LATE ENGLISH NEWS.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 15, 18 January 1845, Page 3

LATE ENGLISH NEWS.

Lord Stanley and the New Zealand Company. — The public arc greatly indebted to the New Zealand Company for being the first to drag Lord Stanley from his hidingplace, and expose a gross specific instance of that mismanagement of which all complain in general terms. In May last, the Directors of that body published a report to their shareholders, in which they stated that they had come to the conclusion that it was impossible for them to continue' their colonizing operations without great detriment, not only to the shareholders, but still more to all the colonists who might settle in New Zealand under their auspices. They ascribed this result to no deficiency in the resources of New Zealand, to no error in their own plan of operations, nor to any want of energy or $teadiness on the part of the settlers. In the plainest terms they imputed the whole mischief to the Colonial Office — to its narrow jealousy of the Company, exhibited mainly in its violation of specific contracts with that body, and systematic ill- offices to all the settlers on its land, and still more to a general policy, with respect both to natives and Europeans, that was founded on the most short-sighted and erroneous principles, The Company lost no time in provoking the most public investigation into the truth of these allegations. A member of their body, Mr. Aglionby, moved for a Committee to " inquire into the state of the Colony of New Zealand and into the proceedings of *the New Zealand Company," The Government acceded to this motion, and with their consent a Committee \yas named, of which two-thirds consisted of their own political supporters. Lord Howick was placed in the chair. Mr. Hope, the Under Secretary for the Colqnies, was the formal representative of his office in the Committee, and Mr. Cardwell was added, in order to supply his deficiencies. The proceedings were conducted with a more than usual resemblance to the trial of an it>sue between Wo parties. The Company put in a printed statement of its charges against the office, aud a vast mass of documents in sup-

port ot. its j>tategu'« -. T!v Colonial Office put in a printed answer. - Tlu rejjwrt oF tie Committee is its judgment on the^fiiatter thus litigated before it. And it is hardly possible to conceive a more thorough, clear, andMellreasoned condemnation both of the general policy of the Government, and of its treatment of individuals, than' is here given under the sanction of Lord Howick's acknowledged integrity and complete acquaintance with Colonial affairs, and of a decided majority of a Commitiee mainly composed of political partisans of the minister whom they condemned. The erroneous principle laid down by Lord Stanley with respect to the great question on which the prosperity of new colonies mainly depends — that of the disposal of land, has extended to the whole colony of New Zealand. But from the temper of the man, "we suspect that the adoption of that principle in dealing with New Zealand has arisen, not so much from any generally erroneous view with regard to the rights oi the Crown, or the sound mode of disposing of land ;n new countries, as from mere determination to take a view exactly contrary to that of the New Zealand Company, Antagonism is the great motive of Lord Stanley's actions. It can hardly be said that he has any more permanent or worthy object at any time than that of thwarting the person, with whom he then happens to have a quart el. .Hit's adversary, in fact, by taking one line, can always dictate to him the taking of that most opposed to it. It is impossible to doubt that from first entering into office he took offence at the New Zealand Company, either because it bored him with longer letters than he liked to read, or, more probably, because it did not appear before him quite so cap-in-hand as suited his lordship. From this moment, therefore, his line was clear. Whatever the Company asked he refused ; whatever principle it 1 lid down, he immediately laid down the opposite. Suggesting nothing, because, in fact, hs wanted nothing done, he exercised his ingenuity in picking holes in every-thing proposed to him — in devising pretexts for a quarrel, and in "dressing up a case" for Parliamentary discussion. In this spirit he seems to have determined, with utter disregard of its consequences to others, to "spite" the Company, by refusing to put it in possession of the lands which it claimed by virtue of an agreement with Lord John Russell. For the purpose of maintaining this position, he questioned the principle with regard to native rights to the soil, inconsistent with every principle either of law or of common sense, subversive of the rights of the Crown, and utterly incompatible with any colouizati. n of a new country by Europeans. And to this principle he has adhered, even when sueh 4 adherence compelled him to break the plighted faith of Government with individuals in this country, and when its effects were visible in the colony, in the check suddenly given to a thriving community, and in such disasters as the massacre at Wairau. Of the general principles laid down by Lord Stanley with respect to the land question, and of his consequent opposition to the claims of the Company, the committee have summarily and decisively disposed. They, in the first place, lay down the general rule — " That it is one of the fundamental principles of colonial law and policy, which they believe to have been correctly laid down by Sir George Gipps, 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 thfeinselves a settled form of government, and subjugate the ground to their own use by' the cultivation of it, they cannot grant to individuals not of their own tribe, any portion of it, for the simple reason that they luve not themselves any individual property in it." After describing the mode in which this principle should have been applied to the settlement of New Z.ealandi they, state the interpretation' which' should,'€onsistently therewith, *have been pi ice 1 on the treaty with thenatives, by rheansidf which " the most serious af the evils which have since arisen would 'have been avoided." " If the native rights to the ownership of \ land had only been admitted when arising from occupation, there would have beeo no difficulty in giving at once to the settlers secure and quiet possession of the lami" they i required, and they would thus have been "able to begin without delay and in earnest the Work of reclaiming and cultivating the unoccupied soil. The proceedings of the commissioner* appointed to inquire into the claims of land would also have been short and simple \ they j would have had. to inquire merely whether lands actually occupied byjiafives had been fairly sold to settlers by the occupants, and | with respect to wild lands, whether Europeans claiming to have purchased them had done •© at such a price, or had incurred such an expense in' respect to them, as to give to their supposed purchasers not a right to 'the lands (for they could not derive a title .from. parties-, who did not themselves possess one), but q.

claim on the consideration of the Crown to have granted to them, as an indulgence, more or less, according to circumstances, of the lands they had nominally purchased. With respect to the New Zealand Company, as the extent of land to which they are entitled had been already settled by a special agreement with the Government and the award of Mr. l'ennington, they would at once have been put in possession of all that very large proportion of the land on which they proposed eshiblish- • ing settlements which was previous 'y wild and unoccupied; and the question to be determined by the commissioners would have reduced itself to that of whether those inconsiderable portions of lands ' actually occupied and enjoyed ' by natives had been fairly sold I>y the occupants — a question the decision of which, one way or the other, would have been comparatively unimportant. " To have proceeded in this manner, and to lave assumed at once all unoccupied land to belong to the Crown as a right inherent in the sovereignty, would have been attended with no sort of injustice to the "natives, and vould have been conducive to their real interests. The unoccupied land, previously to European settlement, was of no value to them ; they were neither a pastoral people, nor one living, like the North American Indians, by the chase, and therefore requiring a great extent of country for their support ; they derived their chief subsistence from the produce of the soil, and agriculture, rude as it was ; and according to the witnesses who have been examined by your Committee, hardly a thousandth part of the available land was thus made use of by them." In a subsequent passage, the claim advanced by the New Zealand Company is still more specifically confirmed by the Committee, who further state that " they cannot doubt this conclusion to be completely in accordance with what were the views of the then Secre- i tary of State." In this they are completely , borne out by a letter of that Secretary of j State, Lord John Russell, which is given in tie Report of the Directors. I It follows that the New Zealand Company's , rightful claims have been arbitrarily set aside by Lord Stanley, and that, in the opinion of i the Committee, he has been guilty of injustice to that body. If the mischief ended with the temporal denial of its r ights to the Company, it would still be no light charge against a Minister that he has thus sported with the rights and fortunes of individuals, whom no one can deny to have been engaged in an undertaking of great public utility. But, tho' the Directors, in their report, speak with great doubt as to the chance of Lord Stanley's submitting to the decision of the Committee, we cannot believe that he will long be able to set it at defiance. He must defer to the decision of the arbitrator to whom he has formally and publicly submitted his case. And if he were to be so ill-advised as avowedly to refuse, or (what appears more likely,) in effect, to evade a compliance with its recommendations, we do not believe that our countrymen would tolerate, even in a Secretary of State for the Colonies, a clearly dishonest repudiation of the engagements of the Crown. Buc Lord Stanleys denial of justice to the New Zealand Company has already produced mischiefs far more seriously affecting other parties. Some of these it will be very difficult for the tardy justice and enforced wisdom of Government to repair. It will be difficult to compensate to the public of this country for the mischief done it, by castiDg a gloom of doubt and terror over the prospects of the settlers in New Zealand, and by thus checking the colonization of that most desirable field for our unemployed labour and capital. Jt will be yet more difficult to repair to the poor settler in New Zealand the loss of capital and the extinction of hope, occasioned by the long delays that have been interposed by the Government between him and the land which was his right. It will be most difficult to re-invest the Colony wjth that general belief in its security and progress which the good conduct of its founders created, and without which its progress will be impossible. And most of all will it be difficult to cure the native tribes of that avidity for a high price for land which the erroneous measures of Government have instilled into them, to disabuse them, of the notion that by menace and violence they may extort any terms that they choose, and to re-establish those happy relations between them and their white neighbours which the Government alone has disturbed. But there are mischiefs which Lord Stanley has done, and cannot undo. Had he, when first apprised in December, 1842, of the difficulties raised in New Zealand, given the Company that title to its lands which the Committee now decide that in strict justice it tfas his duty promptly to have given ; had be, as good sense and humanity required, s?en in the absence of strict right, put an immediate end to so dangerous a litigation ; had lie directed his local subordinates to enforce

submission to the law, instead of encouraging the ignorant to uphold their fancied rights by* the strong hand — there would have been no dispute between native and European, there would have been no resort to arms, and the ■ energies of those who fell under the toraa- , hawk would still have been preserved to their associates and friends. This is the sad result of Lord Stanley's mistake, obstinacy, and controversial ingenuity. His wrongful quarrel with the New Zealand Company has been voided in the Massacre at Wainu. Perhaps, to his volatile mind, these sad responsibilities may never occur. But events such as these should impress on the country the necessity for entrusting great duties to men capable of appreciating with fitting earnestness the solemn responsibilities which they inspire. Lord Stanley is the best hand in the world at a party speech, when such things are wanted. But his possession of this qualification is no reason for entrusting him with the fortunes of our colonies, of which he has no time to understand the many wants, " while his best energies are devoted to breeding horses for Liverpool and Goodwood races ! " — Morning Chronicle.

The "Morning Herald" on the Parliamentary Report on New Zealand. — The report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the state of the Colony of New Zealand and on the proceedings of the New Zealand Company, which appeared in the Herald of the Ist instant, is well calculated to promote the welfare of that distant dependency, and also to facilitate the future colonization of other uncivilized portions of the British empire. Only let the Colonial Office infuse the spirit in which the Report is drawn up, and enforce the recommendations it contains on the Local Government, and let the New Zealand Company do the same, and harmony, good-will, and co-operation will be substituted for the discord, bitterness, rancour, and suspicion which have hitherto retarded the success of New Zealand colonization, and well nigh ruined "an heroic work." The original " illegality " of the Company, in sending out settlers against the authority of the Crown, has been England's gain. "It saved New Zealand from French occupancy, and annexed it the British empire. Let the country then treat the Company in a manner worthy of the great result it brought about, and not as if the settlers were trespassers on a gentleman's park or a nobiem^n's demesne at home." There is land enough and to spare in New Zealand to preserve and to rirUirj, if we can and will, the aboriginal tribes, and to form flourishing British Settlements besides ; why, then, create imaginary difficulties, instead of conquering what are real — why, by a fiction of law, confer on the natives a property in land they do not occupy, and a title to what they can have no interest in? It is not by treating them as the owners of all the wild lands in the colony that we can humanize them ; it is rather by inducing them to intersperse their settlements with our own, to limit the circle of their possessions, and to give by industry and enferprize a value to the land they are located upon. The old principle of Colonial Law, so well laid down by Sir George Gipps, that " uncivilized inhabitants of any country have but a qualfied dominion over it, or a right of occupancy only," has a far more active agency in aboriginal civilization, than that new-fangled rule adopted by the New Zealand authorities, that the ownership of unoccupied land is in the natives ; for one great cause of aboriginal barbarism is in the extent of country at the disposal of the. natives and their dispersion over it. " All the difficulties which have been experienced in the Colonization of New Zealand are," says the Report, "to be mainly attributed to the erroneous view of this question taken by those to whose hands the powers of government have in these islands been committed." Their view has, however, derived from the characteristically "shabby" mode in which the Whigs obtained the sovereignty of New Zealand from the chiefs, and from the defective instructions they gave to the first Governor of the Colony, Captain Hobson. It is very true that the Company's first expedition to New Zealand was illegal ; but it is equally true that a wise and thoughtful Government would have assumed dominion over New Zealand years before that expedition sailed; for this reason — that an irregular and injurious colonization had long been carried on there by British subjects — such as runaway convicts and sailors, and in 1832 the question had practically been reduced to this — shall New Zealand be a nuisance or a British Colony ? Instead of treating it as the latter,, ' the Whigs formally disclaimed sovereignty over it, and recognized its independence ; but no sooner had tha Company resolved on set- ; tling part of it, than out they sent Captain Hobson to undo what they themselves had previously dose. Captain Hobson certainly did induce the native chiefs of the northern i island to cede their independence ; but in a s manner and after a fashion which. " though

a natural consequence of previous errors of policy," laid the foundation for still greater evils. The defective instructions that officer had been furnished with, naturally enough, begot an imperfect and ambiguous treaty of cession ; the Whig Colonial Minister had not informed the gallant officer that by operation of law all unoccupied land vested in the Crown as a consequence of the cession ; and he, ignorant of law, assumed that all such land must be purchased of the natives, and introduced terms to that effect into the treaty. This treaty the Whigs first approved of, and then, by the Royal Charter by which they declared Mew Zealand a British Colony, laid down the principle it had violated — that occupancy and enjoyment alone established a right of property in the natives. The instructions sent out with the treaty did not clear up or remove this inconsistency ; and the Local Government which, by this time, had quarrelled with the Company's officers, and, in consequence, affected great regard for aboriginal rights, in the absence of all precise instructions, commenced the investigation into the land claims on the narrow assumption of Captain Hobson and his treaty, and not on the broad and comprehensible principle of English law and of the Royal Charter. " This investigation has clearly been conducted in an illiberal and pettifogging spirit ; and its glaring injustice and manifest prejudice to the Company's settlers, and its bad effects on native passions, are properly stated by the the Committee." The consequence of the assumption on which that investigation has proceeded is, that Government cannot put the New Zealand Company in possession of the number of acres awarded to it by the Government Referee, and the only excuse Lord John Russell has to offer for this state of things — the inevitable result of the slovenly way in which he instructed the Local Government of New Zealand, — is, that he believed, in 1840, that " the extent of land which it would be in the power of the Crown to grant, to be far greater than would be enough to satisfy its engagements.". Lord Stanley, of course, inherited the difficulties thus created ; the New Zealand Company have been nearly ruined by them ; the progress of the colony has been checked ; disturbances with the natives have been produced, and every one connected with New Zealand has been distressed, woriied, and annoyed. The difficulties at last became so great that a reference to Parliament was indispensable. The Committee referred to was appointed, , and its principle recommendation is, that what the Whigs ought to have done at first i be now done — " That means ought to be forthwith adopted i for establishing the exclusive title of the Crown to all land not actually occupied and ' enjoyed by natives or held under grants of the Cn wu ; such land to be considered as vested in the Crown for the purpose of being em- i ployed in the manner most conducive to the welfare of the inhabitants, whether uatives or Europeans." — Morning Herald.

Rauparaha. — This is the beast of prey that was received into the pale of British society when he submitted to the sovereignty of the British Crown. His cupidity was strong and relentless — no gentle or generous sentiment had been developed in him — he would shed blood for the pleasure of shedding it — no promise was binding on him. He was utterly lawless, and he was as dangerous to the natives as the settlers. There was no way of checking him but by terror, and even that might only drive him, unless he was carefully watched, to concert methods of gratifying his evil passions. He was wily, hardened in blood and averice — a common enemy of mankind. The course pursued with this savage by the agents of Government has been exactly that which they ought to have adopted had they wished to stimulate and encourage him to outrage. The Missionary Aborigines Protectors instilled into him exaggerated notions of the value of the lands he had sold, and recklessly persuaded him — already -regardless of promises — that the bargain was not binding. The police magistrates treated him with servile deference, and allowed him to escape with impunity of- what outrages he might be convicted. The two classes of functionaries couspired, by appeals to his avarice, to goad him on to deeds of violence, and by persuading him no one dared to punish him, to encourage him to persevere in them. His career has been what might hare been anticipated. The inroads of natives foreigners to the Hutt valley — and their attacks upon its settlers were instigated by Rauparaha. Encouraged by the impunity of these attacks, he proceeded in person to the Wairau. And persuaded, by his escape after dipping his hands in the blood of so many Englishmen, that he has nothing to fear, he is now exciting the natives in the vicinity to follow his example. The duty of a Government is to guard society against such a savage ; but the Go-

vernment in New Zealand appears to think its duty is to protect the savage against society. The life of Rauparaha is forfeited by the rude laws of his own rude tribe, as well as by those of England. His own countrymen would acknowledge the right of the kinsmen of those who fell at tne Wairau to take his life. His own countrymen would feel the removal of such a scourge a relief. He is one upon whom there is no moral hold ; against him, as against a mad dog, there is but one security — his death. It is only in a highly civilized state of society that deathpunishment can be dispensed with — if even there. " Blood must have blood " is the only maxim whose enforcement can deter the savage from murder. There will be no security for natives or settlers in New Zealand until Rauparaha, and Rangihaeata (who has been bred to be his successor, as he was Te Pahi's), expiate the massacre of the Wairau by their deaths. — Colonial Gazette.