The Express.
London, England, 1847-09-21 00:00:00

NEW ZEALAND.-COOK'S STRAIT SETTLERS.

Since Mr. Burnand insists upon it, we give publi-
city to his second letter ; although, as our readers will learn
from the nobs we have appended to it, it appears to us little
to the purpose.
As to his second letter, it consists mainly of personal
attacks upon the settlers who sign the letter to the directors
published in the Daily News of August 27 and 31, and
September 2. Mr. B. we do not know, but some of these
gentlemen we do know to be men of high worth and inte-
grity—gentlemen in the true sense of the word. And we
are not going to lend ourselves to the publication of libels on
honest men. . .

We should be loth to suspect the directors of the New
Zealand Company of knowing and sanctioning the mode of
discussing this qua tion adopted by the writer of the
letter which appeared in the Daily News of the
4th of September and by Mr. Burnand. It is
obvious that a difference of opinion exists between the
directors and at least some of the settlers as to their mutual
claims and liabilities with respect to each other. Such a
difference of opinion ,toes not necessarily imply anything dis-
creditable on either site. It is a question of law or equity,
which ought to be decided apart from mere personal consi-
derations. Personal imputations against men who have suf-
fered much, and think they have reason to complain of the
directors, would not be a judicious way on the part of the
latter to set themselves right with the public. We therefore
assume that, as men of sense, they do not approve of the line
taken by their self-appointed defenders.
But we must be allowed to think their silence unwise.
Unless they can give a perfectly satisfactory explanation of
their conduct in the transactions on which the letter of the
settlers is based, they can scarcely hope that Sootchmen will
venture under their auspices to Otago.
Ste: I am prepared to prove that the proprietors of the New
Zealand Company have subscribed in hard casts (D 200,0001.,
and borrowed a further sum of 150,0901., which joint sums
together make 350,0001. the directors have expended in the
public service towards colonisation; viz., fur purchasing,
surveying, and improving toe lands in the several colonies
founded in New Zealand, for conveying and establishing the
colonists, &c. &c , whose interests it is satisfactory to state
have never been lost sight of by the directors.
This expenditure has been approved by her Majesty's
government, and is wholly independent of any sums of money
received by the New Zealand Company for the sale of land,
about 300,0001. niece also expended in the same service. (2)
I will now give a few reasons why I do not believe the
statement of suppressing the 500 copies of "the settlirs'
complaints," or any part of them, which have been attributed
to the directors of the New Zealand Company. (3)
1. Because the contents of these documents arc untrue (4).
2. Because the petition presented by Mr. &mimes in
1844-5 to the House of Commons has not a word of complaint
against the company (5).
3. Because the memorial from the settlers in the Port
Nicholson district, forwarded to and presented by Dr. Evans
to Lord Stanley in 1845 has not a complaint to make against
either directors or the agents of the company (6).
4. Because the petition bearing Or signature of almost
every inhabitant of the southern settlement of New Zealand,
presented to the House of Commons in May, 1846, does not
represent • single grievance against the company (7).
5. Because none of the papers connected with the colonies
h. vs noticed the existence of such a document (8).
6. itecause if the contents of this paper had been known
before the annual general meeting of proprietors, held in
May, 1847, it would have demanded an explanation (9).
7. Because I have, in common with the proprietors of the
New Zealand Company, faith in the directors, firmly be-
lieving them incapable of the charges made (10).
(Boyle-street, Sept. 12. W. H. IItitNAND.
(1.) This is nonsense. People pay up in hard cash. Have
all the shareholders paid up the full amount of their sub-
scriptions ?
(2.) This proves the case of the settlers. They have been
joint subscribers with the company towards the expense of
colonising, and a proportional part of what has been granted
by government on the consideration of celon6ing expendi-
ture is in equity theirs.
(3.) No person has attributed the suppression to the direc-
tors, unless Mr. 8., by his precipitate exculpation of them
before they were attacked, may be supposed to have pointed
the finger of suspicion in that direction. We have simply
said, that months ago we heard of the settlers' letter having
been forwarded to this country, and that we had in
vain attempted to procure a copy of it. We did ex-
press a suspicion that efforts had been made to
suppress it ; by whom or to what end we did not
presume to say. A correspondent, whose letter we pub-
lished on the 4th of Septemte r (and who is much more
likely to be ass fait of New Zealand matters than Mr. B.),
sought to direr: the suspicion of suppression towards the
agents employed by the settlers. We care not who has sup-
pressed it: all that we had to do was—seeing that British
subjects, induced by the representatimet of the company to
emigrate, are complaining of the trt gement they experience
from it—to ensure a fair hearing on the part of the public*
for our distant countrymen. The statement that 500 copies
had been forwarded to this country was not oar's, but the
correspondent's now alluded to. He, the advocate of the di-
rectors, maintains that they were ; Mr. Burnand, equally a
friend of the directors, attempts to show that they were not;
to us the question appears of not the slightest consequence ;
We only want to know, are the complaints of the settlers well
or illfounded
(4.) This is a mere assumption, and contradicted in part,
at least, by Mr. B.'s own admission commented upon in
aote 2.
(5.) The petition referred to is one in which the directors and
settlers were parties on one aide, the government on another.
To have embraced in it the present question would have been
complicating one controversy by introducing the details of
another, which has nothing to do with it.
(6) To this, also, the preceding remark applies. The
settlers could not claim their due proportion of a boon from
I government before it was granted.
(7.) Ditto, ditto.
(8.) This is untrue. The meetings at which the memorial
was adopted were advertised and reported in the New
Zealand Spectator. And though less strenuous exertions have
been made of late to give circulation to the New Zealand
papers in this country than was once the case, Mr. B. might
learn, even from the columns of the New Zealand Journal,
that the settlers have been recently what is called is London
" nereuenable."

141.11TIMEMME.I.C.
(9.) The existence of the letter is proved : by the copies
now in our hands; by the notices in the New Zealand Spec-
tator; by the statement of the letter friendly to the directors,
published in our paper of 4th September. That no allusion
was made to it by any shareholder at the meeting in May
shows, we agree with Mr. Burnand, that the independent
shareholders could scarcely be aware of ita existence ; aryal,
that it had been suppressed.
(10.) For some of the directors now in office we have Ike
greatest respect. In the original founders and directors we
had great confidence ; but mob implicit faith as Mr. B. re-
poses in the present direction we place in no mere mortals.