NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION BILL. House of Commons, Thursday, June 17.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 696, 15 December 1852, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION BILL. House of Commons, Thursday, June 17.

Sir J. Pakington moved that this bill be read a third time. Sir W. Molesworth rose to propose that fill the clauses in the act wiili reference to the sale and management of waste lands in New Zealand be struck out. It was impossible for the House to determine the just claims of the New Zealand Company on the wild lands of that colony without a previous inquiry into the conduct and affairs of that company, lie demanded an inquiry for three reasons — first, because he repeated the charge which he brought against this company in committee, namely, that in obtaining the act of 1847 they concealed from the Government and Parliament the true state of their affairs : and, at the same time, by concealing the truth, and insinuating that which was incorrect, they induced their settlers at Nelson to agree to arrangements beneficial to the company, to which the settlers would not have consented if they had not relied upon the good faith of the company. How could the House determine what were the just claims of the company on the lands of New Zealand before the conduct and the affairs of the company were investigated,? The second reason which he assigned for an inquiry into the conduct of the company ■was founded upon a statement made by the Canterbury Association to the Colonial-office, in a letter dated the 11th of this month. In that letter the association asserted that in the years 184G and 1847 a sum of 236,000^. was lent to the company for purposes of alleged public utility, th.il the company ought to have in their hands at this time 36,634?. of that public money, but that this sum had been, in fact, applied for the private purposes of the company, and of individual shareholders, and not for the purposes contemplated by the acts of 1840 and 1847- A committee of the Canterbury Association had reported to the association that of this sum 8,277£ were paid to the directors for arrears of fees from 1842 to 1848 ; and that a further sum of 9,463£. had been lent, on promissory notes, to shareholders, some of whom were directors of the company. If these facts were true, and he understood they were taken from the company's reports, he thought it must be admitted that this money had been misapplied ; for Parliament could never have intended to vote these directors a presents of some 8,000/. of public money, and to lend them 9,000£. In the papers presented to Parliament there was no mention of any such claims on the part o£ the directors, or of any intention on the part of the Go\ ernment to sanction such claims, and he could not believe that Parliament would ever have consented to satisfy such claims with public money. Whethei the directors were or were not entitled to the payment of the arrears of their fees he could not pretend to say, .but if they were so entitled they ought to have 'been paid by calls on the shareholders of the company, for the company had a subscribed but unpaid-up capital of 100.000 J. Surely this was a .matter which ought to be inquired into before Parliament determined finally the charge which the New Zealand Company had on the lands of that colony. The third reason for inquiry was based upon certain facts contained in the Parliamentaiy papers which he held in his hand. Those papers showed that last year the law officers of the Crown gave an opinion that, under the act of 1847, the Government were bound by a certain contract which was concluded in 1847 between the New Zealand Company and the purchasers of allotments at Nelson. The object of that contract was to settle certain claims which the purchasers of allotments had on the company. Those claims ought to have been made known to the Government and Parliament before the passing of the act of .-1847, because by that act those claims would become good against the Government in the event of the company being broken up. Those claims -were not made known to the Government or to Parliament, and the act of 1 847 was obtained in ignorance of liabilities* which the Government was now called upon to satisfy. But in the blue-book presented to the House in June, 1847, no reference whatsoever was made to any claims of the Nelson settlers on the company, except with reference to the trust fund, which -was quite a distinct claim from those to which he was now referring. In the same papers Lord Grey and Mr. Stephen both asserted that, in the event of the company beine; broken up, the only liabilities to the Nelson set- . tiers which would devolve upon the Government *vvould have .reference to the trust fund or to the small balance, if any, of some disputed account. He was therefore entitled to assert that the act of 1847 was obtained from Parliament in ignorance of the liabilities which the Government were now called upon to satisfy. The existence of those liabilities was proved by papers presented to this House on the 14th of May last. With regard to those liabilities, he must remind the House that in 1841 the company issued a prospectus for the formation of a settlement, to be called " Nelson," and they sold a number of allotments of land, .which allotments were to fulfil certain conditions, and for which they received about 160,000/. The site of Nelson was so ill-chosen that it was physically impossible for the company to fulfil the conditions upon wbjch they had sold the allotments. The purchasers complained of a breach of contract, and demanded compensation. Now, it was stated in the papers which he held in his hand that in a letter dated the 12th of March, 1847, the company conveyed to Colonel Wakefield, their agent in New Zealand, " plenary authority" to assent to such arrangements with the Nelson settlers for the satisfaction of their claims on the company as he deemed most advisable. About the autumn of 1847 Colonel Wakefield assented to certain resolutions proposed by the Nelson settlers for the adjustment of their claims on the company, provided certain modifications were introduced into them. Now, with regard to that assent two legal questions had been raised, — first, wnethcr the assent of Colonel Wakefield made those resolutions binding on the company, and, secondly, if binding on the company, whether they were now binding on the Government, in consequence of the act of 1847 and the surrender of the company's charter? These two questions were submitted last year to the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. The opinion of thelaw officers had not been printed, but the substance of that opinion was to be found in two letters, one from the Colonial Land Commissioners to Mr. Herman Merivale, dated December 10, 1851, and the other dated January 10, 1852, from Mr. F. Peel to the chairman of the Halifax Committee .of Nelson Land Purchases. Those letters^stated that the law officers of the Crown were of , opinion >that the resolutions of 1847 were now binding -on -the Government, and that the purchasers of allotments at Nelson were entitled to compensation from the Government within the aneaning of those resolutions. Now, the Colonial Land Commissioners stated, that according to those resolutions, — " Any purchaser (of allotments at Nelson) who should decline to avail himself of the adjustment (referred to in those resolutions), or who, having availed himself of it, should be dissatisfied, might refer his claim to arbitration cither in JEngland or in the settlement; in the former contingency, without reference to the adjustment, and in the latter to determine what additional compensation, if any, he should receive." It is therefore the opinion of the law officers of the Crown that the Government was now bound, — first, to satisfy ..the claims of the purchasers of allotments at Nelson who had declined to avail themselves of that adjustment ; secondly, to give .ulditional compensation to those purchasers of allotments at Nelson who were dissatisfied with that adjustment, the amount of those claims or of the additional compensation to be determined I>y arbitration either in England or in the settlement, at the option at the claimants. The Government would now be entitled to satisfy these claims and to make additional compensation by

grants of land ; but, if this bill passed, in order to make grants of land to those claimants the Government would have to repurchase from the General Assembly of Now Zealand the land to be granted. Therefore, both for the sake of the public purse of this country, out of which the^ company has already received a quarter of a million, and which would have to satisfy all the claims which he bad just mentioned, and likewise for the sake of the inhabitants of New Zealand, who would be crushed by the debt to the company, he entreated the House not to consent to the land clause till the papers which he had moved for could be produced, and an inquiry instituted into the conduct and affairs of the company. It is said that the transfer of the management of the waste lands from the Colonial-office to the General Assembly of New Zealand was. a most valuable concession to the colony. lie admitted it was so. It was said that the concession might be endangered, if it were not made at the present moment, lie denied that. For the principle was admitted on all sides that the colony should have the management of its waste lands, and that principle would be assented to, and must be carried out, by the next Parliament. The question, therefore, was whether this concession should be made at the present moment, clogged with an onerous and unjust condition in favour of the New Zealand Company ; or, whether it should be delayed for six months, in order to inquire what were the just claims of the New Zealand Company. Sir W. Molesworth then moved that the clauses relating to the arrangement with the New Zealand Company be omitted. Sir J. Pakington felt it to be unnecessary to detain the House at any length, because the arguments used by the lion, baronet were substantially the same as those he adduced on a former occasion, when he (Sir J. Pakington) ventured to reply to them. It was too late now to raise the question. It was impossible to reverse the decision to which Earl Grey had come, some years ago, after (to use his own words) a painful inquiry. Earl Grey declared that there had been no concealment which ought to invalidate the bargain made with the New Zealand Company. (Hear.) All that the clauses would do was to prevent the company from being placed, by the change now proposed, in a worse position than that in which they stood at present. The hon. baronet had admitted that the concession to the colony of the power of disposing of land was of great importance. Then, let the house not risk this great boon for the sake of reviving an old quarrel with the New Zealand Company. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Gladstone cordially supported the motion of the hon. member for Southwark, although lie frankly admitted that the concession made to the colonial Legislature as to the management of land was most valuable. The right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was actuated by a laudable ambition in desiring to bo the donor of jthat boon to the colonies; but he (Mr. Gladstone) did not believe the colony would run any risk of losing it by postponment. No future Parliament would venture to withhold the boon, after what had passed. It was better to postpone a measure for the colonies than to pass a bad one. When the late Government introduced their measure for New South Wales in 1850, he, in conjunction with the hon. member lor Southwark and others, proposed amendments, which the Government obstinately rejected. It was then suggested that the bill should be postponed, but the Government of that day, like the right hon. secretary now, said, — "Do not run the risk of depriving the colony of this boon altogether by postponing it." The bill, consequently was passed, but, instead of being received as a boon by the colonists, they regarded it as an injury inflicted on them. Let not the House fall into the same mistake now, and mar a great boon by annexing to it unjust conditions. His hon. friend had made an allegation of the suppression of facts against the New Zealand Company, and of having obtained from Parliament aid and assistance in consequence of that suppression, which, if the facts had been known, they would not have obtained. That allegation remained unexamined, not by the fault of his hon. friend or of any one, but by the necessity of things. (Hear.) Hon. members connected with the company were anxious for an examination — those gentlemen did not press the bill — it wab not upon them the House could throw the ivsponsibility of what they were doing ; they said very fairly and justly that the allegation of his hon. friend ought to be* examined. It appeared to him to be a most serious matter if that House wilfully shut its eyes to a case half opened, and refused the opportunity they would shortly enjoy of going thoroughly into the facts. They knew there was important information bearing upon this question, and almost ready to be laid on the table, and it would be a great responsibility upon that House if they proceeded to final legislation upon it without that information. He could not be a party to such a proceeding ; it was not reconcilable with public principle, ami the House must also remark that his hon. friend's allegation was not void of credibility, as was tested by the very frank statement of , the hon. member for Cockermouth. Mr. Aglionby denied the whole gist of it. (A laugh.) Mr. Gladstone. — The hon. gentleman might be of that opinion, but he did not deny — on the contrary, he admitted and justified, what his hon. friend thought was his main allegation. fMr. Aglionby. — " No !" Laughter. J Did the hon. gentleman deny that the opinion of the counsel of the company was kept back, while the opinion of the gentlemen consulted in the second place was stated as if it had been the only legal opinion ? lie (Mr. Gladstone) took it from the , lips of the hon, gentleman himself; he stated that, and he defended and justified it. Then the Secretary of State said that the course which had been taken was approved of by Lord Grey, the late Colonial Secretary, and he thought, therefore, the question was closed against the House of Commons. He objected to that view. (Hear, hear.) He apprehended it was the business of that House to review and correct the decisions of . Ministers, if they were wrong, on points upon which the House was constitutionally and legally competent to form an opinion. The House could not avoid their responsibility of forming an opin- ! ion by saying that Ministers had passed their judgement upon the question ; and after the statement of his lion, friend it was their bounden duty to go into this case. lie would not admit that the act of 1847 was a bargain, as the Secretary of State said it was. Ht>looked uponit as aboon rather than a bargain ; it conferred a great boon on the company, and was not in the nature of an equivalent rendered to the British public, who, under the act of 1847, were bound to pay a large sum of money. His hon. friend did not propose to prejudge the question, but to keep it intact until next session of Parliament, when they might have a full investigation of the facts, and might comprehend the matter with which they were going to deal. He therefore cordially supported the motion of his hon. friend. Mr. Aglionby said that charges had been made by the hon. baronet the member for Southwark and the right hon. gentleman the member for the university of Oxford, with regard to a .number of gentlemen who were in as high station and of as high honour as cither of those two hon. gentlemen themselves, and who were prepared in the face of the world, as in the face of the House of Commons, to stand the ordeal of an examination into their conduct, and to come out untouched and unscathed. (Hear, hear.) But he would not go into those questions ; it would be unworthy of the House to do &o after they , had been considered settled by the judgment of the Colonial Minister, who had acted at least with honour and good intention. He had abandoned all his objections to the bill, and lie had done so because he believed that it was for the good of the colony that the measure should pass. He left the Government to deal with the subject as they pleased, but let not the House suppose that the other questions would remain unanswered.

Mr. Gladstone explained. He had made no charge against the New Zealand Company. He had simply repeated what had passed from the lips of the lion, gentleman himself. Mr. Aglionby. — That was an entire misconception ; the riglit hon. gentleman had not understood what he had stated. (Laughter.) Mr. J. A. Smith said, the repetition by the hon. baronet of tho charges against the New Zealand Company had not only excited a strong feeling of indignation on his part, but also a strong feeling of surprise. For subsequently to the last time the right hon. baronet brought forward those charges he (Mr. Smith) took the opportunity of speaking to tho lion, baronet in that house, and told him what pain and surprise he had felt that when the hon. baronet had charges to make against the character and conduct of men whom he had known for many years, and with whom lie had acted both as a director of the New Zealand Company and as a member of Parliament, he had not thought lit to submit to them the charges which he was about to bring, and ask for information as to the falsehood or correctness of such charges. He told the hon. baronet he regretted the course Ihe had taken ,• and he then offered him to show the falsehood of the charges, and that they had been trumped up against the company — trumped up too for unworthy purposes (hear, hear), and that, if he chose, any^ document and papers should be submitted to his inspection. (Hear, hear.) The hon. baronet complained on the last occasion, and had repeated his complaint that evening, that the papers were not on the table. He had told the hon. baronet that every paper should be submitted to him, every fact If id before him, and he (Mr. Smith) pledged his honour as a gentleman tha not one single letter or fact should be withheld. (Hoar, hear.) But what was the hon. baronet's answer? That he was engaged in a contested election for South wark, and had not time to go into them. (" Hear," and laughter.) His reply to the hon. baronet was very short ; he said, if the hon. baronet had not time to inquire, he had no right to bring the charge (hear, hear,) and when, after that refusal [ to inquire, he repeated those charges, he must say he wished the hon. baronet success in his election : but he wished it in the true sense of justice and fairness, and that lie would have more discretion than he had shown in bringing charges against gentlemen who were as incapable of the conduct imputed to them as he was sure the hon. baronet himself would be. Sir W. Molesworth. — The hon. manner asked me to have a private conversation with him, to which I consented, and then the hon. member inquired whether I would go to the New Zealandhouse and see the papers there. My answer was, that I infinitely preferred to have the official documents furnished me by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and then, if their should be any other papers which the ' hon. member wished to submit to my consideration, I would inspect them, but that, under present circumstances, I refused to go to the New Zealand house with him. The hon. gentleman replied that I would never get those official documents, for the Government would not produce them, upon which I remarked that I was determined to have them if I could, and to base my observations on them, and upon no other documents. I now ask the Secretray of State for the Colonies whether he does mean to produce those official documents, or whether the hon. gentleman was right in making the statement he did! Mr. J. A. Smith. — Does the hon. baronet deny that the ground on which he based his refusal to my offer was that he was engaged in a contested election ? Sir W. Molesworth said, he stated that among other reasons, for his desire was to have the official documents. Sir J. Pakington thought he had some reason to complain of the question put to him by the hon. baronet, and he did not know what right the hon. baronet had to throw, by implication, such a doubt on the fulfilment of the promise given him. Sir W. Molesworth. — I have no doubt; it is the hon. member who doubts. Sir J. Pakington. — The hon. baronet asked him to pioduee the papers in question. Hereplied that he had no objection to do so, and the lion, baronet made a motion for their production, with his consent. Tho hon. baronet was hardly justified, therefore, in raising a doubt as to whether he (Sir J. Pakington) was acting in good faith. Only two or three days ago, when the hon. baronet asked why the papers were not produced, he told the hon. baronet that they contained 2G6 letters, many of them requiring revision, as they were of a peisonal character, and only yesterday he heard fresh papers were to be added. lie again told the hon. bai'onet that he need have no doubt about the production of the papers, but, on account of their number and character, time was required to prepare them. Sir \V,. -Molesworth .observed that this statement was occasioned by the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Smith). Mr. Mangles said, he was placed in a painful dilemma by the course taken by the right hon. baronet, for, while he desired on behalf of the New Zealand Company the fullest investigation, yet the hon. baronet's motion could only be granted at a pried of denying to the colonists the great boon they would gain from the bill as it stood. The House then divided, when there appeared For Sir W. Molesworth 's motion 21 Against it J)9 Majority —78 The question was then put that the bill do pass. Mr. Aglionby was understood to explain, in reference to the statement of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone,), that when the company received an opinion that they had notjpower to do what was proposed, they brought a bill into Parliament to enable the Legislature to carry out tho object in view, but the bill was opposed by the member for Oxford, and thrown out. It was rather hard to have the charges brought that the honorable baronet had that night been bringing. The question was settled by Lord Grey, with regard to whom, though differing from his colonial policy, ho (Mr. Ag-lionby) always felt that, for high honour and statesmanlike views, and integrity and firm determination to do right, there was not,his superior in England (hear, hear); that noble lord wont' through the charges to which the hon. baronet | had been alluding that night, and camo to tho conclusion that the directors were not to blame. (Hear, hear.) '; After a few words from Mr. Mangles, who, we believe, said there would be no disposition to shrink from inquiry, Sir W. Molesworth observed that his only object had been to prevent what ho considered to be a fraud ; having failed in his object, he had j nothing left but to challenge the company to meet his statements. j The bill was then passed. j