Latest from England.

Colonist, Issue 89, 27 August 1858, Page 3

Latest from England.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—May 4 NEW ZEALAND LOAN.

Sib J. Trelawny, begged to inquire of the Secretary for the Colonies whether he had received any information contradicting the statement made to the late New Zealand Loan Guarantee Committee, that the idea of accepting £200,000 instead of £500,000 was distinctly negatived by the House of Eepresentatives; and whether it was not in fact true that the case of only obtaining £200,000 was carefully provided for in a formal resolution ?

Lord Stanley said he would for the sake of convenience take the second part of the lion, member's question first. He had to stale that he had examined the minutes of the House of Representatives, and he found that a resolution was passed, as the hon. member stated, providing for the contingency of a lo^n of only

£200,000 being granted. That resolution bore date the 2nd of July, 1856. In answer to the first part of the question, he begged to observe that the hon. gentleman had not quoted with perfect accuracy the witness to whose evidence he referred. The witness said the question of a loan limited to .=£200,000 was raised in the legislature, and was distinctly negtaived. He need not remind them that under the New Zealand constitution there were two houses, and it was possible that although resolutions were carried in the House of Representatives they might have been negatived in the other house; but at the same time he was bound to say that he could not find in the records of the Colonialoffice any trace of such a proceeding. He found that the resolution did pass the House of Representatives, but he could not trace what became of it afterwards.

On a subsequent day, Sir J. Trelavny called the attention of the House to certain passages in the evidence given by one of the witnesses before the New Zealand Loan (,£500,000) Guarantee Committee, and to compare the same with records of the proceedings of the New Zealand House of Assembly, in which the witness referred to took part. The hon. baronet took occasion to.say that in the last session of Parliament there had been a proposal to guarantee a loan of £500,000 to New Zealand, and that the complaint which he had to urge in reference to that proceeding was, that several hon. gentlemen bad stated in their speeches that they bad" been influenced as to the course :\y"\i\\ respect to it which they deemed it their duty to take by evidence which was palpably contrary lo the truth. The evidence to which he alluded was that given before the committee by Mr. H. Sewell, who had distinctly stated that the colimy in question would not accept a loan of less than £200,000, notwithstanding that upon the 2nd of July, 1856, a resolution had been passed in the House of Representatives in New Zealand, declaring its readiness to accept that amount. Now that was a point upon which he thought some explanation ought to be given to the House. But there was also another point connected with the colony to which he wished to direct its attention. He alluded to certain dealings with the natives for the sale of their lands, and to the manner in which recent contracts made with them with respect to schools and hospitals by a Government officer had been carried into effect. He referred in particular to the purchase by Mr. Mantell of 30,000,000 of acres for £5000. He (Sir J. Trelawny) had been informed that if actions of ejectment were brought, the grants which bad been made of land in New Zealand would prove to be totally valueless. A petition from the natives, written iv the Maori language, bad been sent over, asking that justice might be done them, and it behoved this country to see that our reputation for good faith was maintained intact in our dealings with all people irrespective of race or color.

Lord Stanley said he would take the two questions raised by the hon. gentleman in the order in-which he had mentioned them. With respect to the evidence of Mr. Sewell before the New Zealand Land Committee, he could assure the hon baronet that no one could be more surprised than he (Lord Stanley) was at the apparent discrepancy between the evidence of Mr. Sewell and the fact as it appeared upon the official records of the local legislature. The circiimstauces were these: The House would remember that Jast year it was asked to give the Imperial guarantee for a loan of £500,000 for purposes, connected with the colony of New Zealand. Of that sum £200,000 was to be guaranteed for one purpose and £300,000 for another, and the question was raised in the committee whether in the event of Parliament being unwilling to sanction a guarantee for the whole amount and a guarantee for £200,000 was offered, it would be accepted by the legislature of the colony. To that question Mr. Sewell replied that it would not be accepted, and that that question had been raised in the colouial legislature, and was distinctly negatived. Upon the face of the resolution passed by the legislature, it undoubtedly did-appear that they had acceded to the proposition which Mr. Sewell stated they would not accept. The resolution, however, consisted of two parts, the first of which contained the acceptance of a guarantee upon a limited sum, and the latter portion reudered it wholly nugatory. The resolution had been originally brought forward by an opponent of the local government, who for some reason did not choose to meet it by a direct negative, but preferred to meet it by an amendment which, for all practical purposes, neutralised the meauing of the original resjlution, and iv that shape it was passed. That the resolutiou was looked upon as a dead letter might be inferred from the fact that it appeared never to have been submitted to the Upper House of legislature in the colony. Mr. Sewell's explanation was, that he based his statement to the committee upon the fact that, although, the colonial legislature had passed a resolution upon the face of which it appeared that they agreed to accept a guarantee for the smaller sum, yet the resolutiou was rendered virtually null by the subsequent addition. Mr. Sewell acknowledged that iv one respect he had beau inaccurate. He had told the committee that the proposition to accept a guarantee for a smaller sum had been distinctly negatived. That statement certainly went further than was warranted by the facts, but allowance must be made for the position of a gentleman whose words were taken down at the moment he spoke, The inaccuracy was 'bqthing but a verbal inaccuracy, and did not iv any way tend to mislead the committee.....Mr. Sewell further stated, that although under: the terms of the resolutiou if the £200,000 was guaranteed by the Imperial Government the colouial legislature might proceed to.raise the £300,000* yet practically that was impossible, because the local government, having a majority iv, the legislature, would not sanction it. He thought that ihe explanation would satisfy the House that the committee had not beeu- misled by the statement of Mr. Sewell. The honorable baronet had referred to another case. He believed that 30,000,000 of acres were purchased by Mr. Man tell for JBSOOO ou behalf of the Government. That, of course, seemed a very inadequate price, but it might have represented the value of the land to the holders. He had looked into the papers connected with thig subject, and had not discoveieJ anything in the nature of a contract between Mr. Man tell and the natives as to the expenditure of money on their behalf. Mr. Man tell, however, stated in general terms that hospital and school accommodation would be provided. The power 'of making such provision had been taken out of tlie hands of the Government of this country by the transfer of the control of the waste lands from the imperial to the colonial government. There was at present at the disposal of the Government a sum of £7000 a-year for hospital and school accommodation. He could not hold out any hope that that sum would be increased. He regretted to say that the only answer he

had to give to the hon. baronet was that tha obligations of the Imperial Government, whatever they were, had been transferred to the colonial legislature.

Mr. Labouciiere, having been chairman of

the committee, wished to observe that they were not misled by Mr. Sewell's evidence,. The committee clearly perceived that n guarantee for a less sum than .£500,000 would not be accepted. He was perfectly satisfied with the explanation of Mr. Sewell, whose character and ability were unimpeachable. He regretted that Mr. Sewell did not state to the committee the fact that a resolution was passed by the colonial legislature respecting him. The latter part of that resolution stultified the first part, and the resolution, in fact, amounted to nothing. It would be inexpedient on the present occasion to enter upon the general question of the guaranteeing of loans to the colonies, and therefore he would simply say that, in his opinion, as a general rule, no such guarantees ought to be given; but in exceptional and justifiable cases such as the present, he thought nothing could be more beneficial to a colony and to the mother-coun-try than such guarantees.

Mr. Adderley defended the character of Mr. Sewell, and hoped that in future the hon baronet would be more cautious how he attacked in that House absent persons. He, from his acquaintance with the affairs of the colony, was prepared to state distinctly that the House had not been deceived. The facts of.the cjtse. were that there were two parties in the colony, one of which was anxious for exoneration from one liability, and the other from exoneration from another liability, and the one exoneration would not have been assented to unless the other were conceded also. Now, what were the facts of the case ? Why, when Mr. Fitzherbert moved a resolution that if the large sum could not be obtained the larger sum be accepted, Mr. Sewell was absent from the House, and an inferior member of the gwernment expressed his acquiescence in that proposal. Upon the return of Mr. Sewell, finding what had been done without his instructions, he moved the addition of a rider which entirely stultified the original resolution, and which was agreed to. Although, therefore, Mr. Sewell was not literally he was substantially correct, and he was fully convinced that Mr. Sewell must stand acquitted of any charge impugning his character as a man of honor.

Sir H. Willoughby considered that the explanations which had been given had been of a satisfactory character, but they might have been made before. For his own part, he trusted that the House would always be very cautious before guaranteeing a loan to any colony. r

After a few words in explanation from Sir J. Trelawny, in which lie stated his willingness to believe that Mr. Sewell had not been influenced by any desire to deceive.the subject dropped.