The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-11 00:00:00

NEW ZEALAND BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill.
(311 dame 74 being proposed,
~,• 43.1% GLADSTONE wished to know if Government
87Lendoi to make certain amendments to the clauses,
114 how that would affect the amendment his Hon.
•
end had to propose. He wished to know who should
hlive precedence?
Sir J. PAKINGTON said the most convenient plan
would be for the-74th clause to be amended, and when
t quesCol I be put, that the clause so. amended stand
Dart of the Dill, the Hon. Gentleman could make his
a',ztetnent.
After sonaeluriher discussion,
Sir W. MOLESWORTH proposed to move to omit
all the words after the word " and," p. 20, line 36. The
reason why he suggested this amendment was, because
it was proposed to transfer the management of the waste
lands from the ,Colonial-office to the General As-
4,:nably of New Z He desired that the New
44eahnd Company should not have any augrnen-
tiati^ f their strict legal charge on the waste
-),4 n f (1
Zealand. By the Act of 1847 the New
nsda -143ewp were entitled to the saplus of • the
4:llBl4Pntidre*r'hl34,l3after the expinses of emigration were
,n any alteration that might be
4thaed. desae-. "ri 1 i Company to their
to -,et the N-'w
labelh restrict
New Zualand Company objected to
tcharge. '__e
4115 plan, stating they had, in addition to a legal claim,
2
tilorL,l ei • —and that Ole Colonial-office recognised
that Etlll3
if ta moral claim. The New Zealand Company contended,
riiir transfer to he Gene:al Aszienably from the Colo-
Zftiuf6ae was made, that the moral claim of the Now
co ta Company would not be. recognivd; therefore
the
to ei,lrm.ny wished ParliwneW,
and to
in making this transfer,
mrti,ll.si-icr its moral and legal claims together,
effe'o its, moral claim a legal claim;, which could be
Wasted bY giving them ono-fourth of the produce_7of_toh:
104 e la ads. Now, he contended that the Ne
title npany had no moral claim strong enough. to en-
th • "'lain to Acts of Parliamlnt for anything
aeir
h strict legal claim. Had some documents vvhich he
neyond
la" moved for been forthcoming, he should have beret
pa a bettor position to prove that the New Zealand Com-
pany had no moral claim to the advantage they sought.
he '846 the company obtained a loan of 100,0001 to
giPPlieti to purposes of general utility, with
" „Prohibition, that no part of the money should be
prohibit on te payment of their debenture debt. This
pwas distasteful to the company, and the cons-
_ltlY soon afterwards obtained another Act, which
1:11.1:tied them to apply half the borrowed sum to the
th•,"arg, e -of the debenture debt. Not contented with
other concessions, the company in 1846 obtained
anothat' Act, excusing them from the payment of into-
let;and• empowering a further advance of public money.
as also provided, if the company surrendered their
: healer to the Crown, and if the powers of the company
°llld thereby revert to the Crown, that the Crown
sh
ould be bound to satisfy any liability of the company
With ret:erence to the sottlement at Nelson. Notice of
a_Urrande r of the charter was given, and the Crown be-
2ton liable to the Nelson settlement for any claims they
might have on the company. Now, be contended it was
distinc toy the duty
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
11,. the time, before he consented to support an
et of Parliament which was to render the Crown
liable to the settlell/ ew have
in-
quiry. Bat th " to made duo in-
hev a Chancellor of the Exchequer had
er obtained proper information as to the New
•.ottitin rI Company's liabilities. In
1846 a paper of

queries was sent to the New Znelend Company by the
(Planet,llor of the Exehequer; but peovieus to this the
company had submitted a case tsi their etandieg counsel
with retoretce to their liability to the settlere of Nelson,
the reply to which was, that the coinpany were liable to
the sctslors for non-performance of contract, nod that
they would be'litible to refund money received, with in-
terest and damages.. At. the time this opinion was given,
no contradictory legal opinions were in. existence. The
New Zealand .Company, however, did not hesitate to
leave out in their replies to the queries sent them by
the Chancellor •of the -Exchequer all mention of their
liability; and the opinion of their standing counsel, re-
lative to the settlement at Nelson. By this step_ they
produced a belief in the mind, of the
.Chancellor of the
Exchequer that the settler's had only a moral and not a
legal claim upon them. The facts he, had stated' showed
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no cogrtiztaee
at the time of the opinion of the standing counsel of the
company. He would next come to the Colonial-ea-eh A
week after these answers were given to the Chencellor of
the Exchequer, the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr.
Hawes) wrote a letter to the company enclosing' a Peti-
tion from persons in the Nelson settlement, complaining
cf the conduct of the ,company. . The substance
of the petition was, that the New Zsaland Company had
not fulfilled their ebligations to the settlere—that tee
settlers had no legal redress, and they, therefere, prayed
to hare the means of legal redress secured to them. The
company replied, without referring to all to their coun-
sel's opinion, that they had not failed in any contract,
with the Nelson settlers; which they could be called upon
to fulfil. He would next proceed to the formal state-
ment of the company to the Secretary fort, the Colonies
(Mr. Hawes), which formed the basis of the meow
of 1847. In giving in a statement of their
_liabilities:
sand claims upon them, they again omitted all notice of
their counsel's opinion,
.hnd merely, enumerated claims
of the Nelson settlers to the extent of about 25,0001,
trust money. Ocher documents_ to Government re-
peated those assertions, and in coneegaence of such re-
presentations the Lords of the Treasury concurred in
an application to Parliament for the
.Act of., 1847. His
statement was, that no proper communication- was
made to Parliament of the liability, of the
New Zealand Company for non-performance . of,
contracts to the Nelson settlers,
.Lord Grey,
however, in a subsequent letter, appeared to
consider that some ceecsalment had' been made, but
that the concealment had not been an improper one. At
a later:period the Commissioners represented to Lord
Grey the difference of opinion which prevailed among
legal authorities, as to the liabilities of the company to
the Nelson settlers, and suggested the expediency of
having the doubts cleared up. Lord Grey, however,
did not think prdper to comply with the suggestion.
One settler hid brought an notion against the company,
and the company had compromised it. The proceedings
of the company, with reference to the Colonialeoffice,
and also with respect to the settlers, were of a very
questionable nature. In February, 1841, the coma
puny issued• a prospectus for a settlement, to be called
Nelson, and for the sale of certain allotments of land
in the settlement pn certain terms. About 315 persons
purchased allotments, to the value of 132,0201. On ar-
riving in New Zealand they found that the company,
could not,fulfil ,its conditions. They complained of a
breach of contract, and demanded compensation, but com-
pensation was refused them. A'ease was submitted by the
company to their standing counsel, but this gentleman
was a large shareholder in the company. On the 26th
of February, 1846, the company wrote to their agents
in New Zntland, Messrs. Cox and Wakefield, that they
bad submitted a case to counsel, and that they meant to
proceed in the way best calculated to unite the interests
of the settlers and the company. That letter produced
in the settlement a feeling very favourable towards the
company. Afterwards they received the opinion al-
luded to in their letter of the 26th of November; but
they sent out the opinion of a second counsel, which
was favourable, as if it were the opinion of the first.
When that opinion reached Nelson the agents, of thee
company made good use of it to bring about an ar-
rangement beneficial to the company. Mr. Wakefield
bad stated in a letter that the pertial dieeneettre
opinion had had the effect of inducing many of toilet:eat!
leis to accept the terms proposed: by the company; but
he felt bound to state_ that Mr. Wakefield.had acted,iu
the belief that the second opinion was the opinion
referred to in the letter of the 26th November,. and
that Mr. Cox had suited to him that he was of a
like belief. He was warranted therefore in coming
to the conclusion, that the company had concealed from
the settlers at Nelson the state of its affairs. It was bat
due to the company that he should state that in a letter,
dated March 22, 1848, they! bad stated that they had
concealed the opinion of the first counsel, lest it should
mislead the settlers, and lead to disputes between them
and the company. To show that the company believed
the first opinion to be right, the Hon. Baronet referred
in detail to the case of a Mr. Veit, who • had purchased
an allotment from the company, at Nelson. Mr. Veit,
finding that the company could not fulfil its conditions,
returned to this country. and, after some proceedings,
the comPaTlY repurchased for 3,0001. the allotment for
which Mr. Veit had given only 1,5001. This was a.
most important fact, for by the terms of the Act of 1847
the Crown was bound to take on itself any:claims which
the company might be liable on account of the settle-,
ment of Nelson.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the words of the Act
were, " for which the company may then be ,
Sir W. MOLES WORTH said that if the opiniol of
the first counsel was correct the liability of the company
would be enormous, for they had sold land in Nelson to
the value of 152,0001.; and if all the settlers were in the
same position as Mr. Veit the liabilities of the company
could not fall short of 300,0001. (Mr. Gladstone here
pointed out to the Hon. Baronet the clause in the Act
referred to.) It was clear (contended the Hon. Baronet)
that whatever remained of the liabilities of the year
1846 the Crown was bound to discharge, except those
which had been cancelled by valid arrangement between
the company and the settlers. It was for the Committee
to determine whether the company where entitled to
anything under the Act of 1847, 'except their legal
rights, and he had therefore to move the following
amendment:—" Clause 74, page 20, line 36, omit all the
words after and,' to provided,' in page 31, line 24,
andinsert, Nothing in this Act, or in any Act, law, or
ordinance, to -be made by the said General Assembly,
or by any Provincial Assembly, shall affect or interfere
with so much of an Ant of the session holden in the 10th
and 11th year of her Majesty, chapter 112,' pro-
mote colonisation to New Zealand, and to authorise a
loan to the New Zealand Company," as relates to a cer-
tain sum, with interest, to be chaNed upon and paid to
the New Zealand Company, out of the proceeds of all
future sales of demesne lands of the Crown in New
Zealand, after deducting the outlay for surveys and the
proportion of such proceeds which is appropriated to the
purposes of 'emigration.'"
The question having been. put,
Mr. aGLIONBY deprecated the time as most incon-
venient for raising such a discussion. The Hon. Baronet
had fully prepared himself for it under the instructions
of his friend, who had been removed from the Colonial-
office for a reason that did not redound much to his
credit—that reason being that he was in the habit of
taking notes of private conversations and communicating
them to third parties months after. One case was that
of a conversation with Mr. Godley—a gentleman whom
he (Mr. Aglionby) could not too highly eulogise—which
the gentleman quoted by the Hon. Baronet made use of
afterwards to represent that there was a Cabal among
the directors preparatory' to an attack in the liOuse 'of
Commons. He (Mr. Aglionby) should not rest
under these charges, but would demand a Com-
mittee of the House, befOre which everything
must be rigilly investigated. With respect to Mr.
Nelson, he had thought it a good project, and had him-
self bought land, which he still held, and he hoped and
believed it would yet prosper; indeed he had.that morn•
ins received a letter from a young man of Carlisle,. wha
had emigrated twelve years since, and who gave a most
favourable account. 'The opinion upon which the com-
pany had acted was that of one of the ablest counsel at
the bar, and ho believed it to be a -sound one. The
Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to refer to the com-
pensation received by the directors is regard to the.
Nelson settlement. This compensation, he had con-
cluded, determined the whole question; and hence his
astonishment at the old matter being raked up again
that evening. Then there was the charge against the
company in connexion with Mr. Veit. Mr. Veit had
not claimed compensation for land, bat fur arrears of
glary, and for interest ou salary. There was en arbi-
tratz.hn; and Mr. Cowell wesa the person negotiating for
-Mr. Veit. Mr. Veit was driven out of the first nego-
tiation; but on a second negotiation 3,000/. was awarded
to that individual. Hero the Hon. Gentleman entered
into minute' details, and then continued to repeat 1
his denials of the general charge that the 268,0001. was I
obtained on misrepresentation. —That charge had root
been made out; and the company "was quite willing to
submit the whole case to any impartial tribunal. The
fact was that the company had paid 100,000/. more in
Nelson than the prospectus undertook in emigration,
surveys, &c., and though that sum might not be obtained
back oscause it had not been expended in the propor-
tions specified by the prospectus, still suah,was the fact;
and he did not believe the Government would have to pay
more than the 25,000/. In conclusion, the Hon. Gentle-
man expressed his entire confidence that the House would
not be misled in this mater, and that, should the whole
case he brought under any other -tribunal, the company
• would stand honourably acquitted.
Sir J. PAKINGTON had listened to the two last
speeches addressed to the Committee with feelings of
pain,' in which he thought every other Hon. Member
would sympathise.—(Hear, hear.) But as the tlon'.
Baronet bad now entered on the charges he haft -cone
sidered it his duty to urge against the New Zealand
and as the Bon. Member for Cockermouth
Ch
had
rani;
his reply on behalf 'of, the company, he (Sir
J. Paltington) bought he would be able to show that
thought he would be able to ehow that
there was n° oceasiOts to press the discussion further—
omnartkheedß-itoll
(th"e occasion
that 'the bearings of these-differences
in
before the Committee ri3ae ire )to the N e
wZe7el°'nn do
t(lsuliPcia:iYitl anon
illear, hear.) It was natural
lion of the Bill itself.— •
should become the sub-
lead away the Committee from an exclusive coneidera-
the directora of the New Zea-
landject of special iuquiry; fur .
and proper that these diffsrenm9
r_T hear)--and it was to be
something akin to that
Ehriuk from, such
comploy were charged with fraudulent practices, or,
expected 'that Hon. Gentlemen
roof. Bat in
accusations, and demand realisatien and P
mime
reality these were questions with whieh the Cora „
lied nothing to do. 1 t le did the charge
shou
In one respec _
Of the Hors. Baionet against the'New z3alo4lo4.)ompanY
effect the Bill. The lion. 'Baronet said than the Act of
1847 gave the liew2eafand Company better terms than
they were entitled ao; that that Act vre.s obtained by an
intentional concealment from the . Government of ,the
liabilities that would pass to the Government under the
the Company such terms as W ld be
new arrangement; and that, therefore, the present Bill
should only give toou
warranted by a construction of the
had.
elnetrteerpt.lcdfiatt}e)de
Act of 1847. All thege.accusationshd
1 by the Hon, ldomber for Cockermouth; and there,
.as