HOUSE OF COMMONS.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 657, 19 November 1851, Page 4

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

[The following debate in the House of Commons on the annual vote for New Zealand is extracted from the Daily News July 15, 1851 .—Ed. N. Z. S,l, Ou the next vote being proposed—viz. £20,000, “ the amount of aid required to defray the charge of New Zealand.” Mr. V. Smith wished to elicit some information with regard to the position in which the Government stood with the New Zealand Company. Three years ago an act was passed, under which the company might, by giving three months’ notice, give up the concern, throwing all the liabilities on the government. As far as parliament was concerned, nothing has since been heard as to whether the notice had been given or not. As there were, at the lime he spoke of, some heavy liabilities resting upon the company,,and as it was possible

the government, by taking them upon themselves, might involve themselves in charges beyond what parliament had any idea of, and which might render it necessary hereafter to apply for a vote of the house, he wished to ask what was the present state of the transactions between the company and the government, and whether there would be any objection to lay all the papers on the subject on the table of the bouse ?

Mr. Hawes replied that the company had given a notice, which had expireu on the sth of July, 1850, when the government assumed, not all the liabilities of the Company, as his right hon. friend had stated, but all the legal liabilities incurred with the knowledge and sanction of the commissioner appointed under the Act of Parliament. The papers would be laid on the table; and, should they not be sufficiently explanatory, he should be glad to afford all the information in his power. Mr. Cobden could not understand why the people of England should be called upon year after year to defray these charges for the benefit of people at the antipodes, who were far better able to pay them themselves. This vote was but a specimen of our colonial system.Here was a charge 0f£2500 for the salary of a Governor, £BOO for a Lieutenant-Governor, and, not content with that, we must support their Chief Justice, at an expense of £lOOO a year, and this, be it remembered, for a population of some 20,000 or 30,000 emigrants. Then there were charges of £535 for law officers and clerks, £6OO for the salary of a bishop, £590 for chaplains and schools. Here we had to pay for the army, the church, the judicial establishments, and the governor’s salary; and it would appear we bad to pay for their naval establishments also, for he found in the votes an item of £1,500 for building a vessel for this colony. Then, again, there was a charge for public works and roads, employment of natives, and miscellaneous expenditure, £10,335. Why did not these people pay for these things themselves ? Why were we to be called upon to pay for their roads and public works, and for the employment of the natives for their benefit ? To call upon the public here to pay these charges was indefensible and unjust. What return were the people of this country ever likely to get for this money ? Did the government ever expect to bring New Zealand within the range of their taxing process ? Did they ever expect to get one farthing returned, either in extended commerce or taxes? It was the most gratuitous fallacy to tax the people of this country session after session for these establishments, seeing that we could not possibly ever have any return, for even the exclusive trade by which we had expected to be compensated there was now no hope of. He protested against the vote altogether. Mr. Plumtre thought there was no colony more deserving of support from the mother country than New Zealand. There was no more beautiful instance of the influence of the Christian religion than in the change which bad taken place in New Zealand, which, but a few years ago, was inhabited by cannibals. The hon. gentleman had referred to the charge of £6OO for the bishop, That was wholly insufficient as the allowance for a bishop whose responsibilities were so great and duties so extensive, and he was allowed another £6OO from a religious society. He believed the people of England did hot object to this charge.

Mr. W. Williams thought if the religious society referred to could not pay the whole of the bishop’s salary, some deduction might be made from the bishops’ salaries here to make up the difference; certainly the people of England should not be called upon to pay any part of it. He would move to reduce the vote by £6OO.

xiutiiv VviioauGiGu Ai> USciCSS bO pTOpuac such a limited reduction. The charge for public works was out of proportion to the number of inhabitants, and he would move that the item of £10,335 for public works, and the £6OO for the bishop’s salary, be disallowed. His motion would be that the vote be reduced by 10,935.

Mr. M'Gregor objected to this country being still called upon to pay these charges for New Zealand. He thought the colony should pay all the cost of government except the governor’s salary and the military establishment.

Mr. Hawes, in defending the vote, alluded to the increasing trade which was springing up between this country and New Zealand. He was of opinion that in disposing of a vote of this nature the whole of the population, native and European, must be considered. It was true that the European population did not exceed 10,000 souls, but the natives amounted to between 150,000 and 200,000, and the colony was advancing very rapidly.

After a few words from Mr. Forster, Mr. Cobden complained that hon. members were taking up a new position with regard to our colonies. If they were honest, consistent, and logical with respect to free trade, they

should adhere to their original position, and not abandon the notion under which they had taken possession of them. Something had been said with reference to our trade with the colonies, but if anybody would serve them at a cheaper rate than we did, he would obtain their custom ; and how was it possible that we could serve them cheaply if we were burdened with excessive taxation for the support of their government? (Hear, hear.) Thehon. member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) had set up a claim in favour of New Zealand, upon the ground that we ought to continue to maintain ecclesiastical establishments abroad; but were the people of Kent in a position to pay, not only for their ecclesiastical establishment in the city of Canterbury, but for an ecclesiastical establishment in New Zealand also ? (Hear, hear.) He objected to the principle of coming to that house and asking for money under the pretence of sending missionaries abroad. He honoured the men who subscribed voluntarily in order to propagate our Christian faith in other lands, but he objected to the principle of coming to that house for votes of money under any such pretence, for it too often happened that we covered our misdeeds—bloody misdeeds in many cases —by saying that we had established a church or a chapel in such and such a place. The Spaniards and the Portuguese bad planted their cross in Peruvia and elsewhere, and their spiritual devotions had in some respects been carried on amid the screams of those they had massacred. He objected to any imitation upon our part of their conduct, and to the introduction into that bouse of any question touching the spread of the doctrines of the Christian faith abroad, Let our missionary labours be voluntary labours. It was not the province of the house to promote Christianity either by the force of our arms or by the appointment of bishops to New Zealand. (Hear, hear.) The fact was that, taking all our disbursements into consideration, we were expending far more than £lOO,OOO annually in New Zealand. It was stated last year in the committee that three ships of war would be required for that station. We had a large military establishment there which must be fed and clothed. There had been upwards of £2,000,000 spent there by England since the bequest of a portion of the territory had been made. He did not think the island would ever pay 5 per cent, upon what we bad laid out on it, for we could never have a large commerce with it. It was not a tropical country ; on the contrary, its climate was very similar to our own, and therefore it was not in the nature of things that we could have an extensive interchange of commodities with it. Then, had we not been expending too much upon it ? Let the house look at the question in a rational point of view. Individual merchants might profit by Carrying on trade there, but he wanted the people of England to see how this matter should really be regarded. We ought not to be expending money unless there was some prospect of our obtaining a return; and therefore he protested against the present vote. (Hear.)

Lord J. Russell did not think the hon. member for the West Riding had made out such a case as should induce the house to reject the vote. This was a subject on which hon. members might speak without reference to the immediate question of profit and loss upon the transaction. What was the state of New Zealand when we first began to govern it ? It was inhabited by a large body of natives, and the island was overrun by a most abandoned set of people. It became a question with the colonists whether missionaries ought not to be sent there with a view to civilise the people; and the colonists further proposed to establish, without the authority of the crown, laws which would enable them to inflict punishments for criminal offences. He had, however, informed them that that could not be permitted; and he was happy to say that the opinions he entertained upon that point bad been confirmed by the present Lord Chancellor. It then became a question whether England should not establish the authority of the Crown in the colony. (Hear.) He believed the house had been incurring an expense for several years with the view of doing a great work —one of those noble and heroic works which England ought to undertake—that of founding a colony which hereafter, when its population and resources increased, might be in a prosperous state, and that it was not unworthy of England to bring New Zealand into a condition of civilization and under the power and influence of Christianity, It was with this view that the house had begun and had continued to grant sums from time to time to aid the colony, rhe period would most probablv soon arrive when New Zealand would be in a position to defray the whole of its expenses. He was not ashamed to own that he had recommended the crown to appoint the present ishop of New Zealand, and that he had promised to propose a sum of £6OO a year for his maintenance. It seemed, upon the whole, that we had better go on for a short time longer paying this sum, and con-

gratulating ourselves that we in establishing a flourishing cololv , Mr. Hume contended that we «»' a h) me colony by our extravaganc c W ' ,e ‘Mia way to treat it properly t0 ’ heavy salaries we were paying there Mr. Plumptre expressed V tathe appointment of a Bishop t 0 N e JW of and said that the missicnarie^W to the Church Missionary Societ.Ujfe eminently successful in the island - M be * # Mr. E. Denison was disposed to - the hon. members for the West Montrose, that it was unjust to t»» .k 8 of England for public worka and roada’W* Zealand. ** n Ne» Mr. Hum. would Uku ft. , committee upon his amendment, with th” • of testing them upon the propfl etT the people of Kent for the making af. j ? New Zealand. 8 ” r ° ada W The committee divided— For Mr. Hume’s amendment o» Against it ” Majority 27.