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

THEN,

epieties was sent to the NO Intlati Company by the
Goancsitor of the Exchequer; but previeus to this the
; cete;emy had Suhinitted ca:ie to their steadieg 0011AZ:,1
with reference to i-heir liability to the settlers of N non,
that trio company were litLlJ!c to •
thet!i reply
letts os wic
folrull vor7priorwrince of contract, and that
they would be liable to retutel money roe ived, with in-
tercet and damages. At the time this opinion was given,
no contradictory legal opinien4 were in existence. The
New Zeelete4 Company, however, till net hesitate to
leave out in their replies. to the queries pent teem by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer all mention of their
liability, and the opinion of their standing ceunsel, 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 settlers had only a moral aid not a
Legal claim upon them. The facts he had stated showed
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no cognizance
at the time of the opinion of the standing counsel of the
company. He would next coma to the Coloniat-offic. A
week after these answers were given to the, Chancellor.of
the Exchequer, the Under Secretery for the Colonies (Hr.
Hawes) wrote a letter to the company enclosing a peti-
tion from persons in the :nelson settlement, complaining
of the conduct of the company. Tho auhstance
of the petition was, had
that the New Z ,alatial Company
not fulfilled their obligations to the settlers—thot the
settlers aad no legal redress, and they, therefore, prayed
to have the means of legel redress secured to them. The
company replied, Nvithout referring to all to their MlD-
eel's opinion, that they had not failed in any contract.
with the Nelsen settlers which they could be called upon
to Ile would next proCced to the formal state-
went of the company to the Secretary for the Colonies
(Mr. Hawes), which formed the basis of the measure
of 1847. In givinl• in a statement of their liabilities
end claims upon them, they again omitted all notice of
their counsel's opinion, and merely enumerated claims
of the Nelson settlers to the extent of about 25,0001.
trust money. o:her documents to Goverment re-
peated those assertions, and in consequence of such re-
presentations the Lords of the Trtatury 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 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
th Nelson settlers, and suggested 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- '
pane, 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 132,020/. 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 case was submitted by the
company to their rtending counsel, but this gentleman
was a large shareholder in the company. Oa the 26th
of February, 1846, the company wrote to their agents
in 'Now Zealand, Messrs. Cox and Wakefield, that they
had 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
is the settlement a feelieg very favourable towards the
company. Afterwards they received tho 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 or-
raneement beneficial to the company. Mr. Wakefield
had stated in a letter that the pertial disclosure of that
opinion had had the effect of inducing many of the set-
ters to accept the terms proposed by the company; but
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. Ho was warranted therefore in coming
to the conclusion that the company had concealed from
the settlers at Nelson the' state of Ha affairs. It was but
due to the emptily 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 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 company repurchased for 3,000/. the allotment for
which Mr. Veit had given only 1,500/. 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 liable."
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said that if the opinion of 1
the first counsel was correct the liability of the company
would be enormous, for they had sold land in Nelsen 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/. (Hr, 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 tleir 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,
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 a
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, 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 fur 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 ho 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. Agiionby) 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. Ile (Mr. Aglionby) should " not rest
under these charges, but would demand a Com-
mittee of the House, before which everything
must be rightly 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 ho 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 that com-
pany had acted was that of one of the ablest counsel at
the bar, sod ho believed it to be a sound one. The
Hon. Gentleman than proceeded to refer to the com-
peesation received by the directors in regard to the
Nelson settlement. This compensatior, 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 arrears of
salary, and for interest on salary. Tnere 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
rnamit 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 bo misled in this matter, and that, should tae whole
case be brought under any other tribunal, the company
would stand honourably acquitted.
"r
Sir S. FAKING ON had listened to the two last
speeches addressed to the Committee with feelings of
paha, in which he thought every other Hon. Member
would sympathise.—(Hear, hear.) Bat as theeklon.
Baronet had now entered on the charges he had con-
sidered it his duty to urge against the New Zeeland
CompanYr and as the Hon. Member for Cockermouth
had made his reply on behalf of the company, he (Sir
reltington) thought he would be able to show that
to press. the discussion further—
there wet no occadsio['
that the bearings of these differences
in reference to
(Llear, hear)—and
New Zealand Company upon the Bill
before tho Committee were not sufficiently marked to
Committee from en exclusive considera-
lea,' away the
tt
hear.) It was natural
tion of rho Bill itself—(aear,
and proper that these diff,rences should become sub-
ject of special inquiry; for the
the directors of the New Zea-
land,4
ractices, or
Company were charge,- •
vith fraudulent p
hear)—and it was to be
something akin to that—(llear,
•
estracterl that Hen. Gentletnen should shrink from such
proof.
accusations, and demand a reatittition and But in
reality these were queetione with which .the Committee
had nothing to do. In one respect elv did the charge
of the Hon. Baronet against the New Zeal end Company_
affect the Bill. The lion. Baronet said the the Act of
1847 gave the New Zealand Company better terms than
they were 'entitled to; that that' Act was obtaiited by an
intentional concealment from the Government of the
liabilities that would pass to the Government under the
new egraegerrient; and that, therefore, the present bill
should only give to the company such terms es would be
warranted by a construction of the mere letter of 'the
Act of 1847. All these accusatioos.had been repudiated
by the lion. 'amber for Cockermouth;•und there, as

LONDON,

far as the Committee wes concerned, the question
stood. It :meld not be exaceted thet (ltir J. Peking-
iegten) could act judicielly in such a matter, and as little
could it be csapeenel that the Coaimittee should e'ew jct.-
these-transections so many years.. after their
occurrence.--(1 ear.) Cousiderieg that for our conweco-
tive years Lord Grey, who Led et-sinelly contracted the
transter, bsd expressed no unfatisfectory °portions in re-
ference to these matters, he (Sir J. Pack.ington) shrank at
this moment from accepting. the retponsibi ity of arbitra-
tion to which the Hon. Baronet invited him.—(Hear,
hear.) He considered that his dust' in promoting this
Bill ceneleted simply in looking to the Act of 1817, and
to take care that the New Zeeland Company should not
be a loser by an arrangement entered into natioubtectly
for the benefit of the colony,—(Hear, he-ea) The Hon.
Baronet said, "Leave them strictly to the Act." That
seemed a very plausible proposal; but in fact, it would
not be a just one, for this particular clause, in the Act
relating to the terms to be obtained by the company, seas
so defectively drawn up that the most liberal inter-
pretation was required, The tlawe said that the pro-
ceeds of the sales shall be divided into three portions—
first, fur emigration;` next for surveys; and the balance
to be spportioned to the Now Zealand Company. Bat
then the clauSe did not specify the proportions, and the: e-
fore the comnany said, " If you turn us over to a new
Legislature with that 01Q1150; and with nothing dare we
can't tall what censtrtzetien they may choose to put upon
it" This was ohvious, and indeed it might be that the
company would gat nothing, inasmuch as the "balance"
under this clause could be prevented altogether.--(Hear,
hoar.) He thought Lord Grey had put an Equitable
construction on the clause, and that no one putting such
a construction on it would give, the company less than
what was propesed—one-fonrth.
Mr. V. small considered that the New Zealand
Company was altogether a trading company, and as such
he contended they had ho claim whatever on this coun-
try. They had lost their money—over 600,0001.—by
this transaction. They were destitute shareholders;
their scrip was at a discount of 75 by the last coconuts;
but still all these circumstances gave them no claim
whatever. He (Mr. Smith) could see no necessity to
depart from the Act of 1847, unless it was that they had
greet distrust in the Legislature which they were about
to confer on that colony.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. PEEL said there was no doubt whatever of
the existence of this debt being due to the; New Zealand
Company. He did not understand the 'speech of the
Honourable Baronet below him (Sir W. Molesworth).
But it appeared to him (Mr. Peel) as if it scent to in-
validate the debt due to the company; though the
Honourable Baronet adduced no grounds whatever on
which to repudiate it. In his mind the question was as
to how the debt could best be discharged in the least
burdensome manner.—(Hear, hear.) It was clear the
Imperial Treasury could not discharge it, neither could
the Company of New Zealand. Trio debt was charged
on the lands of New Zsatand, .anti by these lands it
should be discharge. They - had two courses before
them at present, one, that suggested by her Majesty's
Ministers; and the other that suggested by the lion.
Baronet the Member for Southwark. Some Hon. Gen-
tlemen seemed to think that the Goiernment plan was
one-sided, and in favour of the company; whilst it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Peel) not to be unattended with
considerable sacrifice on the part of the New Zealand
Company. The late Government pointed out the way
to expending the land fund of the colony in other modes
of improvement besides surveys and emigration; and of
these the local legislature, under their new powers,
would no doubt avail themselves; such, for instance; as
the opening up and improving new districts, forming
roads and other public works; and in these respects the
colony derived great advantages from the arrangements
which had been made by Government—advantages
which justified Government in making them.
Mr. MANGLES complained that charges had been
raked up, after an interval of five years, against the
company. though Lord Grey had investigated the whole
in a judicial capacity, and had honourably acquitted the
company. it was impossible for gentlemen and men of
honour to sit silent when they heard themselves arraigned
on such charges. He' was as anxious as any one that
the whole of the papers connected with the transaction
should be laid before the House. At the same time he
teas unwilling to do anything which might delay the
passing of this Bill. The company had been charged
with obtaining the Act of 1847 by fhlse representations.
To negative this it was only necessary to state that the ,1
whole of the negotiations had passed through the hands
of the late Mr. Charles Buller,—(Hear, hear.) He bad
before him a letter from that gentleman, stating that he
had examined the whole of the legal opinions, and be-
lieved them to be well founded. He was able to speak
with the greatest absence of anything like personal feel-
leg, inasmuch as he had not taken the slightest part in
these transactions. He had been a director of the New
Zealand Company—so had the Hon. Baronet; bat when
the company fell into difficulties in 1833 the Hon.
Baronet found it convenient to retire. He (Mr. Mangles),
however, would not so treat his former colleagues, iu
whose integrity he had the fullest confidence.—(Sear,
hear.) All they asked for was, that they should give
them some better security for what they already pea-
sessed.—(Llear, hear.)
Mr. GLADSTONE had seldom seen the House oc-
cupied with a subject which seemed to be more distsste-
fal to them.—(Hear, bear.) Nevertheless, the matter
was one of extreme difficulty and delicacy; and they
ought not to let the Bill pass without a strong endeavour
to arrive et a just conclution.---(fiear, hear.) There
were four ways of proceeding open to them. First,
there was the plan of the Government, who proposed to
carry over to the Colonial Legislature the control of the
waste lands in the island, subject to the obligation of
paying ss. per acre to the New Zealand Company. The
second plan was similar, except that the amount to bo
paid should be one-fourth of the price instead of ss.
Teo third plan was that of the Honourable Baronet, who
proposed to give the control to the Legislature, but to
leave the claims of the company as they stood. The
fourth ?plan was one that had not yet been mentioned
in the Committee, but which he understood wait to
have been brought forward, namely, that they should
postpone the whole matter until • another year.—
(Hear , hear.) Now, he objected to both the two first
plans as being more than the New Zealand Company
were entitled to ceder the Act of 1847.—(Hear,
hear.) lie thought that they ought not to damage
the position of the company, but, on the other hand,
they ought not to pat it in a batter position at the ex-
pense, of the „I„y.-(Gear.) The company relied
upon a letter of Lord Grey; but the Noble Lord had no
right to fix the claims of the company'—(Hear, bear.)
The statute gave him no such power. The Act of
Parliament said that the expense of surveying and emi-
gration should be defrayed, and the rate was to be
fixed according to the exigencies of the public service.
The Secretary .of • State, therefore, went beyond his
power when he determined what the law bad left un-
determined. The Secretary of State might have
.com-
Laitted himself, but he Could not bind the public faith,—
(Hear, hean) He (Mr. Gladstone) was desirous of
making as liberal an offer as possible, but he could not
consent to either of the two first plans. The two, how-
ever, might-be :combined, namely, that the company
should, have one-fourth, provided that it should never
exceed ss. per acre.—(Hear, hear) His Hon. Friend
(Sir W. Molesvvorth) had brought certain charges
against the company,
but he (Mr. Gladstone) could not
join in censuring the conduct of the Honourable Baro-
net. The most that could be said against him was' that
e com
he had chosen to vindicate the public interests against
himself as one of the former directors of the company.
The charge was that th pact which the company
upon
stood had been obtained by fraudulent representations;
and if the Hon. Baronet proved his case, it would leave
their claims in a very questionable position.—(Hear,
At the same time the Committee ought to have
the means given them of making a full and complete
answer to those charges. At all events, he (Mr. Glad-
stone) would not be guilty of any act of injustice to
them.—(Hear, hear.) There was one other course open
to them, and that was the postponement of the whole
matter. Upon this subject he felt a great difficulty in
coming to a decision. He should be reluctant to mike
the proposition unless the opinion of the Committee
were in favour of it, and until he knew the sentiments of
several Hon. Members who had taken a great interest
in the question, and particularly until he knew those
,of the Bight Hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon. The
proposal of the Hon. Baronet (Sir W. Molesworth)
would be decidedly unjust to the company, while on the
other hand the postponement would be just to the co-
lony, and would be a great relief to the Government
and the Committee.
Mr. J. A. SMITH was at a loss to understand why
the Hon. Baronet should have brought forward such
charges against the company without informing his
former colleague of his intention. Those charges were
entirely undeserved, and so was the Hon. Baronet's
treatment of the company, who would have been ready
to have given him the most complete information on any
points respecting which he might have desired it.—
(Hear, hear.) In the present state of the session he de-
spaired of a settlement which could either be satisfactory
to the House or to the New Zealand Company, and he
was prepared heartily to support a proposal for the post-
ponement of this land question for another year, on the
understanding that there should boa Comniittee of the
House to examine the cleims and position of the New
Zealand Company. They had, as he maintained honestly,
to the best of their ability, in difficult circumstances, dis-
charged their duty to the public and to the proprietors,
and they ought to have an opportunity of beiug'freed
from those charges which the Hon. Member for South-
wark had brought against them, and their claims
should be settled on an equitable construction of the
Act of .1847.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said be could not consent to se-
parate the land clauses, to banding over the land fund to
the colonial; legislature without the claims of the New
Zealand Compauy being first provided for, or to strik-
ing the land ClaUtiCS altogether out of the Bill.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said the directors of the
New
Zealand Company had not contradicted one single
allegation that ho had brought against them. Ile should
be ready at any future time to meet them and sustain
all his; allegations.
The amendment was then negatived without a

Several verbal amendments were then male in the
clause, and on the proposition to insert the words "one-
fourth part of tbo sum paid by the purchaser in.respect
of every such sale or alienation,"
Sir W. moLEswoßni .moved to substitute the
words "one tenth" instead of one-fourth.
PAKINGION said that the circumstances
.under which one-tenth of the proceeds of the land were
previously offered to the New Zealand Company, were
totally distinct from those under which the one-fourth
was given them.
Mr. AGLIONBY submitted that the measure offered
to the company was much shorter than they had a right
\to ex)ect.
Toe amendinnt was . then negatived without a

Sir J. Pikington?s proposition was then agreed to.
Jur, GLADSTONE; then moved to insert the words

FRIDAY

1652.