THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY. (Hansard, 30 May 1845)

Mr. Hope
I beg to direct the notice of the House to a matter which, being of a somewhat personal nature, they will, I hope, excuse my directing their attention to it. The House may remember, that on the 2nd of May, I referred to the circumstances of the postponement of a Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. I did so in this way—I said that the course was taken by him not at the request of the Government; that it was his own act, and the result of no compromise on the part of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department with the New Zealand Company. A report has been officially promulgated by the New Zealand Company, by which it appears that some parties have drawn a different inference. I will stale exactly what took place. The hon. and learned Gentleman postponed his Motion in the first instance, in consequence, as he stated, of having had some communication with Lord Stanley. I made no observation at the time, not being aware what had passed between them; but, in the course of the next day, I asked my noble Friend whether that postponement took place in consequence of any request on his part, or in consequence of any compromise being entered into with the New Zealand Company. My noble Friend assured me it was the hon. and learned Gentleman's own act, and that no compromise had taken place. In order that there should be no mistake in the matter, I sent the following note to the 1089 hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, dated May 2, 1845:—

§ Mr. C. Buller
I rise, under circumstances of very great embarrassment, to make a statement on a matter which involves private communications between the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham), for whom I entertain a most sincere respect, and myself. I must say, that throughout the whole matter the conduct of that right hon. Gentleman has been the most friendly to myself personally, and his proceedings have been conducted in a spirit of the greatest fairness. I believe his sole object is to promote the public service; and I should therefore be exceedingly sorry that any statement of mine should be in any way annoying to him. I am not aware, however, that there is any ground for entertaining such an apprehension. Perhaps the House will allow me to state some circumstances connected with this matter. I had one or two interviews with Lord Stanley and the right hon. Home Secretary, and I proposed an arrangement by 1090 which I thought the affairs of the Colony of New Zealand might be satisfactorily settled. After an interview with the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord, I sent Lord Stanley my proposal in writing in greater detail; and at the same time said that, as the Motion of which I had given notice was coming on on the following Tuesday, it was important that the Government should adopt some line of conduct by that time. A day or two afterwards the right hon. Baronet spoke to me on the subject. He said that Lord Stanley had received my second letter; but that he was sorry to say, there was a preliminary objection to entertaining my proposal at all—which was, that I had proposed in my letter, as a sine quâ non, that the proposal should come from the Government, and not from the Company. The right hon. Baronet considered that the proposal should come from the Company, and not from the Government. He also said, there was another obstacle to proceeding with the negotiation, which was my Notice of Motion standing upon the Books of the House of Commons; that, if they entered into the negotiation with that Notice standing upon the Books, it would seem as if they wished to avert the discussion of the question. He also said, that one of two courses must be taken—that the Motion must either be withdrawn or disposed of; and that it remained for me to determine whether I would withdraw my Notice of Motion or bring it on, have the discussion, and renew the negotiation afterwards. The right hon. Baronet was good enough to give me an assurance that my proposal would be considered in a spirit of perfect candour and fairness by the Government; and he begged me to state what had passed to the Directors of the New Zealand Company, and get from them a proposal to renew the negotiation in an official form. Upon this statement, that the arrangement we had proposed was under the calm and fair consideration of the Government, I told some of my hon. Friends and Colleagues in the direction that it seemed to me it would be most unwise in us to withdraw from a negotiation so happily commenced; that nothing ought to be allowed to stand in the way of an arrangement; and that, therefore, the Company should send in their proposal in an official form, and that I ought to withdraw my Notice of Motion. I could not suppose this could be construed into a compromise. My own inference was exactly in accordance with the state- 1091 ment contained in the letter of the hon. Gentleman on the other side (Mr. G. W. Hope). I never imagined any person could construe such an arrangement into a shrinking on the part of Government from the discussion of the question; or that any one could suppose it to be a compromise entered into by the Government to get rid of my Motion. It was understood that my Notice of Motion was withdrawn, simply that the negotiation might proceed; and that if the negotiation was not brought to a conclusion, I should subsequently submit my Motion to the House. I must say, that the withdrawal of the Motion was my spontaneous act, in accordance with the wishes of my brother directors, to promote the progress of the negotiations. That was the impression which, as it appeared to me, the letter of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. G. W. Hope) conveyed. I therefore gave him the frank answer he has read, and which I thought he was justified in stating to the House. I am prepared to stand by that statement; and I say, that my Notice of Motion was not withdrawn at the request of the Government; but simply because I was determined that the chance of a favourable settlement should not be averted by adhering to the Notice, which, it was clear, was an insuperable obstacle. It was clear that the Government could not freely go on with the negotiation while that Notice of Motion was before the House; and I was induced to withdraw it simply from a regard to the interests of the Company and of the public, which were involved in the arrangement. Let me say one word more, as some remarks have been made upon the negotiation. The only assurance conveyed to me on the subject was, that the Government were prepared to consider the matter in a spirit of calmness and deliberation; and that Lord Stanley was not bound as to the decision he should adopt, but that after fair consideration he would decide as he thought proper. The arrangement which was proposed, after receiving the full consideration of the Government, has not come to a successful issue. I exceedingly regret it. I have heard the reasons for their decision—reasons which they consider to be insuperable. I do not agree in that opinion; but I must fairly and explicitly state, to prevent all misapprehension, that I have nothing to complain of in the conduct pursued by the Government on this subject.

§ Sir J. Graham
This conversation is, I believe, rather irregular; but, under the 1092 peculiar circumstances of the case, I may perhaps be pardoned if I ask the attention of the House for a few moments. I rise to corroborate every part of the statement made by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard as to that portion of the transaction to which he has referred with which I was concerned. At the same time, I must say I think it an unfortunate circumstance that communications which take place privately between hon. Members of this House, should subsequently be made matter of public discussion. I do not say this from any personal feeling; but because I think that private communications on public affairs between Members of this House, even sitting on opposite sides of the House, should be entirely confidential, and that what passes under the seal of strict confidence should not be made public. My belief is, that these private communications, conducted with good faith, frequently facilitate the transaction of public business, and are conducive to the public good. I received last night, from a noble Lord a Member of this House, designating himself the Chairman of the Secret Committee of the New Zealand Company, a communication which I must confess greatly astonished me. That noble Lord states, that minutes were taken from time to time of all the conversations between the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard and myself; and that there was a fixed determination on the part of the Directors to publish these minutes; and all that was offered to me was an opportunity of writing to the New Zealand Company to contradict any portion of those statements with which I might be dissatisfied. There was no assurance that any remonstrance of mine would restrain the publication of these minutes; the only offer made to me was, that my letter should be published with the minutes. I have taken no note of those conversations; I conceived them to be perfectly confidential, as they have been treated by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. The frank and candid manner in which that hon. and learned Member made his statement relieves him entirely from the imputation of having any share in the transaction. I only wish to add one observation, in addition to those made by that hon. Gentleman, as to the origin of the negotiation. We chanced to sit writing at the same table, in the immediate neighbourhood of this House, immediately after the last debate on this subject. A conversation arose between us as to what had 1093 occurred. This interchange of our opinions led the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he would like to have a conversation with me elsewhere upon the entire case. I said, being a friend of Lord Stanley, and desirous if possible to promote an amicable adjustment of this matter with reference to all the interests concerned, I was quite willing to have another conversation with him. The hon. and learned Gentleman subsequently sought an opportunity of conversing with me, and out of that conversation arose the negotiation that subsequently took place. During the whole of that negotiation never did I contend on the part of the Government, that the progress of the negotiation should interfere with the discretion of the New Zealand Company, or of the hon. and learned Member, as to the course they might deem it expedient to take with reference to a discussion in this House. In fact, it was on the understanding that the negotiation should not preclude any such discussion, that I sanctioned it.

§ Mr. Aglionby
said, in the absence of the noble Lord (Lord Ingestre) to whom the right hon. Home Secretary had referred, he might be allowed, perhaps, to say a few words. The right hon. Gentleman said he had received from that noble Lord, as the Chairman of the Secret Committee of the New Zealand Company, a letter referring to certain minutes kept by the Secret Committee, which were sent to the right hon. Baronet, in order that he might make any remarks he chose upon them before they were communicated to the shareholders. It would, of course, be in the recollection of the House, that a report appeared in the newspapers of that morning of what took place at the meeting which was held yesterday; but the minutes to which reference was made were not laid before the Directors. The minutes were merely kept for the use of the Secret Committee, and could not be used against the right hon. Baronet. The Committee were appointed by the directors as a Secret Committee to act during the negotiations, and as soon as those negotiations terminated, the Secret Committee were to report to the Directors for their approbation. In making that report they would, of course, be bound to state the grounds on which they might justify the reception or rejection of the proposition of the Government. The Secret Committee determined that minutes ought to be kept, and they took the statement of his hon. Friend the Member 1094 for Liskeard with perfect confidence, relying, as they implicitly did, upon his penetration, accuracy, high honour, straightforwardness, and simplicity of mind; in addition to this, he was bound to say that there was nothing in the conduct of the right hon. Baronet which was not perfectly consistent with the zeal which he always evinced in the public service, and the high character which he had always maintained.