New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK’S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Wednesday, November 12, 1851.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 655, 12 November 1851, Page 3

New Zealand Spectator, AND COOK’S STRAIT GUARDIAN. Wednesday, November 12, 1851.

B have been prevented by the arrange*ents our Journal from sooner noticing ‘ e attempt, in the Independent of Nov. Ist, i J eV ' Ve t^ie charge brought by the r Constitutional Association against t. Hin f or mismanaging and misap-

propiiating the rents arising from the Native reserves, and regret that our limited space prevents us from entering into the subject as fully as we could have wished. At the time it was first preferred we showed (Sept. Bth& 15th, 1849) theinjustice and unfounded nature of the accusation, and though a specious effort is made in the Independent by such garbled extracts from the last Bl m.o omicu Luc purpose of the Editor of that paper to give a colouring to the charge, no unprejudiced person who reads the documents referred to, which occupy fifteen closely printed folio pages, can fail to be satisfied that it has been most fully refuted.

We may observe that the refutation is by the Lieutenant-Governor an authority which the Editor of the Independent now professes to hold in great respect. The chief facts, as appears from the Lieutenant-Governor’s Despatch and its enclosures, are these. In November, 1842, Mr. St. Hill was appointed by the Bishop o‘t New Zealand, acting as Trustee for the Natives, Agent for the Native Reserves in Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu, and Porirua, and although the country lands in the Wellington district are not mentioned in this appointment, these were also entrusted by the Bishop to Mr. St. Hill at the same date: according to the scale of remuneration agreed upon a per centage for choice was to be charged upon the first receipts, the first £lOO of annual income was to belong to the agent; 20 per cent, upon the next £5OO of annual income, and £5 per cent, upon all additional income. It is shown that Mr. St. Hill (“ acknowledged to be the most active agent in Wellington”) incurred considerable labour and expense in selecting country lands, at which time he was not a Government officer, and that he received no remuneration whatever up to April, 1844. It is also to be observed that Mr. Halswell received a salary of £3OO a year for managing the native reserves •in the Wellington district only, and that the Agent for the Church lands at Wanganui received a salary of £250 a year for selecting and managing the Church estate. In the latter part of 1841, the late Mr. Thompson, the principal Government officer at Nelson, was also appointed by the Bishop Agent for the native reserves in that settlement, and, acting in that capacity, selected 100 town sections and 100 suburban of 50 acres each. In urging Mr. Thomrißo”’= claim for remuneration for these services, Mr. M'Donald, as one of his representatives, says “a claim might be set up for £lOOO, independent of salary, ’ and considers that he is not unreasonable in asking £5OO in full of all demands. The case was referred to the Bishop s arbitration, who considered the sum of £2OO to be a fair and equitable satisfaction for this claim. Mr. St. Hill’s claim was also referred to his Lordship, who was of opinion that the sum of £370 (the sum received by Mr. St, Hill) was a moderate remuneration, and less in proportion than other agents had received, and these decisions were confirmed by the Executive Council.

In his remarks on the respective merits of these two claims, Mr. Domett observes that " Mr. St. Hill’s claim for selections would, independently of any express or implied agreement, be in the abstract so far better than Mr. Thompson’s, that he (Mr. St. Hill) was not a Government Officer, nor salaried by Government at the time of selection. He was by profession a land agent, and of course, as such, had a right to demand remuneration. That had Mr. St. Hill been called upon to refund all the town rents, he would then have had an undoubted right to prefer a claim to equitable payment for the selections of the countrv lands ; and that his claim to a sum equivalent to that which he had retained would have been fortified by the opinion already recorded of his principal, the Bishop, that it was not exorbitant. He would also have been fairly entitled to claim more than Mr. Thompson, from the different position of the two agents with respect to Government; while Mr. M'Donald himself considered the claim of £5OO for Mr. Thompson’s services as only fair and moderate.”

The above brief summary of facts extracted from official documents must be admitted clearly to establish “that the commission paid to Mr. St. Hill was not so paid for the bare act of receiving rents, but for travelling over considerable distances of country, for selecting sections, and for other laborious duties, in addition to receiving rents; that the amount so paid him was much below that generally paid to Agents so employed, and that he was not a Government officer when the greater part of the services were performed.”