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

THE SUN,

queries was aent to the New. ZtaLart Company ay the
Chaim,llor of the Exchequer;, bat previtus to girls the
company, had. submitted a el,i) to their etenaieg cetoieel
with rtttereece to their liability to the settlers of tareftop,
the reply to which was, :hat. the -company were liable to
the settlers for non-performance of contrect, and cant
they would ,be liable to refund money received,avvida to-
terett at:l(l,l=l2,4es. At the time this opinion was given,
no contradictory legal opinataa Were in existencet, The
New Zealand Company, howeier, dill not hesitate to
leave out in their replies to the genies sent theta by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer edt meetion oft their
liability, and the opinion of taeir standing counsel, re-
lativo to the settlement at Nelsen. By this step they
produced a belief in the mind of, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that the settlers, had only a moral and not a
legal claim upon them. The facta he had stated showed
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no coguizaitce
at the time of the opinion of the, standing counsel of the
company. He would next come to the cslonial-oilice,, A
week at'er these flYi,SWer3 were given to the °Ganef:nor ati
the Exchequer, the Under Socreteey fur the Colouies (Mr.
Hawes) wrote a letter to the coeipany enclosing a rota-
tion from persona in the Nelson settlement, complaining:
cf the conduct of the company. Too eubstaaaa
of the petition was, that the Ne Zsaland Compa,ny bled
not fulfilled their obligations to the settlers—that the
settlers had no legal redress; tted they; therefore, paged,
to have the means of legal redress secured to ti?oaa 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 itecalled upon
to fulfil. He would next oeocred to ffie formal state
met.:; of the company to the Stcretary for the Colonies
(qr. Hawes), which formed the basis of the measure
of 1847. In giving in a statement of their liabilities
end claims upon them, they again ontittad all notice of
their ceunsal'a opinion, and merely enumerated claims
of the Nelson settlers to the extent of about 25,0001.
trust money. Other documents to Goverment re-
peated these assertions, and in consequence of such re-
presentation§ the Lords of the Treasury concurred in
en 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 concealment bad been made, but
that the concealment had not been an improper one. At
a latertperiod the Commissioners represented to Lord
Grey the difference of opinion which prevailed among
legal authorities as to tile liabilities of the company to
the Nelson settlers, and sug.gested the expediency of
having the doubts cleared up. Lord Grey, however,
did not think proper to comply with the suggestion.
One settler had brought an action against the company,
and the company had compromised it. The proceedings
of the company, with reference to the Colonial-office,
and also with respect to the settlers, were of a very
questionable nature. In February, 1841, the com-
pany issued a prospectus for a settlement, to be called
Nelson, and for the sale of certain allotments of land
in the settlement on 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 there. A case 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 Zealand, Messrs. Cox and Wakefield, that they
had submitted a case to counsel, and that they meant to
preceed 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 the
company made good use of it to bring about an ar-
m-payment beneficial to the company. Mr. Wakefield
had aged in a letter that the partial disclosure of that
opinion had had the effect of inducing many of tho Set-
lers to accept the terms proposed by the company; hut
he felt bound to state that Mr. Wakefield had. acted in
the belief that the second opinion was the opinion
referred to in the letter of the 26th November, and
that Mr. Cox had stated 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 had stated that they had
concealed the opinion of the first counsel, lest it should
mislead the settlers, and lead to disputes between their
and the „nippy. To show that the company believed
the first opinion to be right, the Hon. Baronet referred
in detail to the case of a Mr. V( it, who had purchased
an allotment from the company at Nelsen. Mr. Veit,
finding that the company could not fulfil its conditions,
returned to this country. and, after some proceedings,
the company repurchased for 3,0001. the allotment for
which Mr. Veit had given only 1,5001. This was a
for by the terms of the Act of 1847
most important fact,
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 lee liable."
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that if the opinion 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 300,000/. (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 *here entitled to
anything ender the Act of 1847, except their legal
rights, and ho had therefore to move the folloaine•
ameadment:—" Clause 74, page 20, line a 6, omit all the
words after and,' to 'provided,' in page 31, line 24,
and insert, 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 Act of the session holden in the 10th
and 11th year of her Majesty, chapter 112, to pro-
mote colonisation to New Zealand, and to authorise s!
loan to the New Zealand Company," as relates to a cer-
tain sum, with interest, to be charged upon and paid to
the New Zealand Company, oat 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 instruotions
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 end 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 House 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 rigi lly 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-
ing received a letter from a young man of Carlisle, who
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 he believed it to be a sound one. The.
Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to refer to the com-
pensation received by the directors in 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, but for areeara.of
salary, and for interest on salary. There was an arbi-
tration; and Mr. Cowell was the person negotiating for
Mr. Veit. Mr. Veit was driven out of the first nego-
tiation; but on a second negotiation 3,0001. was awarded
to that individual. Here the Hon. Gentleman entered
into minute details, and then continued to repeat
his denials of the general charge that the 268,0001. was
obtained on misrepresentation. That charge had not
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 because it had not been expended in the propor-
tions specified by the prospectus, still such 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 matter, and that, should the whole
case be brought under any other tribunal, the company
would stand honourably acquitted.
Sir J. PAKINGTON had listened to the two last
speeches addressed to the Cornbaittee with feelings of
pain, in which he thought every othsr Hon. Member
would empathise.—(Lleer, hear.) Bat as the. Rm
Baronet e
Sted now entered on the charges he had con-
sidered it his duty to urge against the New Zealand
and as the Hun, Member for Cookermouth
the
a ioo company,sh ohwe (Sirha t
ComaanY,
J. Pakington) theta:,
had Made his reply on
tielatlafe uolfd
the bearings of these ditl'erenees
there was no occas.otinhatto press the discussion turther—e
(Hear, hear)—and
in reference to the New Zealand Company upon the Bill.
before the Committal w; ‘•d.era-
ere not sufficiently merited to
lead away, the Camm• ittee from an exclusive.cooei
tion of the Bili itselit—(Flaar, 1331..) It was natural
of the New Zea-
land Company were chareaal
ject of special inquiry; for the directors t
practice, or
and proper that these diffhrencea thot.ulo. become the sub.
something akin to that—(Hear, hear)—'111 d ILfwea such
accusations, and demand
expected that Hon. Gentlemen should shriek r t
fraude a
to4o
reality these were • h which the Committee
questions wit -
In ono reapect cult ta,,,
ehoinni3.giiilt.aortd,,Trlon.hteelugaciann.srte;oanNtieotenv:aalizr,ii:p;toci,:l.hceeoeßn3A:,pclaatru.alonyef
hofff'dl'hetentothilt
1847 gave the New Zealand Compct -wanyas obtained by an
hotter terms than
they were entitled to; that that
intentional concealment from that Government of the
A
liabilities that would pass to the GOvernment under the
now arrangement; and that, therefpie, the present Bill
should only give to the company such terms as would bo
warranted by a construction of the mere letter of the
Act cf 1847. All these accusations had been repudiated
by the Um, Member for Cuckern2Quthi and there, As