LORD STANLEY'S WHITEWASHING.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 186, 27 September 1845, Page 120

LORD STANLEY'S WHITEWASHING.

[FrW thti Spectator, Marqh 22/J To' ifntJersftntt hdw fair Lord Stanley's colleagueS"Have Btiftii successful in making his face white before tliet'wprid, it ife necessary to understaild ttie 1 thing ab' but which the charge of bad faiffi aftseV

' WhU» ; it waft 1 thfe- pleasure of the British Government to daflfcrß' NfeW Zealand an ((independent" country", the" Company purchased certain^ laiids therti of the native chiefs; The Company was no innovator on the customs of th&'counlry t other purchasers had preceded it, arid; Among them men of the' sacred missionary calling'—^nineteen of whom, in a body of twice that number, we perceive from parliamentary papers, have claimed land' as purchased from the natives 1 to the" extent of 192,000 acres. Of cctorse; in in " mdeperident" country, it did not require the constant of the foreign' British Government to* complete the title of the occupant. The CN«rf Zealand Company took possession; andthercis no' doubt that* had the British Government not interfered,' the Company, by its settlers,,, would have held possession as stoutly as our^ forefathers held possession of the early settlements of New. England, and perhaps more prdsperotoily 1 . v ' After a while 1 the British Government was jtteased io assume die sovereignty 6f New Zealand;. This: was done by a mixed operation: first,: cession, of the sovereignty for a part was obtained from some native chiefs ; then sovereignty over the rest was assumed by right of discovery; and, finally, before the treaty of cession was consummated, the sovereignty was exercised over the whole. In this process the native lordship of the land merg&Mn the rights of the British Crown : GovomgtpHobson proclaimed that purchases froff^mtiaiuitives, future or ipasj, would not be reccflK|§put from the Crown, alpne; and Lord Joml Russell, then Colonial Minister, entered into a special negotiation with the Company, which resulted in his compelling it to " forego and disclaim all title or all pTetehce of title" to any land not granted by the Crown. However, Lord John Russell recognised the equlfcab.te .claim of. a public body which had really and truly formed the colony at a large outlay, and, instead of rudely snatching from the Company its own handiwork, he agreed to a com* premise; The claim of the Company as derived from the native purchase' was set aside, but the equitable title 1 founded on what the Company hdcF&me was allowed ; and Lord John Russell agreed to grant to the Company, as holding from the Crown; land to the ariiotint of four times as many acres as it had laid out pounds sterling in the 1 purchase bf land, the conveyance of emigrants, and other colonising expenses. The test of' the title, under Lord John Russell's agreement, was, not whether the Company had satisfied certain native chiefs — not whether particular persons had been paid-^but whether the Company had expended so much. Lord John disallbwed one title, but established another, guaranteed by the responsibility of his position a£ a Cabinet Minister. Lord John Russell went out of office, and Lord Stanley came in. It is usual for incoming Ministers to'fulfil the engagements formerly undertkkehby their predecessors; but Lord Stanley "repudiated 1 " his predecessor's written agreement. Of course he found a pretext. He discovered that Lord John Russell must have nreant that the Company should be put in possession of their land on proving a " valid " title valid title as derived from the New Zealand savages! This was official vacillation worse than the bed of Procrustes, which did not at least shift its condition to bauk the same occupant. As against the natives, while independent,, the Company had a title the validity of which to defend : that title was disallowed by Government, and a new one was given, with quite a different test : but again the Company was referred back to the original title, after the proceedings of Government had put such a title m'tor an inextricable state of confusion, and had inveigled the Company into a security which made it neglect to wptch over its first rights. Be : ft observed, too, that Lord Stanley insisted upon the conditions of exacting that title, and also the title as stipulated by Lord John Russell. The Company subsequently appealed to the framer of the bond, Lord John himself, to know if Ldr'd Stanley tightly interpreted his intent — evoked the ghost of the testator to interpret his own will. Lord John explicitly 6tated, that what Lord Stanley said he must mean he did not mean: he meant the words in their natural, ahd not in Lord Stanley's non-natural sense. Meanwhile, however, practical effect had been givdti t'o'tbe wrong interpretation. In the coFc%k " Court of Land Claims " was established : a^TOe^ead df ifwas placed a country attorney, whose 1 profes'siohal success in England had not beeir'so 1 striking as to prevent his emigration : that he had more than the a^tif%a ) a l tt<srney power in hunting up fees, it is eHthent/tfiat his mind was swayed by technicalities/ barfed'^tlther on a hand to mouth style of flrictice, J tnSn on enlarged views of equity or the law of nations ; and he entered eagerly into the plsm of ftrdwing, not separate estates, but the whbWcbbny,' an' entire England, into thatstate wWcK;W idolloqutally described as being "in Chincery!'* Dlshbnesly always profits by confM<Jn; and rogtres/black or white, appeared in shoata to strive Tor pickings in the anarchy bred by; Mr. Spairi/s law-court. While matters thus pTOdeeclßa! in the colony, the confusion was reffectetljatiiome in^n angry and idle correspondkept up by the Colonial Secretary with the ConipanV for many months. At length he crept obt of ine'difficultjryhich he had made, by a compromise ; l to 'which/his victims were fain to submit; to 'save therr coldnists from the ruinous evils bflfuribV defiy. The Company tad now befen subjected to

three kinds of title : Lord Stanley devised a fourth. It was whimsical, and it was as whimsically brought about. Instead of proposing his own terms, he obliged the Company to make his own offer to him. That was done in a rough draft, which he corrected, so that they might be accurate in offering to him the terms which he was in fact offering to them. That curious piece of green-room rehearsal accomplished, both parties came upon the stage, and the Company, in a letter from Mr. Somes, dated Bth May, 1843, ostensibly offer tp Lord Stanley to take £50,000 worth of land at Auckland (a pet settlement founded by Governor Hobson, which Government could not bring people to, and for which they therefore desired the help of the Company), and to abandon 50,000 out- of the large number of acres acknowledged to be their due on the shores of Cook's Straits ; with this further comprehensive stipulation : — " For the purpose of effectually settling the question of the Company's titles, and of quieting the minds of their purchasers, they suggest, that your lordship should forthwith direct his Excellency to make to the Company a conditional grant of the lands selected by their agents ; the Company obtaining within the district so selected the whole title which the Crown may have the power to grant, and having the option, in the event of prior claims being set up, of either excluding from the selected lands such portions as may appear to be subject to such prior claims, and in that case receiving a corresponding number of acres in lieu ; or of including such portions subject to the prior title, but of obtaining from the Crown in respect of them the exclusive right of pre-emption enjoyed by the , Crown ; the Governor and Council being instructed, as soon as practicable, to establish some general rule for defining native titles and settling the claims to land and to do their best to aid the agents of the Company in effecting the necessary arrange1 ments with the natives, either for the purchase of lands belonging to them, but unimproved, or for making on the part of the Company equitable compensation for the original value of the land which may have been occupied by themselves or their settlers without sufficient title, but on which they may have effected improvements."

The "conditional grant" here stipnlated would have put the Company in immediate possession of the lands selected, subject to the future risk of being ousted on proof of superior claim. The Company had probably little to apprehend from that risk ; at all events, it was encountered as the least in a choice of evils.

The Company's tender was formerly accepted by Government, in these terms, conveyed [12th May, 1843] in a letter by Mr. Under- Secretary Hope — " Lord Stanley directs me to state his assent to these propositions ; and to intimate further, that he will be prepared to issue to the Governor of New Zealand instructions to the effect proposed in your letter for effectually settling the question of the Company's titles to land in that colony."

Of course the Company supposed that Mr. Hope was telling the truth, and that Lord Stanley was " prepared " to issue instructions to the effect stated. At first it seemed so. Lord Stanley [19th May, 1843] sent the Company's letter and Mr. Hope's reply of acceptance to Lieutenant Shortland, then Acting-Governor, in a third letter, directing Mr. Shortland to take immediate steps for giving effect to the arrangement about Auckland ; and telling him that the other " questions " were reserved for the newly-appointed Governor. This letter of the 19th May was communicated to the Company. "We now come to the alleged breach of faith. In a letter to Lord Stanley [15th June, 1843], the newly-appointed Governor, Captain Fitzßoy, said that "doubts" had been expressed, — by whom, he does not say ; whether by himself, or Lord Stanley, or by some hidden person in the Colonial Office, or by some private friend, or by a fellow- passenger in an omnibus ; but " doubts " had been expressed in regard to the arrangements of Government for confirming the Company's title to land. Here are two of these " doubts :" Captain Fitzßoy's " impression " is — " Ist. That out of a certain extent of land in New Zealand, said to have been purchased by the New Zealand Company, the Government will confirm their title to as many acres as they have expended crowns in purchase and emigration, &c, provided that they prove the validity of their purchase. " 2d. That the Government will assist the Company in making good their claims, so far as may be done with propriety."

In limine, it may be observed that Captain Fitzßoy had nothing to do with the " validity :" his office was merely ministerial — to execute the " conditional grant," and put the Company in possession of its land. The validity of the title could, even under this compromise, only be raised by third parties, at a subsequent stage, and must have been determined in a court of law, not settled as a preliminary to the grant. By his first " doubt," Captain Fitzßoy undoes the whole agreement with Lord Stanley, and goes back to the old hostile interpretation of thing set aside by the new agreement with Lord Stanley. In fact, Captain Fitzßoy does not at all understand that new agreement : he supposes it to be something different from what it is— the very thing, we say/that it superseded and was meant to obviate. Does Lord Stanley tell the misled man that he is wrong, in so many plain, unmistakeable words ? No : he says this — " On the firat point, I have to refer you to the correspondence -with the New Zealand Company, enclosed in my despatch to the Acting-Governor of New Zealand of the 19th ultimo, No 35. You will there perceive, that her Majesty'i Government have conceded to the Company, as regards the ! district included in the original agreement, that with a view to facilitate the adjustment of their titles, the Local Government of New Zealand should be directed to make to the Company's agents a conditional grant of the lands selected by them on the terms definitively stated in that correspondence; the principle of that concession being, to allow to the Company nprimd facie tide to such lands, under the condition that the validity

of their purchase shall not hi successfully impugned by other parties. Subject to this qualification, I concur in the view taken by you on this point."

To a man who is lost in blundering, to the degree of supposing an agreement to mean its reverse, Lord Stanley answers by putting the very substance of the agreement, in a long, ob-scurely-worded sentence, as a " qualification," and telling Captain Fitzßoy that with that qualification he is right ! Of course, the Governor was to understand that in the main he was right, subject to some qualification ; when in fact he was altogether wrong, and the agreement is unintelligible as a " qualification." Tell a sheriff who construes a certain document to be a deathwarrant, that, subject to the qualification of its being a pardon, he is right, and assuredly he will understand it to be a death-warrant, subject to some impossible and incompatible condition which does not come in force. Lord Stanley proceeds — " On the second point, I have certainly no difficulty in authorizing you to assist the Company in making good their claims, so far as may be con^ sistent with a regard to the interests of other parties, and of the community at large ; on which point also I must refer you to the correspondence already referred to."

Compare these words with the words of the original agreement, and observe howAthe heartiness of the covenant " to do their best to aid the agents of the Company " is damped and qualified to the doubting Governor, by the " certainly no difficulty," and the "authorizing" or permit" ting, and the "so far as may be consistent with a regard to the interests of other parties and of the community at large." Surely these ordinary conditions of just government needed no special proviso.

Captain Fitzßoy has an "impression" about the Auckland arrangement, and an impression about " indebted," and " due," and " compensation " by the Government to the Company, all which the Colonial Secretary treats in the same spirit.

Lord Stanley had contracted with the Company to execute a deed for the conveyance to them of certain lands ; in instructing his deputy, he sanctions that officer's introducing clauses of such wide qualification as totally to vitiate the deed. There is no difficulty in answering the question whether these instructions are what Mr. Hope calls " to the effect proposed in your letter." The instructions to the Acting-Go-vernor, which seemed in the right way towards " the effect proposed," were shown to the agent of the Company : these new instructions were kept secret from the Company from June, 1843, to February, 1844 — much more than time for the Governor to reach the colony. It is, therefore, not difficult to imagine an answer to the question, did Lord Stanley mean to deceive the Company ?

It is averred that he did not. In spite of a puerile arrogance and fondness for contest, Lord Stanley bears in private an unblemished character, and is considered to be good-hearted. It may be believed that he did not intend a trick of such gross and mischievous meanness. It is easier, however, to put a generous acceptation on a simple assurance to that effect than to take it as proved by the laboured but feeble " explanations" of his colleagues. Lord Stanley told the Company that he would instruct the Governor in one way : he did not content himself with doing so, but instructed him in another way : he did not tell the Company that he had altered the stipulated terms of the instructions. It may not have been intentional dishonesty; but then it was gross carelessness. Furthermore, Lord Stanley- may not have perceived the distinction between giving land on fixed conditions and giving land if the doubting Governor thought proper : but in that case, what are we to think of his capacity ? Indeed, presuming no malice prepense, the reckless negligence would of itself prove extreme incapacity : it is difficult to characterize in polite terms the mind that could be careless in such matters. Charity acquits Lord Stanley of fraud only by supposing him weak of understanding.

On cutting Wheat before it is Ripe. — An old and practical farmer gives the following opinion on cutting wheat : — " The assertions which I have found most prevalent are, that wheat may be cut some time before it is ripe ; that it ripens at least ten days afterwards in the field. It frequently happens with those farmers who grow a great breadth of corn, that they find it convenient to begin a certain portion of it, in order to employ the labourers they have engaged, and whom they wish to keep in constant work until the harvest be finished. Under such circumstances it is a happy belief that you are doing no harm in preserving. The miller also tells you that the sample is brighter, and he likes it. But does the farmer find that he can sell a shrivelled and almost green sample for the same as one more bold? I never found it so; on the contrary; yet the corn cut before it is quite ripe is thinner skinned, and contains, no doubt, a smaller portion of bran. But depend upon it, corn thus saved neither yields a proportionate profit to the grower nor consumer. Taking into consideration weight, and bulk, and price, the ripe corn will be found most profitable. I name this matter now, because the last harvest has afforded very abundant examples of the different states of grain, being in many cases of two growths, half green, half ripe ; and the farmer may, if he will take the trouble, successfully scrutinize my assertion. Many years ago, I instituted some experiments as to the value of bright unripe wheat, compared with that fully ripened ; and the result was that it was not so glutinous, and did not imbibe nearly so much water in the flour, and consequently., made a much less weight of bread. What 1 contend for is, that wheat, when the ear begins to droop, is then only fit to be cut. — Yorkshvreman.