LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume X, Issue 482, 31 May 1851, Page 58

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.

THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY'S LAND j| CLAIMANTS' BILL. Sir — I send you a copy of a letter which I addressed to Mr. Dillon, previously to his leaving for Wellington, on the subject of the "New Zealand Company's Land Claimants' Bill." I am, sir, your &c, W. T. L. Travkrs.

Nelson, May 28, 1851.

Sir — As I understand you are about to sit as a member of the Legislative Council, I take the liberty of calling your attention to the following amendments, which it appears to me Bhould be introduced into the proposed " New Zealand Company's Land Claimants' Bill," in order to render it a completely salutary measure as regards thia settlement. The first amendment appears to be required in clauses 3 and 9.

During the period when the New Zealand Company's land sales were suspended, very great distress was experienced by the working classes in this settlement, in order to relieve which, the Agents of the Company, assuming an authority which they did not legally possess,, offered to let portions of the Company's estate for terras of years, at low rents. Their offer was readily accepted, and a number of leases were at once granted. These leases, however, having, in the first place, been granted at a time when the legal estate in the lands comprised in them was not vested in the Company, and having, in the second place, been merely executed by the Agents, instead of being under the seal of the Company, would not, it is apprehended, be valid or effectual as against grantees from the Crown, were the Crowo grants issued under the Bill as at present' framed, and the grantees should refuse to recogniae or respect such leases. This, as [you

cannot fail to observe, would be productive of serious injury to those persons, who, acting under the supposition that the leases then granted to them were valid and effectual, have expended capital and labour in improving the property. In order that you may more fully understand the nature and extent of the injury which would thus be inflicted, I beg to call your attention to the following (which at the moment occur to me amongst very numerous instances), in which property is occupied upon the terms above alluded to:—

William Jones, farmer, Vanguard- street, ococupying, under a lease for ten years, nine acres of land, broken up and fenced, in and upon which he has erected a substantial brick dwelling and other buildings; Thomas Berry, storkeeper, Trafalgar-street, occupying, under a lease for ten .years, a quarter acre of land, upon which he has erected a substantial store and dwelling house; John Watts, blacksmith, Trafalgar-street, occupying, under a lease for ten years, a quarter acre of land, upon which he has erected a large smithy and other buildings ; R. Lloyd, shoemaker, Trafalgar-street, occupying, under a lease for ten years, a quarter acre of land, upon which he has erected a substantial dwelling house and other buildings; W. Coppins, tailor, Bridge-street, occupying, under a lease for ten years, a quarter acre of land, upon which he has erected a dwelling house, shop, and other buildings; F. J. M'Glashen, flaxdresser, Wakapuaka, occupying, under a lease for ten years, seventyfive acres of land, upon which he has erected a flax- mill, dwelling house, and other buildings, at a cost of upwards of £400.

Your particular attention is moreover requested to the fact, that when the New Zealand Company threw open their private and general estate for selection, in pursuance of the arrangements entered into with the landpurchasers in 1847. all property thus improved was assessed at a value, calculated upon the improvements made; and the parties who eelected did so, in order to avail themselves of those improvements, but at the same time with full notice of the existence of the leases granted by the Agents of the Company, and under the impression that those leases were valid and effectual. It would therefore be extremely inequitable were the persons, who, by improving the property, have thus enabled the New Zealand Company to obtain for it a larger price than it would otherwise have realized — a price, in fact, calculated upon the improvements made by them, to be deprived of the benefit of those improvements during the residue of the terras of years for which the land was originally let to them. In order to obviate this, it appears to me desirable and necessary, that the words, "Or in respect of any other contract whatsoever," should be introduced after the words, "Or in respect of such scrip as aforesaid," in the second paragraph of the 3d clause of the proposed Bill ; and that in the 9th clause of the Bill a proviso should be introduced, saving, as against grantees from the Crown, the rights of any person claiming under, or by virtue of any contract, bona fide, entered into with the New Zealand Company or their Agents, prior to the acquisition by such grantee of the land referred to in such contract, and of which contract such grantee had at the time of acquiring the property legal notice.

These amendments would obviate a very serious amount of injury, which would otherwise inevitably be inflicted on persons who in good faith and all innocence entered into contracts with the Agents of the Company; and inasmuch as those who are now entitled to the reversion of the property, in almost every instance purchased or selected it with full notice of those contracts, and with the impression that thoße contracts were legal and valid, it could not be considered a hardship that they should now be, required to respect them. The second amendment which it appears to me desirable to be introduced into the Bill, is a power of appealing to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Commissioners, but as I have some reason to believe that this is also the opinion of his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, I will not trouble you with any of the reasons that induced me to form that opinion, as those which influenced his Honour, and which he will doubtless bring under the notice of the Government, muse be much more correct and convincing.

The third amendment to which I beg to call your attention, is required to clause 14. The purchaser submitting a claim to the Government under that clause, would have but little chance of an impartial award. In case the appraisers cannot agree, the claim is to be decided upon, not by an umpire chosen by them, but by the Crown Commissioner. This is not in accordance with the usual mode of arbitration, and leaves the purchaser at the mercy of the Government, with only the saving power by clause 15. It appears to me fair and proper that the purchaser should have an equal voice with the Government in choosing the umpire who is to decide upon his claim, and therefore desirable that the clause in question should be so altered as to give the appraisers the power of choosing the umpire who is to decide between them.

Subject to the amendments which I have thus taken the liberty of bringing under your notice, I believe that the Bill in question would, if passed into a law, be productive of much beneficial consequence to this settlement. I have had some conversation with Mr. Justice Chapman on the subject of this letter, who has kindly undertaken to confer with his Ercellency the Governor-in-Chief on the matter, should he, on reflection, consider the amendments suggested either fair or requisite. I have the honour to be, sir, &c,

W. T. L. Tbavers.