AUCKLAND PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

New Zealander, Volume 9, Issue 796, 30 November 1853, Page 2

AUCKLAND PROVINCIAL COUNCIL.

Wednesday, November !), 1853. Land Claims. Delate on Mr, Busby's Motion. Mr. Busby said, Mr. Speaker,—l am so conscious of my inability to do justice to the various and important questions which this motiou involves that it well becomes me to bespeak the utmost forbearance and the most patent attention of honorable members of this Council. It is incumbent on me to shew that there do exist in the Colonial Statute Book Ordinances which are repugnant to the laws of England and inconsistent with the national honour;—it is incumbent on me to 1 y before the House evidence that certain of Her Majesty's subjects have suffered, and are suffering, injustice at the hands of the local Government, and that justice x* quires that their complaints should be investigated, and that restitution or compensation should be afforded to them.

These, sir, are not party questions. They are not abstract questions of policy, upon which honest men may conscientiously differ. They are questions which go to the foundation of our existence as a community. The issue of this motion will determine whether the Council which has for the first time assembled in this colony, with mi independent voice, is willing to recover for the colmists their inheritance as Briiish subjects, or whether they are willing that the illeg 1 and unjust acts of ignorant and self-wil'ied men should continue to stand between them and their birthright. If, sir, we believe thai " righteousness exalteth a nation,"—that no institutions can be permanent which do not rest upon the foundations of justice and truth, —■ it is for us to look to it that the foundatioas of our future polity should be cleared fnm the rubbish which insures the instabi ity of whatever may be raised upon them.

If others have enacted illegal and unjust ordinances, and perverted the power with wh'ch they were en'rus ed for the protection of the Queen's subjects in this colony to the oppression of these subjects, let not us become partakers in their reproach by giving cur adhesion to those ordinances, or in their sins by giving our sanction to those deeds of oppression.

Sir, it is only what might be expected if honorable members should Lei disinclined to enter into so wide a question. It is a just as well as a generous feeling that revolts against the imputation of unworthy conduct upon men of high station. Bu*, I trust, sir, that this Council will not shrink from the responsibilities of their station ; and that, such imputations having been made, they will considei it necessary to sift them to the bottom.

Sir, in the charters of the eaily Ameiican colonies, as you are no doubt well aware, as well as in the acts of Parliament and charters of later date, a restriction has always been placed upon the legislative powers granted by those charters to the colonies, "that their luws should not be repugnant to the luws of' England." In some charters it was also provided that before any laws of the colonial legislature should be brought into operation they should be certified by the Chief Justice of the colony as not being repugnant to the laws of England. It is much to be lamented that this provision was omitted from the New Zealand charters. In the Act of 3rd and 4th Victoria, ch. 72, which gave authority for the separation of .he colony of New Zealand from that of New South Wales, of which it was formerly a dependency, it was provided (clause 3) that no instructions shall be issued by Her Majesty's Council for the guidance of the legislature of New Zealand, and that no laws or ordinances of that Legislature shall be repugnant to the laws of England, The charier founded upon that Act of Parliiment cmtains the same words; and the instructions to Captain Hobson, the first Lieut.-Goveinor founded upon that Act of Parliament and that charter, states (clause 11) that "any such Ordinances, or pretended Ordinances (that is such as may be repugnant to the laws of England,) shall be absolutely null and void. The same provis on is made iu the Act of 1810, clause 5; but it is not to be found in the accompanying charter or instructions. It is also in the Act of Id and 1G Vict., under which this Council is constituted. The charter and instructions, accompanying which have not, as far fs I am aware, been published. It thus appeals that the Parliament of England has taken care to present to us the protection of English laws; and that in whatever instances these laws have been violated, such violations have been the illegal and unauthorised Acts of the functionaries apppnted by the Queen, whether in New Zealand or in England, to administer the Go\e nment of this Colony. Now, Sir, 1 shall ask the attention of the Council at this time only, to cne Ordinance; my object at present being to show to the Council that there is sufficient grounds for the appointment of a Select Committee. Should the Com i ittee be appointed, it will be their duty to bring to the notice of the Council such other ordinances as they may consider to he repugnant to the laws of England, and consequently absolutely null, and void.

The Ordinance to which I shall then earnestly entreat the attention of the Council is the first in order as it is in importance. The land claims ordinance, No. 1, passed the 9th June, 1841. The title of the Bill imports that it is "an ordinance to repeal an Act of the Legislature of New South Wales, to empower the Governor of New South Wales to appoint Commissioners with certain persons to examine and report on claims to grants of Land in New Zealand; and to authorise the Governor of the colony of New Zealand, to appoint Commissioners with certain prrsons to examine and report on claims to giants of land therein; and to declare all other titles except those allowed by the Crown null and void." The title ot Sir G. Gipps' Bill, the original New Zealand Land title Bill, was simply "n Bill to empower the Government of New South Wales to appoint Commissioners with certain persons, to examine and report on claims to grants of land in New Zealand." An enactment lor the purpose stated in ibis title was n debt of justice due to the aboriginal inhabitants of this colony. It was necessary to carry out Her Majesty's instructions to Captain Hobson. Such a Bill was a mos.t desirable, perhaps indispensable preliminary to the establishment of the rights of property under the British Constitution, aid the administration of laws which affect it. Had the provisions of the Bill been confined to this object, they would have been perfectly consistent with Her Majesty's instructions. They would have led to the speedy and equitable settlement, and record of all claims to land. They would have preserved the confidenc • of Her Majesty's subjects oi both races, in the justice and magnanimity of Her Majesty's Government. It will now, Sir, be my duty to prove to the Council that the provisions of that Ordinance are not only repugnant k5 the laws of England.— Mr. Cilri 1 n here asked whether the Ordinance had been confirmed by the Queen. The Hon. member asks if the Ordinance has been confirmed by the Queen. It has bc,en so confinned, but that is not. enough. Though no lawyer, I btlieve it is sound law, that an enactment of the TmI i rial Parliament can only be legally set aside by the same power that enacted it. I repeat, Sir, that the provisions »f that Ordinance are not only repugnant to tl.elaws of England but that they vioh'te magna ehaitait-

self the very foundation of Constitutional law. That they are, moreover, a violation of Her Majesty's instructions to 'he Governor; and that worse thru all, they ate a v'olation of the national faith ai d the Queen's honor, as pledged to the aboriginal inh ibitants of this country, in a go'emu treaty, negociated by Her Majesty's authority, and duly ratified by Her Majesty. Sir, t never had a doubt, and I speak afier a resi • deuce of twenty years in this country, I nev.-r htid a doubt that the bad faith of the local Government, vvitfa respect to these lands claims, iinjlgin revising to purchase the lauds from the natives*after binding them to sell only to the Queen, was the tea! and determinate cause of the war which ruined the once nourishing settlement of the Hay of Islands, and brought the very name of the British Government into contempt with the native inhabitants of that district.

I shall take the propositions i have stated in the order in which I have proposed them. The 2nd clause of the Ordinance referred to, enacts, or rather pretends to enact,

" And whereas it is expedient to remove certain doubts which have arisen in respect cf titles of hind in New .Zealand; be it therefore declared, enacted, and ordained, that all unappropriated lands within the said colony of New Zealand, subject, however, to the rightful and necessary occupation and use thereof, by the aboriganal inhabitants of the said colony are and remain Crown or domain lands of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and that the sole and absolute pre-emption ftom the said aboriginal inhabitants, rests in, and can only be exercised by her said Majesty her heirs and successors; and that all titles to land in the said colony of New Zealand which are held, or claimed to be held, by virtue of purchases, or pretended purchases, conveyances, or pretended conveyances, leases, or pretended leases, agreements, or a>iy other titles, either mediately or immediately from the chiefs or other individual or individuals of the aboriginal tribes inhabiting the said colony, and which are not, or may riot hereafter be allowed by J Tor Majesty, her heirs or successors, are and the same sh.ll be null and void.

Now, Sir. aif you are well aware, by the common law of England, no man can be deprived of his land unless by the judgment of his peers, that is, by the verdict of a jury of his country. I quote, from " Blackstone's Commentaries," chapter Ist, on the Rights of Persons, page ISB of the edition of 1825,—" Upon this* principle the great charter has declared that no freeman sha'l be disseised or divested of his freehold, or of his liberties, or free customs, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land. And by a variety of ancient statutes it is enacted that no man's lands cr goods shall be seised into the King's hands against the great charter and that no man shall be disinherited nor put out of his franchise or freehold unless ho be duly biougbt to answer and be prejudged by course of law ; and if anything be done to the contrary, it shall be redressed and holden for null. So great, moreover, is the regard of the law for private propeny that it will not authorise the least violation of it, no, not even for the general good of tbe whole community. It a new road, for instance, weie to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might, perhaps, be extensively beneficial 'o the public; but the law permits no man, or set of men, to do this without consent of the owner of the land, In vain may it bo urged that the good of the individual ought to yield to that of the community ; for it would be dangerous to allow any private man, or even any public tribunal to be the judge of this common good, and to decide whether it be expedient or no. Besides the public good is in nothing more essentially interested than in the protection of every individual's private rights as modelled by the Municipal law. In this, and similar cases, the Legislature alone can, and, indeed, frequently does interfere and compel the individual to acquiesce. But how does it interfere and compel ? Not by absolutely Stripping the subject of his property in an arbitrary manner; but by giving hiin full indemnification and equivalent for the injury thereby sustained. The pub. lie is now considered as an individual treating with an individual for an exchange. All that the legislature does is to oblige the owner to alienate his possessions for a reasonable price ; and even this is an exertion of power which the Legislature indulges with caution, and which nothing but the Legislature can perform." Now, Sir. this is the law of England, and in this pretended Ordinance the Legislature of this colony, which is bound by the Act of Parliament which gave it existence, to do nothing repugnant to the law of England, actually gives directions how the ownership of individuals to certain portions of land shall be ascertained. And when sworn Commissioners have reported that the land has no other owner, proceeds to do what ? Why, to declare that it is not his unless the Queen shall confirm his title to it. And that it shall in no circumstances be his if it has any particular value to make it worth while keeping it from him, that the said Commissioners shall not recommend.

" Provided, nevertheless, and be it enacted and or daiued that the said Commissuners shall not propose to grant to any claimant whatsoever, any land which may, in the opinion of the majority of the Commissioners appointed to investigate the demand of sv.ch claimant be required for the site of any town or village, or for the purposes of defence, or for any otbtr purpose of public utility. Nor shall they propose to grant to any individual any land of a similar character which they may be directed to reserve by the Governor of New Zealand, but that in every case in which land of such description would otherwise form a portion of the land which the Commissioners would propose to grant to the claimant, they shall, in lieu of such land, propose to grant to him or her a compensation in such quantity of other land as they, the said Commissioners, or a majority of them, shall deem an equivalent for every acre, or part of an acre, so required to be reserved either for the site of a village or township, or for the purpose of public utility as aforesaid." Now, all this is so monstrous that it is difficult, even with the evidence before our eyes, to believe that such things can be. Not only so repugnant to the laws of England, but revolting to that natural instinct of justice which God has implanted in the breasts of all his rational creatures, that the natives of this country who bad sold these lands, and had ceased to have any interest in them, rose against such an iniquity, and declared that their pakehas should not be treated so, that they who sold them the land would maintain them in possession of the land they had sold them. This, Sir, was the instinct of self-preservation, as well as of natural justice. They said, if the Queen treats her own children so, what are we to expect? and rebelling against a dominion under which such enormities could be permitted, they proceeded to cut down the flagstaff as the symbol of that dominion. Heke's war, Sir, was, throughout, a war of principle. There is nothing more affecting than the conduct of the natives to wards the settlers at Kororareka before they burned down that town, to prevent its occupation by Her Majesty's sea and land forces. In the face of these enemies they actually assisted their old friends to carry away their property to the boats, that it might be placed in security on board ship. The little war in New Zealand will prove a humiliating episode in the history of the British Empire. In no instance was it more clear than in the conduct of that war that God chooses the foolish things of this world to confound the wise, —the weak things of this world to confound the mighty. But I will not pursue this subject further than to add that the conduct of the native sellers of these lands was not less remarkable for its straight-forwardness and good faith, than was that of the local Government for the opposite characteristics. In the appendix to the Report to the House of Commons of 29th July, 1844, page 334 : Auckland, 4th May, 1843. Sin,—ln reply to the Memorandum of His Excellency the officer administering the Government, addressed to us this day, demanding,— "If the conduct of natives in the investigation of land claims has caused a great alienation of feeling between the parties, and a disposition, in some cases, has been maniiested to get returned to them lands which they formerly sold." We have the honour to report that we have now examined more than half of all the claims, yet have never remarked such a consequence in any of our investigations. In cases wherein the boundaries have been loosely described in English, nay, frequently conftssed to have been inserted by the purchasers after the signature of the deeds by the natives ; then, indeed, the natives, although admitting a sale of some portion, have boldly, and in every instance with apparent truth, denied the extent of the land alleged to have been alienated ; upou those occasions they have declared that although they do not, and never did, understand the boundaries then" read to them from the deeds, they can, howayer, a,nd willingly will, point out to the surveyors the tract they actually sold. We have examined some natives more than ordinarily dissipated by habits of intoxication, still, even these never made any unjust attempt tri repossess themselves of their lands,--witness the examination of Pomare, upon the sale of Russell, which took place upwards of a year after its purchase from Mr. Cieudonby the Government,, and was well known by Pomare to have then become of a. vastly increased value. We do, however, believe that pretty generally the natives have required some present to induce thorn" to undergo our examinations, and that. in a very few instnnces where they bad been seduced by the temptations off red 10 them by Europeans to sell the. same land to two different parties, they would perhaps give their evidence iu favour of the greatest bribe although offered to them by the later purchaser; but such cases Imye been most rare, and only occurred when the morality of the buyerj appeared quite as questionable as that of the selltrs. Except on such an occasion we can scarcely recall to

to mind a single investigation in which the testimony given to ua by the natives was not deserving of the most entire credibility. We have, &c, (Signed) Edward L. Godfrey, f Commissioner. M. Richmond, S The Hon. the Colonial Secretary, I ; c, &c, &c. • And Mr. Hope, the Under Secretary of State for the Colonics, in the great debate in the House ot Commons in 1845, says,—l quote from the corrected copy ot that debate, published by Murray, in 1345, page 02. "It appeared by the papers before the House, that from 750 to 1000 claims were made by such settlers, that is, by those who bad settled in New Zealand before it became a British dependency, extending to many thousand acres of land ; and it was a very remarkable fact that out of that large number of claimants whose cases were enquired into by a properly constituted tribunal, the claims of only seven or eight were disputed. _ I may add, Sir, that this is a fact perhaps unparalleled in history, and that it ought for ever to have closed the lips of those who bad slandered the purchasers of those lands as persons who had taken advantage of their superior knowledge to impose upon the ignorance and simplici y of the natives. It is known to many of this community that in one or perhaps two instances the property of Her Majesty's subjects, which had been purchased in this country before Her Majesty had acquired either dominion or jurisdiction over it—land which sworn Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty in that behalf had reported to have been a-fair and valid purchase from the native proprietors—land to which no other person than tits purchaser pretended a claim, was actually put up to auction, and sold to the highest bidder, and conveyed away from the rightful owner by a grant from the Crown, in violation oi the express assurance of Her Majesty that it was not intended to dispossess the owners of any land which was not upon such a scaie as to be prejudicial to the latent interests of the community.

But, Sir, I know it will be said that a native title is not a legal title until confirmed by Her Majesty. And it will be necessary for me to pray the patience of the Council while I go at some length into this question. In the Parliamentary papers relative to New Zealand, of Bth April, 18iO. Asfer stating that the title of the Aborigines of New Zealand to the soil and to the sovereignty of New Zealand is indisputable, and has been solemnly recognized by the British Government. Tbe Queen's instructions to Captain Hobson, through the Marquis of Normanby, amongst other passages, contaia the following : " It is not, however, to the mere recognition of the Sovereign authority of the Queen thatyour endeavours are to be confined or your negociations directed. It is further necessary that the chiefs phould be induced, if possible to contract with you as representing Her Majesty that henceforward no lands shall he ceded either gratuitously, or otherwise, except to the Crown of Great Britain. Contemplating the future growth and extension of a British Colony in New Zealand, it is an object of the first importance that the alienation of the unsettled lands within its limits, should be conducted from its commencement upon that system, of sale of which experience has proved the wisdom, and the disregard of which has been so fatal to the prosperity of other British Settlements. With a view to those interests, it is obviously tha same thing whether large tracts of land be acquired by the mere gift of the Government, or by purchases effected on nominal consideration from the aborigines. On either supposition the land revenue must be wasted ; the introduction of emigrants delayed or prevented, and the country parcelled out amongst large land holders, whose possessions must long remain an unprofitable or rather pernicious waste. Indeed in tbe comparison of the two methods of acquiring land gratuitously, that of grants from the Crown, mischievous as it is, would be the less inconvenient, as such grants must be made with at least some kind of system, with some degree of responsil i'ity, subject to conditions, and recorded for general information. But in the case of purchases from the natives, even those securities against abuse must be omitted, and none could be substituted for them. You will, theiefore, immediately on your arrival, announce by a proclamation, addressed to all the Queen's subjects in New Zealand, that Her Majesty will not acknowledge as valid any title to laud which either has been, or shall hereafter be acquired in that country which is not derived from, or confirmed by a grant to be made in Her Majesty's name, and on Her Majesty's behalf. You will, however, take care to dispel any apprehension which may be created in the minds of the settlers that it is intended to dispossess the owners of any property which has been acquired on equitable conditions, and which is not upon a scale which must be prejudicial to the latent interests cf the community." Now, Sir, no more full or explicit acknowledgment on the part of Her Majesty of the property of Her Majesty's subjects in lands purchased from the aboriginal proprietors before the cession of the Sovereignty of the country than this passage coutains could be desired. It is stated that it is necessary, if possible, that the chiefs should be induced to contract that henceforward no lands shall be ceded cither gratuitously or otherwise, except to the Crown of Great Britain. It necessarily follows from this that till the chiefs did so contract they were admitted to hare the power of ceding or selling their lands. The reasons why this contract should be made are then stated and summed up by saying that even if the crown, when in possession of the land, should parcel it out amongst Her Majesty's subjects, by what is called " the pernicious system of free grants —such grants must be made with at least some land of system, with some degree of responsibility, subject to some conditions, and recorded for general information. But in the case of purchases from the natives even these securities against abuse must be omitted, and none could be substituted for them." In other words, that the Government had no right to interfere wi\k the lands of Her Majesty's subjects so acqu red. But then Captain Hobson is instructed to issue a proclamation that Her Majesty will not acknowledge as valid any title to land which either has been or shall hereafter be acquired in that country, which is not either derived from, or confirmed by a grant from Her Majesty. I perfectly concur in the spirit of this proclamation. The rights of justice and humanity required a searching investigation before these titles should be admitted, and the object of this proclamation was to bring about this investigation by a special tribunal which should nt once and forever decide these questions rather than leave them to the more cumbrous machinery of the courts of law. But the Queen is not the judge of Her Majesty subjects to land. The constitutional law of England, as I have proved by the authority of Blackstoue, jealously provides against Her interference with it; and Her instructions to to Captain Hobson nowhere denies tbe title of Her Majesty's subjects to the lands they have purchased in New Zealand, though they most properly require an investigation before affirming or putting that title beyond dispute by a grant from the Crown. In the instructions it is taken for granted that such an investigation and such a record of title, would be as much for the interests of the purchasers of land, as it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government. And the result proved that this was a correct assumption. The holders of land uuder the native title hastened to prove it before the commissioners, and tbe result is the astonishing fact mentioned by Mr. Hope that out of 750 alleged titles, only 7 oi 8 had been disputed; that, instead of having acquired teiritories for a hatchet or a blanket, as was affirmed by Lord John Russell when speaking on the subject in the House of Commons, or as history records that one of the North American Provinces'was acquired, namely for a pair of trowsers and a soldier's old coat, the settlers in New Zealand had purchased their estates as estates are purchased in England and elsewhere for a valuable consideration, for prices which in most cases, were far beyond their value, looking no further than the returns capital thus invested, was capable of yielding. But there is another sentence of the paragraph I have quoted to which 1 niustyetadvert; the concluding sentence—Captain Hobson is to take care to dispel any apprehensions which may be created in the minds of the settlers that it is intended to dispossess the owners of any property which has been acquired on equitable conditions and which is not upon a scale which must be prejudicial to the latent interests of the community. Tbe proclamation went a step beyond this, for the words "not upon a scale which must be prejudicial," it substituted the words V not in extent or otherwise prejudicial," and this was the first violation of Her Majesty's -instructions. This alteration was also adopted in the hind claims ordinance. Well then from the assurance that it was not intended to disposses the owners of land not upon a scale which must he prejudicial to the latent interests of the community, it is a fair inference that their might b_> such an intention in cases where the land acquired was upon such a scale as must prove prejudicial to th"ir interests. In this case also we have an index to tiie niiud of the British Government. In page 27 of the fame "parliamentary paper (that of 8:h April 1840) there is a letter from' Mr. Labouchere, then Under-Secretary of Staio for the colonies to Mr. Hurt, M.P. [Here the lion, member read the letter referred to.] This letter discloses the constitutional remedy for such a public evil as that of an individual having acquiied land upon a scale which must be prejudicial to tne latent interests of the community, an application to the Imperial Parliament, uotthe will of the Governor of a distant colony. On this subject I quote again from Blackstone, page 160, "The power and jurisdiction of Parliament," says Sir Edward Cuke "is so trans-

cendent that it cannot be confined either f causes or persons within any bounds, and of th"' high Court be adds, it may be truly s «j!i Si antiquitatem fpedes est vetustissima; si dignitatem t honoratissima ji jttrisdictionem est capacissima. It hj i sovereign and uncontrollable authority in the mat" confirming, enlarging,restraining, abrogating, repealbl' reviving and expounding of laws, concerning matte"' of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temn i* civil, n Hilary, maritime, or criminal, this beino- l place where that absolute, despotic power which" in all Governments reside somewhere, is intru imf by (he Constitution o ( the;e kingdoms. All mischVfand grievances, operations and remedies, that transcend the ordinary Course of the laws, are within the reach ( this extraordinary tribunal." °*-

To this extraordinary tribunal the Secretary of St intimates that it mau be necessary to apply f or ,t . vestment in the Queen of any proprietary titles't*" territories or tracts of land, which may have been >° tained from the natives, but with equitable compensa" tion to the possessors of such titles. *

It fa easy, sir, to understand why enlightened statesmen should be slow to legislate by itn ex post fact law, a measure which is abhorrent to all civilized le»* ° lation, and more especially to the genius of the British Constitution ; and the experience of the fourteen vea which have since elapsed, has formed the wisdom hf abstaining from such a measure. " °* The claimants of tracts and territories which wer indicated by degrees of latitude and longitude an! (who counted their acres by millions) universally failed to prove that they had derived any valid claims from the aboriginal proprietors, while the purchasers of estates of moderate extent have established their claims without any material difficulty. "* *'"*

Now, sir, what was the course pursued by the Colonial Legislatures.

It was my intention to have gone at some length into an analysis of the speech of Sir George Gipp a , j n j„ troducing the first New Zealand Land Titles Bill to his Council. But it would be occupying the time of toe Council unnecessarily. That speeeh was delivered on the 9th July, 1810, and extends over fifteen pages of the Parliamentary Blue Book of 11th May, 1841 But all its ingenious, and not overscrupulous "reason * ings, were set aside by an official memorandum from Lord John Russell, dnted 18th March, 1840, which is to be found in page 31, of the papers of the Bth April 1846, from which I have already quoted. '

Sir George Gippß sot out by asserting that "tbe Bill is founded upou two or three general principles which until I heard them here controverted, I thought were fully admitted, and, indeed, as political axioms. The first is that the uncivilized inhabitants of any country have but a qualified dominion over it, or a right of occupancy only; and that until they establish amongst themselves a settled form of Government, and subjugate the ground to their own uses by tbe cultivation of it, they cannot grant to individuals not of their own tribe any portion of it for the simple reason that they have not themselves any individual property in it/' Ftom this doo-ma Sir George Gipps was driven by the Bishop of Australia who stated that it was an universal proposition to which he could not agree. " I would not affirm" said tie Bishop " that a citizen of Tirabuctoo has no right to sell land to an inhabitant of Abyssinia. Sir G. Gipps then took his stand upon the alleged inability of any individual to obtain a legal tile or permanent interest in land acquired by purchase, from the chiefs of aboriginal tribes, and cited, I say, passages from the writings of Marshall, Kent, Storey, American Jurists of high reputation, to prove that the powers of Europe which colonized America, had always reserved to themselves, and denied to their subjects, the right of acquiring land by treaty or purchase from the aboriginal proprietors. And it is true that the colonizing powers of Europe had always assumed a dominion over those countries founded upon the right of discovery or the pretensions of conquest; and thus established in those countries the principle that no land could be acquired or held, but mediately or immediately from the Crown, But, towards New Zealand, an opposite coarse was pursued. The Queen had " acknowledged New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state," had u disclaimed for herself and her subjects every pretension to geize on the islands of New Zealand," and had admitted that the «' title of its inhabitants to the soil and sovereignty of their country was indisputable, and had been solemnly recognised by the British government." Whatever, then, might have been the social or political condition of the New Zealanders, the British government had acknowledged, and treated with them as a sovereign and independent state. The titles derived (rem them did not come within the category of Indian or aboriginal titles, which required tbe assent or the confirmation of tbe colonizing powers to give them validi'y. Tbe lands held by Pier Majesty's subjects in New Zealand by an undisputed title, were held immediately from the former sovereigns of the country, from n-lioni the Queen herself derived her sovereign authority. That authority was neither obtained by right of discovery nor by pretension of conquest, but by voluntary treaty. And it is a necessary consequence of that treaty, that all private rights of property existing before it was entered into, remain unaffected by it.

The memorandum of Lord John Russell to which I referred, is as follows:

"In the preceding letter (Mr. Somes to Lord Palmerston, 1839) the right of Great Britain to sovereignty over New Zealand, is maintained on various grounds, which it is unnecessary for the purposes of this paper to controvert or even to notice. The answers which would be made by foreign nations to such a claim are two; first, that the British Statute Book has, in the present century, in three distinct enactments, declared that New Zealand is not a part of the British dominions; and, secondly, that King William IV, made the most public, solemn, and authentic declaration which it was possible to make, ihat New Zealand was a substantia and independent state." "The recognition by the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Bruaic, or the fact that New Zealand is not part of the British dominions, will be found in the statutes 57, Geo. 111. cap. 53-4, Geo. IV. cap. 96, sec. 3 and 9, Geo. IV., cap. 83, sec. 4. The following are extracts from each of these statutes."

Passing over these extracts, the memorandum proceeds as follows:

" The recognition by King William IV., of New Zealand as a substantive and independent state, is shown by the following narrative. "On the 16th November 1831, a letter to King William- 1V.,, from 13 cLiefs of New Zealand, was ironsmitted to Lord Goderich, praying the protection of the British Crown, against the neighbouring tribes, and against British subjects residißg in the islands. "On the 14th of June 1832, Lord Ripon despatched Mr. Busby as British Resident, partly to protect British commerce, and partly to repress the outrages of British suljects on the natives. His Lordship sent with Mr. Busby a letter to the Chiefs in which the King was made to address them as an independent people. Their support was requested for Mr. Busby, and they wre reminded of the benefits which they would derive from the ' friendship and alliance of Great Britain.' "In the month of June 1532, a bill was brought into the House of Commons for the prevention of crimes committed by His Majesty's subjects 'in New Zealand and in other islands in the Pacific, not being within His Majesty's dominions.' Tbe Bill was rejected because Parliament could not lawfully legislate for a foreign country. "On the ISth April 1833, the Governor of New South Wales, in obedience to Lord Ripon's orders, addressed instructions to Mr. Busby, in which New Zealand was expressly mentioned as a foreign country, and Mr. Busby himself as being accredited to tbe chiefs. This document throughout assumes the independence of New Zealand. :

" On the 29th of April, 1834, General Bourke transmitted to Lord Stanley a proposal from Mr. Busby for establishing a niitional flag- for tribes of New Zealand "in their collective capacity," and aJvised that snips built in the island, and registered by the chiefs, should have their registers respected in their intercourse with British possessions. Sir R. Bourke reported that fie had sent three patterns of flags, one of which had been selected by the chiefs, that the chiefs had accordingly assembled with the commanders of the British and three American ships, to witness the inauguration of the nag. at which the officers of H.M.S. Alligator, were also present. The fla«- had been declared to be tne " National Fla/' of New Zealand, and being hoisted, was saluted with twenty-one guns by the Alligator* * British ship of war. "On the yist of December 1834, a despatca was addressed to Sir R. Bourke by Lord approving all these proceedings in the name of the kmg> and sending a copy of a letter from the Admiralty, stating that they had instructed their officers to gt* 3 effect to the New Zealand registers,and to ackncwlatg 9 and respect the national flag of New Zealand.' " If these solemn acts of the Parliament and the King of Great Britain are not enough to shew that the pretension made by this company on behalf of Her Majesty is unfounded, it might still further be repelled by a minute narrative of all the relations between New Zealand and the adjacent British colonies, and especially by the jodicial decisions of the superior courts of tDeil9 colones. M* is presumed, however, that after the proceding statement it would lie supeifluous to accumulate arguments of that nature, and the rather because they could not be intelligibly stated without entering mK> loag tedious details.'' r \- I have thus, sir, proved that the Legislating of tbi* colony was not, and cannot, have authority to pass laws repugnant to the laws of England. I have shewn that the enactments of the Land titles Ordinance are repugnant toihe fundamental principles of English law, that they

* late Magna Cbarta itself, and that therefore this Ordnance has no validity in law, but is in the language f the Queen's instructions "a pretended Ordinance." I bave, Sir, co far sketched the history of these transtons a* 3 ,0 suow tDe colonial authorities acted in opposition to the Queen's instructions. That whilst these instructions expressly declare that •w e w Zealand was an independent state, and that the t-tle of its 'inhabitants to their lands was indisputable, the contrivers of this Ordinance dpnied that New Zeafnd ever had been an independent state, or that the • habitants had a title to their lands as :o convey Tern to others ; that whila the Queen ; s instructions ex- ' jy required the Governor to take care to dispel any that it was intended to dispossess the ners of any land unleso, it should be on a scale which n ust be prejudicial to »he> latent interests of the community, providing that in the event of its being necesto'vest in the Crown such extensive tenitorial mffhti M are herein referred to by Act of Parliament, an equitable compensation should be made to the owners of such territorial rights. The Local Ordinance confiscates all titles; and in an arbitrary scale restricts the proprietors of Land to a limited portion of their property, taking care, however, tbat that portion shall not include any part to which situation, or other circumstances, imparted a more than ordinary value. Before leaving this Ordinance it still remains to shew that it contains a violation of national The second article of the treaty of Waitangi is in the following words—[Article the Second here read.] Now the second article of the Ordinance which has been already quoted, enacts " tbit whereas it is expedient to remove certain doubts which have arisen in respect of titles of land in New Zealand; be it therefore declared enacted and ordained that all unappropriated lands within the said colony of New Zealand, subject, however, to the rightful and necessary occupation and use thereof, by the aboriginal inhabitants of the said colony, are and remain Crown and domain lands of Her Majesty." And that i 3, according to the interpretation of Johnson's Dictionary, the estate or property of the Crown. Now if this is not a direct and express abrogation of the article of the treaty which I have just read, I must confess that I am ignorant ol the meaning cf the English language. The treaty guarantees to the chiefs an( f tribes of New Zealand—the full exclusive und undisturbed possession of their lands. The Ordinance enacts that all unappropriated lands are the property of the Crown—and lest there should be any doubt what sp meant by unappropriated lands, it reserves for the aboriginal inhabitants the rightful and necessary occupation and use thereof. No casuistry, sir. can reconcile die enactment of this Ordinance with the guarantee of the treatv. It is true that this enactment transcends the authority of the Local Legislature, and has, therefore, no lc'al force nor validity; but while it remains on the statute book, it is not the less a stain on the national honor. Well, Sir, the first settlers in this country—those who encountered and endured the dangers and privations of a residence amongst the natives in their savage state, the pioneers of civilization who prepared a peaceable habitation for those who were to follow; men who, if they had settled in New South Wales, nt the time they settled in New Zealand, would lave received for themselves and their families (under the protection of established laws), free grants of land, of greater extent than they had purchased with iheir own money in New Zealand ; these men had endured the persecution of this, and similar Ordinances, they had seen the men who were sent by Her Majesty for their protection, come between them and Her Majesty's gracious assurance, that they should not be dispossessed of their land—they had seen themselves deprived of the protection of that law which was iheir birthright, by the arbitrary and illegal acts of self-willed and ignorant men. They had seen, without complaint, the districts which they had settled, deprived of their inhabitants by the temptation of an exchange of valuable land near the seat of Government for land which, in most cases, was of no value; and to sum up all the bad faith of these men had brought upon them the dangers of a war with the natives which exposed them to the violence of the ill disposed amongst those natives. But a heavier calamity awaited them still. There has, Sir, existed from the first commencement of this colony, in the administration of its affairs, an imperium in impcrio—a power which fettered, and controlled, and thwarted, the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government S3 far as they interfered with the interests of that power. The vol. which I bold in my hand, Sir, is a corrected report of the Debate in the House of Commons, on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of June, 1845, on the state ol New Zealand, and the case of the New Zealand Company. The report of that Debate extends over 252 pages. It reveals the power and influence of tbat Company in a contest with the Government of Sir R. Peel, which was continued during three nights till long after midnight, and ended by leaving the Government in, I believe, as small, if not a smaller majority than any division during the existence of that administration. The various papers laid before Parliament testify to the interference of this powerful Company with the Government, and its influence with the Government in preventing the full recognition of the rights of the proprietors of land acquired before the colony was established. It is evident from these papers that the Home Governneit was obliged to give way to that influence, and that no Governor of New Zealand could hold his ground, who withstood its interference, This, Sir, is the secret of the policy pursued towards the settlers in this Province; it accounts for the calumnies with which they were loaded, fat the interference with the lands the title to which had been confirmed by the reports of the Commissioners and by grants issued in the Queen's name, and in compliance with her instructions. And it accounts, also, for the determination of Sir George Grey to violate the express injunctions of Her Majesty through Lord Stanley, and Earl Grey, when Ministers of the Crown, to keep the public faith, towards those who purchased land under the 10s. and penny an acre proclamations. The amount of falsehood and injustice which has been published and wrought in support of this policy, pisses all belief. To master it would be the study of half a life time; fully to appreciate it, would require a knowledge of circumstances which only a very few could by «ny possibility possess. It is, Sir, or was, until the arrival of Sir G. Grey in this colony, a new, and a very strange thing for a representative of the Majesty of the Crown of England to be accused of falsehood. Since that epoch, such accusations bave been as familiar in tbis colony as household words. In the papers presented to Parliament in 1848, page 123, there is a petition from twenty-two persons of irreproachable life and character, sons of the Missionaries, and catechists of the Church Missionary Society, in which they complain to Her Majesty, that Governor Grey had stated in reference to them what is injurious to their character and "repugnant to the truth. In page 75, of the papers presented in July, 1849, there is a letter to Her Majesty's Private Secretary of State for the Colonies, from the venerable Archdeacon Williams, for twenty-seven years head of the Mission, which the Church Mission Society has maintained . in this country, complaining of the calumnies which iSir G. Grey had uttered respecting him, and offering to ''*' scat er to the winds" whatever had been alleged injurious to his character, if the opportunity should be iifforJed him. In page 36 of the same papers, there is a letter from the Bishop of New Zealand himself, in . which, although he abstains from accusing the Governor of direct untruth he leaves it difficult, if not impossible, toacqu't him of falsehood. In November, 1849, a Petition was sent to Her Majesty, fn m 520 inhabitants of Auckland and its neighbourhood, praying Her Majesty to removo Sir G. Grey from the Government of this colony; for this reason, amongst others that they " bave lost all respect for his official character on account of the systematic misrepresentation of his despatches." In the Parliamentary papers, dated 14th August, 1850, there is a letter from the Chairman of the Settlers' Constitutional Association at Wellington—forwarding a, series of resolutions, amongst the movers and seconders of which appear the names of five Justices of the Peace. These resolutions charge the Governor with "suppression and misrepresentation," with "giving a false gloss and colour to his proceedings,''with "deliberately misrepresenting the opinion of the Colonists," and with other varieties -of the crimen falsi, capping the .climax by saying "that the despatch of the 29th November exhibits a suppression of two facts so flagrant, that this Association cannot characterise by any term which the proprieties of social usage would justify them in employing." Now, Sir, here is a cloud of witnesses to the character ofthe Queen's representative—but one yet remains, and that one is Sir G. Grey himself. I quote, Sir, a paragraph from a despatch from Governor Grey to Earl Grey, dated February 10th, 1849, from the papers dated July 1849, page 7*. " In order that the difficulties the Government are placed in, by tbeconduct ofthe Church Missionary Land Claimants maybe seen, I have the honour to enclose » copy of a letter addressed to me by the Major General commanding in this colony, and to state, that I cannot g« a proper location for the troops at a point where 'heir presence is necessary for preserving the peace of the* country, because from the manner in which the grants to Archdeacon Henry Williams, and the others, have been made, the Government have no knowledge °f the extent or position of the land which they claim ; and as the whole of it, with the exception of some

trifling patches is utterly waste and unoccupied, we have unoccupied we have nothing to guide our inquiries on this subject."

The letter al'ud id to is to be. found at pago 90 ofthe same papers. It is addressed to His Excellency the Governor-in-Chief, and is signed, George D.Pitt, Major General.

Brigade Office. Auckland, Nov., 14, 1848. "Sir.— I have the honour to draw the attention of your Excellency to the fact of a detachment as per margin, being stationed at Wahapu, Bay of Islands, in a situation, which is who ly defenceless and untenable. The situation is such as to re .der tbein liable at ill times to sudden surprise, while the distance from Kororareka would completely preclude the possibility of the troops affording any assistance to tl at town «n the event of an outbreak. J have therefore the honour to request that your Excellency will sanction the withdrawal of this detachment at the expiration of the present leads of the buildings from a pest which is so objectionable in a military point of view. As I cannot leel myself justified in detaining troops in a position the natural disadvantages of which are so obvious, 1 enclose for your Excellency's information, a copy of the report on this subject from the Commanding Royal Engineer.'' That reporr is couched in f>>w words "in my opinion, the Port at Wahapu, Bay of Islands, is not defensible at present, anil from it 3 position it is not possible to make it so."

The letter which I hold in my band is signed " for Colonial Secretary, J. Coates," and is addressed to J. Busby, Esquire, J.P. Colonial Secretary's Office, Auckland, March 25th, 1848.

" Sir.—l have the honour to inform you that the letter addressed by you to the Surveyor General, under date the 7th Octob.-r, 1847, containing three proposals for the sale to Government of your property at the Bay of Islands, has been submitted for the consideration of the Honorable the Executive Council, and 1 am desired by His Excellency the Governor-in-Chief, to acquaint you that Iler Majesty's Government cannot entertain any ofthe propositions contained in your letter; but as a suitable place is required in the Northern part of the Province, for a military station, and the Eastern portion of your land abutting on the Bay, being deemed suitable for the purpose, the Government offers to purchase the whole of your land in that locality for the sum not i.3000 on your being able to cor.vey a clear and valid title. Excepting only the parts already sold or promised by you. as stated in your letters." Now, Sir, had the papers recently moved for by me been placed upon the table Honorable Members could have seen that the locality alluded to in the above letter had been chosen, by Colonel Despard with the whole country before him, and occupied by the troops when military operations were brought to a close by the capture of lluapekapeka—until Sir G. Grey visited the Bay of Islands, when the detachment was removed by his authority from that locality to the position described in the letter of General Pitt, and the report of Colonel Bolton. It would bave further appeared—that there never was nuy objection to the troops continuing to occupy the position chose for them by Colt nel Despard. And that it was at any time in the power of the Government to have procured the fee simple of that locality, for the money which could be proved by reasonable vouchers to have been expended upon it, or to have occupied it a3 tenants at a rent equivalent to 10 per font upon that money. [Here the lion. Member was interrupted by the Speaker, who observed tbat the question of the proper location of troops was not before the Council.] Mr. Busby resumed. 1 admit, Sir, thai this is merely a collateral question the point to which 1 wish to draw the attention of the Council is this—that Sir George Grey having in spite of the remonstrance ofthe General in command, retained a detachment of H.M. forces in a position which was neither defensible nor capable of bein° made so, in a position so situated as to render their pres?nce in that part of the country, totally useless so far as regards protection to its inhabitants arid fueling himself pressed by that remonstrance endeavours to screen himself from so fearful a responsibility by turning round upon Archdeacon Williams and, in addition to the mountains of calumny he had before heaped upon that gentleman, and inventing the odious falsehood, that he could not get a proper location fur those troops "at a point where there presence is necessary for preserving the peace of the country, because from the manner in which the Grants to Archdeacon Henry Williams, and others have been made, the Government bave no knowledge of the extent position of the land which they claim." Now, Sir, this paragraph is not more false than most of the paragraphs in that despatch or in the numerous other despatches which he wrote upon the same subject, but its falsehood is more palpable. Archdeacon Williams had no more influence in this matter than any member of this Council. He was never consulted in it nor as far ns my remembrance goes did he even know the particulars of the Government negotiation with me till many months after. I may add, that to my knowledge, neither Archdeacon Williams nor any of his family p assesses a foot of land that would ever be fixed upon by any sane person for the location of troops for preserving the peace of the country. If the Government does not know the boundaries of the lands belonging to the Settlers in that dislrict the Government owes its ignorance to its own bad faith inasmuch as it exacted from the Settlers the fees for the survey and settlement of those lands, aid to the great loss of those Settlers has not fulfiled its obligations to them by causing those lands to be surveyed. Sir, there is scarcely a page in the voluminous despatches which have been published by authority of Parliament in relation to those of Her Majesty's subjects who have acquired land in New Zealand which does not contain caiumnies as injurious to the character of individuals, and as destitute of truth, as the passage I have quoted ; but the difficulty is to Dring such conclusive proof of their falsehood. The writer is a master of ambiguous sentences. The despatch conveys and is intended to convey an impression utterly at variance with the truth. But in one case this may be resolved into matter of opinion. In other instances is conveyed a falsehood in language which is itself true.

Circumstances which are separately true are so connected in the relation, that their union conveys a false hood; then again, part ofthe truth is related, and another part suppressed, so that truth itself is made the exponent of a lie. It would be endless, Sir, to refer to all the arts of deception which are disclosed and illustrated by these despatches. And these are to justify the persecution of this portion of her Majesty's subjects, in every way which ingenuity could devise, in order to deprive them of their rightful property. Sir, these despatches detail proceedings which I cannot reconcile, and which 1 believe cannot be reconciled with any other object, than that of exciting the hostility of the natives against the settlers, so as to drive them from their lands. But these and other proceedings of a aimilar character have signally failed. The unsophisticated natives saw through the deceptions of the diplomatic Governor, and not even the proffered bribe of "etting back the lands they had sold would induce them to turn their backs on their old friends.

I now, Sir, proceed to another and the last branch of my subject. 1 refer to those lands which were acquired under what have been called the " 10s. an acre" and " tbo penny an acre proclamations." And as most members of the Council are as well—some of them perhaps better acquainted with this subject than myself, 1 shall not trespass upon their attention at any great length. Now, Sir, any discussion as to the policy or impolicy of these measures is beside the question. They were administrative acts, and like other administrative acts their policy or impolicy are open to discussion. But they were a bona fide exercise of the Queen's prerogative by Her representative, and the obligation they incur are binding on the national faith. No man 1 presume, can dream of imputing corrupt motives to Captain Fi'zroy. And nothing but a fraudulent collusion between himself and the parties in whose favour Captain Fitzßoy waived the lights of pre-emption, could dissolve the obligations which the Government thus incurred. Sir George Grey himself waived the Queen's riyht of pre-empti-m in favour of the New Zealand Company, and the transactions of the one Governor are as valid as that of the other.

Sir George Grey, however, denied the legality of these titles to land thus acquired, and raised that question before the Supreme Court by a suppositious case. Thsre could be no doubt in the mind of any one who understood the question, that the decision would be in his favour. There could be no more doubt upon this point, than that the Court would pronounce any deed void which wanted the authentication of the signature of the party. But, Sir, is the Governor of a British colony, to seize upon the property of a British subject because there, exists in the title a technical delect, which does not affect the real justice and good conscience of the case. The lauds in question never did belong to the Government. Though no one else couhi legally acquire them from the native population without the sanction of the Government. That sanction was given by Captain Ft zroy, and acted upon by the purchasers. And his successor Sir George Grey, violates the faith of the Government which »as thus pledged to the purchasers, by refusing to give them a legal title, and thus taking advantage of his own wrong, confiscates their property, and makes the public Treasury a receptacle for the gains of iniquity. Sir George Grey has soid that these titles were not legal. One of his ambiguous sentences, wbicb have the appearance of truth, but convey a falsehood. They coujd not be maintained by a cojrt of law, and in this

I spnse were not legal, but they were in no sense illegal. The transactions were in the nature of a bat gain between the Government, and the individuals in whose ' favour the light of pre-emption was waived. By the 1 payment of their money to the aboriginal proprietors of the land, and the acquirement of the title from the proprietors, they performed their part of the agreement. But before the Government bad time to complete its portion of the agreement, Sir George Grey had taken the place of Captain Fitzßoy. He found that by putting their trust i#bis pndecessor, the prope.-ty of the purchasers was in his power, end he availed himself of that power to deprive them of it. Now, we can illustrate this conduct by supposing the case of a person of such a station in society as 10 make any suspicion of his probity improbable, who, within a few weeks of attaining his majority incurs a debt, and afterwards re/using to pay that debt, alleging that it is not legal, because it could not be enforced in a court of law ; we will further suppose that this is a man of boundless wealth, and therefore not pressed by poverty or inability, but actuated by the mere lust of injustice, the mere wantonness of power. Such an evasion of a debt of honesty, which because it cannot he enforced by law, becomes a debt of honour as well as of honesty, is the best illustration I can think of Sir George Grey's proceedings. Notwithstanding the extent to which I have already drawn upon the patience of honourable members, 1 must beg their forhearai.ee, while I refer to the despatch of Earl Grey in which he reiterates the instructions of his predecessor, Lord Stanley, that to whatever extent the faith of the Crown was pledged by the sanction given to the purchasers made under the 10s. and penny an acre proclamations they were to be recognised. The despatch in question is to be found at page 30, of the papers presented in June, 1847. I shall confine myself to the following paragraphs. " Lord Stanley's despatch of the 20th November 1816", though disapproving the first of these proclamations gave a distinct but reluctant sanction to it. On the 27th of June 1845, his Lordship in his despatch of that date to yourself, directed you to recognise any sales which Governor Fitzßoy might have sanctioned under his second proclamation."

" The result therefore seems to be that the fust or a< it has been called the 10s.an acre proclamation has been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government in reference to the particular district defined by Lord Stanley; that the " penny an acre" proclainatons (as it has been termed) has been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Govirnment to this extent, viz., that any sales which Governor Fitzßoy might have sanctioned under it, were to be recognised. To whatever extent the faith of the Crown is thus pledged to the purchasers, it must be maintained inviolate, be the consequent inconvenience what it may. But except to the extent to which any such pledge been given Her .Majesty remains perfect'y free to take such measures as the welfare of her subjects in New Zealand requires." The answer to this despatch is to be found in the papers presented in 1843 page -13. Sir George Grey says,— "In your Lo;dsbip's despatch of the 10th February, I found that a point peculiarly relied on, and the force of which was evident, was, that to whatever extent the faith of the Crown had been pledged to the purchasers under my piedecessor's proclamations it must be maintained inviolate. I conceived therefore that this was the rule of proceeding, which was iu as far as practicable to regulate my conduct. I was at once, however, met by s-rious difficulties." The difficulties to which he alludes, were partly of his own creation and partly inherent in the question, but the propositions iie goes on to make to the purchasers, shew that the consequent inconvenience of maintaining the fuith of the Crown inviolate, could all be resolved into that of not having the proceeds of their lands in the public Treasury. The sophistry with which he attempts to justify his contempt of the Queen's instructions, is unworthy of refutation. He assumes that the policy of his predecessors iu allowing individuals to purchase land from the aborigines, was injurious to the interests of the public, and therefore calls itinjustice to the rights of the rest of her Majesty's subjects, and he then proceeds to deal with the titles of the purchasers, which had been sanctioned by his predecessor ; not according to the express instructions of the Queen, but according to the dictates of his own arbitrary self-will. But, Sir, it is not on!v in respect to ibe titles sanctioned by his predecessor that he has violated the public Faith committed to his keeping. It is also the fact that in cases, where tie has himself sanctioned the preparation of a grant for a portion of land, and given public noticu of such sanction and cf such grant being in preparation, he has actually sold to the highest bidder the greatest portion of the lands of which he himself had sanctioned the grant, and reserved for the proprietor a mere fraction of the limited portion of the land which he in the first instance claims to admit. 1 shall t tily refer to one case in which injustice presents itself in a form so abhorrent, s:> surpas-ing all belief, that its very enormity seems to secure; its incredibility. [Here the honourable member read an extract from the South'rn Cross, '-'lst September, 1819, respecting the case of Mrs. Forbes.] Now I shall not stop to enquire whether this is, or is not a true statement. If it is not true, the writer who dared to publish and charge upon the Queen's Representative so atrocious a transaction is little less guilty than he who could perpet-a!e it, hut I have every reason to believe th it it is virtually true. Ido not agree Sir, in the opinion that has been lavly promulgated from high authority, that a series of libels on the Queen's Representative should escape punishment, but on the contrary, that it is destructive of all public morality. 1 consider that the community have en interest in maintaining the honour of the Queen's Representative, and that he is guilty of most culpable neglect of duty, if he allows such charges as this to be brought against him with impunity. It is. Sir, amongst the most bitter of all humiliation- to live under the Government of a man who could act in this manner, or being innocent, is so insensible to public decency as to allow himself to he charged with having so acted. New, Sir, I shall never forget the emotions with which in the solitude of my retirement 1 read this statement. I said within myself is the spirit of Englishmen extinct in the people of Auckland ! if not why do not they rise en masse; and tell the Governor peaceably, but in words which cannot be misunderstood, that they will not have it so. The only explanation of the matter that can be given, is that these deeds of injustice have been shrouded in such an atmosphere of falsehood, that it is scarcely possible without half a lifetime of study to arrive at the truth. Sir, 1 can imagine, and yet it is perhaps less nn effort of the imagination than a reasonable inference from known facts. I can imagine the apostle of the New Zealand Company reminding Governor Grey of the fate of his predecessors, and requiring from him a sign of his devotion to their cause as the condition of bis continuance in office. As if the great enemy of mankind had suggested that the powers and riches of this world and the plory of them are lu. And that to whomsoever he will he giveth them. And that yielding to the voice of the t»mpter, he replied I will give yon a sign. I will " remove the. land m irks" I will " enter into the fields of the fatherless." 1 will "spoil the heritage of the widow." ''Can you ask more." Sir the man whom 1 denounce is the Queen's Representative in this country, a man whom the Queen has delighted to honour. A man whom rival s'atesmen and p< liticians of all parties have vied with each other in extolling. 1 denounce him as the oppressor and calumniator of Her Majesty's subjects, and the violator of the nation 1 honour. Ido this, Sir, in the name of the Queen's subjects whom he has oppressed. I do it in the name or the national faith which he has violated. I do it, Sir, with reverence— in the name of God whose ministers he has calumniated.

It remains for me now, Sir, to move that a Committee be appointed for the objects set forth in the motion, and 1 trust that not one member of this Council will bo found to oppose the appointment of a Committee for such objects as these. J move.

That a Select Committee be appointed to prepare a petition to Her Majesty the Queen and both Houses of Parliament, praying that the Executive Government of New Zealand be directed to expunge from the Colonial Statute-book all such Ordinances or pretended Ordinances of the Local Legislature as, being repugnant to the laws of England, have no legal force or validity j or which contain provisions inconsistent with the faith of a treaty made in Her Majesty's name with the aborigines of this territory, and ratified by Her Majesty. Also : —To vindicate the national faith by causing full compensation to be made to all persons who, under the authority of Governor Fitzßoy, became purchasers of land from aboriginal proprietors but whose lands Governor Sir George Grey, taking advantage of the defect of law, caused to he sold, in order that the proceeds thereof might be applied to public purposes, in violation of the express injunctions of Her Majesty.conveyed both by Lord Stanley and Lord Giey when Ministers of State, as well as of the plainest dictates of justice and good faith. Arid further, That it be an instruction to such Committee to receive evidence of the individual cases in which the public faith has been violated towards the purchasers of land under Gov. Fitzroy's authority ; as well as of all cases in which Sir George Grey or any other public functionary in New Zealand has interfered with the rights of others of Her Majesty's subjects with respect to their landed property. The Committee to consists of Messrs. J. O'Neill, Derrom, Clarke, Newman, Hill, Iloylan, and the mover.

Mr. Newman seconded the motion. Whatever laws were made to govern British Colonies should he framed after the mode) of the luws of old England—and if unconstitulioiial Statutes existed on our colonial law booh, the sooner wo got rid of them the bettor, lie was suiv tho Council would not object to a motion wl.ich aimed at securing justice for any to tVbbtn injustice bad been done,

Air. Povvditch said, Sir, It is a painful position to be placed in to appear as the first to oppo-e a motion of this nature, askiog for enquiry to obtain redress of grievances, nevertheless, I fee) called upon to do so on the present motion, because it appears to me that it is not simply a motion for redress of individual grievance, but involves the whole question of the old claimants, which, according: to themover's own showing, would require half a lifetime to examine, and to terminate wi.ich would extend not merely to the end of this sitting,but beyond the term of this Council's existence ; and involve ajudgment on the question of pre-emption —the question of the faith of the treaty, the legality of various.ordinances, and other points not cognizant by this Council. If the ordinances are illegal or invalid, then they do not require repeding, but of this the General Assembly hive the power of determining-, and , no doubt, they will repeal and enact all such laws as are uecessary. Neither can we inquire into the faith of the treaty,—that is a matter for Ifpr Majesty's Ministers and the Imperial Parliament. Nor do 1 see that the penny-an-acre claims can have anything to do with this question. If any such persons have been aggrieved, they can enter this Council by petition, and they will obtain all the justice in our power, according to the merits of their particular case. Nei her is it in our power to enqi i e into the acts of former governments. But I shall not discuss the case became I think it cannot jbe discussed in this Council, and therefore shall move as an amendment— That this Council consider it advisabie to abstain from the discussion of any questions, the settlement of which in the' first instance has been dclagaied by the constitution to the General Assembly.

Mr. Bain seconded the amendment. He did so with a vi ew that other business of a more urgent nature might not be retarded. There were numerous measures of great importance to the Province already before the Council, and he thought it would be a pity at such an early stage of the proceedings to bring forward the present motion, involving as it did such great and varied interests, the inquiry into which must necessarily need a larger expenditure of time than he thought the Council could at present afford to give it in order to p'osecute the inquiry satisfactorily for the interests of those concerned, while the other more urgent business would at the same time be left untouched, and justice would not in that case be done either to the present motion or other business now in taming. He had no wish to stifle inquiry, indeed he much rather wished to see it fully carried out, as he confessed he was not so competent now to give an opinion on the points at issue as he would be perfectly informed ; and he felt thankful for much of the information the hon. member had given him, although he thought it would have been far better had his language been more courteous. He said he was very sorry to hear such language made use of by any member of this Council; he considered it wrong to employ it there, and it was a very sad matter it should have been resorted to at all. He said he was but a young man in Council, and a voting man out of Council, and it pained him to find such in example set to the Council by one of the hon. member's years, by one of his intelligence and position, and he had little hope of their delibera:ions arriving at any good lesult if language was to be employed in them, which could not be accepted in the usual courtesies of society. He considered the interests of the constituencies which the various members represented to require more Immediate attention than this motion ; hon. members if not careful would rind the end of the session in upon them without their having been able to effect any measure of substantial good, and that would be a poor account to render. On these grounds he seconded the rmendment.

Mr. Boylan was anxious that rrore time should be afforded the Council to consider the weighty subjects involved in the motion, be'or.? members were tailed on to give their votes. He moved the adjournment of the debate until that day fortnight. Agreed to.

WIDNESDAY, NOVKUBEII 23

land Claims Debate Resumed.

Mr. Boylan said, Sir, —In moving for an adjournment of this question I was not aware that it would have devolved upon me to open the debate to-day, or 1 should have left it to some gentleman whose longer residence or greater knowledge would have enabled him to do justice to it, for I was then under the impression that we should have to discuss the whole question of the land claimants. That impression has been since removed, and I believe this Council has to do only with the motion of the hon. member for the Hay. His motion I rise to oppose on various grounds. Ist. Because, what should have been three distinct motions are embodied in one. 2nd. Because it contains fivedistinct charges against Sir George Grey, to the truth of which this Council would have assented by the simple granting of the Committee, and having assented to the truth of these charges they then ask leave to take evidence. 3rd. Because I believe it will injure the land claimants themselves. Honourable members will pardon me if I speak plainly, but as I mean no offence I trust none will be taken. But let us suppose that this Committee were granted by the Council what weight would their report possess. The honourable gentleman who moves for the Committee is a land claimant of European celebrity, three others, making four out of the seven, are land claimants, and as far as I can see all the witnesses are to be land claimants. Now, I say, that a report of such a constituted committee would be received by this Council with great caution, and suppose this Council refused to adopt the report of such a committee what position then would the land claimants be in,—why, their opponents would say, that on the very spot where these grievances occurred a popularly constituted Council refused to entertain them, besides I should like to know what right any one has to constitute himself the knight errant of the land claimants without first consulting them. Some of them might fancy that their clain.s would be as speedily redressed if they forbore to heap charges upon the head of a Governor whom the honourable member has shown to be so powerful at home. Were I a land claimant I would refuse- to be identified in any way with a committee constituted upon the motion of the honourable mover. Why, land claimants themselves members of this Council object to it, and what right have we to force them into it. Besides all the claimants are mixed up together. The old land claimants may think that their claims should have first consideration. The pre-emption claimants will say—No, we bought our lands on the faith of a British Governor, that faith has been violated, we have not got our lands, or when we have got them the fostering Government in the spirit of an Irish tithe proctor has taken their tenth—sometimes from our gardens, sometimes from our frontages, and sometimes from the very middle of our farms. But whilst I admit the great injustice done to many of the claimants, I think the honourable member has been premature with his motion and in my opinion it should be postponed. It may be stated it is a hardship to the land claimants to postpone it, it is a hardship that they should not have justice done them. But they cannot consider it a hardship for the Council to postpone this motion as it is as much an act of grace as an act of duty th'S Council entertaining it at all when there is the General Assembly to refer to. Besides there are other c'asses in the community suffering greater hardships than the land claimants. When a bounteous Providence has given us a climate salubrious beyond all precedent, witii springs bubblirg and bursting underneath our feet, this Council is flying in the face of that Providence when it allows a portion of the community to dwell in an impure and vitiated atmosphere, and to depend upon the charity of their neighbours for their daily supply of water. It this very instant while we are sitting discussing an impracticable motion, our unurained city is positively inviting the approach of typhus fever. No summer ever visits our shores but it finds parents mourning for their children which the winter and the spring hath snatched away, and the medical gentlemen of Auckland will bear me out when I say that three out of ten of these deaths can be directly traced to our want of the commonest sanatary precautions. To argue that these people are not suffering greater hardships is to argue that waste land is of more importance than human life. Again, Sir, when we consider that there is one ward in the city from which Government has derived £34,000, and has not expended c £2oo on roads, where the levels seems to have depended upon the state of imagination of the Surveyor, whether his ideas at the time were lowly or exalted—where one of the principal streets is approached from the sea by four ladders j when we consider that with £50,000 worth of potatoes to export this year, we have not three continuous miles of good road to ca:t them on ; thatsix full-rigged vessels have been in Kaipara at onetime, and that there is not so much as a bridle path by which communication can be kept up with the city atthough the business must be done at our Customs; that our last great source of wealth, the Manukau, lies undeveloped from the mere want of management ; that although our young country is possessed of a principle of vitality that can never be destroyed, she is still but in a state of coma.and that the hopes of the people have centered upon this Council, that it would awaken her from her mesmeric trance, and start her fairly upon the race for wealth and honour ; when we consider these points we cannot be fairly accused of injustice to the claimants if we postpone the question in every shape, until all these matters are disposed of j but if we determine that they shall haveour first attention, the non-land claimants.by far the most numerous body, will naturally say that individual members of this Council were too eager for personal redress; and that others joined them. The honorable member concluded by moving a further amendment—" That no motion respecting land claimants be adopted until the estimates shall be discussed."

Mr. Clarke said, 1 offer for the consideration of the Council, a few remarks upon the motion before them. 1 was led to suppose, from what fell from the hon. member, as well as from the motion itself, that the ordinances generally were defective and of no validity ; but the hj in. member confined his remarks to one, viz., the Land Claims Ordinance. 1 never was an admirer of that Ordinance, and had always thought that a more liberal construction, and consequently a more liberal legislation would have been adopted. Stringent, however, as the Ordinance appeared) my objections were confined to the way in which its enactment* were carried out by the Government. It is due to the Government to observe that they must at that time have been greitly embarrassed, not only by the acts of the New Zealand Company but by many others, wh i upon the earliest enactments of the colonization of New Zealand, made pretended purchases of millions of acres, and one gentleman in New South Wales, (Mr. Wentworth) is said to have purchased for a mere tritle, the whole of the Middle Island ; dpubtless these purchases materially influenced the legislators, and led to a more stringent Ordinance. 1 differ altogether from my colleague in considering that Ordinance of no legal force, for this reason that it is by adoption, the act of the British legislature. Every Ordinance (see Charter, HMO,) passed in the Colony, is by the Secretary of State hvd before H.M. Privy Council for approval, and aftet that, before the Parliament to be legalized. I should therefore, have hesitated designating our legislature ignorant

'tupid, and ineotnpetert. persons. Not very complimentary this to her Majesty's advisers, whom it might be difficult to persuade that all legal discernment and competency was vested m a member of the Provincial Council. I doubt whether, if the Council were unanimous, it would not be a hopeless case to attempt to persuade the British Parliament that they had been sapping the foundation of the Constitution by the allowance of the Ordinance. But it must be obvicu3 to the Council that the hon member had other objects in view beyond that of sweeping the Statute Sock. Nothing less th.-in the impeachment of Sir George Grey. I do not stop to enquire whether the statements made by the hon. member were correct or incorrect I neither affirm or deny them ; I neither apologize for nor eulogize Sir George Grey ; but I do deeply regtet that they should have been brought forward at this time. The Counc lis just in its transition state, passing from the genera! Government to the Provincial. An immense deal of business is on hand ; the whole machinery of Government at a stand-still, and wai ng for the Council to proceed with their measures, in order that it may move on. If there were any cases of oppression and hardship before the Council, calling for immediate attention : If our table had been loaded with petitions and comp'aints from our fellow citizens, I should have been one of the first to have moved their consideration ; but I observe nothing of the sort, and I do not think that our constituents sent us here to impeach Sir George Grey at the expense of urging provincial business. Ido therefore, regret that at such a time the hon. member should press his motion upon the Council. But my objections to the motion are still greater upon the ground on which it is proposed to give it effect. I that, of the gentlemen nominated to form the committee, several arc objectionable ; it would look like a packed jury. I dislike packed juries; fair play is a jewel. I will explain myself, and I will begin with the mover. It must be evident to the Council, from what fell from the honourable member in the course of the last debate, that there were, at least in appearance, strong personal feelings against the Governor, and, in my humble opinion/very objectionable expressions. If, therefore, it should be thought fit to grant a committee, I should object to seeing the mover oneof that committee; it would but prejudice the whole cas3. With respect to the present speaker, it is a well-known fact that, for more than eight years there have been political differences between him and tl|e Governor; there has been a painful litigation carried on for years with him. It is well known that he has sustained serious injuries through this litigation. And, though he is not conscious of entertaining the slightest ill feeling against Sir George, and it is.contrary to his nature to harbour an unfriendly spirit even when injured, yet, unacquainted as the public are with these facts, they would scarce give him credit for these remarks, and must therefore think him an improper person to form one of such a committee as is sought for. This matter he named to the mover, who was requested not to name him; but, to his great annoyance, he found the mover persisting in retaining his name upon the list for the committee. I will only name one more of the proposed committee, Mr. Newman, a gentleman who has been very considerably inconvenienced by the government, and who may be supposed to entertain no very favourable opinion of the Governor. Of the other gentlemen I know of no such objection, but have, I hope, given sufficient reason why I oppose the motion. Upon the whole I consider the motion in all its bearings—its general assumption—its want of due respect to Her Majesty's advisers—its ill-timed movement—and the serious objections to many of the proposed committee, I do hope that the Council will not grant the proposed committee. I therefore move that it be taken into consideration this day six months.

Mr. Porter could not support the motion of the member for the Hay. He (Mr. Porter) had been a resident of Auckland since the earliest period of the settlement; —and, having taken a part in the Legislation on the subject, he was well acquainted with the history of the land claims since that time—although sincerely sympathising with the early bona fide claimants. After a careful consideration of the case, he could not give his support to a motion having in view the re opening of the general question. The Bill introduced by Governor llobson into the Legislative Council for the settlement of these claims (taken as a whole) gave, he might almost say, universe] satisfaction to the real settlers and claimants; who, fully aware of the precarious nature of their titles, were only anxious for a speedy adjustment of their claims —and sensible that a Crown Title, under British protection for even a small portion of their land, was an equivalent for the extensive tracts they nominally owned, but from which they might be the next day swept, if a dispute should arise with or between thejßUrrouiiding natives. To the withdrawal of this Bill, which was opposed only on the grounds that the concentration was not optional with the claimants, may mainly be attributed the losses and suffering subsequently experienced by the claimants. A party had arrived from Sydney, principally purchasers of land in New Zealand on speculation, who, supported by a press they brought with them, endeavoured by a violent agitation of the question, to force upon the Local Government to adopt a Legislative measure, which would give to the claimants "every inch of land they claimed." This agitation was unsuccessful, but theevil was done. A second Hill leaving out the concentration clause, was brought in and passed, but failed to give satisfaction, the expectation of the claimants having ever been extravagantly raised from their success in their opposition, to the first Bill. The question practically remained in abeyance, until eventually in 1(14:3, and 1844 H t Majesty's Government having sanctioned all that was asked for, in the first instance, namely, liberty to exchange land at a distance for an equivalent near Auckland, the claimants freely availed themselves of the permission, and with some exception, the claims were finally disposed of. But the remedy was applied too late. The excitement towards New Zealand had passed away, hundreds had left the colony disappointed, there was little to induce others to embark for it. The scrip land credit forced upon the market by the impoverished holders, reducing its value to so small a sum, as even Is., for what represented £l at the Crown sales, was thus of little essential benefit to the claimants, while at the same time it inflicted a further and most serious injury upon those who had purchased from the Governmental the high upset prices of the early days of the settlement. It will farther be for the House to consider if the hon. member should succeed in the object of his motion, and the claimants should eventually be declared entitled to augmented grants—from what source the awards can be supplied ? 'I he Government is not in possession of waste undefined tracts of back country, for the opening of which It is politic to give grants of thousands and tens of thousands of acres, to influential individuals. The lands originally claimed are iu most cases no longer available. The compensation must apparently be given in scrip credit, and this scrip would for the second time come into competition in the land market with the ready money of our settlers, and for the purchase of those very lands which have recently been bought from the natives by money paid into the Treasury by those persons who would sufi'er in the leduction in the value of their property, lie (Mr. Porter) further begged to call the attention of the Council to the circumstance, how few of the original claimants would benefit by i re-investigation of their claims, supposing such an investigation to be now practicable. Their interest in them has now in most instances passed away into other hands. Parties in Sydney and elsewhere purchased at the lowest price of the day, and have since reaped the benefit of thus speculating, in the increased value of the property and can have no claim whatever for further consideration. The Council must beware, lest, in seeking to repair a former injury now almost healed by time, they inflict a second upon the constituency, which has confined its interests to their keeping. With regard to the more recent pre-emption claims, he, (Mr. Porter) considered that injustice had been done to them; but as the country and the settlers were now in a prosperous state, he was of opinion that it would he injudicious to open the whole case for the reasons before assigned. Individual cases of great hardship might however be entertained if brought in a proper form before the House, whenever it might have the power of dealing with them.

Mr. Williamson said—l rise to support tlic amendment, not because I think ilie Northern Land Claims question should be re-opened and referred to the General Assembly, but because I consider that if there exists any real intention to do justice to those who may have suffered under the late pre-emption proclamations, no practical redress can be afforded by this Council until the Province be in a position to dispose of its own Waste Lands, and the power to enable it to do so must be derived from the General Assembly. With respect to the original motion, the Honourable member for the Bay seems to consider that this Council is possessed of larger powers than appears tome to have been given to it by the Constitution. The honourable member has so very ingeniously constructed his motion as to blend together matters that widely differ, and which might be properly divided into two or more parts. In the first place, he does not ask the Council to enquire whether there are on our Colonial Statute Book, laws " repugnant to the laws of England," but we are asked dogmatically to assert this, and to affirm that these laws " have no legal force or validity." For my own part I was startled on hearing the notice of motion read to find that it embraced such important questions, and proposed that such questions should be decided at a day's noticebythis Council, and I was glad when the honourable member for the City moved for and secured anjjadjournment of the debate, so asfthat the members of a Council which (with all due deference to them) is principally composed of plain men like myself, might have an opportunity of looking into the subject before giving their votes upon it. I have examined the subject for myself, and am fully satisfied as to the course I should take. I believe that in this Instance common sense may guide me as well as other members to a safe conclusion. It appears from the line of argument taken by the mover, and from other circumstances, that the Land Claims Ordinances are more particularly indicated as being included in the laws which he expects the Council to declare any repugnant to the Laws of England. Now, Sir, the first question that presents itself to my mind is—Have the laws to which reference is made, received the Royal assent—has the Queen's approval been given to them ? 1 find that the first Land Claims Ordinance was passed in New South Wales, but before it was introduced to the Council there. Sir George Gipps issued a proclamation in the name of Her Majesty declaring—

"That Her Majesty, takiuginto consideration the present as well as future interests of Her Majesty's subjects, and al«o the rights and interests of the chiefs and native tribes of the islands 01 New Zealand, docs not deem it expedient to recognize <ny titles to Land in New Zealand, which are not derived from, or confirmed by Her Majesty i but iii order to dispel any apprehension that it is intended to dispossess the owners of land, acquit*, on equitable conditions, and not in extent or Otherwise prejudicial to the present or prospective interests of the community ; Her Majesty has been pleased to uirect that a commission shall be appointed, with certain power-, to be derived from the Governor and Legislative Council of New South Wales, to enquire into and report upon all claims to such lands, and that all persona having such claims, will he required to prove the same heiorc the said Commissioners when appointed • - and that all; urchases of land in any part ol New Zealand, that may be made torn auy of ihe chiefs or native tribes thereof, after the date of these i resents, will lie considered as absolutely null and void, and wi 1 not be confirmed or in any way recognized by Her Majesty." This proclamation was followed by a Legislative enactment passed in New South Wales, of which New Zealand was at that time a dependency, to provice for the appointment of a Court of Commissioners as directed by Her Majesty. During the progress of that Act through tie Sydney Council Mr. Busby, now the honorable member for the Day, appeared at the bar of that Council, side by aide with Mr. Wentworth, to oppose the passing of the bill, hut notwithstanding all theaiguments used by those gentlemen against it the bill was passed, and afterwards received the Royal sanction. Subsequently, on the separation of this colony from New South Wales, the powers of the Commissioners under the Sydney Act lojided, and it w.ts necessary to re-enact the Land

Claims Ordinance, which was done accordingly by Governor Hobson's Council, and this Act also received the Royal Assent. Now the honorable member calls upon this Council to declare that these laws assented to by Her Majesty are illegal, having no force nor validity, while at the same time he himself must be aware of what no member of this Council I am sure is ignorant, that before the Queen's approval is given to any Act, that Act or Ordinance is invariably submitted to the opiuion of the law advisers of the Crown—usually the best lawyers in England—especialjh/ with rrg rd to the very question of their constitutional character. lam aware that the honorable member for the Bay has long held and endeavoured to maintain, notwithstanding the opinions of high authorities to the contrary, that the spirit of the British constitution was invaded by these land claims acts ;—and as '•' coming events cast their shadows before," I believe the fact of the very early announcement made by the honorable gentleman of his intention to otTer himself a candidate for a seat in this Council, as well as his opposition to the General Assembly, led many to conclude that some new movement with respect to the old claims was about to be made. But the subject seems to have so completely absorbed the honourable members's own mind, that in laying his plans, • he has forgotten the new state of things which has grown up iu the Province since the days of the old claimants. lie ought to have considered that the members whom he would meet in this Council, were not likely to be here as the representatives of the land claimants, and even if ;it should so happen that every member sympathised with that class of the colonists, still that the duties of the Provincial Coui.cil were so defined by the Constitution as to debar them from interfering to any practical purpose with questions not immediately relating to the " peace order, and good government of the Province." Ido not think however, that the present inhabitants are desirous that ihe time of the Council should be occupied with such questions as'are now engaging its attention. The honourable member foe the city has well expressed what is now most urgently required of the Council, and what it is their manifest duty to attend to at the outset of their labours. Old things have passed away, and we have just been placed in new circumstances, which, if we take advantage of them, may enable us to do better service to the Province, than by entering upon such courses as the one pointed out to us by the honourable member for the Bay in the first part of his motion. But with respect to that portion of it, which refers to Ix 3 proceedings aiising out of the proclamations of Governor Fitz Hoy, I think ' this class of claimants.should not have been mixed up wife the old claimants, and if the question of redress in individual cases of complaint is to be brought under the notice of this Counc.il, there certainly were circumstances connected with their claims which would entitle them to a very ditferent kind of consideration from what is due to the old claimants. Iu the latter case many persons who never would have thought of dealing with the natives fi:r their lands, were encouraged to do so by the public announcement of Governor's willingness to waive the Crown's right of pre-emption. Many whose circumstances were not such as to enable them to become land-owners, by immediate purchase from the Crown, were beguiled into ah impoverishment of themselves and their families in order to raise the means to purchase from the natives lands which they were offering for sale every day. To say no.hing of the policy or impolicy of the s> stem, the majority of those who acquired land at that time had every reason to believe they were doing so legally, and indeed the government certificate issued at the lime was their authority. Now many who thus deprived themselves of means which might have been otherwise beneficially employed, were afterwards, when under a new policy it was found necessary to put a stop to this system, dispossessed of their lands, and 1 le!ie"ve in many cases merely because of someiuformaltty. Lands acquired in this way by individuals hare been kept from them and h..v; either been sold or are now included in the Waste Lands of the Province. But these lands and the proceeds of the sale of them are placed at the disposal of the General Assembly. His waste of time to talk of compensation in this Council. 1 do not think we are in a position to deal generously, if we were so disposed, with such individual claimant* as may have suffered for the general good, until the General Assembly has made over to this Province the entire control of the wasle lands within it.

Mr. Dilworth rose and said, he thought it the duty of this Council, to inquire into the grievance of Land Claimants —as well as those of ar.y other class of the community, and lie trusted it would do that energetic and respectable class of the citizens justice. Some long and able speeches had bem made on this motion, and not only one day had been spent already in discussing it, but two or three more might be spent in the same way, which would not probably be more than the m;>ortance of the subject demanded ; before, however, more time should be spent, he wished to make a remark or two. lie did not agree to the ainendn.enU because they would shelve the question, nor to the original motion, because it was too comprehensive ; but he would suggest its division in o three. The Laws and Ordinances one, the Pre-emption Claimants one, and the old Land Claimants one. He would respectfully urge this suggestion for the consideration of the house, the movers and and seconders of the amendments, and especially on the mover of the original motion. He thought it was the houss to do justice to all, but substantial justice could not be done under the motion as it stood before the Council. The Laws and Ordinances he was not competent to judge, nor in his opinion could the Council do so. The pre-emption Cat man ts he thought distinct from the old land claimants, ami should be kept so. Why consider all together ? " Time is the most irresistable cf all forces," and that had brought to New Zealand the power of dealing with these questions, and wh then, by way of censure on Sir George Giey, g> to l*ng'a:id £ for it ?He thought this Council had no right to assume that the General Assembly would not meet, but should at once petition the Governor requesting him to call together the Genera! Assembly. And further address that Assembly to uansfer to this.Council the control of the Crown Lands of the Province, which he had no doubt would be granted, and when every case of real grievance respecting land conld be brought forward in open Council, where alone all such cases should be heard and not in Committee, where factitious ones might be smuggled in. If the Council wished he would put the suggestion in form.

The Speaker thought nothing could now be received in the former new motion.

Mr. Busbv said, I hope the members of 'his Council will show to their constituents and the community, that they are men, and can walk alone; —that they williiot listen to the proposal to put th«m into leading strings, and then put those leading strings into the hands of persons who hare shown themselves our bitterest enemies with regard to this question. Why, sir, what have we to expect from an Assembly with a majority of men, who with Edward Gibbon Wakefield amongst them, (and who will no doubt be at their head,) have bsen the cause of all the injustice the land claimants have suffered. W by, sir, the House can judge from the honourable member on my right what we have'a rijht to expect; when lie, who is one of ourselves, instead of cherishing me with the tenderness of a nurse, reptiles me with the barshnsss of a cruel stepmother. N< w sir, my proposal does not interfere with the functions or the jurisdiction of the General Assembly. I ask this Council only to do as a Council what each member, and every subject of her Majesty is entitled to do as a private individual; that is to petition the Queen and both Houses of Parliament for the redress of our grievances. These grievances are exclusively provincial. They are confined to the inhabitants of this province; and no stranger has a right, or ought to be i ailed upon to intermeddle with them. And it is a most remarkable fact that afwr a full fortnight for inquiry and consideration not one of these grievances has been denied. Not one of Sir G. Grey's friends —if friends he has in this Council —lias ventured to say one word in his defeace. I do not, sir, propose that the Committee should ba a jury upon this question, but'that they should prepare evidence for the judgement of the Queen and Parliament. But, sir, as 1 have been personally referred to as having been so mixed up with these claims as to have an " European reputation."—l think that was the word—and then again, as to my unfitness to sit upon such a committee, as an interested party ; and after what has been said o!' packed ju- es and the like, perhaps, to.' Council will expect from cols so-ne account of my connexion with these laud claimitits. Sir, m rj than twe .ty years ago, I was 6ent to this country aM the King's Resident; aud, in that capacity it was part of my duty to assist, as far as lay in my power, the nego iation of fair purchases of lands from the native owners by bis Majesty's subjects who resorted fo this country. When my office was discontinued, the Secretary of State instructed Sir George. Gipps. the Governor of New South Wales, to inform me of the new arrangement, and expressed a hope that it would be in his power to offer me a suitable appointment under his Government. Sir George Gipps, in communicat ng this information, expressed in very flattering terms, his sense of my services, and the pleasure it would affotd him to comply with Lord Glenelg's instruction.whichlLe on another occasion, said, " amounted to a command." When Captain Hobson did arrive, he brought rue a letter from a member of the Exe utive Council of New South Wales, informing me that the opinion of inn writer, who was known to be a friend of mine, lad been asked whether I would accept the oflic ■ of Coloi ial Secretary Captain Hobson, and th« writer of that letter did me the honour to say that from his know ledge of me, and from what his own feeling would be ott;the subject, he would say decidedly that I would not. He then went on to say,tli3t an officer of hi-h ivs; onsibility would be required as Chief Commissioner to investigate the claims of individuals to land in this country ; aud that my experience would render me a lit pirsOQ for such an office. Now, sir, I am not en itled to say that this letter was written with the concurrence, or even with the knowledge of the Giivennr and other members of the Executive Couuei , because it was a private letter. But 1 have no difficulty in expressing my belief tint bad I been able toaccotn.no aemy views of justice, and right to the measures aoued by the Government, I might have bad the offic< of Chief Commissioner, and co tinned to this tiay in that, or some other office of high respons bility, instead of living in obscurity aud retirement. Well then, sir, with respect to the land purchased by myself, Sir George Gipps dist nctly intimated to me that if 1 were willing to put my claim, up m the ground of public service, he could recognise it, but that n i should maintain it as a legal claim, I had no ground to stand upon. Sir, J would not abandon the other land claimants, to whom 1 had stcod iu such a'relation as gave them a claim upon me for tho protection of their n«hts. I petitioned to be beard bv the Council of N«* S. utb. Wales against the bill which would dj injustice to those lai:d claimant?. And as the honourable member for the pensioner settle-nx nt* has said, I did ai dress ! that Cuuacil; and, peraapa, ai as great length as I did

this Council upon the iniqutieß of sucb a measure; and of the baneful effects the exhibition of such injustice would have upon the minda of the natives, who, until that ill-omened measure, relied with perfect trust upon the uprightness of the British Government. Well, Kir, such being tbe circumstances the observations which hare been made, or any observations which can be mode «s to my judgment being warped by my interest, are perfectly inocuous. They cannot disturb my equanimity even for one moroect. And I hope the •Council will excuse me for occupying so much of their time with a matter so much person.il to myself. But, Sir, I do uot refer to any member of this Council when I endeavour to expose so great a fallacy as that it is impossible for a man to judge rightly where his own interest* are concerned. I have no doubt that they are tabled by a fallacy which it suits bo well the purpose of ■< me men to adopt and maintain. But, Sir, I think it is indisputable that iheM are men wbo have no faith in human integrity,—men who, if they can discover a point at which tlm path of what they call personal interest (meaning pecuniary gain, or political advancement) diverges from the path of duty, fix upon that point aa the instantium crurit of human conduct. There is in tbe mind of such men no farther roora to doubt; they assume it as an axiom that tbe pntb of duty will be forsaken, and the path of self-interest followed. There is nothing more remarkable in the despatches which have been brought under the review of this Council, that the axiomatic adoption of this conclusion. Well, Sir, the honourable member for tbe Pensioner Settlements has read to us that Sir George Gipps issued a proclamation, and founded his ordinance with respect to these land claims on that proclamation, in compliance with the Queen's instructions. Now, what 1 have asserted and provtd by those instructions themselves, is, thru the part of Sir George Grey's mea-t-urea which did injustice to tbe la:rd claimants was an express violation of those instructions, as well as of the laws of England. Sir, the honourable member for tbe city has enlightcnd us as to tbe duty of the Council in providing satmtary measured for tbe city; and he would lead us to believe that t entertain these land claims wou'd be incompatible with what he holds to he the higher claims of tbe citizens to health and comfort. Sir, lam ready to unite with the bon. member in every practicable measure which ean preserve the health and comfort of tbe citizens ; but tbe language of tbe honorable member would lead us to believe that these land claims would cause a pestilence in the city. Sir, I fear that tb* moral atmosphere of the city, and of the colony, is polluted by the way in which these land claims have heen dealt witb. I have no doubt, sir, that tbe iniquitous conduct of persons in bitrh places hat seriously demoralized this community. [ll*re the speaker was internii ted by cries of " order."] Sir, I must claim tbe privilege of using language which will leave no room for mistake as to nay meaning. It i,« not, sir, a matter of indiffrenee for me to offtnd the ears of tbe members of this Council, or of others, by the use of such language ; it is not a matter of indifference to me to meet tbe averted eye, which wonld have turned upon me with kindness. But, air, I speak from a sense of duty, to which all other considerations must yield. Mention, sir, has been made, in tbe course of this debate, of impea"hxnent. Why, sir, if providence bsd placed me in such a situation as to make it possible for me to impeach Sir George Grey, Ido not believe I coulJ have slept quietly without impeaching him. It has been objected to ray motion that it ought to have been divided into three—tbe old land claims, tbe pre-emption land claims, and the crimination of Sir George Grey. My intention, »ir, wa" to make my motion comprehensive of all cases where injustice had been done. And, sir, while lite and health is afforded me I shall not give up this question,

lill every one who Las suffered wrong, in aay sbap-, eball bave bad justice. I consider justice to be tbe paramount object of ell government. And it is the especial privilege and duty of a British legislature to see that justice is done. The bon. member for the oity has drawn a glowing picture of the beauty and fertility of this district, and has d -ve ! t upon tbe importance of constructing ro ids by which to bring its exuberant harvests to market. Sir, there is no one who looks with greater pleasure upon tbe beauty of tbe landscape, and tbe evidences of prosperity which it affords, tb»n I do : but I cannot forget that I come from a district that would have smiled in equal fertil ty, aud perhaps greater beauty, but ior the Government, which exposed its inhabitants to the ravages of war, and drove them away by its injustice. 1 would remind tbe bon. member that, beautiful aud fertile as this land is, th< ra is a land which once far surpassed it, —aland which was once tbe glory of all lands, but which now lies in desolation and barrenness, under the curse of the Almighty, because its princes and legislators forsook tbe paths of righteousness—because they refused to ''seekjudgment, tor«*lievetbe oppressed, to judge tbe fatherless, to plead for the widow." 1 trust, sir, this will not be the case with us. I trust tbe members of this Council will bear in mind that material prosperity is not, of itself, sufficient for national more tban it is for individual happiness Now, Sir, there is one point to which I must st-ll advert namely, tbe magnitude of these claims, and tbe liibo'ir which it will cost the Council to enter into them. Tbe Middle and Southern Islands, were taken possession of by ri°ht of discovery, and in them no legal title could exist but by tbe allowance of tbe Crown. These therefore do not come within the scope of my motion. And as to the other extensive claims made in this island they never have been and never can be proved to have been acquired by a valid title from the native proprietors. I apeak only, sir, ol eucb claims as were obtained on equitable conditions from tbe aboriginal owners. I again advert to the fact brought forward and proved from autbentic documents that out of 750 claims which had been investigated only 8 or 9 were disputed hy the natives. 1 know nothing, sir, in history parallel to this. I know nothing more remarkable tban the straightforwardness and integrity of the natives, in maintaining the bargains they had made, unless, it be the humiliating contrast afforded by t'io conduct of the functionaries appointed by the British Government in dealing with those bargains. What I propose, sir, is that tbe Committee should take evidence in one or two cases of each class, and make an interim report with a Petition to the Queen and Parliament which, if adopted by the Council, might be at once transmitted to England accompanied with the evidence taken; after which the Committee might proceed with their labours, during the sitting of Council, in order to be prepared as far as possible for the decision of tbe Queen's Government, i Bits already said, sir, that I consider it absolutely necessary to |<o to the very fountain head of justice. I do not expect justice from any other quatter. The Council may rest assured that though this question may be delayed it will never be allowed to rest till justice is done. The Government of the United States, sir, is still occupied or wa* till within these few years, with claims to land which orginated half a century ago. So late as the year 1844 there i» an act of congress to facilitate tbe settlement of claims to land arising under the treaty of Paris of lbo4. Andas a last resource the legislature allows tbe Courts to be opened for such claimants as were disstti.-fied with tbe decisions of the Commissioners so that their claims may be determined by a jury of their countrjmen, with a right of appeal from the district courts to those of superior jurisdiction, ibe law officer for the district and the Attorney-General for tbe United States, being instructed respectively to appear in such cases and defend the interests of the Public. Now, sir, tlrs is tbe spirit in which land claims complicated in their origin and attendant circumstances, to a degree of which we in this colony can firm lilt le idea, were dealt with by the Government of the United States. This is the spirit in which the rights of individuals is dealt with by all civilized Governments. This is the spirit whicb pervaded all Hritish laws and British administration till the baneful influence of tbe New Zealand Company, brought the disgrace of injustice and violated faith with their attendant miseries upon New Zealand.

Mr. Gilflllan (aid—Sir, I have followed the hon. gentleman who introduced this motion with oil the attention in my power; i.ot on thit occasion only but when he spoke in support of it, a fortnight ago. But I confess ( am still of opinion that it is a ttvostton which this Council cannot eutertaiu, and one which, in its present shape, the Council ought not to entertain, if it could. The hon. member for the Bay of Islands in the outset of his opening speech failed altogether to shew how the Executive Government of New Zealand could expunge the ordinance* he referred to from the Statute Book even if the Parliament of England so directed it. No repeal of the Act of any Local Legislature of this Colony could be accomplished by an Act of the British Parliament. The General Assembly atone bat th« power to repeal such Acts and no such " expunging" as the hon. member calls for, could be effected until the Ordinance* he refers to had been repealed. So far, Sir, the motion is untenable. Then again the hon. member spoke of certain Ordinance* a* being contrary to the Royal instruction!: issued on the subject to the Governor. I interrupted the hou. gentleman when he was speaking on this part of his subject, not from any wish to be uncourteous, but merely to elicit the information as to whether the Ordinances he wished to be expunged had or had not been allowed by the Queen. He admitted they had been allowed. This being the case, I should like to hear from him how they can be repugnant to the Royal Instruction*, or how it comes to pass that Her Majeety has been advised to allow Ordinances contrary to the very instruction* mn on the subject. On the very threshold of his argument theioforel maintain the hon, member's case broke down. I find further, Sir, in the motion we are asked to pas* the words "full compensation;" the*e are vague words f» which it would b* difficult to attach a defined meaning. But I will inform the Council to *orne extent of the quantity of Land for which this " full compensation" is sought, in the company of an hon, friend beside me, I have over the Returns of Land Claims for which I moved the other day, and this is a part of the rtsult. After rejecting not only the tens of Acres', and the hundreds of Acres, and ths thousand* of Acres, claimed ; afmrin fart taking, and taking only, the quantities amounting to or txceeding 10,000 Acres chimed by single individuals, I

rind that the quantity of Land claim*! by the old Land Claimants is Ten Millions of Acres! I beg the Council to remember that this doe* not include the immense amount of the quantities claimed under 10,000 Acres, nor yet does it include the quantity which may be supposed to lie hid under that mysterious columns of amounts " not stated." 1 have no doubt the total would exceed one half of the ten millions I have named; it would probably be ten millions more. However these ten millions which 1 have referred to are claimed by fifty individuals, and I ask this Council seriously to consider how the compensation asked for is to be paid. At the lowest calculation the compensation for such a quantity would absorb the whole Revenue of the Province for many years. The hon. member did not tell us where the compensation was to come from, but I hope the Council will cinnider this before they agree to the motion, It must be quite obvious too that «uch possessions of land by a few individuals would entirely check the colonisation of any country, and completely frustrate everything like a settled government. When I saw. Sir, the astounding quantity thus claimed, I was reminded of a story which I have read somewhere of a meeting of the Pilgrim Fathers at Pensylvania to consider their relations with the Red Indians. At that meeting there were proposed and carried, three Resolutions to this effect. I, That the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. 2. That he has given the earth as a heritage to His sainti. 3. That we are the saints. That seems to be the position of the men whose claims the hon member advocates, some of whom claim upwards of a million of acres, one of whom I observed claims tbe whole of Banks's Peninsula, and a great many more of whom claim immense tracts of country, Reference has been made as to whether the hon. gentleman could approach this enquiry were it granted with clean hands, and he has told us in reply that his motives are pure and that he has no personal motive in the course he has adopted. I am not going to impute motives to the honourable member, but I cannot help saying that unconsciously to himself his judgment may be warped by his prejudice, and after the strong feeling he has evinced in bringing forward his motion I think he could hardly be quite impartial. The prosecutor in a court of law is never allowed to be also the foreman of the jury who tries the cause. Apart, however, from the motion itself, if voting for it is meant to imply acquiescence in all the honourable member said about Sir George Grey, then, Sir, I say that that to me would be a good and sufficient reason for opposing it. The honourable member in speaking to-day of imputations cast on him, said they did not hurt him because his motives were so pure; he should have added also that all that had been said against him was to his face, and that he had an opportunity here of defending his conduct. I am not here to defend Sir George Grey, if he has done or written anything that is wrongor incorrect. I never asked a favour from him ; I will go further and say—without any affectation or false pride—that there is no office or honour he could offer me which I would accept in exchange for the position in which I stand here as the representative of a free constituency; but I count it an un-English, and therefore, an unmanly thing to strike a man when his hands are tied, or to bring charges against a public officer when he has no opportunity to repeal them. It is a long while ago now since the Patriarch Job said "Oh that mine enemy would write a book !" and I could not help thinking that the honourable member realised this as he commented with so much severity on some of the Governor's despatches; but I beg to remind him that he has not got the whole of these despatches after all, that he cannot therefore give the Council an "Opportunity of judging of them as a whole, and I would also remind the Council that these despatches are addressed to the Colonial Office in England, to the Government ofwhich and not to this Council is Sir G. Grey responsible. Any stranger entering this house while the honourable member was speaking in such exaggerated and overstrained terms would have supposed we were now living under some frightful tyranny. I never heard such language used, and I cannot recollect reading any like it, except when Burke was impeaching Warren Hastings. Why, Sir, I believe the people of this country are all very happv and contented. I confess to seeing daily a great amount of comfort and happiness and successful industry, and I believe such a state of things is owing mainly to the administration of Sir George Grey. It was his duty to settle these Land Cinims, in doing so he could not please all parties—an Angel from Heaven could not have done that; nor is it fair to charge on .Sir George Grey cases of individual distress which no doubt arose under the settlement of such a widely complicated question. The honourable gentleman read an article—a very clever article —from an Auckland newspaper about the wrong done to the widow at Onehunga ; but. Sir,, if the case as there set forth was true, and if I had been able to help the widow I would not have gone whining with an anonymous article to a newspaper. 1 would have brought an action at law against the man who sold what the honourable member called the " stolen property." I would have prosecuted the person if he was selling it illegally. But, Sir, a case like this (and I daresay there are many other similar cases) are not to be classed with the generality of those cases upon which the honourable member wishes this Council to vote his motion. Such cases of individual suffering may require redress, but they will have to wait till the can obtain it from the only tribunal which can grant it. All such questions in their settlement of necessity involve individual loss and suffering, just as the emancipation of the slaves, though right in principle, involved the ruin of the West Indian Planters. Above all things, in this Council Sir George Grey should not be censured or spoken of in the terms which the honourable member for the Bay of Islands has thought proper to use. We all sir, here byvirtue of that liberal suffrage which he recommended ; we can all witness the career of progress which the Province has commenced since he, without waiting for the meeting of any General Assembly, cameforward boldly with the statesman-like Regulations fofr the sale of the Waste Lauds of the Crown. I would not judge Sir George Grey by his despatches even if we had them in their complete state before us. I would rather judge him by his dkxds, and I believe that in the end they will all have been found to have had in view the lasting benefit of the Colony committed to his care. It is for these reasons that I appeal to the Council in favour of the first amendment, and I believe that we shall be in every way fulfilling our duty far better by a partial consideration of such matters as pertain to the wellbeing of the Province; to its progress and advancement; than by debating abstract questions like that now before us which even if assented to cannot possibly issue in any practical result.

Mr. Newman considered it very unfair towards nny mover to address the House Hfier he had made his reply. As an opponent of the amendment he wished th-.t the same course should be observed on both sides with respect to conduct and language. As to the tens of millions of acre claims, there were many which would be put aside by the Lan« Commissioners Reports. It was with the legal claims the Council ought to endeavour to effect a remedy. Talk of the General Assembly 1 What could be expected from them when the Champion of the pound an acre land system was one of that body. It is quite true, (said Mr. Newman) that the'inhabitants of the Province are prosperous; but that prosperity is in no way attributable to the acts of the Government He would ask where lay the right of appe ? The Resident Magistrates Court was prohibited from entering into disputed land claims. The arbitrary acta />{ the Governor with respect to the los. and penny an acre land claimants were too well known. There was a class who looked on right and wrong with an equal eye. He (Mr. Newman) wai not of that class. He had no wish to mix Sir George Grey with the present motion, and had no knowledge of the mover's intention to do so whea he invi.cd him to second the motion. If he had known perhaps he would have refused to second it—and even now would not object to a postponement as proposed by the member for the city. He agreed with the member for the suburbs that the Governor should not be attacked behind his back. He was ready to till him to his face what he had already done by letter; and he thought Sir George knew pretty well his (Mr. Newman's) estimate of his character. He (Mr. Newman) trusted the Council would not consider he spoke interestedly on the question, because of his having had a piece of his garden, to the value of £5, taken arbitrarily from him and sold without his consent. He felt certain that justice would eventually be done.

Mr. J. O'Neill said, I rise to support the original motion. The honourable member for the Suburbs has introduced a quotation from the Book of Job in support of his side of the question, and I have read in the same Book another instructive passage " does Job serve God for nought." My object now in addressing the House, is in consequence of the very opposite opiLions expressed by the gentlemen who preceded me, because I helieve it is imperative on every member to express his views, and show the Province whether we are the supporters of what is just and right, or whether we are the abettors of what is wrong. The honourable member for the Bay of Islands has made an unfair allusion to the proposed Conmittee: now Sir, I can tell that honourable gentleman that he is labouring under a great mistake. I can tell him, that I for one am not interested in this matter, that I have no personal feeling against Governor Grey, or against any other officer in authority, therefore I can enter into the subject with clean hands, and a clear conscience; that I am neither an old land claimant, nor a new land claimants, neither have I been a government officer. I am as independent of Governor Grey as 1 am of any other man in the Province, Also that it was only necessary to make an objection even to one member of the Committee, and then of necessity all the members must ba bnllotted for. Therefore Sir, the honourable member was not correct when he made use of such unhappy expressions. I have listened with attention to those who ought to be intimate with the deeply important question now before the House, and also to the opinions of those who could not be expected to know much about the matter, inasmuch as every thing connected with the claims to land took place long before they arrived in the colony, and as to the doings of the Executive with the colonists they are as innocent as a sheet of white paper. I think. Sir, that the question naturally presents itself, has injustice been done or has it not. lam satisfied that grocs'injustice has been done to some of our best settlers, that the work of premeditated spoliation has been carried on to a fearful extent, and knowing this to be true, I feel pleasure in supporting the originel motion. I think this Council ought not to shrink from performing a great act of public justice, merely because it may have the effect of lessening the expectation.-; of one man. I recollect when Captain FiUlloy held out inducements to the colonists to acquire homesteads, a gentleman of my acquaintance purchased lands very extensively, giving in every instance liberal prices, but Governor Grey came and deprived him of an immense extent of his territory, offering some trifling payment in return, which was indignantly refused. That land was then, as it is now. exceedingly valuable, so much so that lately seven arces of it has been sold for £2,000. Is this and such like cases of extreme hardship to be stifled to meet the wishes of honourable members? 1 hope not. Let this Council if possible administer content. Let truth divested of all extraneous matter find il* way to the feet of Her Majesty, tell its unvarnished but harrowing tale, and if need be upbraid the author of so much unhappiness. I on Mer that the widow's acre, and the settler's honestly purchased farm, ought to be as dear to us as the interest of a Governor. I think that no member of the Provincial Council ougnt to stand up and thwart injured colonists in seeking redress f>r grievances. I think it is mistaken kindness even to mpkethe attempt to evade an investigation. A sincere, friend of Governor Grey would have demanded the minutest examination and the strirtcn scrutiny into his public conduct, instead of endeavouring to escape from it. 1 believ.? that those cases of alleged hardship ought to be examined, and if the Governor is innocent, it will do him a gr*at amount of good, on the other hand if he be yuilty the decision of the Council will make him „ wisrr man.

Mr. Conncll said—Mr. Speaker,—Before you put the question on the amendment now before the Council,l beg permission to offer a few remarks. And first, Sir, I must express the disappointment I felt at the speech of the honourable member for the City (Mt. J, O'Neill) who has just spoken, that he who so constantly professes a desire to draw tight the purse strings of the Province, should recklessly assent to a resolution which if once affirmed by this Council and acted on, would annihilate for many years, the whole available revenue of the Province, is so totally at variance with his usual tone on questions involving expense that it fills me with surprise. I regret, Sir, that any discussion has arisen upon the motion of the honourable member for the Bay of Islands, as it would in my opinion have been preferable if the Council had at once voted that the questions included in it ought not to have been introduced here at all, seeing that we have no power to deal with them, and I abstained from rising to speak on the subject myself for this reason, but finding that the various topics comprised in the motion have elicited so much discussion, and have from their variety given a verv discursive character to the debate, «aA some of the remarks made, have been rather calculated to lead the Council away from the real subject matter of the motion, I think it right before the votes of the Council are taken, to endeavour to recall our minds to the question at issue, and to consider what will be the consequences to ourselves and the constituencies we represent, should we be led by the eloquent pleading of my honourable friend the member for the Bay, to affirm the propositions contained in his motion. The honourable member has been complimented both in this House and out of it, on the eloquence displayed in his introduction of this motion to the House, and I regret that it was not my good fortune to be present to hear his address, although having since read it, I entirely concur in the opinion expressed of the ability displayed by the honourable member. Whether the introduction of some of the topics contained in that address, and the personal invective that characterised their introduction was consistent with good taste, is a question on which I shall offer no opinion; but of the cleverness with which the whole matter has been arranged and brought forward, there can be no question. But let us consider what it is that the honourable member asks us to do. Heading through his motion we find that he wants a Committee to enquire, but recurring to the first paragraph of the motion, we find that he asks the Council first to affirm his proposition, and then to enquire about it. First to declare that certain Acts are illegal and unconstitutional, and should be declared void, and having done so, and pledged ourselves to all the consequences of such a resolution, then to institute an enquiry as to whether they are illegal and unconstitutional or not. Again, Sir, the learned member has adroitly availed himself of the feeling which exists on the subject of the pre-emption claimants, by blending with thero in one question the class of land claims In which he is himself more really interested. He has made the most of the wrongs of the class of claimants, and has availed himself to the utmost of the case of the Widow of Onehunga. But, Sir, the motion before us is not confined to the compensation to which the Widow of Onehunga may be entitled for her four or five acres,—it comprehends much more —it comprehends the thirty, and forty, and fifty thousand acre claimants, some of whom, Mr. Speaker, sit at this table. Sir, I believe that much hardship h™ been suffered by some of the pre-emption claimants, and if t!ie power resided in this Council to redress their wrongs, I should be glad to have their cases fully enquired into, and both sides of the question fully heard, for I must observe, Mr. Speaker, in reference both to these and the other claims, that the public have never heard more than the claimants side of the question,—the Government never laying before the public the reasons and arguments upon which its proceedings have been founded ; and, alluding for a moment to Sir George Grey, whose name has been so frequently brought into this discussion, I cannot but regret that he has deemed it right, instead of taking any means to explain and justify to the people of this country, the course which he has, in various instances, thought it his duty to pursue, patiently to wait until the course of events should aflord such explanation, and refute the imputations that have been cast upon him. In how many instances the course of events has so explained and disproved the charges laid against him, we must all remember. How long is it, Sir, since we were told on all hands, in reference to the great boon of cheap land, recently conferred upon New Zealand by Sir George Grey, that he had no more authority than I had, to do any such thing—that it was done by him in defiance of the plain intention of the law and of the home Government, merely to influence the coming elections, and to acquire pipularity on the eve of his bidding farewell to New Zealand for ever. But, Sir, we find that a Minister of the Crown in his place in Parliament, and in reply to an inquiry on this very point, informed the House of Commons that Sir George Grey not only possessed the requisite authority to make such regulations, but was actually instructed by Her Majesty's Government to do so. I have said, Sir, that I regret that Sir George Grey has usually thus awaited the course of events for his justification, as I believe in many instances it would have been wiser to have afforded to the public through some official or semi-official channel such explanationsas would haveprevented much misapprehension and dissatisfaction. But to return to the motion before us. I must oppose this motion, Ist because it appears to me to be wholly irregulnr, embracing as it does so many and so various important questions, which, if to be entertained at all, should have been brought forward as separate and distinct questions. 2nd. Because it professes to appoint a committee to enquire, but in reality first pledges the Council to the affirmative of the very important questions respecting which enquiry is sought, and 3rd. Because it calls upon the Council to take up questions upon which we possess no jurisdiction, to assume to itself functions which the constitution of the country assigns to the General Assembly. Had the hon. -nembei brought forward a resolution to the efTect that certain of the New Zealand ordinances are as he asserts, unjust, and contrary to the principles of English law, the Council might have seen fit to refer such an enquiry to a committee, with a view to seek for their repeal s or, they might have thought it more discreet to abstain from the sitting in judgment upon laws which were passed many years since, in accordance with instructions issued by Her Majesty's Government, then submitted to the inspection of the law officers of the Crown in England, and afterwards r.pproved by Her Majesty. Again, if the hon. member had moved for an enquiry into the case of the pre-emption claimants, the subject could be viewed clearly and distinctly on its own merits, and the Council could come to some intelligible decision thereon : but, blending as he has done, these questions with the extensive question of the old land claims, he has left to the Council no course to pursue but to reject the moti >n altogether. Now, sir, let us for a moment consider in what position the Government was placed at the commencement of the colonization of this country,—when it became known that the British Government was about to establish New Zealand as a British colony. It is very evident that New Zealand presented a promising field to the speculators of neighbouring colonies, and we know that great numbers hastened down here from Sydney to anticipate the government, by purchasing as much land as they possibly could from the natives. They entered into this matter as a mercantile speculation, the chance of great gain rendering them blind to the risk of loss. Many succeeded and obtained land, many were disappointed. But, sir, it is evident that all those who succeeded did so in no slight degree, to the wrong of those who were to come out from England as bona fide settlers of New Zealand. Ido not mean to say that they were wrong in so doing, but, 1 do mean to say that it was the obvious duty of Sir George Gipps and of the successive Governors of New Zealand, to defeat these speculations by every fair and legitimate means in their power—to defeat those who were thus forestalling the land market upon the bona fide settler then on his way from England. Sir, I cannot but admire the facility with which the learned and hon. member disposes of a large number of land claims. In an interjectional remark, thrown in while my colleague for the suburbs was speaking, the hon. member for the Bay of Islands disposed at one dash, of the whole of the land cla'ms of the Middle Island, comparing them to land claims in the moon, on the ground that that Island was acquired by Great Britain by right of discovery. Really, sir, after all that we have heard from the hon. member of the claims of justice, of the high principles that ought to govern the ruling power in its dealings with individuals, of the immutable maxims of equity, as applicable to aboriginal people, and to those who derive their titles to land from them, I am struck with astonishment to find that such magic resides in this simple word "discovery,'" that it can annihilate at once all the rights of the aboriginal natives of a country, and by consequence all rights derived from them. What! sir, does the hon. member mean that the mere planting of a flag, sent on shore from a man-of-war, extinguishes in a moment every equitable right possessed by the natives of a new country? And, if it does not, where lies the great difference, equitably considered, between the claims of Mr. Wentworth and other purchasers from the natives of the middle island, and the claims of my honourable friend and other purchasers from the* natives of the Northern Island. I, for my part, cannot see this great difference; and, if by any fair construction of constitutional law, the purchases effected in the middle island were, as I infer, from the reasoning of the hon. member rightfully declared null and void, I cannot see why the purchasers in the Northern Island should have been exempted from some reasonable restriction as to the extent of their acquisitions. This limit was fixed by Sir George Gipp's art at 2.160 acres for each individual claimant. The seconder of the motion has told us that he has a five-pound grievance to complain of, and my honourable friend the mover has candidly admitted that he also is an interested party. He has not informed us in what amount, but it is not difficult to compute from the data furnished by the Returns on the table, that were the Council to affirm the principle contained in this motion, the honourable member's claim for compensation, would not be far short of £15,000! and this the claim of one only of the many whose claims would at once start up in formidable array, if this Council once affirm the principle contained in the motion. If it be established that Sir George Gipp's proclamation was a wrong, and that the acts which followed upon that proclamation were contrary to the principle of British law, and should be expunged from the statute-book, and to this extent the honourable member's motion goes, then we cannot shut out the conclusion that all these claimants for millions of acres will have a clear right to be heard and to be compensated. Now Sir, I would ask and would entreat the Council seriously to consider the question whether our constituents ever intended that we should entertain such a questionas this. And whether it would not be much wiser to leave the question to the General Assembly in whose hands the Constitution places it, and from whom if properly brought before them it will no doubt receive such consideration as it merits, And speaking of the General Assembly Sir, I confess that I have been astonished at the remarks which have fallen from one or two members respecting the principles which are likely to guide that body on such a question. Sir, I believe ihat Gentlemen of the Southern Settlements who will occupy seats in that Assembly will be governed by as high and honourable principles as any member of this Council, and will enter into any enquiry which they may see necessary in as fair a spirir. Besides Sir, are we not represented in that. Assembly ? do we not send to it nearly as many Members as all the rest of New Zealand put together. Bat to return from this digression. To place in another point of view the bearings of the question before us. I would revert to the condition of this olony for some years from its commencement. At that time the Revenue of the colony from any other source than the sale of lands was absolutely nil. To establish law and order in the country was necessary, in order that that settlement might go on; and, because of the establishment of Civil Government, and the consequent security of life, and property, the

lands, which before were nearly valueless—acquired a value; the lands granted to the old claimants equally with those purchased from the Crown. But the funds from which the expenses of Civil Government, Emigration, and Public Works, were to be defrayed, arose for some time almost entirely from the lands sold, except the sum annually doled to the colony from the British Treasury. During the first five or six years of the colony, the land fund contributed to the expenses of the General Government nearly £40,000. How much of this was contribute Iby the early Land Claimants? Not one shilling. There is one feature about this petition which the hon, member has moved for, that is certainly of ari§encouragi(.g kind. It is that, if adopted, it is sure to produce the result prayed for. The hon. member has, a few weeks since, succeeded in getting the Council to adopt a petition which will, I think, lead to no result, but if he can persuade the Council to order a Committee to prepare the petition he now asks for, he may calculate with certainty on its prayer being readily granted. If the Council consent to petition Her Majesty and the British Parliament, that compensation may be awarded to all complaining land claimants in this Province, there cannot le' a doubt that the thing will be done—hut we know pretty well from what source the compensation will be derived. We know from what source the funds were to be extracted when the New Zealand Company persuaded the Government that they were entitled to compensation. And if we ask Her Majesty and Parliament to permit us to compensate, they will gratify us to the very top of our bent, by passing an Act, saddling our Revenue- with Land Claimants compensation for twenty or fifty years to come. But I would entreat the Council to pause and weigh well what they are doing— to consider whether it would be wise in them to act in so important a matter, which does not properly come within their jurisdiction at all, and which is so vastly wide of anything that was ever contemplated by their constituents in sending them here, or whether it would not be a more judicious course to devolve such a question upon that Assembly to whom it in reality belongs, by the Constitution of the country. Mr. Busby rose to explain that he sought by the motion compensation only for the pre-emption claimants. Mr. Conncll in reply, read the concluding lines of the motion, "and also, Ac," and remarked that the hon. member in his speech, said that he had made the terms of his motion sufficiently broad to include every grievance, and it was difficult to see how, with the views he (Mr. Busby) entertained of the case of the old land claimants, he could exclude them from the bentfit of the motion.

The Speaker then put the Amendment, which was carried. .Ayes. Noes. Mr. Connell Mr. Busby " Gilfillan *' Dilworth « Bain " Mitchell •' Lewis " Dignan '* Brennan " Derrom " Powditch " A. O'Neill " Hill " J. O'Neill " Williamson " Newman—B. " Donovan " Clarke " Porter " O'Brien —l2. Mr. Boylan declined to rote. Mesars. Macky and Taylor were absent.