New Zealand Colonist FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1843.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 100, 14 July 1843, Page 2

New Zealand Colonist FRIDAY, JULY 14, 1843.

We resume our consideration of the claims of the Settlers at Port Nicholson upon the New Zealand Company. The argument put forth by our contemporary of the Gazette , is that the Company gave ; notice they did not guarantee the title of the lands they sold against the acts of the Govern-1 ment, and that the inability of the Settlers to obtain, possession of their land, arises from the acts of the Government, who have thus freed the Company from all responsibility. Such at least is the form which his reasonings ought to assume in order to justify his conclusions, and consequently if we mistake his positions our error is in his favour.

dn this argument, it is obvious that the entire conclusions of our contemporary rest upon the assumption that the inability of the Settlers to obtain possession of their land is caused by the proceedings of the Government —since, unless this can -be proved, the exception introduced by the Companyrinto their guarantee of title would be inoperative. The manner in which he attempts to prove this assertion is sufficiently characteristic of our contemporary, and abundantly justifies us in describing his defence of the Company as a mere piece of special pleading. He does not pretend to shew that the Government has done any thing to prevent the Company from giving us possession, but relies upon the mere technical operation of the treaty of Waitangi, which destroyed the legal title of the Company. But he must know that the Company never had any legal title—that the treaty of Waitangi was merely j declaratory of a recognized law, by which all I transactions between the subjects of civilized j states and any uncivilized tribe are regulated, and that consequently this act of the Government did not in any respect alter the legal position of the Company. We admit that in practice it did alter their position ; but as the reasonings of our contemporary are founded altogether upon its supposed legal operation, we have thought it well to remind him that in this particular it was altogether inoperative. Or if our contemporary please, he may adopt the other alternative, that the Company was justified in treating with the Natives of New Zealand for the purchase of their lands, and acquired a valid title to the land purchased. In this case it is clear that no subsequent act on the part of those chiefs could affect the rights of the Company • and the abandonment by the Directors of their claims to land, in

order to secure a conditional grant from the crown, was an "unwarrantable sacrifice of the rights of those who had purchased under them. In either case the treaty of Waitangi was alike inoperative as regarded, the legal rights of the Company. What then have been the acts of the Government with reference to the Claims of the Company ? In the month of October, 1840, a letter was addressed to Lord John Russell, by the Chairman of the Company. That letter has not been published, but from the terms of the proposals of Lord'John Russell, founded upon

it; from the evidence-of Mr.'Wakefield ; and from a letter which was subsequently addressed by Mr. Somes to Lord. John Russell; it is obvious that the- Company represented < themselves as having acquired, by purchase from the Natives, a.quantity of land amounting to 20,000,000 acres. 'ln reply, Lord John Russell offers on the part of the Government, to grant

to the Company an amount of land proportioned to their expenditure, at the rate of four acres for every 11. With regard to this land, consequently, the Government has certainly

done nothing to prevent the Company from fulfilling their engagements. Concomitantly with this arrangement, the Government appointed a Commissioner to investigate all alleged purchases from the Natives. This was a measure anticipated by the Company from first. They understood that such was the intention of the Government, and that whatever purchases they might make were to be subjected to the same mode of enquiry as that to be adopted with claims of private individuals. They, however, were “ not ! aware that the title to the Company's lands would be found in any manner impeachable !" But neither ,then, nor at any subsequent period, did they claim or expect any exemption from the investigation which was to be instituted. On the contrary, they guarded against any liability to the purchasers under them on account of any defects of the title brought to light by this investigation, except so far as these might be fairly attributable to their own acts; and the protection of their clause is now invoked on their behalf.

| The most noticeable part of the case is, however, to come. Captain Hobson, finding ' that there were disputes as to the validity of the purchases, and feeling for the interests of the large body of Settlers whose fortunes were involved in the establishment of the Company’s claim, authorized the Principal Agent of the Company to do whatever might be requisite in order.to complete the Company’s title within the limits of the first and principal settlement. So that, instead of the Government having, by its acts, prevented the Company from fulfilling its contract with the landowners, it has actually introduced an exception in favor of the Company, for the. express purpose of enabling it to carry out its . engagements. Instead .of destroying the. Company’s title therefore* it not merely confirms it as to nearly 1,000,000,-acres, but it goes out of its way. to enabled the Company

to establish a title to this land which may be susceptible of confirmation. And these are the acts appealed to by our contemporary to justify the Company in evading the fulfilment of its pledges, and in leaving the Settlers to obtain from the compassion of the English Ministry that which they §annot wring from the justice and liberality of those'to whom they entrusted their money, and in reliance upon whose promises they invested their fortunes : in this settlement!

We do not intend to follow our contemporary over the wide field which he has traversed. It is nothing to us whether the Company have a claim to an absolute grant from the Crown, irrespective of the prior extinction of the Native title, or whether they have a right to call upon the Government to make the requisite advances to satisfy the demands of the Natives. We.leave this to the Company, who will not, we may be assured, neglect their-.own interests lin this particular. We assert, that giving the I utmost latitude to the clause limiting the re- ! sponsibility of the ‘ Company to its purchasers, I they are bound to fulfil their contracts unless | prevented by the acts of the ■ Government, and I that the Government, instead of preventing, has ! facilitated their proceedings. If the GovernI ment, relying upon the truth of the statements put forth by the Company, has made an improvident bargain has promised an unconditional grant of land, let the Company claim to be reimbursed whatever further payments it may make.to the Natives. But let it not, under the cloak ;of a bargain to which we are no parties, condemn the colony to years of languor, and complete the ruin of those who have put faith in their representations. They have the means of obtaining possession for us out of the surplus grants promised to'them by the Government, a grant to which they are entitled by means of their .expenditure of our money. If they cannot eventually recover the amount from the Crown, they .will still be considerable gainers by the transaction, and we have supplied the funds out'of-which their gains will be derived.

Upon every ground, therefore, whether we are to'loek at the matter under a dry technical aspect, or whether we take a wider and loftier

point of view, we are entitled to call upon them to step forward and save us from the imminent peril by which we are menaced of witnessing the abandonment of the settlement by thosewho can find here no field for their labor,, because the Company will not takes means to. give them possession of the lands it professed to sell.

Wb are accused by the Gazette of attempting, to set the Settlers and the Company at variance. The grounds upon which this accusation is madeare as characteristic as the charge itself is unfounded. But leaving the exposure of the* misrepresentations of our contemporary toanother opportunity, which cannot fail speedily to arise, we wish to say a few words upon the statement itself.

We have no desire to see the Settlers and the Company at variance, on the contrary, we feel that we may gain much by the support of the Company, and that they,, .as well as we would suffer by any serious difference between us. We have, therefore, done our best to point out to the of that Company an injury which consciously or unconsciously they are inflicting upon us, and, by pointing out the* character of their proceedings , and the aspect: under which we must naturally regard them,, to stimulate them to perform an act of justice, in the performance of which, our prosperity and their character are alike implicated. If they will not do us this justice there must be a difference between us—for the Settlers cannot remain for years deprived of the possession of theland which they have purchased, when a trifling advance on the part of the Company, trifling alike in comparison with the benefits to be conferred upon us, and with the profits we have purchased for them would secure to us its enjoyment. But it is the existence of the injury, not the comments which we have made upon it that will produce this result.

In the mean time we console ourselves by remembering that it is not the first time, we or those with whom we have acted, or to whose party we have belonged, have been exposed to similar accusations, Wheri the cry of reform was first raised in England—when the demand for Catholic Emancipation was first made in Ireland, when the question of a free trade in corn was first agitated, to take only three of' the great questions of the last quarter century those who pointed out the existence of ail injustice and demanded a remedy were accused in a similar way of attempting to introduce variance between different classes. And, without attempting to establish a parallel between ourselves and our cause, ahd those to which we have adverted, we make ourselves easy under the attacks of contemporary.

We would recommend to him an infallible method of destroying our supposed efforts in this respect. Let him persuade the Company to give the Settlers possession of their land—and he may be quite assured that no such variance as he imagines as to wish to excite can continue to exist. It is a -short, easy, efficacious, and yet -not very expensive method—and it has the additional recommendation of being just. It would be worth while to make experiment of its efficacy.