The Express.
London, England, 1847-09-11 00:00:00

PROTECTIONIST MISQUOTATIONS.

SlR,—The influence of the press in every country,
but in none perhaps to such an extent as in this, renders it of
the greatest importance that only candid and authentic
statements should be made in the public journals. I must
say ttuit such is the general rule in this country, and that
there are few who are led intentionally or willingly
into errors or misrepresentations; although, even wi..h the
greatest caution, the most correct cannot be expected to be
Infallible. Two days after the article to which it refers ap-
peared, I addressed the following letter to the Standard,
but no notice has yet been taken of it. I MILT inform you
that the subject under discussion is "An Answer to Lord
Geo. I3entinck's Address to the Electors of King's Lynn,"
the author of which is, your obedientserrant, PLAIN I. acts.
—London, lit Sept.

to rug anemia nr TNT starroAan."
Sir,—My attention bas Just been drawn to your leading artiele ^
of Monday, the 30th of August. I shall not allude to that article
farther than to request you to notion the following misquotations and
misrepresentations into which you hate, no doubt, unintentionally
mitered. I place yours and mine ride by side, underlining the im-
portant patty omitted (which you will print in italics), for the sake of
distinetnem:
PLAIN FACT..

neAnit‘ien.
1. Me '•-ireelcili;nf.4' leader I. Notwithstanding the famine,
taboo tent, during the winter of we have exported only 970,713/.
11116.47, ire were reedited eeitA an less of m.inufaeturee in the tint
.esernordinary eadmity," and live month. of 1,47, than we did
that it required time. Out in the oseresponding pallorl of the
arienoiliiral and saseanercial at- previous year. What must be
leaudiere lor,onsee dear And, the increase when our foreign
aorontia LandingMg w famine " trade has resumed • natural m-
aid tot **awl masa asap of &tam !
la., tear, we Wm offirelsi cagy
970,7131. Iwo et genEnbegiliree In
the fret Sao mamas of 11117 than
Ire did la SS alyresponding
Weld of igewrione per
whet mut la an Imams when
faaaa Wads sammed a
"' eaten] r

2. '7ltarte4.7lollosfring state. 2. Nest we have a Hat of 're-
route from the returns just puts. Iles on which it appears the re-
lished. They give the memos in venue lIIN increased srithin the
the net receipt of duty upon the last Ave years :—Clovea, figs,
snide. mentioned for the year nuts, oatmeal, pepper, plums,
ending sth of Jan, 1847 as eons- prunes, de. Of these alines .e
tweed with the year inking Sth have nothing to toy, except that
of Jan., 1912 f" the incense Ls generally so tel.
Increase of fling as to prove nothing.
Description. 1846 over
1/141.
Cloves ... 1,137
Figs 6,864
Nuts .. 4,131
14,407
none 1,004
TPrams ..r.. --- % Isiti
ee . MAT
Ursa rid snoff
Wine 171,727
h. Sur fie the prllielpsi ern. 3. We neat have another lid
Hes limn which the dubie hare of inermacd revenue from et-
hane olteraglintween the sth Jan- duped duties, sod • very melon.
nary, 1042, end the Sth January, gul
Clocks
It Is
1847, but the net receipts of revs- 2,080
nue upon which have orreveed .. Embrokiery and needle
Increase in snack
Description. 1846 over Aztllkdol imams
1841. Mosso 6,781
Clocks _ ~...... ;ow Watehee..........—.......... 1,277
Currants
Embroideryand needle-I 2,253 21.963
work
flowers, artificial
Gloms, loather .....
1,761
Gyms,
,497
011= ire.
Oils_ ehmokol;11141.
sseds, clever 4,264
Vntet
a esf 8,177
Tars, weiniled 3,249
Othercollectively articles. Wm I 48032
• -•- - - - - - -- - . • . • • - .

I shall not trouble yea any feather at gesent, but in fairll,l and
'mace I claim the haiettlea of this etaanyaleatioa In your journal on
the am The public &add Mmade acquausted with
the Ow Leta b 7 P LAL4 Fern

NEW ZEALAND—THE 000 VS STRAITS
SETTLEMENTS.
(From the Daily News.)
We have taken the liberty to suppress a few jokes
with which the writer of the following letter had inter-
spersed his remarks. They were bitter bad, and though they
lad be of the beet quality they were misplaced. In
whatever light it may appear to Mr. Burnand, the question
is no joke to the settlers ; nor will it ultimately prove a joke
to any parties who may be convicted on the one band of
denyuur Justte, or on the other of advancing false or even
rash accusations. Some doubts and some remarks which his
letter has saggeeted will be found appended in the form
of notes.

.7i7:—The good old practice of not condemning a me
ataAsard or unanswered will induce you as a lacer of fair
Pi, to give insertion to the few observation' I shall have
need to make on the introduction into the columns of your
gaper of the 27th of August, :11st of Augast, and 2nd of
ter, under the head of 'New Zealand—The Cook's
Straits Settles.'
" It is not my intention to attempt to vindicate the di-
rectors of the New Zealand Company (1), as every one con-
versant with the high reputation of that body among their
fellow-citizens of London will consider that absolutely linnet-es-
ear7 ; but there are many thousands wholly ignorant of their
Orinte virtue or public worth who may read the documents
referred to, which I can freely deecribeu containing aspersions
unbecoming those who hare largely benefited by that whose

acts they are repudiating—a body of gentlemen who were
able to withstand the machinations of • power(el minister
and • strong government to p the cokniaation of New
Zealand, and induced the legislature to redress their wrongs
and change the fatal policy so lung and loudly condemned by
the press.
" I am much in the situation of the complainants (2), being
• Cook's Straits laud order ho:der, with indifferent selection,
free from any ether connexion with the company, it might
therefore, he inferred that I would gladly join this league to
take my chance of what might turn up, bad I not the con-
scious feeling that taking part in such an attack would he
54 ungenerous as I conceive it dishonourable, against a body
of gentlemen who may with greater truth and justice be
charged with an over ansicty to promote the interests
of those they sent out as colonists to their own par-
ticular gain. Can it ever receive the credit of
any sane parses, that men of such high cheater,-
ter and reputation should be guilty of suppressing let•
ters addressed to them on matters of such serious charges as
-here brought forward ? Of the 500 letters sent over for cir-
culation among the proprietors and holders of land orders in
New Zealand it is difficult to know what has become of them
or to whom addressed. Many have been asked this ques-
tion, large holders and well known to the colonists, who ac-
knowledge their ignorant), of any such document, which, had
it reached them, would in all probability have led to an
immediate iuquiry. (3) Is it usual with persons having
so strong • case for relief to prefer the columns
of a newspaper to • court of equity ? (4) There
are other ends to answer than what here meets the eye, as
will appear manifest. A connexion of many years with the
Australian colonies, and New Zealand in particular, may
jusify any observations that follow from a knowledge of the
facts.
" When the first meeting of purchasers assembled at the
I company's offices, the terms of the sale of land orders in New
' Zealand, which had been long previously published, were
read and agreed to before the ballot took place which
was to determine the order of choice for the se-
lection of the land in the colony, atter the districts
had been surveyed. (5) These terms were wonted to,
by payment of their money in exchange for the
land orders iaued, which expressed in terms easily under-
' stood, the quantity, quality, and nature of the title the
directors pledged themselves to give tt, the holders, and ex-
pressly provided that they would only be responsible to
deliver such titles as they received, which they guaranteed
should be the best that either they or their agents could
procure ; and every one conversant with New Zealand affairs
during the last six years must he sivisfied the directors have
fearlessly and honestly discharged the obligation imposed on
them as a sacred duty on behalf of those seat oat to the
colon)'
;he directors are charged with unwise precipitancy in
founding their settlements, and hence the ruin to them-
selves and their colonists. Such was the furore for join-
ing the first expedition some months after " the Tory "
had sailed with the surveying staff, that it was impossible
to restrain it, although the directors wisely foresaw
in attempting to do so, New Zealand would be in
the hands of the French government ; that trouble of a
more serieus nature would result from the delay recom-
mended, via., until despatches were received from Col.
Wakefield. Besides this, they had the hostility of pur own
government to avoid, who, at the time, threatened to inter-
fere whenever they heard of the directors taking active mea-
sures for any fresh settlement. What would have been the
position of the parties had the directors not succeeded? Un-
utterable ruin . All this they knew before quitting. these
shores ; and yet because the quality of some selecuons of
land does not come up to their expectation, here is a long yarn
about false promises, broken engagements, and distressing
remit ts. _ _ .

" Immediarely on the arrival of the first colonists, 20. acre
sections of occupation land were gives to each settler to get
his crops in, as well as to enable parties to scour the country
and penetrate the wilderness is search of a happy valley for
themselves. Ne sooner did they return and report a
good district, than every effort was made to explore and
survey it, and make it available for those on the spot. I
say, without fear of contradiction, that if they did not have
good land the fault was their own ; that no other compul-
sion was ever exercised but what they had formed to prevent
jealousy or unfair deal.ng, by agreement th►t as each district
was thrown open after survey a certain order of choice fol-
lowed, which they exercised. In what way can the directors or
their agents be held responsible for their conventional acts ?
My sections are net good land; but what right have I to com-
plain ? My agent urged the surveyors not to be driven with
such haute by the settlers to cut the lines ; it was of no
avail, land they would have, good, bad, or indifferent. They
preferred their own judgment; and the agent, for complying
thereto, has fixed his principals with further responsibility,
heartlessness, breach of contract and trust, compensation, or
chancery.
Lord John Russell's agreement of 1840 with the directors,
limited the further selection of Janis to six months after his

instructions had been notified by the governor. So ILliiol.ll
was the principal agent to obtain good selections, that
on representing the shortness of the time prescribed
for the duty, the director' waited on Lord Stan-
ley, and obtained an extension. Dies this or any
part of the arduous duty committed to their charge savour of
rapacity, or • desire to do anything that would not lead to
the general welfare of all and every member of the comniu-
ni:y throw/trout New Zealand Your twelfth paragraph of
the paper published 31st August, states, " That notwith-
standing better districts were known to exist, containing
rich and extensive valleys, they were not made available to
the land order holders, and therefore their interests are
again damaged, referring to the Wairarapa." Now, Sir, it
is generally and 'stood that before the close of 1842 all land-
orders were satisfied; before the existence of this extensive
and valuable country was known. It was discovered
' accidentally, in June, 184; by Mr. Surveyor Ket-
tle and his party on trying to force their way
through the mountains in search of a freehand fertile country.
They succeeded and made their report; the richness and
beauty of this valley tempted them—they looked on it with
a longing eye, and regretted the opportunity was lost to set-
tle the, e. A chance was still open ; if they could find any
one bold enough to charge the directors with evasion and
violation of their contract, that could bully them into acqui.
eacence, they should succeed, and the prise was their own.
The directors have proved to the world they are not the men
to be intimidated into measures contrary to their sense of
duty. Will it be supposed that men who could resist a
powerful and talented minister from aggression, would
succumb to threats of this nature ? By way of
shortening my narrative, and comforting the complainants,
I will give you the opinion of (what Sir Robert Peel consi-
dered, in the late debate on Lord Lincoln's motion, the meet
competent authority to judge on maters of colonisation)
Earl Grey : in his instructions to the Governor of New
Zealand, he says, " The company's settlers should not forget
the views on which they originally emigrated, or fail to per-
ceive that their own welfare and prosperity are vitally in-
terested in maintaining the sound principle of colonisation
on which their settlements were founded. Nor is the main-
tenance of this principle inconsistent with the adoption of •
mode of selling land, which shall give every proper facility
to the original settlers to extend their holding', or to their
being permitted also occupation of land for pastoral purposes
upon easy terms."
As regards compensation, about which the complainants
are so uproarious, let us see what may be considered best by
those of long experience and great foresight.
"The recant acts of Earl Grey, in enabling the directors
of the New Zealand Company to renew their colonising
operations immediately, will have the effect of increasing
considerably the value and security of the property already
acquired by the original settlers, and their interests will thus,
in the opinion of her Majesty's government, be more effec-
tually promoted than by any other means of compensation
which could have been adopted, since the effect of renewing
colonisation, in augmenting the value of their lands, will be
certain and immediate."

The company claimed compensation from Lsrd Stanley, in
1843, for thwarting their operations, and withholding what
they had engaged to do with the New Zealand Company,
and bad the power to perform, but would not. Whereas
the directors have, on all occasions, laboured hard and
anxiously with their adenine to secure them good titles to
the best land within their knowledge ; they have, in truth,
been fighting the last six years for the private cud constitu-
tional rights of those who have the hardihood, now they
have succeeded, to upbraid them with matters ever w
they had no control, and their chief desire that every settler
on their estates should be satisfied . I hope they will livelong
enough as I thiak they must, to deeply regret their ungrate-
ful production.
Now as regards the article inserted 2nd Sept., which is
conceived to be the most important charge of all they have
attempted, by assuming a breach of trust against the
directors, I shall endeavour to show that it is a fallacious
imposition.
The New Zealand Company, as originally formed, sub-
scribed 100,0001. (6), with which they purchased twenty
million acres of land from the native chiefs, who had been
declared by the British government an independent nation,
under her protection. la order to put an end to a difficulty
that here presented itself. Lord John Russell proposed to
the company, in Nov., 1840, that on their surrendering all
right and title to the said lands, they should have secured to
them four acres for every pound sterling they proved to have
expended fodlrciablic purposes in carrying out settlers, making
roads and bri , public works and surveys, &c., thus form-
ing a sten whereby their utility to the state and title
should be established. This arrangement never had the
slightest reference to the colonists, which they try hard to
graft on their conditions of agreement.
It will follow that to the subscribers of the capital, the
directors were responsible for all the land they acquired—to
the colonists the directors were to deliver an acre of land
when they obtained their grant for every 11. sterling paid to
them which they or their agents have selected.
Simple as th s understanding appears, it is in 1847 under-
stood to mean tAree ecru for every pound sterling. It is
true we live in strange times, and this case may present for
the future the advantages of special pleading ; it is advocated
with inch an earnest desire of maintaining the position, that
gives it rather a eerio-comic turn—if the directors are not
inclined to Jo this, surely they will not refuse it as a re-
demption for their personal risk ! As well might the offi-
cers of the British army lay claim to an equal distribution of
all the spoil they acquired in a campaign, forsooth, because
lthey purchased their commissions, urging as their title pee-
sons' risk and the blood of their fellow-country-men.

dull conclude by adverting to the 16th paragraph of the
same artkie, for the probable intentions of Lord J. Russell
in entering into the agreement of 1840: " that it was pro-
posed by government to apply to all other subjects of the
crown the rule to which the New Zealand Company would
be subject, in respect to lands claimed by them within the
colony, via., for every pound sterling shown to hare bean
expended in the way above prescribed, which shall only apply
to those who had acquired lands previous to the sth of hi.
nuary, 1840."
It would be found very difficult for these complainants to
prove any such title. The intention of the colonial minister
was clearly an inducement to large landed proprietors in this
country to remove their surplus tenantry by their own tam*

and did in no way refer to those persons whose expenses
were defrayed from the proceed, of the sale of lands belong-
ing to other person+, purchased long previous, some of it
many years before the sailing of the first colony, under which
they claim an interest.—Yours, W. H. Demean°, 2,
Boyle-street, Burlington-gardens.
(I) Mr. B. is rather premature in taking up the defence
of the directors in • letter purporting to contain observations
on our introductory remarks only, seeing that we have said
neither good nor ill of these gentlemen. But as hia Naming
panegyne on their "private virtue" as well as their "public
worth," may perhaps be of use to him in that quarter, we
allow the passage to stand.
(2) Mr. B. does not appear to be quite in the situation of
the complainants. They are actual settlers who have gone
out to New Zealand carrying their capital with them, which
they have seen wasting away during the years that they
have been unable to turn it to amount; he seems-to Lace
bought some land in New Zealand, and waited snugly at
home until the progress of settlement should without any
labour of his own render it • source of income or worth
selling. Ile has risked hie guinea per acre; they their whole
fortunes and personal safeties.
(3) There is something excessively mysterious about these
500 lettere. Our first correspondent, in what he, like Mr.
8., calls a defence of the directors, while both look more like
personal attacks Oa the settlers, declares that he easily pro-
cured one. Mr. 8., like ourselves, and according to him,
many others, found this impossible. We wish Mr. Carring-
ton, or the " great unknown, ' the "ci-elettant colonist," to
whom he confided the fact of the 500 letters having been distri-
buted by post, would enlighten th, public on this point. Mr.
B.'s statement increases the suspicion that somehow or other
these letters have been suppressed by whom we have never
pretended to say, nor is it a matter of the slightest conse-
quence. If they hale been suppressed by the parties to
whom they were entrusted for circulation, so much the more
necessity was there for publicity being given to the docu-
ment in the columns of the Daily News.
(4) The most common thing in the world when the ease
is one better fitted for arbitration on the principles of common
sense, than for the judgment of • court which, though
called of equ?ty, is as much fettered by legsl precedents and
forms as the courts of common law. The most common
thing in the world when • poor party has to contend with a •
wealthy. It we+ the judicious course of the directors of the '
New Zealand Company in their struggle with the Colonial-
office. The settlers only follow the example set them.
(5) There is a point here on which some explanation is
desirable. When the transaction above mentioned took place, ,
neither party was certain that government would recognise
the compact. The risk they incurred was common. Since
that, government has recognised the compact, and to •
certain extent made compensation. Is that compensation to i
he enjoyed exclusively by one of the panics who underwent i
the risk ? nr are both to participate ? Are the directors to '
have all ? or are the settlers to have a share ?

(6) Here also some further information is wanted which, no
doubt, Mr. H., who is so completely au fait of these matters,
can give us. Of this 100,000 f. subeentoed, how much boo
been paid up ? Of the " pounds sterling expended for pub-
lic purposes in carrying out settlers, &e." how much came
out ol the pockets of the company's shareholders—and how
much out of the pockets of the purchasers of land ? If the
whole capital of the company has been paid up, if none of
the purchase money has been included in the accounts
handed into government, Mr. B.'s argument is strong. But,
in so far as the directors may have been expending the money
they received as purchase money fur land, the settlers appear
to have a claim to participate in what has been conceded for
the expenditure of that money.