as others had also done, a deep and enduring respect for the virtues, and abilities, and great services of Mr. Stephen. He knew it was too much the habit to attribute everything which was displeasing in the conduct of the business of the Colonial Office to Mr. Stephen; and so much was this the custom, that one day Mr. Stephen said to him (Mr. Labouchere), so constant was the desire to attribute everything of an evil tendency to him, that it would be better he (Mr. Stephen) left the Office altogether; but he (Mr. Labouchere) replied that it was a great advantage in that case to have him there, and he requested him not to leave, as all that the principals did would be attributed to Mr. Stephen. No mistake was greater than to suppose that Mr. Stephen was anxious to engross power at the Colonial Office; but his services and experience were so great, that he never knew any one at that Office who was not desirous of having the assistance of so acute a mind as that of Mr. Stephen; nor had he ever seen any one more desirous of putting fairly and clearly the facts and means of judgment before the eyes of his principal, leaving him to decide for himself, unbiassed by any prejudices he (Mr. Stephen) might have. He felt that that acknowledgment was due to one to whom he was under great obligation; and it would be no disparagement to any other person in that Office to say that the most distinguished for talents and services was the Gentleman whose name he had just mentioned. He should, then, give his vote in favour of the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend; for he did not think the Ministers had given any assurance to the House with which they ought to be satisfied, in the present grave and critical state of affairs in New Zealand. He was afraid that they felt ashamed of retracing their steps, which every day was leading to worse results; and he was sure, that if the House, in a case like this, refused to interpose-if they were so taken up by party attachment, and party conflicts in that House, that such an appeal as was made that evening on behalf of this Colony should be neglected, it would go far to shake that confidence and respect with which he desired to see all Colonies look to that House, as their protectors against all evils that might befall them. Sir R. H. Inglis said he was anxious to recall the attention of the House to the observations which had been made tonight with reference to the missionaries in New Zealand. The animus exhibited by the New Zealand Company was anything but favourable to the missionaries. That might have been collected from the tone of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), when on a former occasion he requested the House to observe that the late rebellion took place in a portion of the island especially under the cognizance and instruction of the missionaries. Aud the hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), in that part of the speech which referred to the recent unhappy disturbances told the House that this was the very quarter of the island which had for so many years enjoyed the benefits of missionary superintendence. The inference from those statements was clear, namely, that the disturbances which had occurred took place either through the direct misfeasance of the missionaries, or by their absolute neglect. In answer to that, he would ask the hon. Members to recollect the state in which New Zealand was before the missionaries arrived in that country. He would ask, could such a war as that which recently disturbed the northern part of that island, have taken place in former days without the occurrence of barbarities too dreadful for utterance in that House? He would ask, had not the chief Heki exhibited a degree of chivalry and gallantry which would have been an honour to any European nation, and, as the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard had said, would have honoured one European nation, which claims for itself to be the most civilized in the world? If the House would contrast the conduet of the New Zealand chief Heki with that of Colonel Pelissier, he would ask, whether the influence of Christianity had not been manifested, if not by the white man in Africa, at least by the dark man in New Zealand? He would ask whether, in the attack on Kororarika, a native chieftain |