PETITION OF THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

New Zealander, Volume 1, Issue 19, 11 October 1845, Page 2

PETITION OF THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

By the Mail which left England on the 19th May last, in the Hoogley, and brought from Sydney by the Coolangatta, we have received a most important document ; and connected as itis, with the recall of Captain Fitzroy, and the present crisis of the colony, we shall give it insertion entire, in our columns. It is the Petition of the New Zealand Company to the House of Commons, presented immediately after the Easter recess, — previous to the proceedings in the House, which appeared in our last number. It is an able composition, and at this juncture will be perused with great interest ; for not only are the various differences with Lord Stanley fully detailed; but numerous other topics connected with the colony, are discussed with great tact. The wrongs, of which the New Zealand Company petition for redress, arise from an asserted breach of contract ; — that they have not yet been able to obtain a crown grant for a single acre, of the 762,593 acres awarded as due to them, by the accountant appointed by the Home Government to investigate their claim, pursuant to a specific agreement with Lord John Russell when Secretary of State for the Colonies. The differences, with Lord Stanley 1 , appear to have arisen as to what should be the true and just constiuctibn of this agreement, made by Lord John Russell with the Company. The dispute we believe, is not very generally understood, — but it may be thus briefly explained. The Company in their first operations in this colony, acted in direct opposition to Capt. Hobson, as they likewise endeavoured to nullify the measures, he was instructed by Lord

Norraanby and Lord John Russell, to adopt and carry out in the colony, — with regard to the restriction of purchase of lands from the natives after December, 1839 ; that all previous purchases should undergo strict investigation, and be likewise limited in extent, and then ratified by grants from the Crown ; and that no legal title could exist, but that which emanated from the Crown. It was not to be anticipated, that the British Government would ever succumb, or suffer their views and instructions to be frustrated by the Company, however harassing and annoying they might be to the Local Government, in the colony. However, the doubtful validity, as well as comparatively small extent, — considering the great objects contemplated — of the purchases of the Company in Cook's Straits, and the alarming prospect to the Company's settlers, that their lands, without crown grants, would be of no transferable, saleable value, at length compelled the Company to alter their tactics; and to endeavour to make some arrangement with the Colonial Office ; and hence arose their Charter of Incorporation, and the amicable treaty with Lord John Russell, in June, 1841. By this agreement the Company were to have their accounts investigated by a nominee of Lord John Russell, (Mr. Pennington) and for every pound sterling of expenditure, they were to receive from the local Government, by crown grant, four acres of land. The heads of expenditure were defined to be, — all sums expended "in the piirchase of lands in New Zealand from the native chiefs and others ; — in the taking up, chartering, and dispatching ships for the conveyance of emigrants thither ; — in the maintenance of such emigrants before, and during the outward voyage ; — in the purchase and transmission of stores for the public use of the settlers* collectively on their arrival ; — in surveys ; — in the erection of buildings, or the execution of other works, dedicated to the public service of the settlement ; — and in other heads of expenditure, or absolute liabilities, unavoidably required, or reasonably incurred, for the before mentioned purposes." We would draw particular attention to the words in italics, because the true equitable meaning of the agreement rests on their construction. The accountant awarded, on the first investigation to the Company, 531,929 acres of land, and Lord J. Russell instructed Captain Hobson, to make grants of land to the agents of the Company to that extent, m pursuance of! the terms of the agreement ; but Captain Hobson demurred, as he construed the agreement to bind the Company first, to prove good' and valid their purchases from the natives, before the regular commissioners, of the land that the Company were to surrender to the crown, and for the purchase of which they had been allowed credit in their account of expenditure. When Lord Stanley became Colonial Minister, he adopted the views and sanctioned the proceedings of Governor Hobson. On the other hand, the company contended, that Lord J. Russell, who was the party to the original agreement with them, concurred in their construction of it ; which was, that the lands awarded, were quite unconnected with any previous purchase from the natives, although the validity of purchase might be questioned. However, Lord Stanley continued resolute, and the effects of this misunderstanding were so ruinous to those who had purchased lands from the company ; as well as to the further operations of the company themselves, that they offered to waive the first agreement, and to accept in lieu, a second agreement, — which we conceive to be most highly objectionable and unjust. It was — that the Governor should issue, at once, a crown grant for all the land the company occupied or had sold ; — and then leave to others the arduous task to establish their prior claims, — and to the natives to prove their original proprietary. In other words, — the crown to give to the company the lands of other persons, and those persons subsequently might disposses the company, or obtain the value of it from them, —if they chose to enter into litigation with a rich powerful body ! The company complain that Lord Stanleyacceded to this proposal, but gave Gov. Fitzroy private - instructions contrary to -it. • Subsequently they quarrelled with his Lordship ; appealed to the House of Commons in April, 1844 ; and obtained the celebrated report from the committee so much in their favor. The Company anticipated that Lord Stanley would implicitly adopt the views of the Committee ; and they assert in their petition that his Lordship's opposition, is to be attributed to the powerful influence, over the Colonials office, exercised by " the Societies concerned in Missions and Aborigines," — and they remark that the practical result, whatever may be the , cause of such influence, — has been, that from the beginning, New Zealand has been regarded, and measures relating to it have been conducted by the Government, not with reference to the interest of Great Britain, but to those of the aborigines, as seen through the mission- ' ary medium ; — and the disinterestedness of the

views of the Ohurcli Missionary society, in upholding the system of direct purchases from the natives, is considered by the Company very questionable ; on account of the fact that of thirty-five missionaries employed by the Church society in 1838, twenty-three have preferred claims on account of such purchases, to the amount of 181,340 acres; exclusive of 3,900 acres for Church Missionary families, and 1 1,600 acres for the Church Society itself! A review is then taken in this petition," of the conduct and policy of the Government in this colony from 1836. The recognition of a national flag to the natives, and the acts of Mr. Busby are censured ; and the treaty of Waitangi is regarded, as the natural sequel and climax of a series of fictitious proceedings, of which the hollow and injurious nature is forcibly represented, in the report of the Committee of the House of Commons. The establishment of the seat of Government at Auckland, the pre-emption of the officers ot government to lands in Auckland, and their subsequent jobbing in them, and the Court of Land Claims, are all subjects of animadversion from the Petitioners. JjflPfl|Sg_ are added some most important QjSSvations on the financial state of the colony, declaring that the excess of outlay over real income during the three first years was =£57)000, and that from an expenditure of £128,985, 19s. 3d., during that period the total amount appropriated to religion was only £388, 0s- sd, and to education, only £91, 85. 6d. From this subject of Colonial expenditure we cannot pass on to other subjects without first quoting a most sensible sentence in the petition :— " In old times, when our forefathers laid the foundations of the greatest colonies that the world has ever seen, the revenue and expenditure of every colony was from the first defrayed from its own resources, and modest establishments were dictated by the simple habits and restricted means of the early cowl nists-" w Comparison is then drawn between the system and conduct of the Government, and the operations of the Company : — the petition asserts that " the effects of the policy which has been pursued by the Government are seen in the disasters that have visited all connected with the colony." The Petitioners then state, that the summary of their case is, that they have been awarded seven t hundred thousand acres of land, for which they cannot obtain title deeds to a single acre ; they have expended nearly 600,000?. on public objects, — and that all the wrong of which they complain, is the direct consequence of the interference of the British government in the colonization of New Zealand, — -they therefore are compelled to appeal to the House of Commons for redress. Most truly the petitioners state, it is obviously impossibly to allow New Zealand to remain in its present condition, as it is also equally impossible to abandon it, or to relinquish the colonization already begun. Whatever differences may have existed between the New Zealand Company and the Colonial Office, or however censurable the former may be for its opposition to the Government, as well as for the system pursued by its agents in the colony, we have no doubt that much good will result eventually to the colony. The serious — most serious consideration of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain cannot longer be withheld from New Zealand, and the proper administration of its internal government fully discussed, and in such deliberations we would hope that the following excellent sentence of the petition, of which we have given an analysis will have its due weight and influence, " We would entreat your honourable House to remember that the inhabitants of colonies, not enjoying representative institutions, live under a despotism more complete than any absolute government of Europe. In the case of New Zealand, the distance from Great Britain relieves the local authority practically from any check. The rule over the colonists there, is such as every mpmber of your honourable house would deem intolerable, if by any calamity it were inflicted on those subjects of Her Majesty who do not emigrate. The selection of Governors and other officers, possessing ability and judgment is therefore of peculiar moment."