TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE OPPOSITION TO THE NEW ZEALAND BILL.

MINISTERS, with their allies, Tory and Missionary, have sue- ceeded, for the present, in defeating the project of colonizing New Zealand on a system calculated to benefit the colonists, the mother country, and the aborigines. The combination against Mr. BARING'S bill was indeed formidable.

1. The Government—already annoyed beyond measure at the proof afforded by the New South Australian Colony, that a flou- rishing settlement might be founded and reared without jobbing in Downing Street or the cost of a shilling to this country—op- posed the foundation of a similar colony, from a natural dread of the contrast its management would afford to their own wasteful, in- efficient, and mischievous administration. The conduct of Minis- ters in this affair has been highly characteristic. Mr. WARD, their sincere and affectionate friend, declared, that " during the whole of his experience in public life, he had never known so much uncertainty, vacillation, or change of purpose displayed by any Ministry, as was shown towards those connected with this undertaking." Not daring to oppose the promoters of the New Zealand Bill openly at first, the Ministers resorted to deception. 2. The opponents of the bill had the support of Mr. GLAD- storm, and the Tories, who expect shortly to supplant the Whigs in the Colonial and other offices. In the profits of jobbing and misrule the Tories have a reversionary interest. They look upon the mismanagement of the Colonies as one of the means by which they are to restore and maintain their supremacy in England. Hence they made common cause with Sir GEORGE GREY, Lord Howiex, and other opponents of a cheap and just scheme for colonizing New Zealand.

3. The active and impudent parties who have already profited so largely by the traffic in the New Zealand territory, and who have enriched themselves, their kith and kin, by transactions with the aborigines, not by any means creditable to themselves or their country, and who fear that a stop may be put to their money- making trade, joined with the Whig and Tory jobbers of Downing Street to defeat Mr. BARING.

4. The ignorant dupes of the Missionary delusion, and they who hypocritically pretend to a special regard for New Zealand,— knowing all the while, that the present system fosters the grossest immorality,—united with the above-named interested parties to prevent the success of Mr. BARING'S motion.

The pretences on which the bill was opposed are as unworthy as the motives of those who alleged them.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS talked about the rights of sovereignty pos- sessed by the New Zealand chiefs, and which he 'assumed were about to be invaded. Sir ROBERT knew that every substantial right of the natives, every privilege really existing, and not trumped-up for the purpose of the jobbers and Pharisees who oppose the bill, was amply protected, and protected too against the further encroachments of Sir RoBERT's friends the Missionaries; who ob- tain immense tracts of land without incurring the legal responsi- bility of providing in any way for the future support or instruction of the aboriginal owners, whereas Mr. BARING offered security tbr both those objects, and ample precautions against fraudulent bargains. As to the nonsense about a body of "private gentle- men exercising the right of sovereignty in a foreign country," Sir ROBERT INGLIS must have known that the bill would have created a public board, responsible to the Legislature for the proper exer- cise of public functions, whose scope and object were clearly de- fined by act of Parliament. Sir ROBERT INGLIS could not for a moment have supposed that the New Zealand Commissioners would be as irresponsible as the Commissioners for adjusting the claims of the late Rajah of Tanjore, of whom he is one—a sinecu- rist, if we mistake not, very well paid. Sir ROBERT INGLIS, with edifying consistency, pretested against transferring to Mr. FRANCIS BARING and his coadjutors "one of the brightest prerogatives of the British crown." What did he mean ? The sovereignty of New Zealand ? Why, he maintained that the aboriginal chief- tains exercised independent power—in other words, that the Queen had no supreme authority in New Zealand : how then can it be pretended that " one of the brightest prerogatives of the British crown" would be damaged by Mr. BARING'S bill ? Mr. Gr. AnsToNE was guilty of a similar inconsistency ; and the bet that this really clever and promising young gentleman cou'd produce only the feeblest argument in opposition to the bill, shou'd vominee intelligent persons that there are no sound objections to it. Mr. GLADSTONE assured the House, that "there was no evi- dence that the chiefs of New Zealand bad parted with any of their rights of sovereignty ;" yet he distinctly recommended that " Government should initiate some measure for the regulation of our concerns in New Zealand." But if it be true that the abso- late sovereignty of the country resides in the New Zealand chief- tains, and that the bill is objectionable as interfering with that sovereignty in so ire degree, Mr. GLADSTONE will be puzzled to prove that Government has any better right to " initiate the mea- sure" be recommends, than it has to pass a bill fur administering the affairs of English merchants at St. Petersburg, or English settlers in the Illinois. The fact is, that the charge of invading the sovereign rights of the native chieftains, brought against the suppsrters of the bill, is a pretence, which its authors cannot giavety maintain. It is a piece of sheer hypocrisy. The (.'ommissioners, said Lord Howicx, would be irresponsib'e. How very shocking this must have appeared to the ci-devant Under Secretary and actual Cabinet Minister for the Colonies! The objection was perceived and pointed out by us a fortnight ago ; but we were re at fault for a remedy. Lord HowleK contends, that the Commissioners should be responsible to the Government, —that is, to the Colonial Minister ; for such is the ignorance of the Cabinet collectively on Colonial subjects, that they are led blindfold by any of their number who is supposed to have paid some little attention to the management of the Colonies. At pre- sent, the Secretary of War is that person—under King STEPHEN perchance ; poor Lord GLENELG being a cipher: and the com- plaint of Lord Howlett amounts to this and no more--that the New Zealand Commissioners were to be responsible to the Legis- lature, not to himself. But the responsibility of the Colonial Minister, nominal or actual, is a phantom. The Colonial Minister loses office when the Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster is forced to resign ; but no human being dreams of turning him out for misconduct. He is practically the irresponsible ruler of mil- lions. Nothing, therefore, could be more absurd than Lord. H owlets's proposition to remedy the defect of the Commissioners' irresponsibility by putting them under the control of the Colonial Minister.

Lord Howtcx wished to persuade the House, that it was almost by accident that lie had been mixed up with the formation of the bill. But the fact is, that Lord MELBOURNE sent for him as the person best acquainted with Colonial subjects, to meet a deputa- tion from the New Zealand Association. The Premier never thought of calling to his aid the Colonial Minister : that active person was passed by, and a considerable time elapsed before he was aware of what was going on in his own department. Sir GEORGE GREY'S official existence also appeared to have slipped from Lord MELBOURNE'S memory ; Sir GEORGE was not consulted. Nettled, no doubt, by the contemptuous neglect of the Premier, of Lord Howlett, and of the Association, the Colonial Minister and the Colonial Bumbureaucracy resolved to spoil the plan in the form- ing of which they were not asked to aid. Lord Howicx says, that the statements made at the conference " were of the most vague and general kind." They were, however, sufficiently distinct to enable the Premier to indicate a favourable opinion of the pro- ject, and to induce Lord Howicx to undertake the settlement of the details of the bill in conjunction with the Association. But supposing that the statements were vague and general, the same could not be said of the draft of the bill, which was sent to Lord Howlett more than a twelvemonth ago, and on which he wrote a commentary, and suggested improvements. Some of the papers and correspondence which Lord HowiCK referred to as proving that he was in no way committed to support the measure, we have since the debate had an opportunity of inspecting : they are among the records of the New Zealand Association; and if language has any meaning, they clearly establish the fact, that Lord Howlett was pledged to the supportof the bill which he virulently assailed.

We have said that the draft of the bill was given to Lord How- 'cu. On the 27th of June 1837. lie sent to a member of the Association two papers, one containing suggestions which he re- quired to be adopted, the other some alterations which be did not insist upon. If the conditions were complied with, he assured the Association that they would avoid the chief difficulties in the way of obtaining the consent of Government. This, be it recol- lected, was from the Cabinet Minister, to whom the Premier had given authority (not formal, but real) to settle the details of the bill. Lord Howicx said, in the House, that the conditions he insisted upon were not complied with. But we have before us a copy of a letter from Mr. FRANCIS BARING, Chairman of the Association, to Lord HOWICK, promising full compliance with all that he required, and all that he suggested, although some of his suggestions were rather crotchety than wise. And the bill itself may be referred to for proof that Lord Howlers is not entitled to say that his conditions were set aside. He required "a controlling power to be lodged in the Govern- ment, by its having a veto on all new laws and measures." By clause 13th of the bill, that veto is given; for any law or regu- lation made by the Commissioners is declared to be in force only until "the same shall be disallowed by Parliament, or by her Majesty in Council." What is that but a veto ?

Lord Howicx required a veto on the appointment of officers. By clause 7th, it is provided that every "removal or appoint- ment " must be approved by " her Majesty, her heirs and suc- cessors ; " and that if the appointment be disallowed, " the same shall thenceforth be null and void."

Lord Howicx says he insisted upon the protection of theabe- rigines, and of the emigrants : can he suggest any machinery more complete than that which the bill contains for the protection of native rights ? We do not believe he can; but lie knows that any suggestion with that object would have been unhesitatingly adopted. The same may be said of the precautions against in- veigling emigrants. Lord Howlett had the distinct pledge of Mr. FRANCIS BARING, that any of his propositions for the purpose named would be acceded to. Lord Howlett declared, that it was only two or three months ago that he first heard of a loan ; and that he at once said " it was in. - admissible." Why, it was part of the original plan : it was in the draft of the bill sent to him more than a year ago; lie actu- ally commented upon it at some length. Perhaps lie will pretend that he supposed the loan would be raised by the Association itself. but in his paper of suggestions, sent to the Association on the 27th of June 1837, be says- " Might it not also be expedient, to require that the original adventurers should advance a proportion of the funds required for this purpose (' to defray the necessary expenses of the settlement for the first two years after its founda- tion') as a loan without interest."

This was his own proposition. Part only was to be raised by the colonists—where was the rest to come from ? Yet Lord Howicx, forsooth, when be first heard of the loan two or three months ago, declared it to be inadmissible!

He mouthed about " borrowed money," as if it were some- thing fraudulent in the Association to raise a loan for the pur- poses of outfit—to defray the public expenses of the colony for the first few years. Who could be injured by it ? Not the borrowers certainly ? The lenders? Lord Howler may safely leave the

monied men to take care of themselves. It is a fact—and the Premier knows it—that a leading London banker was so well satisfied with the security under the act, that he offered 100.000/. at 2 per cent. interest lower than it could be obtained for South Australia.

"Out of his own mouth" has Lord Howtcx been answered. He cannot escape from the charge of having examined and vir- tually approved of the plan offered to Parliament—of having encouraged nearly five hundred persons to make the necessary preparations (involving sales of property and the giving up of employments in this country) to emigrate to New Zealand under the sanction of Government ; and then of having deserted these same parties, cast foul imputations upon their motives, and thwarted their undertaking, without having a single true or valid reason or excuse to offer for the change in his conduct.

Mr. GOULBURN tried to create a sensation in the House, and a prejudice against the bill, by exclaiming against the power of the Commissioners to raise a military force, accom- panied by the usual forms and fences. It might have been sup- posed that this was some new, monstrous, and up to that time un- heard-of authority. But how—let the wise man tell us—could the original colonists of North America, how could the East India Company, have established themselves without a similar autho- rity, either expressed or implied ? We agree to make over the provisional government of a country to persons delegated for that purpose by the Legislature : it follows by direct consequence, that the means of seltdefence arid of maintaining the Govern- ment must be granted. In the instance of New Zealand, there was ample security that the powers asked for would not be abused, in the circumstance that the colonists would go out, not with the design of soldiering, but of farming and trading, and that the cost of the military force would come out of their own pockets. The New Zealand Bill was in truth but a paraphrase of ancient char- ters granted to colonists, in all the principal clauses—always excepting those which provided for the existing rights of the natives, and their future support and instruction. Well—the bill is lost; and the Government and Missionary jobbers think they have gained a year. But the end is not yet. Some of the persons who solicited the protection, or at least the sanction of the British Government to their undertaking, will doubtless proceed to that fine country, and establish an inde- pendent society. Others will join them; and the more readily, perhaps, that, like the Missionaries, they may now make any bargain they can with the natives, and reap the entire profit them- selves. It cannot be supposed that very scrupulous attention will be paid to the present or future welfare of the aborigines by the uncontrolled adventurers. The protection which Mr. BARING proposed to afford the natives will be wanting. It is but too pro- bable, that instead of 'being fostered and instructed, the New Zealanders will experience the fate of other savages who come in contact with Europeans—perish by disease, and want, and cruelty. But who will be to blame for all this misery ? Not Mr. BARING and his friends, but the humanity-mongers, the self- seeking Missionaries, and the Colonial Office, whom Lord Howlers represented, to his disgrace.