DEBATES ON THE NEW ZEALAND BILLS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 525, 14 November 1857, Page 3

DEBATES ON THE NEW ZEALAND BILLS.

(Prom the Maine -News, Aug. 17.)

Mr>. Lab.quchere, on the 20th July^ moved, for. leave to bring in .a bill to amend the-actfor granting a representative con* stitution to .the colony of New Zealand., Leave given, and the bill broughHn and read a first time.. The bill was read a second time, on the 27th July, and on the, 6th of August,,on the.motion that the bill be committed, . Mr. XabQiiqhere, said that the bill contained some clauses which incidentally referred to.the bills that had just been.read a second, time, but its main object was to carry into effect resolutions which had been passed by the legislature of New Zealand, and to give to the central legislative authorities of that,colony the power with the consent of the Crown, of rendering, (as we understood) the second chambers elective. The House went into committee on the Bill. On clause 1. SirJ. Trelawny complained of the manner' in • which ; tlie natives wei'e induced to part with land at low prices, and upon the faith of promises which were violated. He was informed, on the authority of a gentleman who had been, employed by the Government, that, within his knowledge, 1,900,000 acres of land, the greater portion of it worth 10s an acre, had been obtained for 3d an. acre, the natives having been induced to sell the land on promises that schools and hospitals should be built and that they should receive other advantages, while those, promises had never been fulfilled. He maintained that it was the duty of the Government .to protect the interests of the natives. Mr. Labouchere felt the importance of acting with strict honour and good faith towards the native tribes. Whatever opinions,might be entertained with regard to the treaty of Waitangi, its provisions, whether wise or unwise, ought to be strictly and faithfully observed. After cai'eful enquiry he was satisfied, from the testir mony of persons in New Zealand, ecclesiastical and lay, who had distinguished themselves by their scrupulous regard for the welfare of the native population, that the. extinction, of tribal rights -was most, desirable, not only for the interests of the community at large, but especially for those of. the> native tribes themselves. The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses of the bill. On the 7th of .August the bill was read a third time and passed. SALES OF WASTE LANDS (NEW ZEALAND). Mr. J. A. Smith, on the 21st July, moved for and obtained leave to bring in a bill for discharging the claims of the New Zealand Company on the proceeds of sales of waste lands in New Zealand. The same. Hon. member on the 6th of August, moved the second reading of the bill, the object of which was, he said, simply to enable the New Zealand Company to accept the sum of £200,000 (part of the £500.000 granted under the last bill) in lieu of their claim of £268,000. The hon. gentleman was proceeding to reply to some statements affecting the New Zealand Company, which had been made during a previous debate, when Sir J. Trelawny rose, and asked the Speaker whether the hon. member was in order. The Speaker, said that it was irregular to refer to proceedings in a previous debate during the present session. In reply to Sir H. Willoughby, The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that an advance of £260,000 made to the New Zealand Company had been remitted under the authority of the lO.th and 11th of Victoria, chap. 112. The bill was then read a second time. It was, committed the same.evening, .and the following day it was read a third time and passed. NEW ZEALAND LOAN QUARANTEE BILL. Mr. Labouchere fjuly 30] moved the second reading1 of this Tbill at a morning* sitting of the jHouse. Sir J. Trelawny trusted, thafrthe Hqus,e would be informed why tliis country was asked to .guarantee a loan of £5,00,0,00 to-NewZealaud. Of- that .sum £120,000. were,..to. be appropriated t0.,-purposes .con-r: nected^with ,the., colonial. debt.;. £200,,Q00. were.to bepaid-to:the.New Zealand[Gompanj, and. £180,000 to ,be. applied towards thehiexiinction of the rights of the natives in their:lands; With.regard to^he.natives, he thought this country was not dealing with them.in a straightforward manner,

%-they;ha,d;been. induced to give up their property, foi; ; a.mere-npniinal: price, upon promises-which-had :,not. been/-kept; 1^ was true; that';a committee' Consistin- of eight' members had: reported "in favour ot the../bill,.- but he. must observe, with! out wishing to question* their^ desire to to'act justiy, that-three or-four of them had. been. coiinected. with the Colqnial 7 omce, pr entertained feelings of interest for: the .colony; and the only w if; ne g Ses exjamined were the permanent TJnderTSecrer tary lor.the Colonies-and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. This proposed loan was in fact nothing but hush-money, in order that all discussion about pas£ transactions, might be put an end to. The amendment: moved-in the select committee by the hon. member for : Oxfordshire, for the purpose.of reducing the loan by a sum over £100,000, satisfied him that at all events a certain por r tion of the money ought not to be -guar-anteed-by the House. It was true that the bill had been recommended by the colonial assembly, but a portion of the assembly did not assent to that recommendation, and this absence of unanimity was a reason, among others, for delaying the consideration of the bill till another session. He proposed as an amendment that the.bill be read a second time thajt day six months. The colony of New Zealand could obtain the loan in the money market at 8 per cent., and he did not see why the British Government should, under the circumstances, guarantee a loan with respect to which it was anything but certain that the security was goqd. Mr. W. Williams seconded the amendment. He could not conceive why, in the present pressure upon the finances of the country, the Government should give this guarantee. Mr. Labouchere said that the purpose of the bill was to; enable the Government to guarantee aloan of £500,000 for the colony of New Zealand, and thereby to assist that colony under the financial difficulties in which it was involved to effect certain important political objects. He admitted that the proposition was one which that House ought carefully to consider, but there might be cases in which the country, with no cost to itself, might afford important assistance to a British colony, by lending- its credit to enable the colony to raise money for objects imperial as well asr<3blqnial. The "statement that the colony of New Zealand could only j raise money at 8 per cent., whereas under the guarantee of this country it would obtain money at 4 per cent., must not be taken as a proof that the colony had no resources to pay : the debt; for it was not to be expected that a new colony, whatever may be its resources, would find its name stand so high in the money market as that of a country like England. The proposition to guarantee was no new principle, but had been acted upon at several periods, as, for instance, in the case of Canada and the West Indies. When he assumed the administration of the" Colo-nial-office, he found that the noble lord tjie member for London had written a -despatch offering to recommend that Parliament should guarantee a loan to New Zealand to the amount of £200,000, jin order to enable that colony to wind up the long and complicated affair which had arisen out of the relations between the New Zealand Company and the colony. The answer to that proposal came to him, and was to the effect that the colony had declared by its legislature that it did not think itself justified in accepting it, if confined merely to the object mentioned; that the settlement of that affair would affect only a portion of New Zealand, and that the object of the loan should be enlarged and made more general. Consequently, the legislature of New Zealand passed an act authorising a loan -of £500,000 instead of £200,000. A guarantee for the loan of £500,030 was therefore asked for by the colony. He felt- it his duty to look most carefully into the subject, and he came to the conclusion that the reasons given by the colony for the extension of the loan were good and valid; but before he submitted the matter to the House he proposed that; it should be examined into by a select committee. Something had. been said about the-cop-position of that committee, but when jhe read the names of the committee lit be .seen that it/consisted of members jon^ .whose1- judgment ;and- independence the House could place reliance. Besides himself the members^ of. the . committee were, Lord .J. ftussell, Lord Stanley, Sir ;J. Pakington, ;Mr. Adderley* Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. Henley/and Mr; Wise. The fact that Mr. J..A. Smith had been connected,

with the New Zealand Company, and Lord J. Russell: with the Colonial-office, constituted no reason-why they should not be -proper- -persons - to* consider -a colonial matter.. (Hear, hear.) He had attached^ much, value, to . obtaining the assistance upon the committee of two members, of the ability and aeutenes3 which distinguished the noble lord the member for Lynn and the ,right, hon. gentleman the member for Oxfordshire. The noble lord's name did not appear m the division upon the amendment moved by the right hon. member for Oxfordshire,. but in a letter the. noble lord assured him that he approved of the guarantee to the full extent proposed; and with respect to the right hon. member for Oxfordshire, though he objected to the guarantee as far as part of the sum was concerned, he did not dissent from the principle of the proposition. The committee looked into the question of security, and it was quite plain that unless the colony should be guilty of a gross breach of faith, it must have abundant means to pay the debt, the customs duties yielding £100,000 a-year, and the land fund £80,000. He believed the proposed guarantee was most essential to the interests of the colony of New Zealand, and that the loan would enable it-to place its financial and political affairs on a substantial footing. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Gilpin supported the amendment, observing that the true policy of this country was to make the colonies independent as quickly as possible. Mr. Henley rose, but it being 10 minutes to 4 o'clock, at which hour, according to a rule of the House, the morning sitting must be concluded, the debate was necessarily adjourned. The debate was resumed on the 6th of August, by Mr. Henley, who said he was not disposed to vote against the second reading of this bill, though he considered its principle very, objectionable. He could not give his assent to the proposal for granting £180,000 to facilitate the purchase of lands from the natives at a price below that for which it could be obtained without such grant; and unless the provisions on that subject were modified or expunged in committee, he would vote against the third reading-. He did not think the security for the loan was altogether satisfactory, depending, as it did, upon the good faith of the colonists. ; Sir J. Graham observed that it had been his misfortune to see the commencement of the proceedings connected with this subject, to watch them, and to resist them, but he did not think it expedient now to revive the discussion of those proceedings. Much light had been thrown upon the transactions to which he referred in 1852, when the late Sir W. Molesworth called the attention of the House to the subject at considerable length and with great ability. The House then obtained from the Colonial-office detailed information with respect "to the occurrences that had taken place, and, although he did not think they would bear very close investigation (hear, hear,) he could not but regard the act of 1852 as a condonation of those transactions. He had, however, hoped that the settlement then made was final, and that the Exchequer of this country would riot be liable, either directly or indirectly, to any further charge in connection with the proceedings of the New Zealand Company. He found that Mr. Merivale, who was examined before the committee, was pointedly asked whether he believed that any liability attached to the British Treasury, and gave a somewhat equivocal answer, to the effect that he thought there was no liability under the statute, but that it was possible a liability might occur. Mr. Merivale was cross-examined on that point by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Lowe,) whom he (Sir J. Graham) regarded with respect to colonial matters, and especially upon legal points relating to the colonies, as the highest authority in that House, and it was impossible not to see from the questions that the VicePresident of the Board of Trade differed from the Under-Secretary for the colonies as to the constructive liability of the Imperial Exchequer. The present question arose out of the debt due to the Company from the settlers in the Middle Island, and otherwise there would not be even the shadow of a claim upon the British. Government for assistance. The amount of the debt was £260,030, which was charged as a mortgage upon certain lands- in the Middle. Island. As- he understood the transaction). the New Zealand Company sought to compound the debt of £260,000 for a prompt payment of £200,000, to be raisecL by the Government of New

Zealand, and which probably could not be, raised without the guarantee, of the British Exchequer. The transaction then assumed a very extraordinary aspect, The New Zealand Government —■■ a representative Government -— would not give their consent to this composition of the debt except in connection with two other transactions with which the British Government had nothingwhatever to do—namely, the payment of £180,000 to buy up what were called native rights, and of a further sum of ■ £120,000 for debts due from the northern portions of the northern island. The total debt of the New Zealand Government proposed to be advanced amounted to £500,000, for a small portion of which, under very doubtful circumstances, the British Exchequer was collaterally liable. It appeared to him that the security on which the guarantee rested ought to be narrowly examined. Only yesterday the Government brought in a bill charging the Consolidated Fund collaterally with a sum of-£20,000 to be advanced to a small port in Haddingtonshire for the improvement of the harbour. On the same evening an advance of £40,000 was proposed to defray the cost of executing public works and maintaining* educational institutions among the native tribes of South Africa, and the rig"ht hon. Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Labouehere) plainly intimated that the Government mis^ht pos•1.1 • -I sioly propose a similar vote next year. He (Sir J. Graham) must say, as between loans and* grants to the colonies, that he greatly preferred grants to loans upon collateral and contingent securities. He thought the relations between the mother country and the colonies could not be placed upon a more insecure basis than of creditor and debtor. (Hear, hear.) Whatever aid was afforded to the colonies should, in his opinion, be in the nature of a grant, the reasons for which might be assigned, sifted, and debated in that House. He regarded these dormant securities as dangerous, and he thought the motto on the entablature of the colonial minister's official residence in Downingstreet should be this, —

No lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend

(Hear, and a laugh.) He (Sir J. Graham) could not say that he was a great admirer of the constitution of New Zealand. That constitution was federal, including- six provinces, and the effect of a heavy debt might be to render it the interest of the Federal Government to repudiate such debt. It appeared from questions put to the witnesses before the committee by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade that the collection of the colonial customs duties was entirely in the hands of the Central Government 5 and consequently, if the Central Government should think it inexpedient to continue hig-h customs duties—a measure which would diminish the security for the debt—although they could not reduce those duties without the consent of the home Government, they might, unless the reduction of the duties was assented to, be brought into collision with the Government of the mothercountry. It appeared that the Representative Chamber of New Zealand had not approved by a.unanimous vote the course now proposed by her Majesty's Government. His objections to this measure were strong* and deep-seated. He was sorry to see these collateral charges upon the consolidated fund multiplying so rapidly. He thought that such transactions with respect to the colonies were only justified by extreme necessity, and he would much rather vote for grants from time to time to meet any cases of proved necessity than for such loans as that which the House was now asked t& sanction. If, however, notwithstanding the growing changes both at home and abroad, and these financial questions which were daily increasing in difficulty and importance, the Government persevered in pressingmeasures of this nature upon the House, he could only say that upon them would rest the responsibility of such a course. The Chancellor of the Exchequer fully admitted that no class of questions occasioned hini^—as charged with the responsibility of the finance department—so much embarrassment as those relating to the assistance by guarantee or by loan of colonial Governments. The old view of colonies, was that, if they did not fiu-iiish revenue or-tribute, at all events they were to be economical and advantageous to the mother country. They were placed under commercial restrictions, and their trade was regulated in such a manner as to create an imagined advantage to the mother country. They were, indeed, sa-

crificed commercially and financially to the mother country. That view had, however, been entirely inverted, and the colonies were now allowed the utmost freedom with regard to trade, commerce, and navigation. At the same time our ancient policy with respect to the finances of the colonies had been revei'sed. Instead of the colonies being tributaries of/ the mother country, the mother country was now tributary to the colonies; and if a financial balance were struck between this country and her colonies, with regard to the commercial advantages which we undoubtedly derive from them, it would, he believed, be very heavy against the mother country and in favour of the.colonies. He apprehended that the theory of Parliament was, that by securing free trade with our colonies, by preventing them from pursuing the policy of independent nations by excluding English iSlhufactures or establishing high prohibitory duties, an immense commerce with distant regions was insured to this country. In that manner the trade and productions; of Great Britain were benefited ; and, in order to insure the prosperity and good - government of her colonies, financial advantages were afforded them—especially when they were young or in difficulties— at the expense of the mother country. It was upon that principle that he judged the ~ plan now under consideration. He freely admitted that there were strong objections ■ to imposing upon the consolidated fund a guarantee for a colonial loan of £500,000, but he asked the House to consider the position of this question. By an act of the 10th and 11th of Victoria it was provided that if the INFew Zealand Company closed their proceedings within a limited period, their debt to the Crown, should be - remitted, and a sum of £260,000 should be charged upon the lands of the colony. The company fulfilled the condition, and they were thereby relieved from the debt1 due to the Crown, while the colony became indebted to them in the sum of £268,000. He thought that it was unnecessary to re-open any inquiry into the | merits of that settlement. (Hear, hear.) | He took as a fact the settlement deliberately sanctioned by Parliament, and that was the state of affairs when the noble member. for the city of London (Lord J. Russell) held the seals of the Colonial Office. The noble lord saw the difficulty occasioned by this debt of £268,000 due from the colony to the company, and proposed that the Imperial Government should offer to guarantee loans to the extent of £200,000. The company, he believed, were willing to accede to the arrang-ement, and the proposition was submitted to the. colonists, who rejected it on the ground that it would not effect a complete settlement of the difficulty, inasmuch as further embarrassment had been caused by the treaty of Waitangi, which sanctioned the principle that the land of a portion of New Zealand did not belong to the British Crown, but was vested in the native tribes. The consequence was, that as population and industry increased, the colonists were unable to obtain land without a purchase by the Government. This state of things was attributable to the legislation of the mother country, and there could be no doubt that the progress of the colony would be materially promoted by the extinction of the native rights. With that object, in addition to the guarantee of £200,000, the colony asked for a further guarantee of £180,000; and there were again other liabilities, amounting to about £120,000, which it was desirable that the colon}" should have the means of meeting*. The total sum for which a guarantee was asked amounted, therefore, to £500,00 \ It must be borne in mind that the liabilities of the colony were, for the most part, owing to imperial legislation and control, but he felt that the colonists had no legal claim whatever upon Parliament. This was merely an appeal to the generosity and liberality of the "House and if they thought fit to reject the bill there would not be the smallest reason for complaint on the part nf. the. colonists. (Hear.) He would remind the House that the colony of New Zealand was in its infancyj it was in a temperate climate where Englishmen could labour in the open air; its soil was fruitful j and there was a -fair prospect that, if the Colonial Government acted with good faith, they would be able to pay the interest of the loan and -to provide a small sinking; fund annually for the extinction of the debt. The right honourable baronet (Sir J. Graham) seqmed to think it a disadvantage that the colonial customs duties which constituted the main - security for the loan, were collected by the central government and not by the

-provincial governments. Now, on the -contrary, he (the of the Exchequer) deemed that arrangement an advantage. If there were .any probability that the central government-would be subverted, and that the -provincial governments would obtain the control of taxation and of the application of the .revenue, he might entertain some apprehension as to the security for the loan, but so long as "the central government was maintained, =he believed that unless some unforeseen Teverses or calamities should occur, a expectation might be entertained that due provision would be made ■'for the payment of interest, and for the -provision of a. sinking fund. He hoped -therefore, the House would assent to the -second reading of the bilL Mr. Adderley'thought that, as a fair •opportunity was now offered of getting rid of this debt by a composition upon -very favourable terms, it was quite as much the interest of this country as of the colony of New Zealand to close the -offer." The debt had been created under the policy of the Imperial Parliament, and the colonists might therefore justly claim the assistance of the mother country for its liquidation. With regard to the question whether or not the security was satisfactory, he* might observe that the proposed loan amounted to £500,000, which was expected to be raised at 4 per cent., with 2 per cent, for a sinking fund, •-■ and the colonial revenues upon which this *debt would be secured amounted at present to £180,000 a-year.. From the rapid -progress made by the colony within the -last four years, he thought that there could >;be no doubt as to the sufficiency-of the security. It was quite absurd, in his «opinion, to suppose that the colony would make any attempt to escape the burden of •the loan, and to throw it upon the Imperial Parliament. Mr. Caird thought it was perfectly clear that even if the House should refuse to guarantee this loan the colony df New .Zealand would have to pay a much higher -rate of interest than if the guarantee was •given. Now, in all new colonies the rates ■of profit, and consequently the rates of interest were high, and therefore the colonists of New Zealand could afford to pay a higher rate of interest for the loan they required. When he looked to the probable demands upon the exchequer of this •eountiy, and to the state of public affairs, he thought the House ought fully to consider the obligations they might he called upon to meet before they consented to •afford guarantees for which it was evident ■no great necessity existed. He would, therefore, vote against the second reading •of the bill. Sir H. Willo-ughby observed that the •right honourable member fer Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had said that the responsibility of this measure would rest with the Government, but the Government had in •a most straightforward manner brought the question before the House, who, as it -seemed to him, must accept the responsibility of dealing with the subject. (Hear, hear). He thought that if there was any -pecuniary claim on the part of the New , Zealand Company it should be treated directly and separately, and that the New Zealand Government should enter into a ■distinct arrangement with the colonial ■authorities. It appeared to him, however, that the measure before the House would ■only lay the foundation of a financial squall in the colony. -(A laugh.). He must say he thought it hardly fair on the -part of the Government to bring forward a bill of this nature, involving pecuniary demand? tl» a large amount, at so late a period of the session. -(Hear, hear.) Mr. W. Williams expressed his intention to vote for the amendment. Mr. C. Fortescue supported the bill, observing that the proposed loan will enable funds derived from the sales of lands in New Zealand to be applied to the purposes of emigration, to the formation of roads, and the- construction of public works; and, considering the growing prosperity of the colony, there could be no doubt as to the sufficiency of the security. The mother country had assisted Canada loans at a critical period in the history of that colony, and the result of the experiment was such a3 to encourage the House to adopt a similar course in the case. ©f New Zealand.

Mr. Gilpih thought that, before the House assented to grant any loan for the purchase of lands in New Zealand, a searching enquiry ought to he instituted as to the dealings of Government Commissioners with natives with reference to the purchase of land. It was stated by one 6i the commissioners for the extinguish-

tnent of native claims that 500,000 acres of land, worth £200,000, had been obtained by a payment of £5,000, and on the faith of certain promises which were not fulfilled.. With regard to the guarantee, he objected to the Government going- out of their way to become traders, whether as money lenders or in any other capacity. Either the security the colonists were awe to offer was ample, and satisfactory, in whicli case they might easily obtain advances in the money markets of the world, or the security was not safe, and, if that were so, Parliament had no right to mortgage the industry.of the taxpaying classes of this country to guarantee such a loan as that proposed. He would vote for the amendment.

Lord A. Churchill said that from a short -residence in the colony of New Zealand he could bear testimony to its rapid growth and prosperity, and he firmly believed it would be well able to liquidate the proposed loan. The purchase of land from the natives so far from being a,disadvantage to them was a private benefit, and the natives generally were very anxious to dispose of their lands, which, on coming into the hands of the settlers, were brought into cultivation, and afforded the means of employment and trade to the native population. The noble lord read a statement which he had received from Mr. Kennedy, the manager of a bank in New Zealand, showing that a large number of vessels owned by natives were engaged in the transport of wheat, cattle, sheep, and agricultural produce between the various ports of the islands. He would give the bill his cordial support. iColonel Sykes observed that the Government of New Zealand, being burdened with debt, found that, borrowing money on its own security, it would have to pay 8 per cent., which would lead to an annual expenditure of £40,000, while with the \ guarantee of the Imperial Government it could obtain the amount required at 4 per cent., or at an expense of £20,000 per annum. The question was, then, whether it was the duty of the Imperial Government to render its assistance under such circumstances to a rising colony, and to prevent an unnecessary and useless exhaustion of the colonial resources. He held that such was the duty of the Government, and as they assumed the responsibility of the measure, and deemed that the securities were satisfactory, he would vote with them.

Mr. Dunlop opposed the bilL The House then divided, when the numbers were:—For the second reading 78; against it, 23; majority, 55. The bill was accordingly read a second time. At the evening sitting the bill was committed after a very ineffectual attempt on the part of Mr. Henley to reduce the loan from £500,000 to £320,000.

On the 7th the bill was read a third time and passed.