NEW ZEALAND. THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY AND THE COLONIAL OFFICE.

New Zealander, Volume 1, Issue 12, 23 August 1845, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND. THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY AND THE COLONIAL OFFICE.

We have always held, that ever since its discovery and circum navigation by Capiaia Cook in 1767, and the formal declaration of it then proclaimed, the Sovereignty of New Zealand nas been vested in, and ac jure belonged to, the British Crown. When therefore a body of British subjects, wished in 1839, to colonize New Zealand, the British Government should not for a moment have doubted its Sovereignty, notwithstanding any acis of the Church Missionary Society, or any assumption of independency set up by them, for their own ends, in name or on behalf of the native population. The Government of Great Britain— pre-eminently a colonizing country— should have admired the spirit of enterprise and independence which prompted so many British subjects to engage in the heroic work of founding a Colony in New .Zealand, and should fiom the fiisl, have thrown its shield of protection and encouragement around them. '1 he Sovereignty of the British Crown should at once have been de facto exercise I. But there are reasons lor everything ; and in tle jealousies of rival yartie-— the influence of the Church Missionary Societp — and in personal dislike to the founder or originator of the scheme, the true cause will be found why Government refused to exercise its right of Sovereignty at the time of the form ition of the New Zealand Company, and the subsequent embarkation of the colonists ; and why, e\er since, with the exception after noticed, they have received so much opposition from the Colonial Office, It will be remarked, that although Government withheld its sanction to the New Zealand Company, it notwithstanding, within three months after the despat 'h of the Company's pioneer-ship, Tort/, which sailed from Blackwall in the beginning of May, 1839, despatched a sloop of war to New Zealand, under the command of Cipt. Hohson, R.N., with instructions to acquire, or if he saw Jit, to assume the sovereignty of the country. Captain Hobson sailed for the North end of the Noah island, where the Chuich Missionary Society had since 1814, the date of the foundation of the Miss on by the Rev. Mr. Marsden, principally establish ud themselves. i Here Capt. Hobson went through a mock proress of acquiring a cession of the Sovereignly from some of the Native Chiefs; but with respect to the whole of the South, and the greater part of the North Island, he saw Jit boldly to assume the Sovereignty, in pursuance of the light acquited by Captain Cook in 1767 ; and thus, de facto, he established British law and Government in New Zealand. ' In the meantime tle Company's settlers had planted themselves at Wellington, vi Cook's ."traits, in the south end of the North Island, distant 500 miles or so, from wheie Governor Hobson had fixed his quarters. Had Governor Hobson confined himself to declaring and exercising British Sovereignty in New Zealand, his proceedings would not have been so questionable, —but he set himself up as a rival colonizer to the Company, — he bought property in land, and founded a town, which he called Auckland, — made it the seat of Government, — and began to merchandise in building lots, which like railway shares, becoming inflated in puce, temjitjd the settlers to put-chase, and thus all who were induced to rally round the standard of the co!o lizing Governor, were soon drained of their means, which weie transferred to the pockets of the land jobbers, in place of being employed in the real business of colonization, namely, the reclamation and cultivation of the wilderness. The sane sort of speculation in building lots, no doubt, took place at Wellington. But the N. Z.

Company was avowedly a commercial undertaking, ml mune y-making, in the sale of land, their object ; I whereas, the Representative of the British Crown ' was sent to New Zealand, it is to be presumed, free from all such objectionable motives :— for objec'ionable all such mere huckstering in land, or anything else, undoubtedly is on the part of any Government, whether Imperial or Colonial, or of whatever description. This rivalry betwixt the Colonial office party and the Edward Gibbon Wakefi eld party, —the Government and the N. Z. Company, — New Zealand North and New Zealand South, — Auckland, the capital political, and Wellington, the capital commercial,— has continued now during the whole six years which have nearly elapsed since the formation of the Company. The result has been most unfavourable tj the j progress of colonization. The hostility of the natives, the dreadful massacre at the Wairoa, and the present ruinous state of the colony, may be all contributed to the unseemly contention betwixt the Government and the Company. The only exception to the continual warfare betwixt the two parsies, was during Lord John Russell's administration as Colonial Ministir, in 1840-41. The members and leading directors of the N. Z. Company, some of them Tories, rendered good service to Lord John during his contest as Whig candidate lor the City of London ; which, it will be recollected, was a very severe one, his Lordship being returned by, for so large a constituency, the exceeding small majority of nine votes only over his opponents. The resolution to support Lord John Russell in this contest, was a nidster stroke of policy, worthy the genius of Mr. Edward Gibbon Wakefield. To support the Company was the smallest return for such important services, which his Lordship, as Colonial Minister, could make. His Lordship, dined and flattered into the belief that he was the greatest Colonial Minister Britain ever saw,— was enlisted on the »ide of the Company, and cajoled into granting them a Charter of Incorporation, on terms, which they were at the time only too happy to agree to — ihe principal couditiau being, the securing' them the ownership oF land in New Zealand, to the extent] of four tunes the number of pounds sterling they could show they had expended in emigration, which amount was to be fixed by an accountant mutually chosen by the Government and the Company. It may be easily imagined by those who have a knowledge how things ol the kind are managed, that no very minute scrutiny of the accounts would take place, and that the expenditure would be made to appear as large as possible. A Pamphlet has just been published by Messrs. Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, Fleet Street, entitled, ''The New Zealand Company : Its claim to Compensation Considered ;" whereiu we observe certain glaring discrepancies in the accounts of the expenditure of the Company are pointed out, and which undoubtedly call lor explanation at the hands of the Government, if they do not wish it to be considered, that they have willingly allowed themselves to be imposed on ; and have, in short, been partits to something like a fraud — in granting a Charter to a Company on the ground ot an alleged expenditure of money which never really took place. The capital of the Company, is £300,000 sterling ; only £200,000 howevrr, have been paid up. The Company say, they have expended half a million in Emigration. They must, therefore, have realised £300,000 from sales of Land Orders. The author of the above pamphlet says that they have re.ilized £314,390 sterling, according to the Report of the Parliamentary Committee. Now, allowing them to have given free passages to 7000 adult emigrants, this, at £20 per head, would account for .£40,000. But how is it possible to account for the remaining £360,000, except on the most latidunarian principles ? First of all ; the Company take credit for £40,000 paid in 16,00 £25 shares, to the partners of "The New Zealand Colonization Company." Now, if Government do not consider it still to he their duty, notwithstanding any thing that has taken place, to inquire concerning this " New Zealand I Colonization Company," — -who were us partners? what was its capital stock? what the nature of the equivalent given tor the £40,000? what the constitution of the Company ? who were its officers ? — it will then come to be the duty of some private individual or other to do so ; for we fear no inquiry was ever made by the accountautou the subject. Secondly— The Company take credit for ,£44,3 14 terling, of dividends paid on their capital stock, in the course of the first three years of its existence, being at the rate of nearly 8 per cent per annum on the paid up capital of £200,000. But the capital was only .£lOO,OOO, until the Charter was obtained. This was in (841, so that dividends at the rate of from 14 to 15 per cent per annum may be said to have been paid— paid, too, be it remembered, on the 1,600 shares taken in exchange by the mysterious " New Zealand Colonization Company." On what principle is it possible to imagine, can the payment of huch large dividends be justified ? Thirdly — The Company take credit for £35,815, paid for "laud at Kaipara, Hokianga, the Thames, Herd's Point, Pdiroa, and Port Nicholson. But to whom this large sum was paid, is not staled," This item surely cannot escape inquiry. Fourthly— The Company take credit for adventure per Cuba £8,603. 13s. Bd., and adventure per Tory, £0,000, and cost of ship, £9,320. 19s. lid. What has become of these adventure 1 -, aud of the ship ? Here are £23,924. 13s. 7d.said to have been expended for which no return, or quid pro quo appears. Fifthly— The Company take credit for £5,443, £4,732, and £636, as paid to natives, making £10,81 1 under this head, so that it would appear, there have . been three several purchases of land paid, — Ist, to some unknown parties ; 2nd, in goods ; 3rd, to natives in cash. All these items amount to . . £154,864 Add free passages to 7000 adult emigrants, dm before stated . . 140,000 £294,864 And there remains a balance of . 205,136 To makeup the sum of . . . £500,000 said 'o have been expended by the Company. Can the purchase of New Zealand House and its furniture— unnecessarily extravagant as it is, — -salaries to officers at home and abroad, commissions to agents, adveitisements, newspapers, newspaper editors, law expences, or any other supposeable charge, make up this large deficiency o\ £'205', U 6 ? If so, we must say , the expeuce« of the Company have been I on a truly magnificent scale. We were not aware the expense of working the machinery of Colonization was necessarily so extravagant. | So long as Lord Jwhii Russell, M.P. for Lordon, was Colonial Minister, the Company had the ball at its foot. The Chtmh Missionary Society and the Go- [ vernment Colonizing party were completely liors de combat. All was gtJing on swimmingly. New projects were contemplated. The ambition of the main projector swelled, and he saw, like another Alna«»-'

char, the realization of his dream, the complete establishment of the Wakefield dynasty in New Zealand. ij But the downfall of the Melbourne-Russell Administration, and return to Sir Robert Peel to power dispelled their visions. Lord Johu was obliged to make way for Lord Stanley, who succeeded him as Colonial Secretary. t Lord Stanley is under no obligation to the Company ; he is independent of them. And, besides, is not to he cajoled into any course unless convinced it is right. <• , His Lordship refuse? to grant. a title to the Company for the land specified in the Charter, granted by Lord John Russell. And he persists in his refusal, although a Commit cc of the House of Commons pronounced last session that his Lordship was wrong, and that the Company ought to receive their title. His Lordship has been assailed with all manner of' abuse for the line of policy he is pursuing,— his competency for the office of Colonial Secretary has beeuu questioned,— it has been'deelared that he has no pre-i tensions to the akaracter of a Statesman,— that his only qualifications are- those of a smart debator, or parliamentary wrangler. If his Lordship be acting from mere enmity or rivalry to the Company, or from ignorance or spleen or obstmac3',his conduct is censurable in the highest degree. But it must be remembered, that in the just exercise of British Sovereignty iv New Zealand, the Goverument, both at home and in the colony, is bound to protect the natives in their possessions, as well as to regard the interests of the British settlers. In confirming also the titles to British subjects, by grants from the Crown, the officers of Government must first be satisfied there is, in reality, a title to be confirmed. Here lies, we apprehend, the real question between the New Zealand Compan/ and Lord Stanley ; which however, for obvious reasons, the Company, in their various publications, have chosen altogether lo overlook, or be siient upon. Have they a title which the Crown can confirm ? Have they— not a mere piece of written parchment or paper, in the shape of a legal deed, — but a title in equity, founded on a fair bona tide expenditure of money, or outlay of goous to the natives, in the acquisition of the lands to which, they lay claim ? An individual claimant for crown grant or confirmation, would be bound to submit tothe strictest investigation of his claim ; why should the New Zealand Company be exempted from such investigation ? From what we have shown, it must he clear to every unprejudiced mind, that an absolute necessity exists for the most thorough examination of the accounts, or pretended accounts, of the expenditure of the Company. Till such explanation be made, Lord Stanley can never as an upright Minister sanction a Crown grant in favor of tht Company. Nor can Parliament for one moment, entertain the idea of giving any compensation to the Company, on the ground <jf non-confirmaiion of the title by the Crown. We are told, such compensation is to be sought in the present Session. Compeiisatian ! For what? For pocketing the money of the settlers, iv the shape of large and unauthorised dividends ! For crediting themselves with sums, which it has not properly esta^ bhsherl by any authentic vouchers, documents, or evidence of any kind they ever paid out! For profuse and extravagant expenditure of the funds of the Company ! If compensation be really claimed from Parliament by the Company, in present circumstances, it will be one of the most reckless instances of effioutery that ever has been witnessed amdug all the extraordinary things that have come to light in the case of London Joint Stock Companies. No l no I The Company, we rather think, must renounce the idea of compensation. With purchasers of Land Orders, however, whether settlers or not, it \% different. They have a clear and undoubted title to compensation. The actual settlers are entitled to damages, over and above repetition of the price paid by them, lor the land orders. The holders of laud orders in this country are entitled to have the money they paid refunded, with interest from the date of payment ; and the claims of both parties rest on these grounds : Ist.-— Though the Company did not warrant the Land Orders against the acts of the British Government, but on the contrary, specially excepted their title from such warrandice, still they never had any title in the equitable sense of the term, or only sense in which a title applicable to New Zealand, could be constituted, either to warrant or exempt from warrandice. 2nd. — The proceedings of the British Government in New Zealand are acts of Sovereignty. The establishmeut of British Sovereignty can only be held to be favourable to every British settler in New Zealand, and could only serve to strengthen his. ownership or possession of land, provided Ids title qnd possession were equitable, or founded injustice, accoiding to those principles of public law by which property in waste and uncultivated land in uncivilized countries is originally acquired. 3rd, — The non- confirmation of the Company's title by the Crown, is the best,— indeed the only test of the defectiveness of the title. 4th— But, irrespective altogether of the Cioyrn, no title can be derived from the Company. The Crown lays no claim %o property in the landj it only exercis.es acts of sovereignty. The exception of warrandice can only be held to apply to any competitive claim to property by the Crown, or others under the Crown, as derived, priori tempore, from the natives. sth.— The title of the Company, therefore, irrespective of the Crown, being radically defective, and. no title derivable from it, the actual settlers must either obtain grants direct from the Crown in virtue of their actual occupation, and equitable title flowing therefrom, and of the other circumstances attending their location, or they must receive full and ample compensation. Purchasers in this country are, in like manner, unquestionably entitled to have their money returned with interest. The suppositson would be monstious, that the Company having accepted the Laud Orders only against challenge by the Governmeut, on the ground of a better or superior title as Proprietor, not as Sovereign, did not guarantee their own title ; and that notwithstanding such guaranteef they are not bound to make restitution wherejthe titlV has failed. | We condemn equally the conduct'of the Colonial Office and of the New Zealand Company iv the whole } of the proceedings relating to New Zealaudcolonisation. There has been too much of the mere huckster spirit amongst them and their subordinates for our liking ; and. we would only add, that if New Zealand, is to recover its present depression, and ever to become a great and prosperous colony, another description of men must he entrusted with the management of its affairs, thau those who have hitherto conducted, them.