The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-08 00:00:00

same time to remove all reasonable cause of complaint,
by destroying the anomalous authority of the Board of
Directors.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

Earl GREY, who was indistinctly heard at the com-
mencement of his observations, reminded the house that
during the previous session of Parliament an accusation
of a serious nature was thrown out against the New
Zealand Company, it being stated, among other things,
that money granted by Parliament for public purposes
had been grossly misapplied by the directors, while the
conduct of the latter with reference to the settlers had
been stigmatised as fraudulent. In the other House of
Parliament it was expressly stated by two gentlemen,
both now occupying positions in the Government, that
they considered those charges to be of the most serious
character, and that thay were prepared to prove them at
any time. He referred to the present Chancellor of the
Exchequer and the President of the Board of Works.
Sir Wm. Molesworth stated on the third reading of the
New Zealand Bill that he had endeavoured to prevent
fraud, but had failed, and that he was prepared to sub-
stantiate before a committee all the facts he had stated.
It was proposed, in consequence of these statements,
that certain clauses should be struck out of the bill.
The Secretary of State did not express any decided
opinion on the charges, but said that they constituted a
strong prima facie case against the company, that they
required investigation, and that pending that investiga-
tion it was not just to New Zealand that the land clauses
of the bill should be permitted to become law. Under
these ciscumstances, he (Earl Grey) trusted their lord-
ships would concur with him in thinking that investiga-
tion was absolutely necessary, and the fact of the bill
having passed made. not test difference. Be-
cause if the New Zeal. a art o • --had been guilty of,
misappropriating the public money it was the right and
duty of Parliament to see that money repaid out of the
proceeds of the land sales. In the same manner, if it
were true that gross fraud had been committed on the
settlers of Nelson it was the duty of Parliament to see
that redress was afforded. -He was, therefore, anxious
to know whether any inquiry was contemplated by the
Government, and he was the more interested because in the
discussion to which he.had alluded it was broadly stated
that he had himself connived at the frauds of the New
Zealand Company. The fact was that the case was sub-
mitted to him, but on investigation he became convinced
that nothing had been done calculated to throw the
slightest discredit on the honour and fair dealing of the
directors. Being so satisfied he had stated his opinion,
and he understood that his successor in office had
come to a similar conclusion, He submitted, however,
that the matter was not in a position in which it could
be allowed to rest. When the bill passed through Par-
liament the voluminous papers on the subject of New
Zealand had not been printed, and therefore it was ut-
terly impossible to go into the investigation. He sub-
mitted, however, that now the time had arrived for ascer-
taining in the closest manner whether the public money
had been misapplied, and if so, who was to blame, and
what measures for procuring redress should be under-
taken, and for that reason he begged to ask the noble
dinutkenettihone SoefcrGetoavry for Colon oilnnostiietsutwehaenthyerinicituwiryas, the
means of a Parliamentary committee or otherwise, into
the charges which had been made against the New Zea-
land Company
- • - •

- -
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that he was not
what
a dteu
rwi
nhhgae
had taken
lta
sh et
pnreehpl
ear eedarlahe hadother
tliti
place in t
in the main correctly stated the opinions which he had
haas
dregardedin the
that part
house,which
th
the
ne
e(ht hl
ee
eDa
rulk
he
aodf
hsaecrdicushrtoaannt esceleyerof represented ptriemsee
Parliamentn tteods
earl had considerably overstated one part of the eNsireespswrieocssna:setdle: at the same time he thought that the noble
but
accusa-
tions brought against the New Zealand Company, while
he had dwelt very lightly indeed on. that part of the
accusations against them which had been more imme-
diately under the consideration of both houses of Parlia-
ment, and in regard to which he (the Duke of Newcastle)
had certainly expressed an opinion that it was inexpe-
dient to pass a certain portion of the measure. The
noble earl said that grave charges had been brought
against the company of a misappropriation of funds.
He (the Duke of Newcastle) hardly knew to what the
noble earl alluded in that statement. Misappropriation
was, indeed, to a certain extent employed in the charges
against the company, but the main charge under discus-
sion had been this—that in negotiations with the Govern-
ment of which the noble earl was a member and Sir
Charles Wood Chancellor of the Exchequer, the company
had concealed from the Government, and especially from
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had then under
his consideration a measure for the relief of the com-
pany from their pecuniary difficulties, that they had con-
cealed or practised a fraud upon'the public, by repre-
senting that they were taking a legal opinion with regard
to their liabilities, upon which legal opinion the question
-of their liabilities was try-vest, tbak.that opinion was ad-
verse to the comp lay, that they thereupon took another
opinion, which was favourable to them, and that they
presented the latter to the Government, concealing the
fact that there was another. That had been the charge
last year, and upon hearing it he (the Duke of New-
castle) had said, and ha adhered to the opinion, that it
was inexpedient, and improper, and impolitic, when a
charge of such a suppressio veni, to say the least of it,
had been made, to give that company the additional ad-
vantages which were conferred by the act. What were
those advantages ? It had been- found that the act
passed by the °Government in consequence of the ar-
rangements to which he had referred, had been inope-
rative to obtain for the company in New Zealand
those advantages which were then contemplated both
by the Government and the company, and the
latter had not received that portion of the pro-
ceeds of the land sales of the colony which it
was contemplated to give them. Thereupon, in the
bill of last year, a new arrangement was made, and it
was proposed to saddle the debt of £26B,ooo—he be-
lieved that was the sum—upon the lands of the colony.
It was made a condition, upon the concession of the
management of the lands to the colonists themselves ;
and he (the Duke of Newcastle) certainly had stated
then, and his right hon. friends in the other house of
Parliament bad also stated, that any additional boon to
a company lying under such great imputations and
charges ought not to be conceded without full investiga-