LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 626, 2 August 1851, Page 3

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.

Saturday, July* 26. , (Continued from our last number.) ADDRESS to the crown. The Colonial Secretary of New Munster read to the Council an address to her Majesty, praying for the adoption of a uniform system in the administration of the waste lands of the Crown. The address, which was of considerable length, after adverting to the terms in which the Australian Waste Lands Act of 1842 was characterised by Lord Stanley, as giving a guarantee for stability and consistency of purpose in the administration of the Crown lands in the Australian colonies, proceeded to shew that the recurrence the evils pointed out by Lord Stanley has spot been precluded, but that evils of even a graver character have been produced, by the Relegation of such extensive powers to distant ind irresponsible Companies and Associations; |nd forcibly alluded to the extensive fluctuations in the value of land, and to the most lavish expenditure of the land funds which had taken place, and to the imposition of heavy liabilities ©n the resources of the colony incurred in Rany instances without the consent, or even the knowledge of the colonial Government or the eolonial public. After further illustrations of lue evils arising from the present system, the jddress proceeded to show that the Company bad received from Government 270,073 acres ■hich had been sold by them, and about |OO,OOO acres to be given in compensation to its purchasers, that the Company had received I’ sum of £236,000 as a boon, 'and a further ayment to them was imposed on the colonial ind fund of £268,000. If half the proceeds f the land (calculated at the upset price of £1 er acre) and the sums expended on the Comany had been applied to the purposes of cojnization, 65,241 emigrants (one third adults *d two thirds children) would have been infoduced into the colony ; the cost of their >ssage being estimated at that paid by the Commissioners, while the number rally introduced by the New Zealand Comgany amounted to 11,680 souls. The adE‘ eS3 > of which the above is an imperfect outP ne , having been read I Mr. Cautley seconded its adoption by the feouncil. J

I The Attorney General of New Zealand f 1 ’ 1 mtend, Sir, to support the motion [ X )e f° re the Council, on special grounds, tnnn h llOl be sa tisfied to give a silent vote L ntk le sub i e . ct * the motion had raised er questioa than the maintenance of -‘' System of disposing of the waste lands ani e qi° Wn l P rescr ‘bed by the Australian 1 sh( ? uld h ave taken no lot h . dls cussion, and should probably j nave given a vote in its favor, becaus'e L o ?° far satisfied the excellence of kcernpd em ’ S °, far a 8 New Zealand is lepsforl’ aS - tO induced to take any lotion an eCUnng ltS cont inuance. But the ke tw o P nT S tO me ’ Sir ’ incidentally to Strtan q - ue^ of far greater irnj most decided wh !°h 1 have long formed Voided opinion I allude to the

ever changing terms and condiiions on which the demesne lands of the Crown in New Zealand have been disposed of both to public companies and to private persons,—and to the formation of settlements, in this country, by irresponsible absentee associations. He would be a boW man I think, Sir, who would undertake to determine what is in general the best mode of disposing of the waste lands of the Crown, or what is the mode of colonization best adapted to the condition and circumstances of New Zealand in particular. But with reference to the system which has excited the greatest attention, and which has found most favor with the modern school of colonial politicians, I allude to the system which seeks to secure and to maintain the combination of land, capital, and labour in a certain fixed ratio, whateveF may be its merits in principle, or as an abstract theory; granting it to be entitled to all the merit which can be claimed for it by its author, I would maintain that it never has been, and never can be, fairly, and that it never ought to have been, tried at all m the colony of New Zealand. To try that experiment fairly, Sir, it is essential, amongst other things, that the projectors should possess the absolute power of regulating the use and the disposal of the whole of the territory, and an equally absolute power of regulating the supply of labour. Now when it .is remembered that, at the time it was proposed to apply that system to the colonisation of New Zealand, 99'100 of the soil of the country was under the absolute control of its aboriginal owners ; and that there already existed in the country a native race capable of contributing largely to the supply of the labour market; it would have been scarcely less ridiculous—scarcely less fatal to the success of the undertaking—and scarcely less fair to the author of the system in question if the experiment had been tried upon Salisbury Plain. But, although not prepared to say what is the best system of disposing of the waste lands of the Crown, or even that any fixed and unalterable system should be applied to this colony, I am prepared to maintain that it is both unjust to the actual bond fide settler, and injurious to his interests first, to put forward a system, as a fixec and permanent system, on the faith of wmc.. the settler is encouraged to rely; and then, to depart from it, in order that some distant body of irresponsible projectors may have the opportunity of making New Zealand the field of some crude and impracticable undertaking. The conclusion, then, at which I arrive is, either that no fixed sys-' tern of disposing of land in this country should be prescribed; or, that if any such system be adopted, then, that it be faithfully adhered to. Seeing that the system prescribed by the Australian Land Sales Act was brought into operation with all the weight which authority could give to it, that it purported to be a system which was to continue permanently in operation, that on the faith of that system the public have acted extensively in the purchase of Crown lands, and believing that it contains no objectionable principle, I think that it ought not to be lightly departed from, and on that account alone I support the motion now before the Council. But that motion, Sir, raises another question. Is it expedient that colonisation should be conducted by

irresponsible absentee companies or associations ? With reference to that question it appears to me, so far as the experiment has been tried in New Zealand, that colonisation by an irresponsible body of private individuals has tended neither to uphold the character of the nation, nor the rights of the aboriginal owners of the soil, nor to promote the interests of the settlers, nor the welfare of the colony at large. As that once all-pow-erful body—the New Zealand Company—has ceased to exist, and as their Principal Agent is no longer present in the colony, I should, under ordinary circumstances in common with the mover of the address, have felt some delicacy in commenting on their proceedings; but when, on looking around, I find that the hon. member on the fight was for many years in their service and employment; that my learned friend on the left is nearly related to him who was believed to be the very author of the New Zealand Company’s existence, —of him in whom for many years that Company was believed to live and move and have its being when in front o f I scc one of . he fi " gt and principal of the Company’s officers, and when I observe amongst the Council other hon. members more or less connected with its leading members, I feel that I shall not be allowed to make any mis-statement to their prejudice without being corrected and set right, and much of that delicacy, which otherwise I should have felt, is relieved. But at all times, and under all circumstances, I should be desirous of doing justice to the managing members of that body. I believe that they may be divided into two classes, —those who, without any personal

object or interest, were desirous of trying an experiment in colonisation in the Islands • ?^ ew Zea Hnd, with due regard to the rights and interests of its native inhabitants, and those who took a part in the undertaking, actuated more or less by personal or interested motives. But I have said that their proceedings have tended neither to maintain the honor of the Crown nor the rights of the native race. Now it will be within the knowledge of those who were acquainted, with the early history of New Zealand, that when the colonisation of this country was undertaken by the British Government, that a minister of the Crown, in a formal State paper, authoritatively made public, distinctly declared that its native inhabitants were a people, “ Whose title to the soil and to the sovereignty of New Zealand was indisputable, and had been solemnly recognized by the British Crown that in the same document he declared that, “We acknowledge New Zealand as a Sovereign and Independent State,” and that the admission of the rights of the natives was “binding on the faith of the British Crownthat “ the Queen, in common with her Majesty’s immediate predecessor, disclaimed for herself, and for her subjects, every pietension to seize on the Islands of New Zealand, or to govern them as a part of the dominion of Great Britain, unless the free and intelligent consent of the natives should be first obtained.” The Council may also be aware that the British Government, deeming it desirable that‘the sovereignty of New Zealand should be possessed by the Crown of England, commissioned Captain Hobson to proceed to New Zealand, and instructed him “that the chiefs should be induced, if possible, to contract with him as representing her Majesty,” for its cession to Great Britain : that Captain Hobson was informed by her Majesty’s Minister, that in selecting him for that duty “he had been guided by a firm reliance on his uprightness and plain dealing that, thus commissioned, Capt. Hobson had concluded with the native chiefs of this country a treaty since known by the name of the Treaty of Waitangi: that that treaty had been acted upon bv the Government of the day : and that a succeeding colonial minister (Lord J. Russell) had formally acknowledged that, “on that deliberate act and cession of the chiefs ” rested the title of Great Britain to the sovereignty of New Zealand. Now lam quite willing to admit that when the New Zealand Company first put forward their scheme for planting settlements in New Zealand they professed the most scrupulous regard for the rights of the natives, and an anxious desire to promote their interests, and to further their advancement in the social scale. Their professions in this respect were entirely in accordance with the improved and enlightened spirit of the a°-e ; and far be it from me either to impugn their motives, or to question their sincerity. But, the true value of good intentions is best tested by temptation. In a few years the New Zealand Company s colonising operations were beset with difficulties, and there appeared to be but one mode of successfully surmounting them ; —and that was by the violation of the treaty of Waitangi. That was the touchstone of their practical integrity. And how did they pass the ordeal ? Tenderness for native rights, and anxiety for native advancement may still have been felt, but were not then expressed—

Fiat Justitia ruat Coelum was not their cry; for thus we find them addressing a British Minister:—“We have always had very serious doubts whether the treaty of Waitangi, made with naked savages, by a Consul invested with no Plenipotentiary powers, without ratification by the Crown, could be treated by lawyers as anything but a praiseworthy device for amusing and pacifying savages for the moment.” On the tone, the taste, and the principle displayed in this expression of opinion I will make no comment. I will not even insinuate that, in so far forgetting what was due to themselves as abodyof English gentlemen, the Directors of the New Zealand Company were then but throwing off the mask. It is sufficient for my argument to maintain that their benevolent intentions, as regarded the natives of this country, were not so firmly grounded on principle as to stand the test of misfol tune and adversity. Seeing, however, Sir, that such a sentiment could be publicly put forward by, or in the name of, a bodv of English gentlemen, can it be doubted that if the aboriginal race of this country had, been less powerful, and less able to hold* their own —if the Colonial Minister had been a less high-minded and a less high-spirited gentleman, and less independent of political support —that the honor of the Crown would have been in danger of being tarnished; that the character of Great Britain for integrity and good faith would have been in djanger of being impaired, and that the rights,

the interests, and the property of the native race would have been trampled under foot ? thus realising, to the very letter, the forebodings of the Colonial Minister (Lord J. Russell) “ that it is only in proportion as either respect for the strength of the aborigines, or a clear sense of the utility of their services and co-operation shall possess the public mind, that they will be placed beyond the reach of those oppressions- of which other races of uncivilised men have been the victims.” But the honor of the Crown and of the country, so far as the Queen’s Minister was concerned, was in honorable keeping, and a reply was returned to the suggestions of the New Zealand Company which deserves to be imperisbably recorded in the annals of this country’s history a reply which I have never been able to read without a feeling of proud and pleasureable emotion a reply stamped with the impress of him who made it, and which cannot be more fitly characterised than as being worthy of a Minister of the British Crown. “ Lord Stanley is not prepared, as her Majesty’s Secretary of State, to join with the Company in setting aside the treaty of Waitangi, after obtaining the advantages guaranteed by it, even ‘ though it might be made by naked savages,’ or ‘ though it might be treated by lawyers as a praiseworthy device for amusing and pacifying savages for the moment.’ Lord Stanley entertains a different view of the respect due to the obligations contracted by the Crown of England, and his final answer to the demands of the 1 Company must be, that so long as he has the honor of serving the Crown, he will not admit that any person, or any Government, acting in the name of her Majesty, can con- ■ tract a legal, moral, or honorary obligation I to despoil others of their lawful or equitable rights.” Having noticed the tendency of the New Zealand Company’s colonising operations as to the rights of the native race, I will now call the attention of the Council to the proceedings of that Company, as they affected the interests of the settlers sent out by them. It is a fact within the knowledge ! of all present that the New Zealand ComI pany received from their settlers the puri chase money of land purported to be sold to j them before the Company had themselves ! acquired a title to it—that they sent out to i this country many hundred people, not only ■ before the land had been surveyed for their I use, not only before the purchase of the land ; from the natives had been completed by the I Company—but before it was known i where, throughout the length and breadth | of these Islands, they would be allowed to ■ find a footing ; a proceeding on the part of I that Company which I maintain, Sir, no • responsible Government would have dared to have undertaken. And so far as the interests of the settlers themselves were concerned with what result ? On that point I will make no statement of my own opinion, neither will I rely on the hasty expressions I of a few disappointed individuals, but I will quote an authority which, on this point at least, will not be called in question. I will cite the deliberate written statement made by the Directors of the Company in their annual report. At the end, then/of seven years from the commencement of the undertaking weer their settlers happy, contented and prosperous ? Speaking of the colonists who from time to time returned from New Zealand, was it to spend or enjoy a reaiir.eu iOi ctiiie r was it for the purpose of expressing their gratitude to the Company for having planted them in prosperous circumstances ? What said the Directors themselves? “These returned colonists,” say they, “ come straight to us, and afflict us with their complaints of disappointment and ruin.” “ We tell you,” they add, “ that it is our deliberate conviction that, unless a great change takes place immediately, your settlements will not be worth preserving. We come here to fritter away borrowed money—to consider claims which we have no means of satisfying—to hear the most distressing complaints, without being able to assist the sufferers.” And what said the colonists themselves ? Again, I will not quote the hasty opinions of a few disappointed individuals, but the deliberate written statements of nearly the whole body of resident landowners in the settlements of Wellington and of Wanganui—the statement of fifty-five out of, I believe, sixtyriiree claiming compensation from the New Zealand Company. They say they apply, “ not, as supplicants for their bounty, not, as men suing for favor at their hands—but as parties deeply and grievously injured—as men protesting against great wrongs inflicted by them, and, as. such, demandimr redress. And to what causes are the dis~ asters which have befallen us attributable ? You cannot and dare not deny,” they affirm, addressing the New Zealand Company, “ that the immediate aniTproximate cause of our ruin has been the non-fulfilment, by you, of the contract formed with us seven years ago.” Thus appealed to, Sir, by the

men whose money they had received seven years before, how did the Company treat their land purchasers thus struggling at the antipodes with disappointment, disaster and ruin ? In answer to the cry of their settlers for bread, they gave them—not a stone, for 'that would have been charity, though cold charity—but, almost literally, a serpent, for they gave them that which must have stung them to the quick. They handed them over to the tender mercies of a Commissioner paid, if not appointed, by themselves, who deliberately reported that the manner in which the case of the fifty-five memorialists was “ prepared and worked up, unequivocally betrayed, in several instances, the clearest signs of general bad faith” And this, of the hulk and very flower of that body whichhad once been paraded, and justly,to the world by the New Zealand Company, as the finest body of colonists that ever left the parent state. With reference to the class of labouring emigrants sent out by them it would be unjust to the New Zealand Company not to acknowledge that, as a body, the emigrants had done well, and bettered their condition by coming to New Zealand. But in their case, also, as well as in that of the land purchasers, it would not be difficult to point to instances of promises unfulfilled, or sought to be evaded. The Taranaki case, Sir, on any other evidence than the admission of the parties themselves, would be incredible; but that case rests on the written statement of the Company’s Taranaki Agent, and was published by the Company themselves in the Appendix to their twelfth report. “"You are aware,” writes the Taranaki Agent, “thatthe emigrants in this settlement held, what they call ‘ embarkation orders,” being a sort of handbill in which it is distinctly stated that the Company’s Agent will, “ at all times” give them employment in the service of the Company, if from any cause they should be unable to obtain it elsewhere. “ Being unable to give any other interpretation of this promise than the words quoted seemed to imply, and yet bearing in mind the Court of Directors view their engagement in a different light,” now, Sir, what did the Agent? “I endeavoured to evade it, by sending the applicants for employment a long distance from heme, making no allowance for time spent in the journey, or for time lost in bad weather. The necessities of the men and their families were such as compelled them to submit, for several weeks, to these conditions; but many came home sick and claimed the promised medical aid ; and others commenced the trade of pig and sheep stealing, not having yet had time to raise potatoes for themselves.” On such a case, comment is superfluous. With such proofs, Sir, of the efficiency of the New Zealand Company as a colonising body, in the management of their own private estate in New Zealand, Parliament was induced in 1847 to vest the whole of the demesne land of the Crown in the Province of New Munster in that Company, with a view “ to restore the prosperity of the existing settlements” and ‘ to promote efficient colonisation,’ and for the like objects was induced to grant to them, in addition to a previous loan of £IOO,OOO, a further loan of £136,000. How far they had succeeded in those objects may be seen from the Address which has just been read. Out of the sum of £236.000 less than £30,000 had been spent in emigration, and so far as regarded their ‘first and principal settlement,’ they had done so much to restore its prosperity as, during a period of nearly three years, to succeed in disposing of 2§ acres of land in that settlement; and as to their settlements generally, notwithstanding the ample means at their disposal, they ended their career without having given a single legal title to a single individual of a single piece of land, leaving the whole of their contracts and engagements in respect of the sale and disposal of land during a period of twelve years unfulfilled and uncompleted—leaving not only the Province of New Munster, but the whole colony of New Zealand, saddled with a debt of £260,000 —leaving no representative in the colony to assist in the winding up of their affairs, and leaving the whole Province in such a state of confusion as to claims and titles to land, that it had become essential to the continued progress of the Province that measures should be taken by the Colonial Legislature to ascertain what were the contracts and engagements which had been entered into by the New Zealand Company, during the last twelve years, for the sale and disposal of even their own private estate, and to provide for the fulfilment and completion of those contracts by the colonial Government at a cost and in a manner which, for years to come, cannot fail injuriously to affect the progress and prosperity of the Province. It may perhaps be said by some advocate of the New Zealand Company, pointing to the settlement of Wellington — “Si monumentum queeris, circumspice” True it is, Sir, that settlement is now in a

prosperous condition: but to whom is it indebted for that prosperity ? The local Government of New Zealand, from the foundation of the colony, have incurred no slight measure of abuse ; and I do not mean to contend that no portion of that abuse has been deserved, but I do contend, Sir, and I challenge contradiction, that but for the timely assistance of the Government in completing the purchase of land from the natives, but for the expenditure in the settlement of large sums applied by the liberality of the British Parliament, but for the opening out of the distant pastoral and grazing districts by the construction of roads, and, more than all, but for the energy, the enterprise, the capital and the indomitable perseverance of the settlers themselves, the settlement of Wellington would, at this moment have been rapidly sinking into an insignificant village. With such an example, it might be supposed sufficiently illustrative of irresponsible colonisation, another colonising body was formed in England, who put forward what may be termed a magnificent vision of colonisation. I think I need hardly say, Sir, that I allude to the Canterbury Association. As that Association is still in the vigour of its existence—as it is composed of numerous influential parties both in Church and State, as it is, so to speak, graced by the names of Archbishops, Bishops and dignitaries of the Church, as it appears to enjoy at home the confidence of the Government and of Parliament, and as it is represented in the colony by a gentleman of distinguished character and abilities —it would be an affectation of delicacy to refrain from expressing a candid opinion of the undertaking and of the proceedings of its projectors. But in speaking of the Canterbury scheme, I would draw a marked distinction between its projectors in England and those who have actually embarked themselves and their fortunes in endeavouring to carry it into execution in the colony. The latter, I think, ought to be received with the most kindly and cordial welcome, and ought to have extended to them, with a liberal hand, every assistance and encouragement that can be afforded them ; not so much because I believe they deserve the character they have acquired of being the finest body of colonists who have yet arrived in this country, but because, in common with ourselves, they have become actual colonists of New Zealand. Of the result of the undertaking itself it may perhaps appear premature to hazard an opinion ; but, freely admitting that the Association will have been the means of planting in New Zealand what will ultimately prove a valuable and prosperous settlement, I must nevertheless declare that I no sooner saw the original prospectus of the undertaking than I was satisfied that it contained the elements of certain self-des-truction—that as a great scheme of colonization in its entirety it never would be, and never could be, carried into full effect—that the Association itself, like the New Zealand Company, would cease to exist before their undertaking was half completed, and that, like the New Zealand Company, they would leave the colony, the Province, or the settlement saddled with a debt. Such, it is true, is but an opinion, but it is an opinion which has been shared in by all in whose hearing it has been expressed. Seeing too, that, after all the unprecedented efforts which have been made by the members of the Association, clerical and lay, to dispose of land in the C2.Dte r b nrv coH-lomonf oA-n». fkic lapse of time, not more than twenty thousand acres have yet been disposed of—seeing, too, that the Association have already applied to Parliament not only for power to make an alteration in the terms of their scheme, but also to raise money by the issue of debentures, I think I have a right to contend that the opinion I have ventured to express has been so far verified by experience. But apart, Sir, from the probable failure of the undertaking as a complete scheme of colonisation, it is impossible to observe the proceedings of its projectors without seeing that they tend not only to establish in this colony an Imperium in Imperia, but to strike at the root of all local Government whatever. On a former occasion I moved for the production of a correspondence which had taken place between the Canterbury Association and her Majesty’s Government on the appointment of Resident Magistrates, Justices of the Peace and other officers. And now that the Council have had an opportunity of perusing that correspondence, I will appeal to them to say whether I have either misstated or misapprehended the tendency of their proceedings. One portion of that correspondence is particularly deserving their attention. Aftei referring to the appointment of a Resident Magistrate— after requesting that that appointment might be reserved for a gentleman who had not then left England—that pending his arrival in the colony their owr agent (Mr, Godley) might be appointed his locum tenens, the Association, addressing the "" —.. _

colonial minister, proceed to say that “ they do not hesitate to add a further wish on their part, as regards all other local appointments, that his (Mr. Godley’s) * judgment and recommendation ’ may be accepted by the local authorities as the ‘ruleof selection,’ so far as possible, < and to the utmost extent to which such a rule can be properly applied. I refer particularly,” adds the Secretary of the Association, “to the appointment of unpaid Magistrates, and to those other subordinate offices to which I have already adverted ; indeed it would be extremely satisfactory to the Association if the rule could be extended to every part of the establishments in the colony." Hon. members may perhaps think, Sir, and very naturally so,’that I have been quoting from the pages of a certain well-known wittv and facetious publication; but I can assure them that instead of being a piece of imaginary facetiousness, it is a piece of very facetious reality. And if the Agent of the Association possess, as I doubt not he does, the qualities and character which public fame and private friends alike ascribe to him, I believe that that gentleman will be the first to regret that the Association should have adopted a proceeding which not only tends to erect the Canterbury Settlement into an “ Imperium in Imperia,” but which appears to throw a doubt on the sincerity of the Association in advocating the extension to New Zealand of the principle of local self-govern-ment. When a new settlement is to be founded in a country already settled, the best method of providing for its government would seem to be for the local Government, on its own official responsibility, from amongst those already in the colony and who are acquainted with its institutions, to select such persons as may best qualified to aid in the founding of a new settlement and in administering its laws. But it would seem that the Canterbury Association are not content with securing a portion of this country on which to try a new and peculiar scheme of colonisation, but they must also endeavour to erect that other-

wise exceptional settlement into an “ Imperium in Imperia," to be governed by a body of private individuals resident in England. For we find an irresponsible Association in England movmg her Majesty’s minister to move her Majesty’s responsible representative in the colony to abdicate his official functions, to set aside his own judgment, and to act at the instance of their own Agent in theanpointment of the officers necessary for carrying on the Queen’s Government. In other words we find a self-elected body of private individuals, having no responsibility—official or pecuniary—in no degree amenable to public opinion in the colony, seeking to induce a minister of the Crown to move the Queen’s representative and responsible Governor of the colony, who had long been resident in, and who was well acquainted with the circumstances and condition of the country, to accept, as the rule for his guidance, the “judgment and recommendation ’’ of a gentleman but recently arrived in the colony, and who, however high may be bis public character and private worth, yet as the agent of a private Association, is an officer unknown to the constitution of the colony ; who has no official responsibility, who has no fixed interest in the colony, and for whose continued residence in it there is not the slightest guarantee. Such are the attempts of the Association to interfere with the Government of the State. Whether they have made the like attempts to interfere in the government of the Church I am not prepared to state. Whether they have moved the Archbishop of Canterbury to move the Bishop of New Zealand to abdicate his Episcopal functions, and to put his conscience into com.uiooiOi, , Ti.icmc,— ..avmg ceremony—they have taken the readier course, and themselves created their own bishops, priests, deans, chapters, and archdeacons, perhaps some other bon. member may be able to inform the Council; but if they have taken the former course, I may venture to affirm they have found that they have attempted to move what will prove to be very immovable materials. Not longer then, to trespass on the patience of the Council, but entertaining great respect for many of the leading members of the late New Zealand Company, entertaining the like respect for some of the active members of the Canterbury Association, allowing to the New Zealand Company all the credit which mnv »„ r„_ - . - — uuv ».v jui having founded three settlements in this country at no inconsiderable cost of energy, enterprise, capital, and suffering, on the part of the colonists ; admitting also that the Canterbury Association will be the means of fouuding what will ultimately jjtovs a v»luable, and important settlement, I would nevertheless contend, Sir, that, so far as the experiment has been tried in New Zealand, the work of colonisation cannot, consistently with the honor of the Crown, the character of the Nation, the rights of aborigines, the interests of settlers, and the wel-

fare of the colony at large, be Ba f e i P to an irresponsible body of private i ■ associated together for the purnoee selling, and making a profit L ■ the waste lands of the Crown. 1 * ,a * e I| The Colonial Secretary of New u H said he had listened with some Burnri. Sttf B speech of the hon. member. If £ eto F he had had the honor to propose u n <J,e “ [’ was to be adopted in the spirit whui. R the hon. member’s speech, he H draw it, and propose himself that it t’* 4, 1 jected at once. From almost every • L expressed by the hon. member he 2'“'°’ L dissented. With respect to the Tr ° ‘"'l Jj Waitangi, he had a hundred times B his utter contempt for that tran8 BC t^ 1 e * ■ speech and in print; and at that moment'' E felt as strong a contempt for it as he bad ‘ E given utterance to. But the princirfaE which it was based, that of acknowledgeJjjEl natives’ title to the waste lands, howeve surd in the abstract, had now been acted II so long and so generally, that it Wou | d ?’ K unwise as well as impracticable to L with it. It would, he believed, m E difficult to answer the whole statement f hon. member, by counter statement! rU ■ would throw most of the blame of d,'* H ceedings he attacked the Company for ■ the Government. But he (the B retary) could see no possible good to ha E from ripping up these old quarreh ] grievances, and evoking once more the I' of the Treaty of Waitangi, which he fa I had been so long laid and got rid of, I I could see no public benefit to be attained h I such a discussion, and he had no privatefeel. I ing whatever which could make him of joining in it. He believed everything v tl I before the public that was necessary to enable Bl it to form a just judgment of the respective | merits and demerits of the Company and tai E Government, and that amn'“ inetinj» » ftn UL KM done without any further agitation of th 1.1 question to all parties concerned in the trait. I actions the hon. member bad detailed. I

Mr. Bell observed that, having been re. ferred to by his learned friend in his very able speech to correct any statement he had a|. vanced, if he were to enter into detail heshould object to the greater part of what his lewd i friend had said. He could not, however,» frain from referring to his expression of op. nion on a gentleman now dead, mknco anamAH I was held in respect by all parties, he allodtf to the late Charles Buller. The expuMwr relating to the treaty of Waitangi, d> luded to by his learned friend, had beel deliberately written by that gentleman, aid the treaty had also been characterised by lit present Secretary of State for the Colonies!) that thing the treaty of Waitangi, thus treat, ing it, as far as his expression of opinion went, with the greatest contempt. If he (Mr. Bell) were to take advantage of his learned friend’s invitation, he thought be could efit tually correct the greater part of what he W advanced, but such a course would tireik Council without any good result.

The Attorney General of New ZeaM said—ln reply to the remarks of the mow of the address, 1 have to state that, so far w it from my intention to raise angry feeliofi or to revive forgotten disputes, that I spob most carefully and guardedly; making ” statements of my own, but in all cases ing, in their own words, the admissions $ the statements of the parties concerned; 3 i| object being to bring past experience to l>’H on the consideration of a question of pre!’ practical importance. On the subject o* l Treaty of Waitangi, I have been entirely ® 1S * understood by bon. members who havespo'® on the subject. It was not my intention * | maintain, and I did not maintain, the p 5" of entering into that treaty; but that as I took some pains to shew, having 6 made in the name of the Crown —by l “ e thority of the Crown —and having been I cognized and acted on by the Crown—one, whatever others may do, am.notpn ed to approve a suggestion for its (( on the ground of some mere legal de e technical informality. If, however, said anything which, in the opinion < Council, I ought not to have said ; 0 • j have said anything in a manner m ought not to have said it, lam ® . to be corrected, and wish to be m-° r j The address was unanimously adopt J the Council adiourned to Monday.