HC Deb 09 April 1845 vol 79 cc377-80
Mr. Aglionby

said, that having on Tuesday the 1st of this month, seen an article in one of the leading journals, reflecting upon his conduct as a Member of a Committee of this House, he lost no time, but gave notice the same afternoon that he would call attention to it; and now, by the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, he would state the circumstances which had given rise to the charge. At the time he gave his Notice, he had not seen the letter of Mr. Carrington to Lord Howick, the Chairman of the New Zealand Committee, on which the remarks in The Times were founded. He held it now in his hand, and found it to be so unimportant, such mere trash, that were it not for the inferences in The Times, he should not have felt himself justified in occupying one moment on the subject. The allegations in The Times are—first, "That it was improper that a shareholder in the New Zealand Company should be an arbiter of its claims." On this he begged to exculpate himself from any blame. He had himself strong objections to be named on the Committee, on account of having the bias of pecuniary interests, and he desired that he might not be put upon it. On the same account he offered not a single name of any Member having the slighest personal interest in the Company; but it was stated that it was necessary that he should be on the Committee, for the purpose of full inquiry; that he then suggested that he might attend to assist the Committee, but without a vote. This was refused, as contrary to practice, and he yielded. Second, it is stated as "wrong that he should see a witness under examination." Now all Members used to Committees know that it is the constant custom to see witnesses about to be examined; but in his position he felt scruples on that point, and declined to inquire of the witnesses what they would say before they appeared in the room. This was felt to be inconvenient, and at the urgent desire of the Committee he did at length consent to beg the witnesses to give on paper the questions they wished to be put, and from such papers he did examine them. The third allegation is, "That it was most improper to be in private communication with a witness between the times of his examination, if, as is alleged, for the purpose of inducing him to vary his testimony." In the spirit of this remark he (Mr. Aglionby) most fully concurred. It would, indeed, be most improper, if any Member of a Committee, dissatisfied with the evidence of a witness, were to induce him, by persuasion, promise, or threat, to alter his evidence. He begged to state that of this he was wholly innocent. Though he often met Mr. Carrington between May and July, it was on the subject of Mr. Carrington's own affairs. Mr. Carrington over and over again sought interviews with him (Mr. Aglionby) on a demand which he had made upon the Company. He took much trouble in this matter, and was most anxious that Mr. Carrington should meet with full justice. Mr. Carrington himself certainly did frequently introduce the subject of his giving evidence, and hinted—with what purpose he knew best—that he could say what would prejudice the Company. He always answered that he had nothing to do but to tell the truth. The facts were, that he was originally engaged as surveyor by the New Plymouth Company, formed of many influential gentlemen in the west of England, with the Earl of Devon at their head, and was sent to New Zealand to lay out their settlement, since called New Plymouth. That Company afterwards merged in the New Zealand Company, which, finding it necessary to reduce its establishments, was obliged to dispense with the services of Mr. Carrington and of many others. Mr. Carrington, on receiving notice of this in the Colony, applied to Mr. Barratt, who had been employed by Colonel Wakefield, the present agent of the Company, and as interpreter and assistant in effecting purchases from the natives, and obtained from him a letter addressed to him by Colonel Wakefield, in which Mr. Carrington fancied there were statements tending to show that the Company had not completed its purchases at the time or in the manner stated. This letter, he says, he obtained and brought to England, with a view to secure himself. Finding that the Company considered his demands to be exorbitant and untenable under his agreement, he went to the Colonial Office and to the Land Emigration Commissioners. He was then called as a witness before the Committee by the hon. the Under Secretary for the Colonies. He certainly had—with reference to the statement that the goods supplied by the Company for the purchase of land from the natives had been sold for a large sum at Wellington—told him to look at the Appendix to the 12th Report of the Directors, and to the Report of Mr. Pennington, the Government accountant, from which he would see that the goods were sent out, not for the purchase of land alone, but for barter, and for the use of the settlers collectively; and, being more than sufficient, the surplus was sold. He referred to this as all he knew on the subject. He did not consider Mr. Carrington's evidence of any importance; but if hon. Members felt the least curiosity on the subject, he begged them to refer to it, and they would see, if Mr. Carrington's evidence should not do him credit, whether it was not to be attributed to his answers to questions put by Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Cardwell, rather than to any impressions received from him. This, he trusted, would be deemed by the House a sufficient explanation; but he begged to add, that if hon. Members should wish to put any questions, he was perfectly ready and willing to answer them.

Captain Rous

remarked, that any attack upon a Member of that House was always regarded as a matter deserving of its notice, and the reply to it received equal attention. But it was desirable at all times, in compliance with the good old rule, to hear both sides. It appeared that Mr. Carrington had served for fifteen years under the Board of Ordnance, and that his certificates, signed by the official heads of that department, Colonel Mudge and Lord Vivian, bore high testimony to his character and conduct. He had, however, accepted the office of land surveyor to the New Zealand Company; and when a person was induced or seduced by that Company to enter into its service, his labours ought to be treated with proper consideration. It appeared that Mr. Carrington did go out to New Zealand, and performed his duty to the satisfaction of the Company; but after a certain time, without any fault being found with him, the New Zealand Company thought fit to dismiss him from their service, on the plea that their expenses were increasing, and their funds diminishing. That might be a very wise and discreet course under such circumstances; but the fact was, that at this very moment the New Zealand Company had 100,000l. in their pockets; their capital was 500,000l., and they had called upon the shareholders for only 200,000l. Therefore if they had no other reason for dismissing Mr. Carrington, he had been very ill treated. With respect to the letter from which the hon. Member had quoted, all he could say was, that if half of the substance of that letter was correct, the New Zealand Company had forfeited their charter. With respect to the charge against the hon. Member, his notoriously honourable conduct he was satisfied that Mr. Carrington had not impugned; for he never could imagine that he would apply to Mr. Carrington to induce him to give evidence contrary to truth. He did not stand there to defend Mr. Carrington, whom he had never seen but once in his life; but he thought that when any person was attacked in that House, it was the duty of every Member to get up and defend him.

Mr. Aglionby

, in explanation, said that Mr. Carrington was sent out by a separate company, which was afterwards merged in the New Zealand Company.

Subject at an end.