Parliamentary Papers.

New Zealander, Volume 10, Issue 884, 4 October 1854, Page 3

Parliamentary Papers.

NEW ZEALAND COMPANY’S DEBT (AUCKLAND.) [APPENDIX TO REPORT.] Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the New Zealand Company's Debt [Auckland,. Saturday, Bth July. Present Messrs. King, Porter, Carleton, Wor' ley, ami Macandrew. Mr. E- G. Wakefield, chairman. The Honourable the Attorney-General present to lie examined. 1. By tfie Chairman ; 1 presume that you are aware of the nature of the subject which this Committee has to enquire in o 1 Yes. 2. Would you be so good as to throw any light on that subject which your knowledge of facts connected with it will enable you to do ? When I was first asked to attend the Committee, I thoughCthat I had no information which would he of value to them ; but it afterwards occurred *o me that it might be desirable to bring under the notice of the Committee a point which for some years had been before my own mind, having some bearing upon the subject of the enquiry. Mr. Attorney-General read a paper upon the subject of the Committee’s enquiry. 3. You infer that there has been a clerical error, or an error through inadvertence, and you draw your inference from the context of the rest of the Act ? Yes, it occurs to me that the use of the words “ New Zealand ” in the 20th section of the Act to promote colonization in New Zealand, 10 and II Victoria, is illogical, but any one reading the nineteen preceding sections of that Act would naturally expect to find the words “ the Province of New Munster” in the 20th sec ion instead of the words “ New Zealand.

4. Art- you aware of any protest from this part of the colony against bearing a proportion of the Company’s debt ? I recollect that some lime ago, when New Zealand was divided into two provinces of New Ulster and New Munster, and when I mysell was a member of the Executive Council ofthe province of New Ulster, that the Executive Council of that Province agreed to a strong expression ot opinion against the justice or expediency of imposing any portion of the New Zealand Company’s f'ebt. upon the Northern district of New Zealand ; that that protest of expression of opinion was concurred in by the then Lieu-tenant-Governor of that Province, Colonel Wynvard ; that it was forwarded by him to Governor Sir George Grey, and by him forwarded to Her Majesty’s Secretary of State, accompanied by an expression of his own concurrence therein. I believe that a copy of that resolution and of the correspondence connected iherewith has been laid upon the table ot the Legidative Council. 5. Supposing you to have read the Clerk’s report of Mr. Bell’s evidence, will you be so good as to answer the following question which was put to him—“ Will you he so good as to define what you mean by North and South ? If I used the words North and South, I should understand the North to include so much ot the North portion of the Noith island as lies to the North of the Mokau. By that answer I mean to convey my impression that the scene of the New Zealand Company’s operations has been confined to the South ot that line.

6. By Mr. Porter : Do you agree generallywiih the viewsof Mr. Bell ? My answer to that must be inthese words,— That it was my opinion at thetime, and I believe the general opinion, that the North of New Zealand is i i no way benefitled by the arrangement by which the Company were to have the right o selecting land to the value 0f£50,000. It was also my opinion at the time, that it was mainly the fault of the New Zealand Company that that arrangement was finally not fulfilled and completed. 7. It appears by the last answer that you have given that you differ in opinion from Mr. Bell, when he stales the principal cause of the non-fulfilment of the agreement between the New Zealand Company and the Government? I believe I lie principal cause rested with the New Zealand Company. I believe it was the general opinion in this part of New Zealand, that the Nortli district suffered serious detriment from the fact of so much land having been so long kept out of the market in couse-

quence of the exislc. ce of the.arrangement in rjiiestion. (At the request of Mr. Carletonj the chairman read portions of Mr* Bell’s evidence.)

hj. Referring to Mr. Bell’s answer as follows —“ Yes, but I would beg to remark that the ‘obligation in honour ’on the Company’s part presupposed an honourable fulfilment by the government of the conditions of the obligation, and this was not done ” —da you agree with him ? To the best of my knowledge, belief, and recollection, there Was no breach of the anaugement in question on the part of the 10- 1 cal government. 9. The New Plymouth settlement formed a pan of the Province of New Ulster ? It did.

10. On the supposition of a clerical error in the Act, via. the substitution of “ NeW Zealand ” fur “New Munster,” would not the New Plymouth settlement have been released from anv share in the debt ? YeS.

11. By Mr. King ; Had the protest of the Executive Council to which you have referred been received by the Imperial Government prior to the passing of the Const tution Act ? I don’t recollect the exact date, it will be seen by the papers. 12. By Mr. Macandrew’; In the event of the Company having accepted the right to select 1,300,000 acres, would they have been entitled to select the whole or any portion of it in the j rovince of Auckland ? Practically I believe not; my recollection of the transaction was as follows ; The New Zealand Company alleged th>t they had made extensive purchases of land in New Zealand, that in the making of these purchases and in otherwise promoting colonization, that they had expended large sums of money ; that it was ultimately arranged between that Company and the British Government, that they were to have granted to them in New Zealand as many acres of land as would be equal to four times the number of pounds sterling so spent ; that this arrangement was eiflerei into by the Government in the belief and on the understanding that the Company had purchased from the native ownets of land in New Zealand as much as would enable the Government to carry out that arrangement, and I believe that at that time the purchases and the outlay of the Company were entirely confined to the countiy south of the Mok u, with the exception of a purchase of some old claims in England which were not pursued by the Company. 13 Aie you aware that at the time this arrangement was completed, ihe Company had purchased 1,300,0)0 acres in the Southern settlements ? I believe that at that lime the Company had not made valid purchases to that extent.

14. By Mr. Wakefield ; But the Company claimed to have made valid purchases to a much larger amount? Yes. that was so. 10. By Mr. Woitley ; Referring to the 20th clause of the 10th and I Ith Victoria, ch. Il2 t would not the appropriation by that clause of the sums necessary fur surveys and for the purposes of emigration with refere-.ee to the province of New Ulster* have actually left no balance to pay the charges of the Company ? Yes.

16. By Mr. Mackay ; With reference lo the previous part of your evidence, do you not think that if a clerical error occurred m the Act lo promote colonization in New Z aland, lOlh and llth Victor a, by improperly introducing the words “New Zealand” in the 20th section of that Act, instead of the words “New Munster',” such clerical error would have been reel fied by the Imperial Parliament when passing the New Constitution Act ? ith nk that if the Imperial Parliament h«tl believed, or known, or had the slightest reas >n to suspect that such clerical error had been made, that it would have been corrected.

17- Will you slat- whether or not this supposed clerical error was ever brought before the notice of the inhahi tants of the Province of Auckland previous to the meeting of this Committee,? . I believe nut, I have.mentioned the subject to two or threepersons, but beyond that I believe not. There are two views of the case—one th:*t it might be a clerical error; another that the bill might have been drawn by or on behalf of the New Zealand Company in which the words “ New Zealand ’’ might have been knowingly and deliberately made use of, and that the Hill might have been passed in the hurry of the closing session, and that Parliament had not in fact given its deliberate sanction and assent to so illogical a conclusion.

IS. Then if the Bill was drawn by or with the consent of the New Zealand Company, do you not think that the Government would have referred such Bill to the law officers of the Crown, with its own instructions for them to report upon ? Yes. 19. Do you not therefore suppose that such draft with the instructions would be made to correspond ? Yes, hut I must add that I think the law officers of the Crown had probably not much acquaintance of the actual stale of the colonization of New Zealand, or with the field of the Company’s operations* 20. With the known and frequent disputes between the Government and the New Zealand Company at the time of passing the said Bill, arc you still of opinion that the law officers of the Crown would be ignorant of the names and terms used in the settlements of New Zealand? I think it probable th t they Would be acquainted with the names and terms referred to in the questions. 21. Do you know the lime of the Session tl.e Act No. 10 and 1 1 passed ? From the 'act of its being No. 112, I should presume that it was towards the close of the session. 22. Have von any objection to answer the f flowing question,—Do you think that the land now to be acquired fom the natives in the Northern Province ought to hear its proper'ion of the Debt now placed against the Colony by the Hume Government, the funds foi which purpose being derivable from the g. petal revenue of the Colony ? I have ho objection to answer the question, my answer being that I am decidedly of opinion ihht it < light not. 23. P>y the Chairman : I wish to make you aware th t some members of the Committee in agine an inconsistency between your view of the probable substitution of ‘ New Zealand ” for “ New Munster ” by inadvertence or otherwise, and the fact that New Plymouth one of the Company’s seitlements where they had purchased land and laid out money,.was iu New Ulster, will you he s > gooj as to explain this ? lam not quite clear in my own mi ml as to whether New Plymouth should or should not, with reference to the subject before the Committee, be deemed to come within the meaning of the words I have before made use of, viz., the “scene of the New Zealand Company ’s operations.” 24. Then on what ground do you draw, the boundary line between North and South at lh& river Mokau? Because I am quite dear that their colonizing operations did not extend Northward bcyoii' llist line.