New Zealand Colonist FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1843.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 88, 2 June 1843, Page 2

New Zealand Colonist FRIDAY, JUNE 2, 1843.

We invite attention to a. correspondence which we have inserted in another column between Mr;.W. A. Wansey and Col. Wakefield, as to a claim made by the former, for compensation for the losses he had sustained in consequence of his inability to, obtain possession of land purchased at Wanganui. It will be seen that the correspondence terminates in a positive refusal on the part of the Directors of the New Zealand Company to recognise any right to compensation under the circumstances. Upon the correspondence itself we have little to remark. Col. Wakefield could, of course, do no more' than lay the claim thus made before the Directors, and communicate their reply. And we may feel quite assured that for his own sake he would make those gentlemen fully acquainted with the circumstances out- of which the demand arose. We observe, however, with regret, a piece of undignified quibbling on his part into which he appears to have been inadvertently betrayed, when he talks of Mr. Wansey having so far obtained possession of the land as to build a house “upon it.” This, we .should imagine, could no t be held to be such a possession in law as to discharge Mr. Wansey’s

claim to compensation,—and it certainly was not spch a possession as was-, contemplated by himself in purchasing the land in England, and in emigrating to these remote, regions, in brder to occupy and cultivate the land he believed himself to have acquired. It is, in truth, •little better than a play upon words, amusing enough in familiar conversation, when the position of the settlers, as contrasted with their expectations, is likely enough to appear in a ludicrous point of view; but on that account not suited for a correspondence which was obviously of the most serious description as regarded Mr. Wansey. With this exception, however, we see no reason to object to the line adopted by Col. Wakefield. It is quite clear that as an agent he could not admit a claim which would impose upon his principals the necessity of affording an adequate compensation to the numerous individuals u who have been ruined, or, at least,' deeply injured, in consequence of the reliance which they placed in the promises of the Company. Whatever might be his feelings as to the right of these persons to compensation, and however deeply he. might sympathize with their sufferings, it is clear that he could not venture to .assume so weighty a responsibility. He must leave. the decision of the question to the Directors, —supplying them with the facts requisite to enable them to decide, and trusting to their sense of justice for the result. It is with the announced determination of the Company consequently that we have to do. The, resolution of the Company, is announced in a letter brief and dry enough to satisfy the most ardent admirer of the official school of composition. The Directors, however, do not feel themselves quite absolute. They condescend to assign a reason for their refusal, — and so far they dissent from their model. The sic vqlo is not quite sufficient in this case, and by consequence they have placed us in a posir tion to object to their arguments, as well as to arraign their conduct. We doubt the wisdom of this proceeding, but we are not sorry that they -should have acted thus, —since it allows us to expose the utter unsoundness of the position they have taken up, and the disregard of any consideration but that of profit which their proceeding implies. "The Directors “ consider it to be the duty of the Government to protect the settlers, and to compel the natives to respect the law.” The opinion thus pronounced is one in which we ; cordially concur. But we are at a loss to uniderstand the connection between this truism, iand the claim of. Mr. Wansey. Still less can we -understond how such, a maxim could be put forward by the Directors to shield themselves from responsibility to the settlers. It is not as though the conduct, of the Government with regard to these matters had taken the Company by surprise, or had been opposed to the principles, upon which the proceedings of the Company itself were, based. In that case, we could have understood and allowed for, though even then we could not have justified the course now pursued. But the Company has always proceeded upon the., assumption that the natives had' rightswhich they could alienate. Their expeditions to purchase land have been so many practical'* admissions that the land was the property • of the Zealanders, and that as by a conveyance from them a possessing title at: least , could be acquired, so without their consent no right of possession could be obtained. The practice of the Company has been,. adopted and confirmed by the Government, and has been made the basis of .that treaty by which the sovereignty of this Island was conceded to the English Crown. But if the Government had not in any manner interfered, the position of the Company would have been the same as it is at the present moment. They would have had no right to land unless, they had purchased it from the rightful possessors according to the native customs, and they .could .have made no complaint of any resistance on the part; of the natives to the occupation jof atfy until they had established the vhlidity of any professed purchase. This, which was the position voluntarily assumed by the Company, is that in which they are placed by the Government. We, the settlers, have a

right to complain of the principle .adopted by the Crown from the practice of the Company. But the Directors are precluded from any objection on this ground.

The case then stands thus. The Directors of the New Zealand Company professed to have made such purchase in New Zealand, as entitled them to sell to others the possession* of certain portions of the land they had bought.. The natives deny the purchase by the Company,, and prevent the settlers from taking possession. The Company then, instead of taking measures on the one hand to support their title if. valid, or on the other, to cure it if defective, either of which the Government has enabled them to do, refuse to give compensation to the parties whom they have deluded, because, forsooth, it is the duty of the Government, and not of the Company, tjb protect the settlers. It is not perhaps the duty, because it is not within the power, of the Company to protect the settlers in this sense. But we do not ask the Company for protection. Foolish and blindly confiding as we have been in our relations with the Coin* pany, we do not carry our folly or our reliance to such an extent as to make such a demand. We ask compensation for the money we have paid to acquire that which the Company had no power to sell —for the sacrifices we have made upon the faith of promises which were delusive—for the years spent in idlenesson our part, because the anticipated demand; for our industry has been allowed to remain closed through the inactivity of the Company. To this compensation we are entitled, and this compensation we must obtain. We have appealed in vain to the sympathies and to the justice of the Company. Our next appeal must be to the justice of our country.

We have been repeatedly asked, under what authority the Town Council have required the payment of half-a-crown from the burgesses as a condition of registration ? On reference to the Ordinance, we find that the sum of one pound originally fixed may be augmented or diminished at the pleasure of the Council, but with a proviso, that the amount .required shnll not in any case exceed the amount of the borough rate /or the previous year, divided by the number of rate payers. So far as our information extends, the amount of the borough rate .last year was £O. Os. Od., and the number of rate payers.Q. We have tried these figures arithmetically and algebraically, but we cannot in any way .make the quotient £O. 2s. 6d. In spite of an absurd endeavour to prove the Council right, we cannot obtain any other quotient than £O. Os. Od. We remember a very /ingenious algebraical .equation by which one was proved.equal to two. We suspect the author of that equation must be a member of the Council. We, are anxious to see the calculation in the present instance.

We understand .that the number of burgesses, that have qualified, for the Borough of Wellington amount to lfij only.