THE TIMES ON THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY'S DEBT. [From the " Times," June 11.]

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 697, 18 December 1852, Page 3

THE TIMES ON THE NEW ZEALAND COMPANY'S DEBT. [From the " Times," June 11.]

Of all the services which Sir William Molesworth . lias rendered lo the British colonies, none is more creditable to iiis courage and research than his attempt, though unsuccessful, lo rescue New Zealand from the ruinous incubus of a mortgage over her waste lands, in favour of a company which has long trifled with her best interests and seems destined to he an insupciahle obstacle to her progress. The statement of the case amounts to something more than an accusation, for, though the evidence on which it rests is not yet printed, (he accuracy of the facts is proved by the nature of the defence set up, and we therefore call the attention of the people of this country and of New Zealand to the train of circumstances which have resulted in transferring to a trading company upwards of half a million of public money through the instrumentality of the Colonial Office and of Parliament, by means of representations and suppressions whose best exposure is their simple relation. The autumn of 1846 found the New Zealand Company in great embarrassment ; their money was expended, and they had received 160,000?. for the sale of land al (heir Nelson settlement under contracts which they were unable to perform. The put chasers becoming clamorous, Lord Grey lent them 100,000/. in August, 1846, but that was almost immediately expended. Under these circumstances they set themselves to procure a salUo.iiunl with the Nelson purchasers and a fresh loan from (he Go\ eminent, together with a consent in case of (heir dissolution lo take their liabilities upon itself. For these two purposes— lhc arrangement of the settlers' claims on (he transfer of their liabilities to Government— it was obviously advisable to obtain an opinion favourable to their position. With this view they laid a case in 1846 before Mr Buckle, one of their largest shareholders, and wrote out at the same lima to their agents in New Zealand, staling they had laid a case ! before counsel, and thai they would he guided by that advice, invited communication on the part of the settlers, and expressed a wish lo identify (he solders interests with their own. | On the 4lh of December, 1846, Ihey received the opinion which they had announced, by which they W3ie informed thai they had broken their contract, and were liable to refund (he purchase money, together with such other damages as (he nature of each case might suggest. This opinion doubtless placed the company in a critical position. They had hound (heuiselws (o disclose il to Ihe settlers, for whose benefit, as wellaslheir own, they declared i I to have been taken, and they were equally bound to disclose it to the Government, which was at that moment entertaining the question of taking upon itself contingently these very liabilities, and through (he Chancellor of Ihe Exchequer, was proposing to (he company searching questions as (o their amount and nature. The company extricated themselves from Ibis dilemma by a manoeuvre (o which we know no parrallel, except the exploits of those generals who have contrived at the same lime lo maintain a siege and heal off an attacking army. They obtained, early in January, 1847, an opinion precisely contrary to the first from a person who, though still a member of the bar, is forbidden the public practice of his profession. This opinion the company sent out on the 26th of January, 1847, as (he opinion which they had announced (hemselves as taking, for the benefit of their sclllers, in the aulumn of 1846. The settlers, ignorant of the (rick which was put upon (hem, destitute of counsel, and mistaking the changeling — as well they might— for the true offspring, were driven into disadvantageous compromises, and accepted readily any satisfaction for rights which they were informed Ihey did not possess. Had Ihe company merely sent out (he opinion (o them, they might have treated it as an ex parle document ; but (he announcement in a previous letter that it was intended to take it for their common benefit threw (hem effectually off their guard. Thus was the invading army of litigants beaten off. In ihe meanwhile the siege of Government was not neglected. The company, in December, 1846. evaded the queries of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assured Lord Grey in 1847 that counsel of eminence had advised lhal they had not broken their contract, and presented to Government in April of the s,a.me year a statement of their affairs, in which all mention of any claim for breaches of contract was suppressed. Thus was Lord Grey as effectually deceived as the solders, and (he result was the act of 1847, by which Parliament lent to (he company 136,0G0J. more, without interest, and in case of (he company ceasing lo- carry on business released all claim for this sum and the 100,000f. already lent, undertook to pay all liabilities lo the Nelson settlers, and lo give a mortgage over all New Zealand to secure 268,000 J. more to Ihe company. A few months after the passing of this act, into which he had been so unworthily (ricked, Lord Grey was informed, by (he commissioner appointed under it, of the deceit practised on the settlers and the suppressions by which his! assent had been. obtained. He was placed in a painful situation, hut one in which do man of honour should have hesitated for a moment. It might be painful to his pride to admit that he had been deceived into entering into engagements of uncertain amount, and into advising Parliament (o make itself liable for claims whose nature and extent he had been too negligent to ascertain. Unhappily il is too often the "nature of fraud lhal those who begin by being its dupes end as its accomplices. In an evil hour Lord Grey was prevailed upon by the importunity of the company to give his sanction lo the continued concealment of the adverse opinion from the Nelson settlers, to refuse to clear up the discrepancy between Ihe two opinions by laying the case before a third counsel, and lo dismiss the commissioner for merely doing his duty in reporting a transaction so fatal lo the colonists and so injurious to the character and interests of Government. Thus has Lord Grey combined with Ihe New Zealand Company (o deprive of the knowledge of (heir rights those colonists who ought to have found in him a guardian an<| a protector, mixed up a depart-

went of Government with the lowest arts of trickery and chicane, and, rather than admit an error and tetrad a false step, has tarnished a name which the people of (his country have so long delighted l<> honour. Do, avc Ihen, mainlain a Colonial Department that our money may be recklessly squandered in supporting (he credit of a company with nothing to recommend il but the possession of a few votes in (he House of Commons ; that our Exchequer may he embarrassed by the assumption of unknown and unin\esligated liabilities ; and, (hat, finally, we may be parlies (o transitions from which any respectable attorney would recoil ? ] The only defence »et up on behalf of (he company is (hat they have been acquitted by (he judgment of Loid Giey. There is not a single fact we have mentioned which one of their advocates has >en(uiul (o den\. What weight can (here be (o such an acquittal 9 Lord Grey may acquit the company, but who is to acquit Lord Grey' Who will say (hat il was worthy of an English Minister or an English nobleman to refuse to enlighten himself as to (he real nature of the liability incurred, to sanction the supression of information which (lie company had voluntarily and deliberately bound themselves (o reveal — and which was of (lie greatest value (o those for whom he was hound io act — or to dismiss his subordinate officer for doing the duty from which his superior shrunk? Lord Grey must disengage himself from all complicity with the accused before we can accept his verdict of acquittal. The results of all this are sufficiently disastrous. 'We have given (o this company a quarter of a million of the public money, and we have bound ourselves to pay whatever demands the Nelson settlers may have upon them. AH settlement of claims obtained by frau 1 is void in law, and we can have no doubt that the publicity given to these dark transactions will raise up a host of claimants with demands only 100 well founded, which as fast as they are substantiated against the company must be paid out of our Exchequer . Certainly (he same fraud ought to lead to a repeal of the act of Parliament upon which these claims are founded, but instead of taking this view, the House of Commons has given to the company terms more favourable than those originally secured (o them, and cannot spare lime for the investigation of charges whose truth would entitle us to have our quarter of a million refunded and our contingent liability cancelled.