WELLINGTON EXTRACTS. THE (NEW MUNSTER) LAND CLAIMANTS ORDINANCE versus THE NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENTS ACT.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 626, 14 April 1852, Page 2

WELLINGTON EXTRACTS. THE (NEW MUNSTER) LAND CLAIMANTS ORDINANCE versus THE NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENTS ACT.

[From the " Wellington Spectator," March 6.] The Editor of the Independent seems to be greatly alarmed at the progress of the Memorial to his Excellency praying for the suspension of the Act of Parliament and tne immediate issue of Crown Grants, and finding that beyond his own immediate clique the opinion of the settlers is nearly unanimous in its favour, he resorts to his usual practice of misrepresentations and personalities, and hopes by such arts to impose on those who may not have bestowed sufficient attention on the subject. We do not often care to notice these ebuhtions^ of personal spile which are the ordinary stock in trade of this writer, since they only injure in the estimation of others the unworthy author of them and not those against whom they are directed ; if on some unusual provocation we feel it necessary to expose and refute these personal attacks, and "much enforced show a hasty spark," we speedily relapse into our former indifference. The Independent accuses some of the members of the Deputation of being ' contractors, and would have his readers infer they are therefore under the influence of the Government. Not it is notorious that the contracts are decided by the Government without the slightest reference to the opinions of individuals, or any attempt at favourite ism, and the best proof of this may be found in the fact that the reputed owners of the Independent have for some years past been holders of Government Contracts, and that several members of the Bowie Knife Association may be pointed out as having been greatly benefited by Government Contracts. The writer in the Independent seems to be horrified at the idea of the absentees getting any equivalent for their land orders and scrip, and si ill more horrified at the conversion of these into money scrip, which he represents as annihilating the land fund and handing over the colony to the absentees fi,r years to come ; the land we are told will not fetch more tlun from ss. to 7s. 6d. an acre, but the money scrip will be disposed of at par, i. c. at 20s. lie and his friends, in short, have been well compensated, all their claims are satisfied, nothing is wanting but a

Crown Grant to secure them in possession, why should the absentees receive anything ? Having been liberally treated themselves, why should any consideration be shown the absentees ? Having got one district to themselves they would wish to make a snug job of it and allow no squattei to show his face among them, while aa to the absen - tees, let them keep their blanks in the land lottery, anything is good enough for them, and thus they would Compound for sins they are inclined to 13 v damning those they have no mind to. It must be obvious to any one that the scrip must always bear a relathe value to the market price of land, if the price of the land is from ss. to 7s. 6d. an acre the price of scrip which is to be taken in payment of land will not greatly exceed it. It is equally obvious that the i&bue of scrip is likely to prove beneficial to the colony by inducing persons emigrating to become purchasers, thus introducing new buyers of land and transferring the scrip from absentees to settlers, instead of ll handing over the colony to the absentees for years to come." It is asserted that nine tenths of the land-owners are indifferent as to whether Grants are issued immediately or no. By his own confession, then, at least one-tenth of the land-owners would be injured by further delay. A remedy is suggested to the holders of doubtful titles " who could at once claim Crown Grants under the Act of Parliament ;" but these Crown Grants are described in one of the resolutions of the Association, as " objectionable, inasmuch as being clogged with conditions all titles derived thereunder will be questionable and uncertain," and that grants under the Land Claimants Ordinance "are greatly to be preferred." We cannot see what advantages is to be obtained by substituting one doubrful title for another. What the effect of grants under the Act would be is so clearly set forth in a letter from a correspondent, in our present number, that any one who reads it must be fully convinced that the immediate suspension of the Act, and the issue of Crown Grants, would confer the greatest benefit on the colony. The statement that the Governor intimated "that he would be obliged to allow the absentees to choose their lands in the proposed town at Hauke's Bay," is, to use this writer's choice phraseology, l ' notoriously, and on the very face of it untrue," as a reference to the Spectator of Feb. 25, will easily shew. The allusion to the Nelson Trust funds is equally unfortunate, since that is a question totally unconnected with the i&sue of Crown Grants or the rights of Pasturage, and therefore not affected by any adjustment of them.

The following is the letter referred .to in the foregoing article. We copy it as containing what seems to us a temperate and clear statement of several points respecting the present complicated Land Questions of the Southern Province on which it is desirahle to have correct information. (To the Editor of the " New Zealand Spectator.") Wellington, March 4, 1852. Sir, — That the settlers may be aware of the difference between the Crown Grants offered to them pursuant to the recent Act of Parliament relating to lands in New Zealand and the Crown Grants which they were led to expect under the Land Claims Ordinance, in itself no more than a just fulfilment of the Company's engagements with them, I trouble you with a few remarks. Under the Land Claims Ordinance the estate created b) r a Crown Grant would have been good against all the world excepting the Crown, and would only be disputed by the Crown on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation by the Grantee. Such a grant requires no witness, proves itself in Court, conveys all it purports to convey, and until set aside by the Crown, is evidence of an indefeasible title. The New Zealand Company, in August 1839, when they had not a shadow of claim to the land now forming the settlement of Port Nicholson, issued land orders, each of which declared that the person whose name it bore has one section of land consisting of one town acre and one hundred country acres in the first and principal settlement. As originally printed the words " paid for" followed the word "has," intimating more accurately the nature of the transaction represented by the land order. On mature deliberation, and doubtless to avoid any question as to the duty chargeable on such a document under the British Stamp Act, the words " paid for" were struck out. As altered, according to the ordinary understanding of the words used, the land order amounted to an undertaking by the Company to deliver to the person named the land mentioned [ in it when he should have selected it, and a tacit | acknowledgement that the consideration for the land had been paid to the Company. It was an expedient analogous to Bankers' letters of advice which are used in many cases as receipts for money. The Company also devised a form of transfer, still keeping in view the object of evading the stamp duties. This was a simple acknowledgement by the original owner that he had transferred his interest in the land order to the purchaser, and a request that the conveyance by the Company of the land referred to by the land order should be made to the purchaser. On production of this document duly signed at the Company's office, in London, a printed certificate called a ! land transfer certificate was delivered to the holder. This purported to be an acknowledgement that the Company, as trustees, had received notice of the transfer ; and, by a memorandum printed at the back of the certificate, but not signed, the Company promised that no transfer of the land order would be recognized which was not accompanied by the production of this cti-er ficate. Supposing the promise to be binding, the effect was that the purchaser of the land order, holding the transfer certificate, could not be affected by the want of consideration apparent on the face of the transfer document. The Company was satisfied there had been a transfer lona jftdc, and would lecognize only the purchaser's right. And this mode of transfer by owners resident in England has continued in use up to the present time. In the colony transfers of Land have, from the time of the Conveyancing Ordinance coming into operation, been very generally effected by deeds prepared according 'to the Ordinance. It has been well known to the profession that a transfer, which bears no acknowledgment of a good or valuable consideration on the face of it, is open to question unless separate evidence of the payment or existence of a consideration is preserved along with it. But all the Ordinances passed fur the settlement of land claims in New Zealand, iiave recognized and provided for the fact, that in the early stage of the colony transfers were effected by very imperfect and informal documents, aud Commissioners have been authorised to dispense with strict legal evidence, and to decide according to good faith and conscience the questions arising out of claims to land submitted to their decision. Purchasers have bought in the belief that when Crown Grants were issued all these questions would be so decided and once for all set at rest. They bought a title to' be perfected by a Grant, and expecting that if, upon application, any further evidence than they possessed should be required, it would without much difficulty be obtained. We have now to ascertain how the Grant proposed to be given under the recent Act of Parliament would operate. By the Act of Parliament the Grant is not to operate as a Giant. It is merely a conveyance of the legal interest in the land to the person who appears entitled to it, in trust for whoever may be entitled to it. All liens which have at any time existed on the land, but of which the purchaser has had no notice, the lien for unpaid purchase money among the rest, all questions as to validity of transfers which have taken place in times past, all questions with regard to the quality of the interest created by the land

order before and after selection of the land, as, for example, whether descendible to the heir or to the executor when not disposed of by will ; in short, all that has hitherto contributed to throw doubt upon titles to land in this settlement will not be determined, but fixed and rendered permanently open awaiting the time when increased value shall render the property included in any Grant a prize worth contending for. Suppose, for example, the doubtful debts returned by the Directors as part of the assets of the Company should prove to represent the purchase monies of land in this settlement, of which the debtors were allowed to take possession, and of which they held all the evidtnces of title. The acceptance by any sub-purchasei's from them of the Grant which 'the Act of Parliament provides will, or at all events rmiy, have the effect of con • firming the Company's lien for the unpaid purchase money, "any rule of law or equity to the contrary prevailing in the colony of New Zealand or elsewhere' notwithstanding. A Grant so qualified is not a fulfilment of the Company's contract. Wherever it shall appear to the Commissioner that there are existing Hens and interests in the land to be granted which require to be protected, special arrangements may be made for the custody of the Grant and fulfilment of the Grantee's obligations. But to throw a doubt over every title issued, to compel Grantees to seek for evidence which Government, Company, and purchasers have hitherto agreed to dispense with, would be to keep the word of promise to the ear and break it to the hope, reducing the security for which the settlers have so long and with wonderful patience waited to " the name and not to the thing." It behoves all who feel interested in the subject to be stirring, and not let the opportunity pass without strongly urging their claims. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, An Intkbested Party