RIVAL NEW ZEALAND LAND COMPANIES.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1346, 23 August 1883, Page 3

RIVAL NEW ZEALAND LAND COMPANIES.

We cull the following from the Melbourne “ Age ” of August 3, as tending to show the disinterested opinion of “ outsiders ”:— A small party of New Zealand chiefs went to England about twelve months ago, to lay their land grievances before Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and were cordially received on their arrival. Her Majesty could not, as a constitutional Sovereign, do less than hand over these visitors, with their alleged grievances, to her Ministers, by whom they were as cordially received as they had been by herself, and they seem to have had a tolerably fine life of it in London. We have no recollection, however, of ever having seen any promise of a n dress of the grievances of these chiefs, either by Her Majesty herself, or by any one of Her Majesty’s Miristers ; nor do we see how they could have be.n led by any one to expect anything of the kind. But the presence of three or four largely endowed New Zealand chiefs in London, not unwil lintfly to dispose of th l ir estates on reasonable terms is not so common an occurrence there as not to have attracted a large mea sure of attertion to them by those who ar»disposed to invest in securities of this kind. They were, therefore, interviewed by his Grace the Duke of Manchester, by some of the bishops who know “ how to make the best of both worlds,” by certain noblemen anxious to provide for their younger sons, and by others, who proposed to take th- ir land off tl eir hands, and to form a company for that purpose to b* called the “ Sydney Taiwhanga Company.” How far this company is likely to succeed with its project is not yet known, but another company has been formed in Auckland, called the “ New Z-aland Native Land Settlement Company, Limited,” with the same object in view, and a bill has been laid before the New Zealand Parliament, in which certain powers and privileges are sought, and that is being made the subject of much unfavourable comment. The great objection to the “ Sydney Taiwhanga ” scheme appears to be that it would if carried out, be a huge monopoly for the benefit of foreign speculators, and not at all in the 'interests of the natives. Such, at all events, is what the promoters of the “New Zealand Native Land Settlement” scheme allege in derogation of it, and they may, having regard to the scheme as a whole, be right in some respects in this. But their scheme is, in its turn, denounced as a gigantic land-sharking association, formed for no other purpose than that of securing a monopoly of the lands of the natives, and intended to be hereafter the nucleus of a new political organisation prejudicial to the interests of the colony. What the Duke of Manchester, with the rest of the promoters of the “ Sydney Taiwhanga ” scheme, say to these aspersions on them we do not know, but the promoters of the “New Zealand Natbe Land Settlement” scheme are brimful in their protestations of the most philanthropic motives in what they are doing, and declare that there is no foundation for anything that is said against them. Look they say at our list of directors—Mr Thomas Russell, Mr Williamson, Mr Dignan and others, combined with Mr DeLautour as managing director—and say whether these gentlemen, so opposite in politics, and yet such thorough men of business, are not to be trusted in a great undertaking of this kind. Our object, they add, is to B<Tve the natives ; to protect them from being plundered by absentee speculators ; to assist them in getting their lands through the native land courts ; to find purchasers or tenants, if desired to do so; to bring out farm laborers for them ; and to act in all other ways for their benefit. It is, in fact, a purely phil&nthrophic movement, according to their account, and yet when closely looked into, it does not seem to be deserving of any such designation. Sir George Grey was asked to let his name stand on the directorate, but refused, probably because he saw too much in the company to object to, or, it may be, because he studiously abstains from advising the natives in all matters relating to their lands. Whether the latter be so or not, there is doubtless much to be objected to in the powers and privileges the company seek at the hands of Government in the bill now’ before Parliament, and it will have to be narrowly watched in its progress through both Houses. Up to the end of last year, the native lands, with those purchased privately from the natives, amounted t » 14,250 000 acres, and these are the lands, we presume, the company he* k to have the power of dealing with exclusively, as no mention is made of any other 1 mds in their bill. They will not, they declare, buy .ny native lands tbem-elves, unless they are obliged tn do so—whatever that means—but Jwill merely sell or lease, as opportunity offers, on behalf of their principals, as commission agents, at a moderate rate of commission. This rate is not, according to their bill, to ho a fix*-d rate, hut it is to he varied in every case, according to the difficulty of the transaction or the advantage gained by the natives, of which the com patty’s agents are, we suppose, to he judges in both cases. Moreover, however'deairoiis the comp my may be to act fairly and uprightly, with such provisions as these in their bill they would be able to buy whatever land they liked, and to charge whatever commission they pleased In fact the more this bill is looked at the more objectionable it seems, and the less it appears to be deserving of any kind of legislative sanction.

We have not a wo d to sav in favor of the B<*beme of the Duke of Manchester and hi* al ies, any more than we have of ’he scheme of Mr Thomas Russell and his allies. They both aim at the creation of a great monopoly in dea’ing with the lands of the natives, and will bo'h, if carried out, have H e effect of racing the price of all other lands in the colony, far ns w j can gather, however, nothing more is contemp'ated bv the promoters of the former of the«e schemes than tW. of buying up the lands of the natives and selling t' em “gain at a profit, or leasing them if that should be nrnre to their advan tage. But. th? promoters of the latter of these s •hemes appear !<• h ve • douM • in view—fl st, t<» a ptoa<- < the natives aoure philant'-ropi is intent, o'-l.v on (doing them good ; and next, on selling themselves right with the shareholders by polling out the promise of large cividends. On t is il- - blending of philantrophv with the prospect.’ of great, ea n many will, no doubt 1 ok with deep suspicion, and yet the pro mot, rs of this scheme boast, of their enormous capital, and declare their belief t 1 at they shall be able to drive the promoters of the other nut. of tin* fi Id with t'e nt.m st ease. What the promoters of th'* scheme want with an enormous caii'al if they do not intend to buy up the lands of the na'ives is not very apparent, and the presumption, therefore, is that there is much in the background which they do not. yet care to disclose. The position of the Government towards it has so far been one of perfect neutrality, but they will s<>on have to declare themselves on one side or other. It seems to be the general opinion that it will be for and not against.