NEW ZEALAND COMPANY'S DEBT (AUCKLAND) COMMITTEE.

PAPER Laid before the Committee by the Attorney-General at his examination, on the Sth July, 1854.

The question has frequently been asked, but never satisfactorily answered, how it was, or why it was, that provision was made in an Act of Parliament, enacting that in case the New Zealand Company should fail in their colonizing operations in the Southern portion of New Zealand the debt which might then be found to be due to that body should be charged upon the Demesne Lands of the Crown throughout New Zealand, including the Northern District then being colonised by the Crown, on terms and conditions prescribed by the Crown, and guaranteeing to purchasers of land that the money paid by them for the purchase of land, should be expended in promoting Emigration and on Public Works. With reference to the subject of the present inquiry, T would suggest, for the consideration of the Committee, a point which I believe has not before been raised, and from which it may not unreasonably be inferred that the present legal liability of the Northern Districts of New Zealand for the payment of the debt due to the New Zealand Company has arisen from the interpolation, or the inadvertent use, of a single word in the Act in question. The sum of £268,000 has has been charged upon the Waste Lands of the Crown by the New Zealand Constitution Act, on the ground that Parliament had previously, by the " Act to Promote Colonization in New Zealand," 10 and 11 Victoria, c. 112, guaranteed the payment of the sum to the New Zealand Company out of the proceeds of all future sales of the Demesne Lands of the Crown in Ntw Zealand. With reference to the question as to the claim of the Province of Auckland to be exempted from liability to the payment of that sum, I would draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of thelO and 11 Victoria, c. 112. It cannot be disputed that the Constitution Act, 15 and 16 Vic., charges the sum of £268,000 upon the sale of the Was'e Lands of the Crown in New Zealand at large, or that a similar charge was made upou the Demesne Lands of the Crown in New Zealand by the Act of Parliament 10 and 11 Vic., c. 112 ; but an attentive consideration of the "Act to promote Colonization in New Zealand," 10 and 11 Vic., will, I think, lead the Committee to the conclusion, that the words " New Zealand" in the 20th sec. of that Act were improperly inserted instead of the words " New Munster." It will be observed by the Committee that the Act in question, 10 and 11 Vic., recites that the Company had acquired large tracts of land in the Colony, and that many of Her Majesty's subjects, at the instance of the Company, had expended their capital in forming Settlements on lands belonging to the Company. Although the word Colony is used, it was well known that the actual operations o the Company had been confined to the Southern Districts of New 7. r vet then recites that it might tend to restore the prosperity of the Settlements and promote the establishment of new Setits, if certain Royal Instructions, &c. } were suspended within ■ i; ovince of New Munster," and enacts that such Instructions shall be su»-