The New-Zealander.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 588, 3 December 1851, Page 2

The New-Zealander.

Be just and fear not Let nil the ends thou anns't at, be thy Country's, Thy God's, and Truth's.

AUCKLAND, WEDNESDAY, DEC. 3, 1851.

We were enabled in our last to lay before our readers some of the most prominent portions of the news brought by the Haven. The receipt of our complete files of Sydney and other papers has since placed us in possession of a considorab'e amount of English, Foreign, and Colonial intelligence which we shall transfer to our columns as fully as other claims on our space may permit. We here, however, give precedence to Parliamentary Intelligence, and especially to such of the proceedings as directly bear" upon the affairs of the Colonies. First in interest to our readers is a discussion in the House of Commons on the 15th July, when, in Committee of Supply, a grant of £20,000 was proposed for New Zealand. We copy in full the only account of it which has reached us. It will be seen that the Grant as proposed was agreed to, but not without much opposition. Mr. Hume would have reduced the sum by more than half; but a majority of 50 over 28 rejected his niggard amendment: — and Mr. William would have lopped off the £600 included in the sum for the Bishop's salary ; but this reduction was negatived without a division. The chief opponent of the vote, however, was Mr. Cobden, who, it would appear, resisted any grant at all. Wo may take another opportunity of commenting on the character of his hostility ; but the most hasty reader of his remarks must perceive in them a, marked exhibition of that heartless selfishness which is the distinguishing feature of the Manchester school of politicians, whose organ and wellpaid champion he is. '' A beneficial return" for the money was his desideratum ; he " did not expect the country would be paid five per cent on what it had expended on New Zealand:" and no other consideration could influence Mr. Cobden's sordid mind, — he would not " waste the money of the tax payers where there was no prospect of getting a beneficial interest for the expenditure." No man acquainted with the extent to which the consumption of British goods in this colony has already reached, and the yearly augmenting amount of our imports, can fail to sec that much of what Mr. Cobden urged in this view was attributable to ignorance or something worse in the Mammon-worshipping cotton-printer. We for the present, however, content ourselves with referring to Lord John Russell's appropriate and dignified rebuke of this " profit and loss" mode of viewing such a question, and his lordship's declaration, in a spirit worthy of a British statesman, that, in incurring expense on behalf of New Zealand, " they were doing one of those noble and heroic works which became such a nation." A debate of considerable interest had taken place on the vote of £98,860 to defray the expenses connected with the transportation of convicts. As Lord John jßussejll observed, the discussion showed

the difficulties which the Government have to encounter in dealing with this subject. And, anxious as we arc in thcbc Australasian colonies for the total cotillion of transportation, we should not forgot tIuKC difficulties. The criminals {ire convicted : they must, under the existing lav/, be sentenced to transportation ; where aro they 10 be sent % It is one of the cases, howov. r, in which, if in any, the principle of self-prc-scrvalion may be permitted to open: to so dogmatically as to say, Whatever is done with them, the pollution must not bo inflicted on us. The mattei 1 becomes much clearer when there are pledges on the part of the Government, either ttlmt convicts shall not be sent at all to a colony, or that the sending of them shall Iv <li^ontirnp<l. As respects Van Diemeu's L'ind, Lord JoiIX llussiiLL contended (hat Lord G'RtfY had not broken faith, because he hn<\ made no such pi-omisc as had been alleged. Lord John " was inclined to think that the GoVERNOR of Van DiomciTs Land ha<l nn'sunderstood some of the despatches which he had received from the bucRHTAHY of State, and that he had unconsciously held language which had led to the expectation that transportation had ceased ; but that was quite a different thing from giving a pledge that it should cease.'' We apprehend that few who have read the evidence published by the Australasian League in a document which we copied some time since will be " inclined" to agree with his lordship in this exculpatory judgment on his noble colleague's conduct towards Van Diemen's Land. The vote was carried by the overwhelming majority of 98 against 9. In connection with the Transportation Question, we find anothor not very encouraging record, On the 29th of July, Mr. Anstuy rose to call attention to the Petition of the Native-Born Colonists of Vau Dicmcn's Land, and to move an humble address to Her Majesty, praying that transportation to that colony may finally cease. But an lion, member moved that the House be counted, and there beingonly twenty-seven members present, the House of course stood adjourned. Now it cannot be denied that Mr. Anstey is regarded as so intolerable a bore that no question has a fair chance in his hands, his rising to speak being generally the sure signal for a desertion of the benches. But itis to be remembered also that, on a previous occasion, Sir Wai. Molesworth's introduction of the same subject was in like manner " burked" by a " count out." To be sure, however, that was on the eve of the Derby day. The Morning Chronicle, of July '31, observes, in a stinging article on these results — "A bore and a rncehoise — tho slowest and the swiftest of their species— do >et agree inaivelloiibly in the single faculty ol distancing their fellows. The only question is, whether the colonists will find comlort in tins explanation? * * Supposing that on the occasions refeired to, some bucklering mteiest had been at htnke— some rotten subuiban monopoly, or some chicory adulteration question— does any one doubt tlmt a House would have been found to sit out the debate, in spite of Goodwood, and of Mr. Ans.ii v? * * In the tonoof the English press the colonists may haply yet perceive a liver expiession of the national sympathy ior their wrongs, than in the conduct of an Assembly which, hurrying recklessly fiorn the public stage, appears as m sensible to its responsibilities for the fuiure as it has proved barren of uchievements in the pabt. 1 '

The affairs of the Cape, especially with reference to its Constitution, were brought under the consideration of the House of Lords, on the 15th of July, by the Earl of Derby (Lord Stanley.) The noble Earl reviewed in detail the efforts made since 1842 to introduce a representative system into that colony, and contended that the " cohiplete dead lock" to which the matter had now come rendered imperial legislation so necessary, that it should be attended to even at the risk of pro-long-ing the session Earl Grey also went over the history, stating the facts in his way, and attributing the present unfortunate position of the case to an error in judgment on the part of Sir H. Smith and to the factious spirit in which every effort was met by certain members of the Council. The Crown, with the advice of the Privy Council and by the agency of Letters Patent, undoubtedly possessed power to deal with the matter, and the adoption of the Earl of Derby's motion (for a Select Committee) could do no good, and would be really a vote of censure on the Government. After some further discussion, the motion was lost, but only by a small majority, the numbers being— .For it, 68; Against it, 74. [We give in another column the latest accounts of the progress of the Kaffir War whicli had reached Sydney. We lament to find that they report a series of almost unbroken disasters; showing that, in addition to the political agitation by which the colony is distracted, the danger to many of its best interests from the strength and determination of the insurgents, and the incincerity of some who were regarded as the friends of the Government, continued to be very imminent.] Mr. Hutts Colonial Property Qualification Bill had been likely to obtain much favour ; and indeed it seems self-cvidently just that the possession of property in a British Colony should be taken as a sufficient qualification for a seat to which a member has been elected by a British constituency. It was withdrawn, however, in consequence of a statement by Lord J OIIN Russell that ho would be willing to support a proposition for the total abolition of any property qualification at all. He thought that a sufficient check would be found in this— that some considerable moans would bo necessary to enable a member to retain a seat in the House. The matter thus stood over, to form part, it was expected, of the promised Reform Bill of next year. Mr. Gladstone had given notice of a Bill " for the benefit of Colonial Bishops.'' It is not stated what particular " benefit" this measure would propose to confer on their lordships ; but we have a report of proceedings in the House of Lords in which, so far as the Australasian Bishops are concerned, opinions respecting the Sydney Conference were expressed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and Dublin, which, if rightly received, may prove beneficial,—if not as a guide to the future movements of the Prelates, at least as an exposition of the views entertained of their recent proceedings by the Heads of the Church at Home.

Tho subject was introduced in a discussion raised by Lord Kkdissdalh on tho restoration of" Convolution, — a consummation winch is devoutly desired by the Ilio-h Church party, and on this occasion was advocated by 'tho ! khop of Lomjox, il:c Bishop of Oxford, Esirl N iolson. and (with some qualification) by Jjord LYTTftLTON ; —but which is not likely to be attained while both the PitLMATE and the Government are hostile to it... The Archbishop of Oaxtkkjjutiy declared his belief that tl>e re-establishment of Convocation would tend to increase discord in the Church ; and the Manjuis of Laxsdowne argued that no benefit could bo anticipated from it which would be coimnensurate with tlio serious risk that must be incurred by the experiment. Our immediate bnMiics at present, however, is with the reference made to the Sydney Conference. The Archbishop of Can'imibuky said, •'Suppose tfioti the Litui^y untouched, nml ijotiiiiif? inou 1 attempted than what v\e icnow to l>e (Issued ov m-mv members of the Cbuic!)— tlie ls-uniy; a decl.intum which should contiadict a i.-cent decision of llu> I'nvy Council, and define the ettert of bacti^ui mons exactly tli.m it is definuil in onr articles. W« u'd peace follow 1 Can we support) ihntthi-, would proven lie.il in;; lncaMiie? I cannot so mtpipret the sj)irit of tl)( J hjc <^^ to bdievn that the pfie.it body of the Church, L.nty or C-ier^y.circ pippaied to lostnot the liberty of opinions on in. liters hithwto undecided, which our hitheis have alv^n)'s onjoyed, and under which the Church lina flourished for ilnee hundred years. We may speiik here with conn dencp, tor the experiment has been tried. For olnioub leasoiih I nvoid ull allusion to any events which may have tnlien plncu nt home But tlie exporir.ienr h.is been tri. (1 in Au«tiali,i. (lle.ii , hear.) A dfcl.iraiion sucli as 1 have alluded to \\ab diown up in October last by the lh^hops of Austiaha, assembled in Synod ; and the same ship whirl) bmu<_;ht liome the p.ntirnlus ot that Synod, biou^hlalso the account of the eil'ect winch it iiad produced in one ot the cities wbei" it promulgated, whii,h, instead ofconcoid, was disv'ii->ion whore all had been pieviously peaceful. If bad end.in*>er<d the j)oj)ulanty of a Ht^liop who wa« univeisally ami deaeivedly esteemed; <in>l the pimcipal laity of the, city had met together, and unanimously piotested against a measure they Healed as »n mlringenient upon their hbeity aq Cbuivlunei). (Hoar, hem.) If I do not fear any such result here, it is because I do not entei tain any apprehensions ot tbe issuing of buch u decimation. (Ihar, bear.)"

The Archbishop of Dublin said, '< lie L i<> w * ii advocated the restoiation of the ConvocariDj, , „ covprning' body of the Cliurch, because — besii 11 ' 1 - otii'H objections— lio was of opinion that the povenuuPiit of die Chinch by the clei» v could not, and should not, he tolerated in the^o dins. * * * Us would not have the Church govpimd by the cJoigy exclusivoly, still Jess w ould \v advocate the assumption by laics of the light to "overn it. .A < cording to inn view lhp)e win gi>id gtoinidjnr thp dtsiiitujuilum ejpie&st'd relative to the pi needing), of the Buho/is of Austialia TIILY HAD NO MOIU. KIGIIT 10 DICIAIT. WIIA T bIIOUI.O Cl. IIIE DOCiniNb AND DISCIHI.INL Or Till. CIIUIU 11 THAN SOJIT IWEMY 01 1 11 1 Jlt LoRnSHIPS WOI'ID IIAVB 10 JIIXT IV ANOIIICII PLVCI AVD AhiUML 10 I' ASS La\VS TOO. j im GovLUNiiLS'i or ihl Ploi j le of England." (Hrar.) From the Hobart Town papers received by the Daniel IVebster'Vrc learn that those expressions of sound sentiment were hailed with delight by the Protestant Churcliinen of Van Diemen's Land. "VVo shall ffivc an extract or two illustrative of this feeling- in our next, when wo shall condense into a summary news from the adjacent Colonies, which we postpone to-dny as less immediately interesting than the matters which occupy our columns. We find in a liobart Town papei the following : — Wj sllyan Cosri niiNcr:. — Nevvcastle-on-Tyno, Wednesdaj, July 30 — To flay, the Weflpyan Conference, composed of about three hundred raimstfia of that body commenced its sittinos in tins town. Committees had been dehbeiating foi a fortnight previous ; and n meeting of influential laymen and ministers, ronspquent upon the disoulcred state of the bonety, and convened by the Pnsidcut, hsi also been held at Manchester. 'I he returns show n, detection of ncaily .sixty thousand members ; and the meeting of laymon p.issed a string of resolutions, lecommendmg certain concessions in the mode of memouahsing the Confeienco, but not affecting tho main question ;)t issue between the ministers and tlio d.saftected: Viz— open Contetence, and an infusion of l.iy influence. The votm» For the L^iesident hms : Dr. Il'uintih, 157; John Scott, M; Dr. Alder, 11; J. P. IJnswell, 4; Dr. Beaumont, 3 ; Joim Lomas, 30; Dr. Dixon, 1; Mr. JN.iylo.', 1; and S. L. VVaddy, 1.