Enclosure in No. 1.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 784, 5 February 1853, Page 4

Enclosure in No. 1.

Colonial Land and Emigration office, May 28, 1851. Sir, — Id our report on the proceeding! of the New Zetland Company of tht 7th ultimo, we

stated that we sbouid submit to Lord Grey • separate report on the case of Mr. Duppa, one of the persons who has received a Urge " compensation award" in the Nelson settlement. We accordingly proceed to explain our views as to this case. 2. It appears from a memorandum by Mr. JBell in Mr. Harrington's letter of the 26tb December last, No. 48, which states the case dearly ; and succinctly,, that Mr. Duppa, in May 1839, purchased of *he New Zealand Land Company (which it will be renumbered preceded the New Zealand Company) eight properties in Wellington, consisting each of one town and 100 country acres, for which he paid £800 ; that in September, 1839, he proceeded to the colony, taking with him a bouse and other property to the value of £2,000 : that in consequence of the delay in the surveys, he was kept for along timeout of his the land ; and at last, found that, from his order of choice, the land which he would obtain would generally be unavailable ; that in the* meantime, 'the property which he had taken out had been lost, destroyed, or deteriorated ; aud that, accordingly, after two years delay, he proceeded to Nelson, where he has established himself, having purchased and imported cattle from New South Wales. ' 3. In ] 844 Mr. Dnppa endeavoured to exchange his Wellington laod for land in Nelson, but the arrangement was opposed by the Nelson settlers, and accordingly abandoned • but Mr. Duppa appears to have received 200 acres in the Waimea in lieu of a portion of his Wellington land, but what portion is Dot itated. 4. In 1848, when the Wellington compensa* tion scheme was. proposed, Mr. Duppa refused to ! come into it, preferring to retain his claim against the Directors of the New Zealand Land Company; hut, on Mr. Fox's arrival at Nelson, Mr. Duppa proposed to him to settle the claim on certain, terms or to refer it to arbitration. Bnt if referred to arbitration, Mr. Dnppa stipulated first that he should be admitted to be entitled to compound interest at 10 per cent, upon his original purchase of 800 acres, up to the time of bis acquiring the 200 acres at the Waimea, and upon 600 acres afterwards ; atid, secondly, ihal^he should be allowed to receive the money value of any award that might be made in his favour in waste land or land rejected from selections in the Wairau Valley at ss. an acre. , 5 < Thtse conditions trere acceded to, and Messrs. Sax-ton and rSclanders r were named arbitrators, and- Mr. E. J. Waken 1 eld, umpire. The arbitrators awarded to' Mr. Duppa, in addition to the 200 acres .which > fa* i had already t eceived in the Waimea, the sum of £2,000, in < respect of which he was to select 8,000 acres in the Nelson settlement. 'In consideration of this awardhc was to surrender seven ■ town lots (he had previously sold one) and 800 country acres in Wellington, with any claim for compensation which be might hove. 6. It is admhtedby-MT. Bell that thia award is certainly large; but it is vindicated on the ground — first, that Mr. Duppa- had a claim which he might have pressed with serious inconvenience id England, this claim moreover being not against the New Zealand Company, but against individual shareholders of die old New Zetland Land .Company and secondly, that the land which he has obtained is only valuable as a run for cattle and sheep, and unfit, except a small portion, for -agriculture, and never likely to- be worth more than its assessed value. Mr. Fox, in writing to the Company on 2d July, 1850, adds, "The land out of vbich the award is to be satisfied is entirely worthless for agricultural purposes, and though offered for selection when the rural lands were given our, not an acre of it was chosen or thought of. Ido not think it cojrld .be mold for Is. an >acre — possibly not at any price." 7. The arrangement appears, however, to have ■excited discontent in the settlement, and it was noticed in terms of disapprobation in the local papers ; and, unless we misunderstand the circumstances under which it was made, it was very irregular and open on other grounds to objection. £. In the first place, it does not appear that the agent had any authority to bind the Company for whom he was acting to accept of the arbitration proposed by Mr. Duppa, as he assumed to do by the agreement of 21st May, 1850. Next, this land is stated by Mr. Fox as having been "offered for selection (at Nelson)^when the rural lands were given out." Thia being the case, we are unable to understand on what grounds it is described as not forming part of that settlement. And if it formed part of the Nelson settlement it could not be applied without irregularity to satisfy claims which arose exclusively in regard to land at Wellington. It was to the latter settlement that Mr. Duppa's original purchase money bad been appropriated, and it was on that settlement alone that he had a claim. The Nelson reselection and compensation scheme was, as a matter of count, confined to Nelson proprietors, in which class he bad no claim to be considered. In this view of it the arrangement appears to us to be inconsistent with the contract between the Nelson purchasers and the Company comprised in the original terms of sale in tbis settlement. Those terms of salt undertook that the tetUemen* should consist of 1000 propertiea of SOI acres «ach, which should be sold at tbt prict of £300 a property, and that the proceeds should bt expanded,— rthree-<sixtha in emigration, one sixth in selecting tht site, &c, ont sixth in public objects, &c, ona sixth to tha Company. Wt art unable to conjecture in what way a tale or grant of 8000 acres at an assessed value of sa, an acre, upon which go money passed to tha Company. «ud, therefore, none became applicable to the pnrposta abova specified, can be reconciled with the Com* pany's original undertaking to tht setUeis. 9. Thirdly, Some further explanation seemi nscessary of the grounds on which Mr. Fox thought himself justified in, acceding to Mr. Duppa's stipulation tbat before the oast wont to arbritation his claim to 10 per eeat. compound Interest on bis original outlay Should be admitted. We are aware from the enclosures to Mf, Harrington's letter, No. 47, that compound tnttiejit was awarded by the arbitrators in other Nelson compensation awards, ■hboagh the rate hi not' elated ; but to go to arbitration fettered with to large an admission, is, is far-aa we knfcw* tery unasoal ; and we infer from Mr. Fox's despatch to the Company of 2d July, 1850, that- some i other peculiar advantage was tonctdtd to Mt. Dnppa in tbis respect. The only explanation given Is, tbat Mr. Duppa " stood out" for it. 10. Fourthly, we cannot omit to point out that Mr. Fox, by whom tht term* of :be arbitration

were agreed 10, is the partner of 'Mf.'Dbppa in hu paatonl pnranitt. We do not whb. tb imply any conclusion from this fact, or to impute to' Mr, Fox any unfair bias in favour of Mr. Duppa ; but it it, we think, to be regretted tbat tfa« circumstance did not induce Mr. Fox to be more than ordinary careful not to allow Mr. Duppt any peculiar advantages which might -gift riie to a suspicion of partiality *od interested motives. J l . It will be remembered that ' tht tompensation arrangements at Helton were never approved by the New Zealand Company, and tbat the scheme of arbitration adopted in the colony was altogether different from the arbitration arrangement to which the Company originally asientSd. It is still, therefore, we conceive, open to her Majesty's Government, should they so think fit, to institute an enquiry into any of tbese cases, and eventually refuse to confirm them. In onr report of the 12th ultimo, we have snggested, with reference to the general body of Nelson settlers, that the arrangement made with them should be confirmed. Bnt, in the present instance, we cannot but think that, looking (o the peculiar circumstances of the case— to the large amount of land awarded to Mr. Duppa — to the dissatisfaction, not unreasonably as we think, created thereby among the Nelson settlers, and to th» commercial connexion between' Mr. Fox and Mr. Duppa, it would be desirable that the arrangement should not be confirmed until it shall have been investigated on the spot. We would accordingly submit that Governor Grey should be requested to institute an inquiry into the case, and to report his opinion as to the justice or expediency of confirming or disallowing it. Wj|i»ve, &c, (Signed) T. W. Mduoce, Frederic Rogers. Herman Merivale, Esq., &c, &c.