The New Zealand Advertiser,

AND

BAY OF ISLANDS GAZETTE.

KORORAREKA: December 3, 1840.

On the 7th July, in the House of Commons, Lord Elliot, at the close of a long speech, on the occasion of a petition on New Zealand affairs, moved the appointment of a Select Committee to enquire into the statements made in that Petition, which had emanated from the Merchants, Bankers, and ship owners of the City of London. Among other topics for the noble speaker was exceedingly diffuse and argumentative that on the right of the British Crown to the Sovereignty of these Islands, or, rather, of the actual dependency of New Zealand on Great Britain, was considerably dilated upon, he, in the name of the petitioners, took the same view of the subject which Sir George Gipps and the Council, with all the Sydney papers except the Colonist, have done.

In some of the papers we find meetings of merchants, of other places, noticed, and particularly one at Glasgow, at which the same tone of remark was adopted. And it appears that the official document of Lord John Russell, which we recently published, was an answer to the statements of the New Zealand Company, under the auspices of which the Port Nicholson settlement is established. That Company also takes the same ground.

The Ministers object to these views, and all their proceedings are based on real or supposed, opposite facts. Hence, the mercantile community feels aggrieved with the Colonial Office, and calls, by its agents in the House of Commons, for an enquiry into the conduct of that office on this subject. Lord John Russell objects to enquiry being made, not because he is afraid that truths unfavorable to the ministerial views will come out, for he feels satisfied that they will be sustained but because in the absence of definite information from the Colony, no practical benefit can be elicited. He answers Lord Elliot in an admirably clear and conclusive Speech, portions of which we give in our Paper to-day, but he yields up his opposition to the motion for a Committee of Enquiry, which is accordingly appointed.

We do not regret that an enquiry is to take place. Lord John had not the knowledge which we have of its necessity, under the actual circumstances of this country. He never imagined that Sir George Gipps would venture on action of the authority to which he is amenable, and would, found in that contradiction one of the most despotic, unreasonable, and pernicious acts which ever disgraced a legislative body. The Committee of Enquiry will find some matter for its cogitations, if it live till our Memorial and Protest reach England, and copies of these documents are considerably advanced on their way.

Among other passages in Lord John’s speech, it is worth while to point out the two following:

The noble Lord had also said that the Crown might resume all these lands upon payment of the price originally given for them. Undoubtedly the crown had with respect to all its colonies, the general and original right in the land. But when the noble lord complained of the difficulty and complexity of the plan ordered by the secretary of state, he (Lord John Russell) thought that this proposal for taking away the land from the present occupiers on mere paying the price of the hatchet or blanket, or some such trifling thing which they gave for it, would certainly be found much more difficult of accomplishment.

Now, the original price was in most instances of very small value, the payment of which would not, he thought, be satisfactory to the settlers. But, in fact, it would have been impracticable to have done any such thing. Captain Hobson’s authority would at once have been resisted.

The noble lord might, perhaps, wish to send out instructions to Captain Hobson to resume all the lands now occupied by the settlers. (Hear, hear.) That, he (Lord John Russell) thought would create great confusion. He thought where no very unfair or fraudulent bargain had been made, the title to those lands ought to be maintained.

Surely, after these statements, it must be regarded as a perfectly puerile and impotent attempt at despotism, that Governor Gipps should talk of resuming the settler's lands in New Zealand. He cannot do so if he would. Every single settler may, in his own name confront him on the broad ground, at once, of Native independence, of constitutional right, and of authoritative statements from the Crown. Sir George has passed an Act which is either an instance of burlesque on legislation, or of daring resistance to the Crown. Let him choose his alternative. As to any attempt to take any lands here by virtue of that Act, it will only serve to be laughed at. We are well satisfied that the Colonists will not permit the aggression. It may even be doubted from Lord John's speech, whether the Crown has conferred on the Governor of New South Wales any power at all beyond that of the appointing of Commissioners. Any given claim is not to be decided upon by him. Nor is it for him to determine that any claim is not to be heard. We repeat, that according to our view of the matter, every settler singly considered, may legally maintain his ground, and that it is useless for any Government to proceed against so notorious a fact.

But there are some reflections of rather a curious nature, which arise from the review of the debate in the House of Commons.

First, it is rather odd, that bodies of merchants, Governors of Colonies, etc., etc., should be more jealous for the rights of the Crown than is the Crown itself. Fine, exalted, disinterested zeal! How admirably worthy of imitation! And if it were imitated in this instance, how singularly adapted to set Nations by the ears!

Second, it is still more odd that the New Zealand Company should maintain in England, the very doctrine by which, it true, Sir George Gipps is authorised to destroy their pretensions in New Zealand altogether.

Of course, they can have no claim to their settlement of Port Nicholson after this, and even their very necks are not quite insured. For if the country in which they established their sovereignty belonged at the time, to the Crown which claimed their subjection, of course all their arguments only go to prove them guilty of something resembling high treason. They ought to be very much obliged to Lord John Russell for the convincing statements by which he has rescued them from their self-imposed peril. Had their feint tie sit been effected, we suppose a jury must have been called to pronounce upon them a verdict of "temporary insanity."

Seriously, however, we say, that the Crown ought not to listen to any man or set of men, in such a case. They are only seeking their own profit, in the opening to themselves of a field for speculation, and in the attempt to provide another outlet for their commerce. To say the best, it is a very silly thing, and to say the worst, it is an atrociously wicked thing for a company of merchants, in London, to deny the absolute original independence of any Native Nation, much more of one whose rights have been ratified and guaranteed by such solemn engagements. Where, we ask, is the limit to be drawn if Sir George Gipps be right? We shall next pass to Tahiti, and from thence to succession to almost every group of the pacific. No, no, the Ministers are perfectly right, and their stand is one of the highest honor. Of all the steps which the Crown of Great Britain has taken of late years for the protection of the human race, this is certainly one of the most glorious.

As it regards the settlers in this country, let it not be forgotten, that the question of Native independence involves every atom of right they possess here. The moment the one falls, the other falls with it. Both must be conceded or neither. Nor will we, in our public capacity, ever admit of it compromise. Sir George Gipps, in order to blind our eyes, has, in his published notifications to the Commissioners, inserted an article for the protection of the rights of the Natives. But he has done nothing of the kind in the Act, in which that right is denied. We trust not to maneuvering of this sort. The free, absolute, uncontrollable right of the Natives to do what they will with their own, and the consequent validity of all equitable purchases from them—those are the points we contend for, and we will never withdraw our demand. The Governor of New South Wales has nothing, then, now to do, but to fall back on his instructions.

We beg most respectfully, but at the same time most earnestly, to call the attention of HIS EXCELLENCY to the treatment of the prisoners committed for trial, therefore, not presumed to deserve punishment, at the Gaol at Russell Town. We have received communications on the subject which are heart-rending. The Lieutenant Governor is a humane man, and will not, we are sure, suffer this appeal to be lost.

It is evident that the People of Kororareka are recovering from their apprehensions of the power of Sydney, for we perceive that many new houses are at this instant starting from the ground.

We are glad to see several instances of public improvement at Kororareka. We allude to the neat and commodious bridge erected by Mr. Russell in front of his house, and to the commencement of one at the end of York street. The removal of the scrub and rubbish from a large space usually denominated the "Swamp," by Mr. Desentis, will be a great advantage to the general appearance of the place, inviting to erect buildings thereon. Its exposure to the sun’s rays will add much to the salubrity of that spot. We recommend the example.

Dr. Davies' new residence is admirably adapted for his Profession. His shop really looks quite handsome.

On Tuesday the 24th Nov., Mary Ann Davidson, late of Sydney, but for some time recently on board the "James Stewart," put an end to her life by swallowing a wine glass full of laudanum, in a state of temporary derangement. She was dead when the Doctor arrived.

Mr. Webster is, we are informed, on his way to the United States, and intends to represent his land claims in New Zealand, with those of his countrymen located here, to his own Government.

We beg most respectfully to inform all parties indebted in this Office, that as it is impossible to conduct an Establishment of this sort without heavy expenses, we shall be under the absolute necessity of charging the rate of Banking discount upon all arrears not now immediately paid up, this date concluding our Quarter.

Notice is hereby given, that Mr. Thomas Auckland, of Kororareka, has been appointed and instructed to collect all sums due to us without delay, and his receipt, in any case, will be sufficient discharge for the same.