The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-19 00:00:00

proposition made. The letter written by Lord Stanley ac-
ceded to that proposition. These are the plain facts, intelli-
gible to persons not even conversant with the forms of business.
A letter was written by the Chairman of the New Zealand
Company. There was an answer. A proposition was made on
the one hand and accepted on the other, and there the matter
rested. An arrangement, a complete arrangement—com-
plete in all its parts—was entered into by the
Government on the one side, and by the Company
on the other. The Honourable Gentleman said there
was no agreement, but an assumpsit ; bat I should think,
though the practice of the Colonial-office may be a little sharp,
that that sort of special pleading is now abandoned.—( Hear,
hear.) There was a complete agreement. That must be ad-
mitted on all hands. Now, what takes place. A person is
appointed to carry it into effect on behalf of both, mark that,
on behalf of the Company on the one hand, and on the Go-
vernment on the other. That individual wrote to the Noble
Lord to say he had doubts about the conclusion of the agreement.
Does the house follow me ?—(Hear, hear.) Am I not right in
saying that this was a complete agreement? Were there not
two parties to it, the Government and the New Zealand Com-
pany? Was it not the duty of Lord Stanley, when doubts had
been raised, to communicate those doubts to the Company ?
Was not that the ordinary course in the common affairs of life?
If A and B were about to enter into an agreement, which was
to be carried into effect by C, and certain doubts had been raised
by A, was it not the duty of C to make these doubts known to
B ?—( Hear, hear. ) Would it be fair for Cto leave Bin com-
plete ignorance ? But what do you say to the word " confi-
dential." That word of great import and great potency. Yes,
that word " confidential " was written at the head of a private
interpretation of a public agreement.—( Hear, hear.) Was the
interpretation private ? If not, why mark it " confi-
dential ?"—( Hear, hear.) The Under-Secretary of State
had cot said why that word " confidential was written.
A most extraordinary fact had been disclosed. My lion.
Friend the Member for Cockermouth stated that on the Ist of
February, 1543, the Company, for the first time, became ap-
prised of the existence of those instructions. Was not the
effect of those instructions of a secret nature ? Were they
secret then ? Was not confidence a most important incident
in this matter ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it not one of the facts
—was it not one of the res gest¢? But in the copy that had
been issued from the Colonial-office to the Company, the word
" Confidential" was erased.—( Hear, hear, and ironical cheer-
ing from the Ministerial benches.) Why, my Hon. Friend
informs me that the word " Confidential" was originally
written on that copy, and that with a studious but most in-
felicitous solicitude the word " Confidential " was erased.—
( Hear, hear.) Do you deny that 7—(" Hear, hear," from
the Treasury benches.) Do you deny it ? (After a pause.)
Then you don't deny it ? Tell me why? Is the House satis-
fied with the explanation that has been given? I think not.—
( Hear, hear. ) Will you tell me why the word was inserted?
Mr. HOPE—I did.
Mr. SHELL—Oh, then, it must be my want of perspicacity
that I did not understand the Hon. Gentleman.—( Laughter. )
I certainly heard nothing—not even a plausible suggestion for
the introduction of the word " confidential " in the interpretation
of a public document. The interpretation was that upon which
the Government was to act ; then why not convey it to the
other party to that agreement—the New Zealand Company ?
Did the interpretation of Lord Stanley differ from the agree-
ment? Surely, when doubts were raised, the other contracting
party should have copies of the discussion which took place
thereupon, and should be allowed to state his reasons and plead
his case.—( Hear, hear.) Is there not a great difference be-
tween proving a title as plaintiff and defendant? I say, is there
not a great difference ?—( Hear, hear.) If I agree to sell
A certain lands, on condition that he won't dispute the
title, would it nut be a departure from the agreement
if A afterwards said, " You must prove your title." By
the agreement of the 12th of May, the onus probandi
was taken off the Company, but by Lord Stanley's interpre-
tation the onus probandi was thrown on the Company.--
( No, no.) You say " No."—( The Right Hon. Gentleman
read an extract from the agreement in proof of what he
stated.) By the first agreement, I repeat, the onus probandi
was removed from the Company, and by the interpretation
—the clandestine interpretation—the interpretation behind the
backs of the parties—the surreptitious interpretation—the
onus was shifted from the shoulders of the Noble Lord and
thrown upon the Company.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (the Solicitor-
General) would tell them whether there was not a difference
between the lessor of the plaintiff and the lessor of the de.
fondant. Is there not in this respect a distinct
departure from the terms of the agreement? I
was a good deal surprised by the Under-Secretary
for the Colonies. He read a document, or rather the fragment
of a document—of a public document—dated the 29th of June,
1844. It is impossible the Hon. Gentleman could have read
the rest of that document, or that he would have taken care to
convey to the House the information which it contains. He
asked the House to accede to Lord Stanley's interpretation ;
but the Hon. Gentleman did not read this part of the docu-
ment. It appears by this final instruction of Captain Fitzroy,
recently conveyed, that the agreement was interpreted—at
least in some of its parts—in a sense different from that which, in
the first instance, attached to it.—(Mr. Hope—" Read on.")
Why did not you readon?—( Hear)—why did you not read before
you came down to the House ? Why is it that this hiatus valde
delfendus occurred ?—( The Hon. Gentleman went en to read
the document.) " With the hope that no practical evil had re-
sulted from this misunderstanding, yet it was not the less fatal
to our utility as a Company, and it must be owned was most
injurious to the interests of a colony which was then in its in-
fancy."—( Hear, hear.) Do you wish me to read any more ?
The rest of the passage relates to the mal-administration of
the colony. It has been stated that notwithstanding many de-
fects in the Government of the colony, the people
of New Zealand had made a remarkable pro-
gress in civilisation. The Colonial-office has pub-
lished documents, one of which is of great interest. It is
the speech of Napiera, one of the native chiefs, at a meeting of
the chiefs. lie says—" Speak your words openly—speak as a
man—do not say one thing and mean another." Sir, these
words ought to be written, in letters of gold, in the Colonial-
office.—( Great cheering. )
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL commended the tone which
had been used by the Hon. Member for Liskeard, and depre-
cated that of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Dun-
garvon, who stopped much more suddenly than he had antici-
pated, and failed in giving the slightest elucidation of the
question under the consideration of the House—in fact, the
Right Hon. Gentleman had not furnished him with materials
to comment upon. It did not touch the specific charge against
the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department. Now
what was the question with which the House had really to deal?
These were the instructions which hail been sent out by the
Noble Lord in order to regulate the settlement of the country.
It was necessary to state these instr uctions in order to under-
stand the dispute between the New Zealand Company and the
Colonial- office. The New Zealand Company had purchased
a very considerable tract of land, to which in the first place they
were required to make their title good. The Noble Lord at
the head of the Colonial Department had been exceedingly
anxious to save the Company from uncertainty and expense in
conveying their titles to whoever might be purchasers from
them. It was true that the Noble Lord had professed to make
good a prima facie title to the New Zealand Company.
This would give no particular advantage, the House might
say, to the Company themselves, but it was of immense
advantage to the Company, in giving them an opportunity of
preceding other proprietors of land. This title was
preferred in 1842, and it gave them a selection
of a very large tract of country. ;In giving them,
however, this prima facie title, Lord Stanley required
the Company should clear the native titles. The Company
had remonstrated against this obligation, but yet they had
proceeded to carry out the prima facie title which they
had derived from the Colonial-office. But the terms
of that title were such, that the Company refused
to accept them without modification. But on the Bth of May,
1843, a letter was forwarded to the Colonial Office, which con-
tained a proposal precisely of the same tenor as that which they
had previously refused. The Company were invested
with a power over lands to a considerable extent.
Those lands did not include Auckland or Wellington, but they
chose to make settlements at those places ; and the only point
which they particularly desired to reserve, was their ability to
convey these lands without limitation. The Colonial-office re-
quired that the native titles to these lands should be cleared.
fhe extent of the districts would be understood when he
stated that it extended over five degrees of latitude, and
20,000,000 of acres. There was only one arrangement into
which the Colonial-office had agreed to enter, and which at
all affected the interests of the Company ; and that was—that
they should expend 41. for every acre which they should dis-
pose of. The Government only required that the Company
should make their title good. In doing this, it should not be
forgotten that the Colonial-office had given a prima facie title
to all the land which they possessed. Now it happened that
Auckland was not within their district at all ; yet, so desirous
were they of a settlement at Auckland, that in their proposal
of the Bth of May, 1842, they made the proffer of 50,000 acres
of land, 10,000 in the town, and 15,000 in the neighbourhood.
The other '25,000 they took in dispersed lots in the country dis-
tricts. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for
Liskeard had laid great stress upon the claims of the Company to
50,000 acres of land. Undoubtedly they had a claim by reason
of their title to a certain number of acres within their own
district. They proposed to exchange a portion of the land to
which they were entitled.
Mr. C. BULLER—That is my view.
The SOL I CITO R-GENERAL—His (the Solicitor-Gene-
ral's) view was, that they were willing to give the Government
50,000 acres of their own land, but he held that they were
bound to show their title to it, it being in fact compulsory on
them to establish their claim to the land by a settled and com-
plete right. That was the proposition which was made in the
letter of the Bth May, and to which the letter of the 12th was
an answer. Here was the first question between the Govern-
ment and the Company. The Hon. Member for Liskeard took
occasion to criticise the spirit of Lord Stanley's instructions,
because he said that it would be his duty to see that the Com-
pany satisfactorily proved their title to the land. The question
between them was, who was to prove the title to the land. He
contended that it remained an open question now. The Go-
vernment maintained that it was the Company's duty to clear
the titles to the land. These instructions were in the very
spirit of every letter that had passed from the Government at
home to the Governor of New Zealand. And, he would yen-

ture to say, that so far from being different from the spirit of
the letters, that they were most consonant with the
agreement entered into with the Comyany. Lord
Stanley, in his letter to Captain Fitzroy, first of all
referred to the arrangements, and the principle inculcated was
to allow the Company a prima facie title to the lands for the
purpose of facilitating them in their settlement, and of enabling
them successfully to resist the claims of other parties. If they
lucked at the letter of the Sth of May, 1843, could they doubt
of the intended meaning of the words therein ? They were to
give the Company a prima facie title to the land, until
a stronger and better title could be established.
But the Honourable and Learned Member for Liskeard
said that these very words were full of ambiguity. There
were five points of complaint against his Noble Friend, Lord
Stanley. Three of these were disposed of by the admissions
of the Company itself. The other two could be best under-
stood by the House from his reading one of their own letters,
ir,oin which he would show that they had created a baseless
phantom, which he would presently lay.—( A laugh.) The
letter of Feb. 1, 1e44, recited a
by the Hon. Member for
Liskeard, showed upon the face of it
t hat '
tt. concocted by
gentutenelemen who had, at all events, ingenuitys enough, and
acss enough, to put a proper or an improper construction
upon the agreement.._( Cheers, and indignant cries of " oh.") He had no wish to impute motives. (Ironical
mom
cheers.) He did not accuse the be sof the Com-
mittee of having wilfully misconstrued the agreement.( Heat))
1 hey had the instruetions before them on the Ist February.
was important that the House should remember this, for
Hon. and Learned Member for Liskeard said the Noble Lord had
eiolated the agreement in his instructions. The New Zealand
Company, then, had the instructions before them on the Ist
February, 1844. They knew what their agreement was—they
knew what their rights were, and they knew all the negotia-
tions from be,rionieg to end which had taken place between
them and the Colonial Office; and having this knowledge,what
did they do? On the 29th February, 1-44, they wrote to the
Colonial Office in these terms : After giving a
long and melancholy account of the affairs of their
Company, and proposing that the Government should take
the matter into their awn hands, they went on to state " We
make these suggestions with a full reliance that they will be
entertained by your Lordship in that spirit of candour and
confidence which your Lordship has always evinced for the well-
being of the colony ; and we, therefore, rely with confidence
on your Lordship's co-operation. We have felt it to be oar
duty to the public to lay this suggestion before your Lordship,
and we leave the matter in your Lordship a hands, with
entire reliance upon the benevolence and justice which