The report of the Peers' Committee on "The Present State of New Zealand and the Expediency of Regulating the Settlement of British Subjects Therein" has been in our possession for a considerable time, but from various causes we have been unable until now to address ourselves to the very brief and indefinite resolutions of which it exclusively consists, and still less to the voluminous appendix of evidence whereon that resolution has been founded. Whether the colonial possessions of the Crown ought or ought not to be extended is a question which their Lordships purposely abstain from giving any opinion about, and after declaring that "the exertions which have already beneficially affected the rapid advance of the religious and social condition of the aborigines page 29affords the best present hopes of their future progress in civilisation," they simply subjoin a recommendation that those exertions ought to receive support "in whatever way it may be deemed most expedient to afford it." This is in truth the sum, and nearly the ipsissima verba, of their report. In other words, while it distinctly appears from the evidence that the beneficial exertions in question are none other than those of the Church and Wesleyan Missionary Societies, the noble committee cautiously decline to state what kind of support should be given to these exertions, through what agency or channels it should be conveyed, from what quarter, private or public, it should emanate, as well as under what regulation it should be placed. From all this we are entitled to infer that the divers colonisation schemes, prospective profits, and Arcadian visions of the New Zealand Association have found marvellously small favour in their Lordships' eyes—an inference which we feel confirmed in by the fact that that sordid imposture has received this dry treatment from the committee, not in the absence of abundant evidence in its favour, but in spite of the earnest and tradesmanlike evidence of many of its office-bearers and expectants, who from one cause or another constitute a majority of the witnesses. But, although the terms on which the committee have reported the result of their inquiry is sufficiently laconic and vague, it is due to their Lordships to say that their numerous interrogatories were put throughout with admirable precision, depth, and consecutiveness. Each of the witnesses had a full and dispassionate hearing—in some instances even to repletion. A few of them, we suspect, had a rather fuller examination than they altogether cared for; while the New Zealand philanthropists, who are understood to court publicity for their plans, were favoured with such a flattering scrutiny as entitles the substance thereof to be transferred to our columns, which shall be done for them by-and-bye with a candid and impartial hand. Before proceeding, however, to an analysis of their evidence, there are various little facts and cross lights elicited by the committee which, as serving to illustrate the true objects of the New Zealand Association, have a prior claim on our notice. Be it known that the Earl of Durham, as head of a certain mercantile company, lays a claim to about a million of acres, wheedled out of the native chiefs, at a price not exceeding £50 for the whole. With a view of getting this transaction ratified and legalised, his Lordship agrees that in the event of the association obtaining a charter from Parliament or the Crown, the immense territory thus grasped at by himself and partners shall, for a suitable consideration, be disposed of to that body, with whom he has not only joined in trade, but actually adjusted the terms of the transference to the satisfaction of both parties. His Lordship, in contradistinction to Baron Thierry, who is also a large claimant may be designated, not unfitly, Baron Practice. In fact, the French Admiral's pretensions are as nothing, compared with those of the noble Earl; and if any persons have wondered what it could be that made Mr Gibbon Wakefield such a pushing abettor of this New Zealand job, the circumstance of that gentleman being taken by his Lordship under his vice-regal wing to Canada as a temporary solatium for the non-realisation of their Polynesian hopes, affords a disclosure intelligible, we think, to the blindest bat in Christendom. Again, one of the witnesses examined by their Lordships was Lord Petre, a committeeman of the New Zealand Association. His Lordship, a very downright personage, while acknowledging that he is "not very minutely acquainted with the objects and plans of that body," frankly declares not only that "the members who attended its meetings are interested;" but, having an intention of sending out one or two of his own sons, "he expects pecuniary advantage therefrom;" and adds, "all the gentlemen I have been in communication with seemed to view it in much the same light as I did myself." Moreover, "one or two connections" of his Lordship "having large families" have spoken to him very seriously upon the subject, considering it likely to furnish office or land or employment for them; in short, that it would be "advantageous to their general prospects." Identified with Lord Petre in aim and expectancy, though much more chary in confessing it, is a Dr G. S. Evans, page 30an active partner of the New Zealand firm, whose evidence is given at great length. This gentleman, it appears, is a barrister "not now practising"; but, although he is "living on his property," he is so satisfied that a change might better the circumstances of his family that, provided arrangements can be made for their "comfortable existence," he is determined to emigrate to New Zealand with his wife and children. Doubtless a barrister might chance to be very useful there. Various offices must probably be set a-going and salaried, which none other than an able gentleman could fill. Moreover, the existing European settlers, whatever their successors may be, are little better than lawless depredators. Even the natives, with all their advanced civilisation, are but a litigious set of rogues at best. Wherefore, as there must be no lack of practice for a sound and experienced lawyer, it is not surprising that Dr Evans should be casting about for a share of it in reasonable time, especially as he declares that unless quick work be made in chartering out the association, "next year we fear the colony will fall into the hands of adventurers." The learned pleader conceives that convict labour or slavery is absolutely indispensable to the establishment of the settlement. But the most remarkable evidence of all is that of the Rev. Dr Hinds, a clergyman of the Established Church, who has embarked in the association, and given his testimony with such original views of justice and morality as entitles it to distinguished attention. The rev. gentleman, being, of course, unaware that the Committee of the Church and Wesleyan Missionary Societies have loudly protested against his darling project, declares that their New Zealand Missionaries, differing from their respective boards (of which there is not the slightest proof), "are decidedly witnesses in his favour." And, besides being a strenuous advocate for the Christianisation of the aborigines, Dr Hinds assured their Lordships that "even a bishopric is proposed," with the view of facilitating that object; whereupon, on the committee reminding this gentleman that his association's bill only provided that emigrants might be permitted to apply for the appointment of a bishop—a privilege which they would surely possess irrespective of any such permission at all—the reverend deponent, finding that he had presumed too much on the ignorance of his interrogators, was fain to reply, with somewhat baffled brevity, "Just so." It is also asserted by this disinterested and respectable clergyman that the projects of the New Zealand Association are to be prosecuted on a trust footing, as it were, for the ultimate benefit of the natives; nay, he even goes the length of saying that "the New Zealander, as soon as he is capable of it, may become Chief Justice, Governor, or Bishop, or hold any other office!" Just so, Dr Hinds, and may we all live to see it.—The Times (London), October 19, 1838.