MEETING OF LANDOWNERS AND LANDAGENTS.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 133, 21 September 1844, Page 3

MEETING OF LANDOWNERS AND LANDAGENTS.

A meeting, which was attended by very nearly every landowner and landagent in the settlement, was held on Friday, the 13th instant, to take into consideration the subject of some exchanges of sections of land in Port Nicholson for land in this settlement, which Colonel Wakefield had recently promised to Mr. Duppa.

Dr. Monro, having been called to the chair, stated the object of the meeting. The Hon. C. A. Dillon, in proposing the adoption of the following protest, regretted that the gentleman who was named in it was not present, as he would then have had an opportunity of seeing that there was no personal feeling against him — that it was on public grounds alone that the subject had been mooted : — To the Court of Directors of the New Zealand Company. We, the undersigned resident landholders and landagents in the settlement of Nelson, beg leave to call the attention of the Court of Directors of the New Zealand Company to an exchange of Port Nicholson land for land in this settlement, which is about to be effected.

We undertand that it is the intention of Colonel Wakefield to give Mr. George Duppa 750 acres of suburban land in two blocks in this settlement, in exchange for ten sections originally purchased in the Port Nicholson scheme. We beg to impress upon your court the fact that the two blocks of land thus intended to be allotted to Mr. Duppa, are, without doubt, the most valuable portions of land in the Nelson settlement, in point of position and fertility : and we beg further to mention that we understand that among Mr. Duppa's sections in Port Nicholson there are some of inferior quality, while others are as far distant from Wellington as Manawatu.

We would now beg leave to point out to the court the position in which the purchasers in the Nelson settlement find themselves at present placed. The settlement having been projected on a scale much too large for the quantity of available land in Blind Bay, many landholders find that sections have fallen to their lot which are nearly if not entirely worthless; while, from the nature of the scheme, those who purchased more sections than one, have been obliged, in most cases, to take them at very considerable distances from one another. From these circumstances the progress of the settlement has been retarded ; and much less land has been brought into cultivation than would have been the case had all the sections been - available.

We would next direct your attention to the position which Mr. Duppa will occupy by the contemplated exchange; and, in doing so, we feel bound in the first place to mention that we entertain not the slightest feeling of jealousy or ill-will towards that gentleman. On public grounds alone, because we feel that the projected exchange is a public injustice and calculated to depreciate the value of our settlement, we have ventured to memorialize your court, and to enter our protest against it. It is unnecessary for us to remind your court that land in the Nelson settlement was sold at 30s. an acre ; and that the purchaser who had deposited his money submitted to the chance of a selection to be determined by a lottery. A promise was also given to purchasers by the New Zealand Company that land should not be sold in this settlement at a less price than 30s. an acre. There remain, then, at the present moment, to the person wishing to purchase land here from the Company, two methods :—l.: — 1. That of putting his hand into the wheel and taking his chance among the unsold sections. 2. He may purchase the colonial reserve sections in the colony, by sale by auction, at an upset price of not less than 30s. an acre. These we would submit to your court are the only legitimate methods by which land may be acquired in this set* tiement— always excepting, of course, purchase from private individuals.

Now, we understand that Mr. Duppa was a purchaser of ten sections of land in the Port Nicholson settlement, for which he paid the New Zealand Company £1,000. In exchange for these, it is proposed to give him 750 acres of land in this settlement, not of land taken promiscuously, or in sections lying far apart from one another, but in two blocks selected in undoubtedly the most valuable part of the settlement, both as regards soil and proximity to the town. Some of us who sign this memorial and protest, have paid the New Zealand Company £1,200 for land, and are now in possession of four suburban sections, or 200 acres in all, these sections lying remote from one another, and the majority of them of very inferior quality; but Mr. Duppa, having paid £200 less, is to receive immediate possession of nearly four times as much land lying in two uninterrupted blocks, and these in the very kernel of tfie settlement ! It may be said, however, that the purchaser of four allotments has still to receive his 600 acres of rural land. This is undoubtedly true, but, when he does receive them, of which there is no immediate prospect, they will be at least fifty miles from Nelson, probably much farther, and, after all, he will only receive fifty acres more than the number of acres to be given to Mr. Duppa, while, in point of value, there will be the utmost possible disproportion, and that in favour of him who has paid the smallest amount of money. We would now beg to remind your court of the quantity and proportion of land to which a purchaser to the amout of £1,000 in this settlement (supposing for the sake of our argument that the allotments could be subdivided) would be entitled.

£1,000 paid to the New Zealand Company for land in this settlement, entitles the purchaser to 666 acres and a fraction, of which 500 acres would be rural and only 166 suburban. To acquire these, moreover, the chance of the lottery must be run, and the sections must be taken scattered about in different parts of the settlement. But we have already informed your court that it is in contemplation to give Mr. Duppa more than this quantity of the primest suburban land. We would further remind that while the price of Nelson lands was overhead 30s. an acre, it was always understood that the suburban were of considerably greater value than the rural sections; and that it is therefore not a mere calculation of quantity, but the relative value is also to be taken into account.

We feel ourselves within the mark when we state that it is proposed to award to Mr. Duppa land in this settlement, which he could not have obtained had he originally paid £10,000 ; and this we consider to be in the highest degree unfair towards the settlers in general, unjust in principle, and calculated to depreciate the value of our land.

But, further, we would most unanimously and loudly protest against any exchanges being made of lands in Port Nicholson or elsewhere, unless they be effected with a due regard to the original amount paid for the lands respectively, and in such a manner as to secure to this settlement the full benefit of its fund for public purposes. We conceive that if exchanges of sections are to be made, that they should be made in favour of purchasers in this settlement first, and we feel that such a course would,tend very much towards thenrqgressl of Nelson. /But we cannot but look" uponTt aslfl great injustice that, before we have been satisfied/ or received a fair .equivalent for the money we have paid, a person not a purchaser in this settlement should be allowed to take possession of the very best land in it, of an amount so entirely disproportionate to the sum originally paid by him, and should thus be placed. in a position immeasurably superior to ours. f<We submit tbat the allotting of 750 acres of suburban land to this gentleman, in the manner proposed to be done, is unfair towards all original purchasers of the settlement ; that being much more than any one person can cultivate for a length of time, it can have no other effect than to retard production and prevent concentration*! and, lastly, that, by giving this gentleman the very choicest suburban, sections, at a price greatly beneath what we paid for the average both of suburban and rural, the value of land throughout the settlement, as a necessary consequence, suffers depreciation, and the promises on the faith of which we purchased are violated. It only remains for us now to mention the pretext by which the contemplated exchange is justified. It is said to be on the understanding that Mr. Duppa is immediately to employ a considerable number of the men out of omployment in consequence of the suspension of the Company's works. But to this we would answer, in the first place, that no ends to be attained, no expediency, can justify so glaring an injustice. In the second place, that, in the opinion of this settlement, it is perfectly absurd to suppose that 750 acres can be reclaimed in a year and a half, as is said to be stipulated. And, thirdly, that several other gentlemen, original purchasers in this settlement, are prepared, if exchanges of their sections one half as favourable are granted to them, to employ a considerable amount of labour.

With the most perfect confidence in the impartiality of your court, we beg to lay the case before you, at the same time protesting against the contemplated exchange. We cannot for a moment believe that such a breach of good faith, calculated so seriously to injure every one who has purchased land in the Nelson settlement, will be sanctioned by your court.

Mr. J. Tytleb seconded the adoption of the protest.

After a few words from Mr. Beit and Dr. Greenwood, the protest was adopted by the meeting there being only one dissentient.

Some discussion afterwards ensued on the subject of memorializing the New Zealand Company regarding the consolidation of the settlement, by making the unsold suburban sections available for the present purchasers. Several suggestions were thrown out, but it was ultimately left to a committee of five gentlemen to prepare a memorial, which is to be submitted to another meeting this day.