MEETING 0F LAND PURCHASERS.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 270, 1 March 1848, Page 3

MEETING 0F LAND PURCHASERS.

A Meeting of Land Purchasers from the, New Zealand Company, which was very nu-, merously attended, was held on Monday, at Mr. R. Davis's Commercial Room, for the, purpose of taking into consideration the re-, - solutions with respect to Mr. Cowell's Report, prepared by the Committee appointed at the previous meeting. ! Mr; Hickson, J.P., was called to the chair. . Present— Capt.Daniell J.P., Mr. Clifford,, J.P., Mr. Boddington, Mr. Hort, J.P., Mr. Brandon, Mr. Bradey, Mr. Fitzherbert, J.P.,, Major Hornbrqok, Mr. Deighton, Dr. Dorset, Mr. J. H. Wallace, Mr. Churton, Mr. Holder, Dr. Monteith, Mr. Wade, Captain Rhodes, Dr. Featherston, Mr. W. Dorset, Mr. Moore, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Lyon, Mr. Hart, Mr. Weld, Mr. Catchpool, Mr. Riddiford, Mr. Northwood, Mr. Bromley, and several settlers. Of those absent, the greater part of those in the Settlement were at too great a distance from Wellington to attend ; some had left the Colony, and others have since been appointed to situations under the Local Government, and refrained on that account from attending the Meeting. Dr. Featherston commenced the proceedings by reading to the meeting Mr. Cowell's Report, and the resolutions drawn up by the Committee in refutation of his statements and assertions. These will be found printed side by side, in order to render the subject more intelligible, and the answer more complete. A discussion ensued on some points connected with the resolutions, after which it was proposed by Dr. Dorset, seconded by Mr. Bradey, and unanimously carried — Tbat the whole of the Report prepared by the Sub-Committee, and which has now been carefully read to the meeting be passed and adopted. It was unanimously resolved — That the previous Sub-Committee be appointed to prepare petitions to Parliament. After the usual vote of thanks to the Chairman, the Meeting then broke up. * (a) Resolution I. That the holders of land-orders resident in Wellington, after having carefully considered Mr. Cowell's Report upon the Letter addressed by them in September 1846, to the Directors of the New Zealand Company, feel that Mr. Cowell has so undisguisedly merged the character of her Majesty's Commissioner in that of the most ■unscrupulous partisan of the New Zealand Company, that they would deem it unnecessary to make any comments upon such an unseemly and vulgar-minded document; more especially, as it.leaves unnoticed all the main arguments urged by the land purchasers in support of their claims — did not the approval so unaccountably expressed of it by Earl Grey, and the sanction thereby given to the imputations cast upon them by Mr. Cowell, render it imperative upon them to bring under his Lordship's consideration the various mis-statements contained in the Report ; and also, to expose the manner in which the Commissioner has prostituted his -office to the purpose of calumniating the ■ parties whose names were, appended to the (Letter. (b) - Resolution 11. That although Mr. Cowell does not deny that the Company have not fulfilled their contract with 'the land purchasers, yet as he now, on behalf of th 6 Directors, pleads that the Company are relieved from- all obligation to-m'ake compensation for the losses arising from their breach of contract.by virtue of the clause in their prospectus — " That the Company are not to be considered ,<as guaranteeing .the .title,; except, as against -their own acts, and .the acts of those denying title under or. in trusts for .them,"— tHus ' Meeting-submit that' the iplea thus: urged by the Commissioner is untenable,., and. ialtogether beside» the question, ibr:the following reasons i — j "i-ist, That4M& prospectus (June 1, 1839), commencing with — •■' The Company haveral -ready very-extensive, 'traot&-io£ land ;in the North -Island \ of^New Zealand^ and have despatched 'an -expedition for' the purpose of purchasing other lands, " Ac. , was the .basis' 'of the contractbetween the purchasers and tibe Company;- that upon the faith of -this ■ statement they -paid - their> -monies' (a considerable time before the- land -orders were- issued ;) that this statement proved- to be a- misrepresentation of- a fact ! the most • material to 1 the contract, the Company never havingacquired-any of- the lands gold- to the •first purchasers; and that the -Company -have not been 'prevented fulfilling their contract'by.any: act' of the Government (as>al-leged-or insinuated by her Majesty's^ Commissioner,) but solely and entirelycby their own acts? viz., by their not having purchased the lands^in.the. first instance (they affirmed tn tTip'vpTtrlpptffiiPYi I™"*1 ™"* °^^""^>^

Mr. CowelFs- Report, continued. Your Lordships will perceive that these , instruments bear on their face that the Directors did, in 1839, foresee, the, possibility of their proving unable to give a title to lapds ip New Zealand, and that they warned ( their vendees to this effect. "It is understood that the Government intends to inquire into the title of British subjects to lands in New Zealand, but we ! (the Directors) are not aware that the tide to the Company' 3 lands will be found in any manner impeachable ; but Uhe notice, that i we do not mean to guarantee the title to the land we are now going to sell, and which you are now going to buy, against the resuits of any proceedings of or under the authority of the British government or Legislature, or in any other manner, except as against our own ac{;s, and the acts of those who derive title under or in trust for us." It seems hard to understand how any one can now claim damages from the Directors for the consequences of that very contingency against which his own signature acknowledges that they, in the very outset, did solemnly warn him that they would not guarantee him. W> ... Proceeding next to investigate the equitable or moral claim of the settlers under this first head of wrongs, I did not find this to be tenable or valid in any other sense or spirit than in those in which the Directors declared themselves to have ever been ready, and even cager — apd even now to be eager — to admit it. These gentlemen say, "we are joint, although not co-equal, sufferers with the settlers, and the moral claims which arise in community of misfortune are reciprocal. "We for our part acknowledge it to be our duty to do all in our power to promote the well-doing of the settlers — to alleviate their hardships, and to procure for them their titles ; and we have struggled through long years to perform this regardless of. the sacrifices it involved." This is the result of what I learn from the Chairman, and from such other Directors as I have applied to on this topic ; and after much and attentive deliberation, I have not been able to bring my mind to the conclusion that the moral duty of the Directors, arising from the relationship in which they stand to the settlers, and from all the circumstances of the case, extends beyond this. •I must add, that I have seen no reason for supposing that they have ever shrunk from , acting up to this their sense of their duties. 00 The contemplation of the claim of the settlers under this aspect of equity and moral obligation, naturally led me to examine inta the number, quality, and condition of tne claimants signing the letter. The only personal evidence accessible to me was that of Mr. Edward Jerningham Wakefield, who is himself one of the original settlers — who has resided four years and a-half in New Zealand, and who happens at present to be in England. This gentleman, in answer to various questions, observes, that the writers of the letter omit to declare (as they ought (/) in fairness to have done) whether they were original purchasers from the Company, or secondary purchasers from original purchasers. He says, that there are now resident in the .colony, about one hundred, apd, -fifty original purchasers of land, in the settle(9) ments of W,elling]ton and Wanganui ; while the number of residents who have purchased lands in those settlements from other persons than the Company is much greater ; affirming that there are one or two villages near Wellington formed entirely of labourers who have bought small lots of land either directly or intermediately from the orir ginal purchaser /.that at Wellington "itself a "Working Man's Land Association" has existed five or six years, whose members miite their savings to purchase choice portions of land, which they divide out among themselves ; that many emigrants from other colonies and from England, have bought portions of land from original purchasers ; he draws, the conclusion that the .number of resident purchasers of land at. Wellington and Wanganui would not be over estimated at from four to five hundred. Now it appears tjiat the letter in question, purporting to be*, and which Mr. William Swainson affirms, that he believes to be, signed by all the Jand .purchasers now left in the settlement, except such as are/either related to spme, of .the body (of .Directors), and two. other individuals holding jofllcial situa^ons, is only signed by fifty-five persons. Mr. E. J.- Wakefield further observes, that only thirty-seven of these .fifty-five are original purchasers ;r; r and in answer to,further questions, informs me that these thirty

Resolutions of the Meeting continued. and by their having subsequentjy^neglected to avail themselves of the assistance offered them by Capt. Hobson and his successors to enable them to complete their purchases. ■ Sndly, That the Directors, in 1840, without consulting the land purchasers, upset the titles guaranteed to them by Sir George G-ipps on the part of Government, and substituted Lord John Russell's agreement, of November, 1840, by which they expressly relieved the Government from all liabilities to the land purchasers, as stated in clause 12, viz.. — " The Company having sold, or' contracted to sell, lands to various persons, her Majesty's Government disclaim all liability for making good any such sales or contracts, it being nevertheless understood that the Company will, from the lands to be granted to them aforesaid, fulfil and carry into effect all such their sales and contracts." And 3rdly, That it is evident that the New Zealand Company never conceived that the clause in question could operate in the way insisted upen by Mr. Commissioner Cowell, inasmuch as they proposed, in 1844, to insert a new clause in all sales of land, refusing to guarantee any title except such as they might obtain from the Government — as is proved by referring to the 15th Report, wherein, after alluding to the fact that' they had not a secure title to a single acre, the' Directors say "this teacher us a caution which ;we are desirous of impressing upon all who may apply to us for land-orders ; and this we belijeye will be done most effedtually by our refusing to guarantee any other title than such as the Company may obtain from tHe Crown :'.' — 42ms shewing that, in 1844, the Directors at least did not pretend that they were released from the obligations imposed upon them by the non-fulfilment of their cantract, by virtue of the clause referred to by Mr. Cowell ; or otherwise they would not have deemed it necessary to insert an altogether new clause expressly designed for that object. (c) Resolution 111. That this meeting ,have perused with extreme surprise the following words, given by Mr. Cowell as a quotation' from the prospectuses or land-orders of the Company — " Take notice, that we do not mean to guarantee the title to the land we are now, going to sell, and which you are now going to, buy :" inasmuch, as such words do .not appear in any prospectus or land-order ever issue/1 to the. firsi purchasers : but that this^Meeting feel that, they may safely leave to others, the task of characterizing such an interpolation in the terms it deserves ; and also, of estimating the weight due to the statements of one who, while clothed with the office of her ( Majesty's Commissioner, could be guilty of such a fabrication, (d) Resolution IV. That the Directors, in their letter addressed to Lord Stanley (Feb. 15, 1843), urged their claim to compensation upon Government in the following terms :—": — " The Crown, like any other party contracting with another, may find that it has made stipulations which it cannot fulfil ; but morality and equity bind the Crown, like any other having by such inadvertence misled another, not to evade its engagements, by lightly assuming the impossibility of fulfilling them ; but on the contrary, to do its utmost to execute its undertaking, — and in the event " of finding that impossible, to make , ample compensation to the other party : if in the present case the Crown really, finds .itself unable to make such a grant of portions pi the land in question as it has .engaged to make, it is nevertheless bound on pur, request to grant us all, the interest which her Majesty has in these lands, if. we are content to take such a grant as a completion of the engagement to us ; or supposing us not to be content with such a grant, it would be bound at our request to 'Vtflke, us 'compensation fur the damage done to~jis by the non-fulfilment of its agreement:" — That .the, Land Purchasers urged their claim to compensation upon the Company .in ; the same, terms, and on precisely the same grounds, viz., that morality and equity bound the Company, equally with the Crown or any otljer party, having failed to fulfil its. contract" with, the Land . Purchasers, not to evade its engagements^ by lightly assuming the impossibility , of fuliilling them ; but on the contrary, to do;its utmost to execute its undertaking ; and in the event of finding that impossible, to-make them (tha Land , Purchasers) ample compensation for the. damage done to them by the non-fulfilmeiit' of its engagements: -r-4That seeing that.the Government has by its recent acceded to the request of the Company, and afforded it the compensation demanded, it is difficult to conceive upon what principle the Company •

Mr. CowelVs 'Report continued. them one hundred and sixteen sections, or about 11,700 acres, out of the first settlement (consisting of Wellington and Wanganui), in which a total quantity of 125,000 acres was sold ; that while in- this manner these thirty-seven persons represented originally little more than one-tleventh of the whole quantity of land sold by the Company, they have since sold among themselves about a third part of this one-eleventh, in all cases at a large advance on the original price ; in some at almost incredible pro(A) fits, viz., at the rate of £40, instead of £1 per acre, for parts of country sections ; while from £500 to £800 to £1000 hasbeen offered for town sections of an acre each, and refused. Mr. E. J. Wakefield has afforded me particular and detailed information concerning forty-four of the gentlemen signing the letter, the tenor of which is in almost every instance favourable to their successful industry. (0 I leave to others the task of judging between the conflicting representations of Mr. E. J. Wakefield and the parties to this letter, with this remark, that their own letter contains a decisive test of the weight due to their representations, which it is now incumbent on me to adduce. In page 13 1 find the following words addressed to the Directors :—: — " Relying on your representations, we purchased land to which you said you could give us a good title, and of which you assured us you could put us in quiet possession — we severed all the ties of kindred — sacrificed all our prospects in the MotherCountry — and planted ourselves amidst savages in a country almost unknown — bringing with us a capital which has been estimated at from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000." These are their words. <*) Although therefore, with these words before me, I cannot err in understanding them to affirm that they brought out at the least £1,500,000, I am left to conjecture the number of capitalist settlers comprehended under the word we. This pronoun may be, and in strictness it is, confined to thirty-seven of the fifty-five signers of this letter ; yet they may intend it to embrace the whole number of the original emigrating capitalists, settlers, (independent of the labourers and of those purchasers of land orders who have not yet emigrated) now " resident in Wellington and Wanganui :" in which case it may extend to 150, or by doubling this number in order to allow for those who have left the colony, or are dead, it may be liberally interpreted to comprehend as many as 300. In the first case, it will strike your Lordship that they represent themselves as having bropght out on an average the immense sum of £40,000 each ; in the second, that of £10,000 ; and in the third case, that of £5,000. I know not which of these representations will be considered as approaching the nearest to probability, but it is evident that they are all removed from it by so vast an interval that those who advanced them were bound to themselves, I should say, quite as much as to the world, to substantiate them by the most convincing proofs. But of proofs of any kind they have not advanded the particle of a shadow. I conclude my investigation of this first wrong alleged to have been inflicted by the Company on the Settlers, by stating that I am unable to draw from the Directors'* 3rd Report, and from their Despatch to their Agent in New Zealand, dated 26th April, 1841, the inferences drawn by the signers of the letter, pages 19 and 23, viz., that the Directors distinctly admitted, or that they admitted in even the most indistinct or equivocal manner,' or in any manner whatever, that they were under positive and moral obligations to afford to the Settlers, out of the lands placed by Government at their disposal, compensation for sacrifices and hardships to which the Settlers had at that time been expased; and that consequently their subsequent privations render their claim at the present time much stronger and more just. Neither can I bring my mind to the conclusion advanced in page 23, "that the Directors by express agreement guaranteed the Government against all responsibility to the Settlers, and took upon themselves the sole liability of making good their engagements with the Settlers." the Directors do dot appear to me at any time tp have, either, intending or uniutendiug it, annulled that defensive proviso contained in the landiorder to which I have already invited your Lordship's attention ; which was meant by them to be, and was known by the vendees at the time of their accepting the contract ,of pur-

Resolutions of the Meeting continued. chasers, or to meet out to them that measure of justice which has been meeted out to itself by the Government. (c) Resolution V. That Mr. CowelTs assertion, that the only personal evidence available to him on the subject of the losses sustained by the holders of landorders from the Company's breach of contract, was that of Mr. Edward Jerningham Wakcfield, is utterly irreconcilable with the fact, that many of the Land Purchasers were at the time resident in London, urging their claims upon the Company, as is proved by the Company's 20th Report, 24th May, ] 846, in which, alluding to " the abandonment of the colony by its most valuable settlers" — the Directors say, " during the last two yeai*s this second emigration has been considerable, and every ship from the colony brings some fresh victims of Colonial-office misgovernment. These returned colonists come straight to us, and afflict us with their complaints of disappointment and ruin. We could not make you fully aware of the grievous nature of such cases, without entering into particulars concerning individuals which it would be improper to mention here ; but you will easily conceive, when you reflect on the objects with which a man of some i station and property emigrates with his fa-, mily to a distant colony, that our position, as a screen between the complainants and the Colonial-office, has become intolerable. But this is not all. We tell you that it is our deliberate conviction, that unless a great change takes place immediately, your settlements will not be worth preserving. We come here to fritter away borrowed money to consider claims which we have no means of satisfying, to hear the most distressing complaints without being able to assist the sufferers." &c. (/) Resolution VI. That Mr. Cowell's charge against the signers of the " Letter", of unfairness in not having stated " whether they were original purchasers from the Company, or secondary purchasers from original purchasers," is as frivolous as it is absurd ; as it cannot be contended, even by Mr. Cowell, that the purchaser of a land-order (no matter from whom) does not acquire all the rights attached to it. (ff) Resolution VII. That Mr. E. J. Wakefield's statement, that there were at the time of the Letter being signed, 150 original Purchasers, resident at Wellington and Wanganui, is completely at variance with the truth ; there having been at that time resident at Wellington not more than forty-nine original purchasers, of whom forty- three signed the Letter ; and at Wanganui not more than seventeen, of whom seven signed, the other land purchasers at Wanganui not having attached their signatures to it, either from their not having had an opportunity (owing to the distance) of perusing the document, or from the intention they entertained of addressing a similar letter to the Directors from the sectionistB at Wanganui ; that after the most diligent inquiry this meeting expresses its belief that the following list comprises all the original purchasers then resident at Wellington and Wanganui :—: — WELLINGTON. Obiginax Pxjbchabebs who signed the Letter. W. Swainson A. Sutherland E. Daniell H. Boyton S. Revans W. Bushell Ridgways, Hickson, & Co. E. Glasgow J. Dorset G. D. Monteith J. Boddington F. Bradey R. Baker A. Anderson E. Catchpool G. Scott K. Bethune W. Fitzherbert A. De B. Brandon D. W. Eaton C. Sharp J. Parker I. E. Featherston . G. Robertson G. Moore A. Hort R. Stokes W. M. Smith D. S. Dune J.H. Greenwood A. W. Shand W. Deans A. Hornbrook R. Barton D. Eiddiford J. J. France N. Sutherland J. H. Wallace J. G. Drake , C. H. Townsend D.' Sutherland F. Logan G. Hunter

Original Purchasers who did not sign. H. St. Hill, Sheriff and B. B. Strang, Begistrar of Police Magistrate the Supreme Court H. Petre, son of one of F. Johnston, had not an the Directors opportunity of perusing it j. Tame W. Bannister