New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK'S STRAIR GUARDIAN. Wednesday, March 1, 1848.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 270, 1 March 1848, Page 2

New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK'S STRAIR GUARDIAN. Wednesday, March 1, 1848.

Thb departure of a vessel direct for England freighted with produce of this settlement, renders it necessary for,, us, to say a few words on some of the topics affectingour local interests, on which those in the Mother Country interested in our welfare desire information, ,On most of these subjects we have, as opportunity offered, for their discussion,, en- , tered fully ; but on an occasion like the present it will be necessary again to refer to , them in a summary manner. After a weary interval of eight years Crown Grants have at length been issued to the , New Zealand Company for the districts in the neighbourhood of Port Nicholson ; and the statement of this fact proclaims the final adjustment of all disputes with the natives relating to lands ,in the districts for which these grants have been made : the roads undertaken by the Government are carried on with increased vigour, opening the country districts for the occupation of additional settlers, and affprding when they are completed the means of increasing our trade with the natives by the improved facilities of communication. The money obtained by the natives for their labour on the roads is for the, most part spent either in the purchase of clothes, , and other necessaries the produce of English manufacj tures, or invested in stock, (either horses or cows) thereby adding to the permanent wealth of the colony The work of clearing and cultivation is proceeding this summer with renewed vigour, and the cargoes of stock imported from the neighbouring N colo T riies find ready purchasers in the countrjF settlers;^ so that the different country dis-f < tricts preseut|indications of hopeful progress These are encouraging signs of returningpros. . perity,butwewant the assurance of theirpermanence. These are the bright spots, thelights of the picture on which the eye, attracted by their prominence, rests. But if we tvn 1 to the other side, if we name the three great wants of the settlement, they are precisely those essential 'elements of colonisation which it was to be the peculiar business of, the New Zealand Company to keep in their due relation to each other, so as to ensure the greatest prosperity. We want Land, Labour and Capital. The roads now in progress open up fresh. districts to the settlers, but the Absentees in too many instances interfere to prevent their profitable occupation, there is an absolute scarcity of s labour o£all kinds, and but little prospect of. a remedy for this want, the wages of . labouring \rnen are from 3s. 6d. to As. 6d. a-day, while female servants are hardly to be, procured pn any terms. ,An influx of fresh capital y.ould

( of ,the,colon^, since" the recovery of the old settlers from the losses inflicted on them by the previous mismanagement of the Government and the Company must be the work of time. But our prospects on these points are unsatisfactory. As long as the New Zealand Company are allowed to mar our prospects, as long as they continue their precarious and mischievous existence, the progress o? the settlement will be slow and uncertain; the result of Monday's meeting will at least convince them of the estimation in which they are held by those who formerly most trusted them . They may linger on for a time by the aid of a friendly .Minister, but the settlers can only anxiously look forward to the period when the claims of this rapacious body must be finally extinguished, and the whole colony placed under,, the jnore vigorous management of the British Government. To this consummation we are tending ; it is a question of time, — but until the consummation arrives, time — our only inheritance — is wasted, and we shall still remain the victims of their broken pledges, of their repudiated obligations.

The Woodstock sails to-morrow for London direct with a cargo of oil and wool, the produce of this settlement. , Wool is rapidly increasing in importance as an export, from the number of stations now established in the Southern iProvince, and the yearly increase of the flocks, and promises soon to become one of our staple exports. Three hundred and seventy- six bales of wool are on board the, Woodstock, and we believethere are nearly two hundred more', with other produce, waiting a convenient opportunity of being shipped direct to England. Through the activity and good management of Capt. Nicholson, her commander, the vessel has been got ready for sea with great despatch, and due provision has been made by him for the comfort and convenience of the passengers, of which there are several both cabin and intermediate.

Two ships, of about 500 tons each, the Philip Laing and the, John Wickliffe, the former from the Clyde, and the latter from the Thames, were advertized to sail on the 30th of October last for Otakou, with passengers and stores. „ It is expected that 50 cabin and 200 male steerage passengers, with their families, will be conveyed to the new settlement in these vessels.

The, Supply returned on Monday from Queen Charlootte's Sound. The negotiations with the natives for the purchase of the Waitohi were unsuccessful, , the natives declining to part with the district, though they offered to sell the adjoining Bay ; but it is believed that eventually some arrangement may be made with them, and the Waitohi secured. The greater part of the.natives belonging <to Queen Charlotte's Sound have left for Taranaki; not more than about sixty of them are living at Waitohi and its neighbourhood.

In our last number we alluded to a letter of a Mr. Burnand in the Daily News, in defence of the New Zealand Company from the charges brought against them by the Land Purchasers. We have since been favoured with other numbers of the same journal, containing two other letters from the same writer. As we shall best justify our previous description of Mr. Burnand's statements by allowing him to speak for himself, we have extracted from the Daily News, Sept. 21, 'his second, letter, with the '"Editor's judicious and temperate remarks which leave little more to be said, or' desired ' on the subject ; we shall therefore merely refer to such points as have not .been touched on in them. Our readers will see that' Mr. Burnand is one of those persons who Seal largely in assertions, indeed there is a degree of hardihood about some of them which is quite surprising. Of this character is his wholesale denial of the truth of the statements -contained in the Letter, instead of attempting to refute them, and his assertion that " none of the papers connected with the co- )- lonies have noticed the existence" of the letter. Not only were the meetings, at which the memorial was adopted, advertised and reported in the Neto Zealand Spectator, as stated in the Daily Neivs, but a long and careful analysis of the letter appeared shortly after its publication in the Sydney Morning' Herald, a journal of the most extensive .circulation in the Australian colonies. { Either Mr? B^urajipdjthen on h^s Q t wn shewing has displayed the grossest ignorance or ha"s stated what he knew to be untrue. But we may adduce two statements from Mr.- Bur'nand's first letter, which mark still more strongly the boldness of his< assertions.

" When tlie firsl mee*ting"ot purchaser/ assembled at the Company's office's, the terms" of the sale of land-orders in New Zealand, which had been long previously published, were read and agreed to before the ballot took place which was to determine the order of choice for the selection of the land in the colony, after the districts had been surveyed. These terms were assented to, by payment of their money in exchange for the land-orders issued, which expressed in tefrnV easily understood, the quantity, quality, a^nd nature of the title the Directors pledged themselves to give to the holders, and expressly provided that they would only be responsible to w sficb' titles as they received, which they guaranteed should be the best that either they or their aggnts s cquld , procure ;, and every one conversant with New Zealand affairs during the last siib years must be satisfied the Directors have fearlessly and honestly disdhar'ged th& obligation imposed on them as a sacred duty on behalf of those sent out to the colony" The second refers to the Wairarapa, about which Mr. Burnand writes in the following manner : — , " Now, Sir, it is generally understood that before the close of 1 842 all land-orders were satisfied ; before the existence of this extensive and valuable country was known. It was discovered accidentally, in June, 1842; by Mr. Surveyor Kettle and his party on trying to force their way through the mountains in search of a fresh and fertile country. They succeeded and made their report ; the richness and leauty of this valley tempted them — they looked on it with a longing eye, and regretted the opportunity was lost 'to settle there. A chance was still open ; if they could find any bold enough to charge the Directors with evasion and violation of their contract, that could bully them into acquiescence, they should succeed; and the prize was their own." Such statements it would be a waste of time to refute, since they so palpably contradict themselves. We give them as samples of the reckless advocacy, by the partisans of the New Company, of their cause in England.

[From the Daily Newt, September 21. J Since Mr. Burnand insists upon it, we give publicity to his second letter ; although, as our j readers will learn from the notes we have appended to it, it appears to us little to the purpose. As to his second letter, it consists mainly of personal attacks Upon the settlers who sign the Letter to the Directors, published in the Daily News of August 27 and 31, and:-Sep-tember 2., Mr. B.we do not know, but some of these gentlemen we do know to be men of high worth and integrity — gentlemen in the true sense of the word. And we are not going to lend ourselves to the publication ' of libels on honest' men. \Ve should be loth to suspect the Directors of the New Zealand Company of knowing and sanctioning the mode of discussing this question adopted by the writer of the letter which | appeared in the Daily News of the 4th of September and by Mr. Burnand. It is obvious that a difference of opinion exists between the Directors and at least some of the settlers as to their mutual claims and liabilities with respect to each other. Such a difference' of opinion does not necessarily imply anything dis'cre'dftable on either side. It i& a question of law' or equity, which ought to be decided apart from mere personal consideration's, Personarimputations against men who have suffered much, and think they have reason to complain of the Directors, would not be a judicious way on the part of the latter to set themselves right with the public. We therefore assume that, as men of sense, they do not "approve of the line taken by their selfappointed defenders. But we must be allowed to think their silence* unwise. Unless they can give a perfectly satisfactory explanation of their conduct in' the transactions on which the Letter of the settlers' is tiased', they "can scarcely hope that Scotchmen will venture under 'their auspices to Otakou. j Sir, — I ani prepared to prove that the proprietors of the 'New' Zealand' Company have | subscribed in hard cash (-1) ,£200,000, and borrowed a further sum of £150,000, which joint sums together make £350,000 the Directors have expended in "thej~public~~ service towards colonisation ;" Viz., # for purchasing, surveying, and'improving the lands in" the severaF colonies founded in "New Zealand, for conveying and establishing the colonists, &c, &<-,., whose interests it is satisfactory' td state have never been lost sight of 'by 'the' Directors. This' expenditure has been approved by her Majesty's Government, and is wholly independent of any sums of money received by the New Zealand Company forjhe sale of land, about £30CMX)6 more also 'expended in the same service. (2) „ I will' now givea few reasons why I do' not believe the statement of suppressing the 'soo

part 0/ ike&x? Which have been attributed to ,tfie Difgcfbrs* 6i the New Zealand Company.* (3 ; y - . 1 . Because* tfie* content^df fh^Se dtfcuin\fnt» are untrue. (4) 2. Because the petition presented b/Mr, Somes in 1844-5 to the House of Commons has not a word of complaint against the company. (5) 3. Because the memorial from the settlers in tfte* fofV Nfctoistfn t district, forwarded to and presented fry DrVjEva'ns to Loiti Stanley in 1845 has not a complaint to make against either directors or the agents of the Company 4. Because the petition bearing the signature of almost every inhabitant of the southern settlement of New Zealand, presented to the House of Commons in May, 1846, does riot represent a single grievance against the Company (7). 5. Because none of the .papers connected witH the colonies have noticed the existence bf such a document (8). 6. Because if the contents of this paper had been known before the annual genVral meeting of proprietors, held irk May, 1847, it would have demanded an explanation (9). 7. Because I have, in common with the proprietors "of the New Zealand Company, faith in the directors, firmly believing them incapable of the charges made (10). Boyle-street, Sept. 12. W. H. Burnakd. (1.) This is nonsense. People pay up in hard cash. Have all the shareholders paid up the full amount of their subscriptions 1 ? (2.) This proves the case of the settlers. They have been joint subscribers with the Company towards the expense of colonising, and a proportional part of what has been grauted by government on the consideration of colonising expendituie is in equity theirs. (3.) No person has attributed the suppression to the Directors, unless Mr. 8., by his precipitate exculpation of them before they were attacked, 'may be supposed to have pointed the finger of suspicion in that direction. We have simply said, that 'months ago we heard of the settlers' letter having been forwarded to this country, and that we had in vain attempted to procure a copy of it. We did express a suspicion that efforts had been made to suppress it ; by whom or to what end we did not presnrae to say. A correspondent whose letter we published on the 4th of September (and who is much more likely to be aufait 6f f Ne\sr Zealand matters than Mr. B.) sought to'direct the suspicion of suppression towards the agents employed by the settlers. We care Tibfw'ho "has suppressed.it: all that we had to do was— -seeing that British subjects, induced by the representations of the Company to emigrate, are complaining of the treatment they experience from it — to ensure a fair hearing on the part of the public for our distant countrymen. The statement that 500 copies had been forwarded to this country was not ours, but the correspondent's' now alluded to. He, the advocate of the Directors, maintains that they were ; Mr. ' Burnan'd, equally a friend of the Directors, attempts to show that they were not ; to us the question appears of not the slightest consequence ; yre only want to know; are the complaints of the' settlers well or illfounded ? (4.) This is a'mere assumption, and' contradicted in part, at least, by Mr. B's own admission commented upon' in note 2. (5.) "The petition "referred to is one in' which the Directors and Settlers were" parties on one side, the Government on another. •To have embraced in it the present question would have been complicating one controversy by introducing the details of another, which 7 hasnothing 'to' dV with it. ( (6.); To this also the preceding remark applies. The settlers could not claims their dae proportion of a boon from Gb'VeVnmenrbefore ' it" was 1 'granted. (7.) Ditto, ditto. , - „ ' (8.) This is'untrue. i The meetings/at which the memorial was adopted, were advertised and reported 'inHhe New Zealand Spectator. And though less-°sfrenuous Vxertions" liaW 'been made of late to give circulation- jjgc the- New Zealand papers' in this country' than was once the case, Mr. B. might learn,' even: from* the columns 'of the New Zetifonajournalffazihhe settlers have been recently whpt is- called in London " unreasonable." (9.) The existence' of the letter" is' proved 1 by the copies mwHn our hands ; by the notices in the New Zealand Spectator ; toy the statement of' the b Mtef ' friendly to *% Directors, published in our'paper^of^th* September. That no allusion was made to it by any shareholder at the meeting in May shows, we agree with Mr. Burnand, that the independent shareholders could' Scarcely J bfe v aware of its existence \argal, that it had been suppressed. (10.) For Irfm^oftift Directors Tfbw r in office we have the greatest respect. In'^her original founders and Directors we had great confidence ; but such implicit faith as Mr. B. reposes, in the present Direction wo place in