Parliamentary Papers.

New Zealander, Volume 10, Issue 888, 18 October 1854, Page 1 (Supplement)

Parliamentary Papers.

NEW ZEALAND COMPANY’S DEBT (AUCKLAND.) [APPENDIX 10 REPORT.] mi "umintllec on the New Zealand Company's Uoht (Auckland]. (Continued from tile Nkiv Zkai.a.vdrb of October 4.) Wednesday, 12th July. Puesent—Messrs. Macamlrcw, Mackay, Curleton Wort ley, and Porter. Mr. E. G. Wakefield, Chairman. The Honourable Mr. Whitaker examined, 1. By the Chairman, —You are aware of the nature of the enquiry before this Committee? I am. 2. ill you be so good as to throw any light upon the subject which your acquaintance with it will enable you to furnish ? In my own opinion Auckland ought to be exempt from the payment of any portion of the New Zealand Company’s debt. I ground it on two principles; lirst, that the Province of Auckland as now constituted was not founded by the New Zealand Company, never had any beneficial connection with it, and the New Zealand Company, at the time their existence ceased, had no claim whatever to any lands within the I’rovince; the second reason would he; by tiie Act of Parliament 10 and II Victoria, chap. 112, the New Zealand Company's operations were specially confined to the Provincc'of New Munster, no part of which is now included within the Province of Auckland.

3. \ou appear to divide tlie subject into two dis tiuct parts, that which relates to the question of mere ' equity or justice in the moral sense, and that which relates to the technical position of the question as to the liability of Auckland;—on the first point will you be so good as to explain more fully to the Committee than by the mere proposition which you have laid before the Committee, the grounds on which you think that Auckland ought to be exempted? I think that it should be exempted on the grounds, as 1 have before stated, of the Mew Zealand Company having had no beneficial connection with Auckland. To shew how entirely foreign from the settlements of the New Zealand Company has been that founded by the Government at Auckland, I would call attention to the following circumstances:—When Auckland was first founded by Governor Hobson, ho was at a loss for workmen to erect a public building; lie obtained a few workmen from the New Zealand Company’s settlement of Wellington ; complaints were immediately made, first by the colonists at Wel- ■ ington, a public meeting being held for the purpose ol remonstrating, and secondly strong representations were preferred to the Secretary of State by the New j Zealand Company, and an application was made that the commissioners ol colonial land and emigration might he directed to send out to Wellington at the public expense a number of workmen, corresponding in calling and number to those carried off by Governor Hobson, tin arrangement which was acceded to by the Secretary of State to be carried out at the expense of a fund arising from the sale of land at Auckland. Another point is, in the year 1843, the Company obtained, by agreement with the Secretary of State the right to a large quantity of land in the I town and district of Auckland, and in the exercise i of that rigid they became conditional owners of a I considerable portion of the best land in the town, suburbs, and country, at the same time taking upon themselves an obi gnlwn in honour tu carry out to the best of their ability, the colonising views which they expressed when the agreemnt was made. The Company always evaded this debt of honour, and never took one step toward carrying out at Auckland their colonising views, but held the best lands of the district in utter barrenness for several years, to the great and manifest injury of the settlement, and it was firmly believed that the directors, from the commencemcat never intended any other course, but acted throughout with a determination to throw obstacles iu the way of the progress of the government

settlements, in order to enhance the comparative importance of their own, a conclusion fully justified hy their conduct in the transaction, and confirmed by their published documents. A third circumstance is, when the territory of New Zealand was divided by the Governor-in-Chicf into two Provinces, the Company’s small settlement of New Plymouth was included in the Northern Province with the government settlements, an arrangement strongly objected to by the Directors as “ seriously prejudicial to tlm Company, and likely to entail considerable inconvenience on their settlers” and the Secretary of State for.the Colonies, Earl Grey, yielded to the request of the Directors, and gave his consent to such an alteration of the boundary line that even this slight connection could no longer exist between the Company’s settlements and those founded by the Government. The fourth reason will stand thus, —in March 1851, the Directors of tire New Zealand Company stated to Karl Grey “ That the bulk of the expenditure incurred in this country (England) on behalf of New Zealand, had been the direct and unavoidable consequence of the impolicy which fixed the seat of local government on a demt spot, remote alike from the European population, and from the commerce of the island.” A statement iu every particular the very opposite of the truth, one of a series of hostile, disparaging and calumnious attacks made by the Directors of the New Zealand Company on the settlement of Auckland, commencing with its foundation, and continued even after the Compart had terminated its existence. The next' reason is this, the New Zealand Company’s principal agent, Mr. Fox, speaks of “ The Company’s debt as one with which the Northern colonists have nothing to do,” and the settlers of the Southern colonics admit the right of the Government Settlements to exemption from this charge. These reasons appear to me to be conclusive that the New Zealand Company never had or professed to have any claim upon what now constitutes the Province of Auckland, and that they always endeavoured to keep their settlements as clear as possible from any connexion whatever with it. 4. You spoke just now of some admission by the settlers in the South, that Auckland was not rightly liable for any portion of the CompauyVciaim on the colony. Will you give the evidence of that fact? The admission -w«w mmjrttt a 1 11 mW** Meeting held at Wellington, Ithinkmthe year IS4B, but 1 am not sure as to the datei you able to furnish some documentary evidence of the fact? I will endeavour to do so; that 1 think will be sufficient to shew that the New Zealand Company could have no moral claim on the ground of .benefit conferred. Then with respect to the other branch of the question, that is, that Auckland should be compelled to pay its quota for land, or the right of sale then surrendered by the Company that land or right of selection did not comprise any portion of the present Province of Auckland. The colonization Act, 10 and II Victoria, specially confined the New Zealand Company’s operations to the Province of New Munster, no part of which now constitutes any part of the Province of Auckland. The land or right of selection to land given up by the Company, comprised land, the proceeds from the sale of which could be in no way beneficial to auv portion of the Province of, Auckland. The absolute want of connection betweeff the New Zealand Company's sctttlcmcnts and the Province of Auckland, was pointedly alluded to hy Lord Grey, when, Secrctni \ of State, in a letter from the under Secretary to Air. Draiue and others, of the 22nd July, 1850, in which, in answer to a complaint made to him by" the New Zealand Company, to the effect that he had remitted purchase money to naval and military officers in the government settlements, lie said “ that it certainly did not occur to his lordship that the continuing this privilege in the Northern Province, at a distance from all the Company’s settlements could ho deemed an infringement on the agreement which lie, Lord Grey, with respect to not lowering the value of land in the Company's settlements hv permitting a lower price in other parts of the colony,” I would also direct the attention of the Committee to (lie fact, that the Loyal instructions of 1846, prescribe that separate accounts shall be kept by the Treasurer of each of the Provinces of New Zealand, of the gross proceeds of the land sales, and, after deducting certain charges therein mentioned, that the nett balance shall fie held in trust for defraying die cost of introducing into the said respective Provinces emigrants from the United Kingdom. 6. A good deal has been said about the difficulty of drawing a line for distinguishing between lands properly liable and not liable to the debt. Can you tinow any light upon that point? Ido not think that any difficulty would arise iu drawing an exact line but for the present purpose it is sufficient to state, that, at the time when tiic Company’s functions expired by the surrender of its charter,” they neither had, nor had a right to select a single” acre of land within what now comprises the Province of Auckland.

7. By Mr. Mackay,—Please to state your notion of an exact line? My notion of an exact line, ifjmt on the ground .simply of equity and justice, would be a liim drawn co-cxtcusive with a boundary line between tbe Provinces of New Ulster and New Munster, exclusive of any special claim the Company might have on account of lands situated at New Plymouth. Strictly speaking, with reference to Act of Parliament 10 and 1 1 Victoria, I think the line would be exactly co-cxtcnsivc with the line between New Ulster anil New Munster. Inconsequence of Sir George Grey fixing the boundary line of New Ulster, so as exactly or very nearly to include the Province of New Plymouth, if New Plymouth became excluded bv Act of Parliament 10 and 11 Victoria, from the New Zealand Company’s operations. The Company, as 1 have ahvady stated, remonstrated against this, and Earl Grey at the request of i he Directors gave his consent to an alteration of the boundary line, so as to comprise New Plymouth within New Munster, and make it technically subject to the Company’s operations which indeed had been carried on there, in fact from the beginning of the settlement. This was giving t-. the Company all they ever professed to claim, they asked lor no more. This i think sufficiently explains

what I have stated, that New Plymouth may equitably he included within the Company’s claim, although legally excluded by the Act of I’arliament as acted on by sir George Grey in his division of the Colony.

8. liy the Chairman, —The alteration never did take place ? The alteration did not take place that I am aware of, nor can I give any reason why it was not done. It could not he that Sir George had any misgivings as to the fair liability of Auckland to the payment of any portion of the New Zealand Company's claim, as his despatches on that subject give Ids reasons in full why Auckland is entitled to be exempt. t). And be Is known to have bad a personal predilection for including New Plymouth in the Province of New Ulster? Yes, I believe so; but at the same time it should be remarked, that the cessation of the Company’s functions coming so soon after the receipt of the instructions, the time for carrying them into execution with effect may have passed away without being regarded. 10. Hy Mr. Carleton, — '• re you aware of a despatch in which Governor Grey recommends that the Company's debt should be charged upon the colony ? I am aware that there is a despatch which is said to bear that interpretation. The despatch to which I allude, is the one in which Governor Grey asks for instructions how the debt should he divided among the respective Provinces.