THE NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. (From the " Examiner," June 12 )

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 698, 22 December 1852, Page 3

THE NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. (From the " Examiner," June 12 )

We certainly (bought, a fortnight ago, that the projected legislation for New Zealand was a very extraordinary (hing. But after the debate oflast Thursday evening, we think it more extraordinary —nay, marvellous—perhaps in some respects disgraceful. It seems to result from what then occurred, that, while the House of Commons yews with an eye of favour lhe Solons of New Zealand, it is not without some indulgence likewise for the Mercuries who have attached themselves to lhat country. Never was any poor little creature, said the nurses, lt so put upon from the beginning" as Mr. Dombey's son and heir. Never was any poor little colony so put upon from the very first as New Zealand ; and now that it is growing up and just able to walk' alone^'here, it appears, are some nimble-fingered persons, who offered themselves heretofore as Us dry nurses, and were, permitted to dose it with incalculable mischief, bringing in a small claim of 268,3007. upon all the lands of (heir unfortunate nursling, based on as extraordinary a scries of artifices as has ever fallen under our observation. We owe the discovery of these strange occurrences to the sagacity, and their exhibition before the world at large, to the courage and patriotism of Sir W. Molesworlh. We regret to say that we shall owe (though it is not yet, perhaps, too late for the House to recede) their toleration, if they are to .be tolerated, to the House of Commons, the guardian of the public purse— the redrcsser of wrongs —the protector of the injured and the innocent. The circumstances appear from Sir Win. Molesworlb's speech, which was not contradicted in any of its facts with one wholly immaterial exception, and which, (hough contradicted, was not refuted), to he as follows. This Company, upon grounds on which we will not now enter, applied to Government in 184G for indemnity for injuries which, (hey said, they had received from lhe Government in New Zealand and at home. Lord Grey agrees to recommend to Parliament an ad, by which 25G?000£. is to be lent to the Company for three years, &ni\ the whole demenso of the Crown in about two-thirds of the island placed at their disposal for that period. If at the end of it (hey shall give notice to the Secretary of Slate, that they are unwilling to continue their colonising operations, they are (o return to Ihe nation the unsold residue of about 1,000,000

- ' acres of land which the Government had granted 3 ' them some years* before — this loan of 236,0001. , ,' is in such case (o become their absolute properly, ■ and they arc to have a further claim ol 2G8,500f1. > | upon the sales of all land in New Zealand, af it r ; the prior liquidation, out of tiiosc sales, of the " general expenses for surveys and emigration. '. Moreover, the nation, in the event of such nolice, is to lake vpon itself the satisfaction of whatever ' I were at that time, viz., in 184G, l/ic existing lia- , bililics of (he Company in respect of Us settlement of ' Nelson. During the negotiations between the Company and the Government, which eventuated in the Act of July 1847 containing the above provisions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer u dome his duly to Ihe best of his powers" (says Sir Win. Molesworlh) inquiries ol the Company "what claims these settlers had upon the Company which the Company conceived would he good against Government in the event of the Company breaking up, and what were the nature, and grounds, and probable amount of such claims?' The Directors answer these queries on the 23rd and 24th of December, 18iG, and 9th of January 1847. Now, before they madb these answers, they had submitted a case lo (heir standing counsel, — a gentleman who was himself one of the largest shareholders, — and had received his opinion on the 4lh of December, 184G, to the effect that they were under immense liabilities to their Nelson settlors; thai they bad failed to pel form their contract lo them, and might be called upon to refund all the purchase-money they had received, together with interest and damages for In each of contract. Thus the legal claims of the Nelson purchasers, which were at ( that moment good against the Company in the i estimation of an eminent barrister, their stand- ! ing counsel, and one of their largest shareholders, ' — amounted to 200,000 L and upwards ; and with this opinion in their possession, uncontradiclcd by any other, the Directors did not hesitate in their answers lo the Chancellor of thcExchequer lo omit all mention of these legal claims, for it appears (hat by the dexterous wording of their replies they produced on his mind a belief that the claims were merely moral ones, "amounting to nothing more, " observes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, " than what any settlers claim, i. c., the protection of good government." The Directors having driven this impression into the Chancellor's bead on the 25rd and 24th of Dec, and clenched it by their further reply of the 7lh of January, then, on the 9th of that month, sends ! the case to another counsel for his opinion. I The gentleman now selected was, it appears, ! one who is denied by his profession the common light of appearing in Court, and the standing counsel of the Company was not invited to meet j him. He returned an opinion of a different character from that of their standing counsel. They immediately and ostentatiously inform Lord Grey (though they make no communication whatever to the Chancellor of the Exchequer), that u their own personal conviction had been distinctly confirmed by counsel of eminence, lo (he cflcct lhat they bad not failed in the performance of any contract with their Nelson settlers which they could be legally called upon to fulfil," without making (he slightest allusion lo the existence of the prior opinion of (he sfandinging counsel. Thus Lord Grey, in Mr. Slephens's letter to the Lords of the Treasury, daled May Gth, 1847, is induced to inform their Lordships that (over and above a sum of 25,000/. (rust money, of no consequences to the view we arc now exhibiting) the Company's actual liabilities to (heir Nelson settlers "are merely ihe small balance of a disputed account, and not worth mentioning ." Under this impression, thus produced, Lord Grey recommended, and Parliament passed, the Act of July, 1847, taking upon the nation the Nelson liabilities, and giving the New Zealand Company a claim upon all (he lands of New Zealand to Ihe extent of 208,0002. Now it appears from Sir W. Molesworlh's statement, wholly uncuntradiclcd, that the Directors contemporaneously practised upon their Nelson Settlers, with respect lo these claims, ailificcs of a still darker dye than Ihose lo which we have just referred. These unfortunate persons, upon arriving at New Zaaland, had found (he Directors in no condition to fulfil their contracts, and were petitioning Parliament for redress, when the Directors write lo them, and inform them lhat they have laid a case before counsel, would be guided by his opinion, and beg them to prepare some plan of co-opcralion by the lime they should receive in New Zealand this opinion of counsel. This letter of pledge is dated November 2Glh, 1846. On the 4th of December they receive their standing counsel's opinion, by which they had bound themselves lo abide, — they suppress it, — and, having obtained a favourable opinion from the second counsel, on (he 18th of January, they send it on Ihe 28lh of that month to their Nelson settlers, as if it had been the one by which they had pledged themselves to abide in their letter of November 2Glh. We must refer to Sir William Molesworth's speech, as reported in the Times for the manner in which this opinion was used in inveigling the settlers in New Zealand, our object in (his long statement being to bring public opinion lo bear upon the conduct pursued by the House of Commons upon Ihe uncontradicted statements thus brought under its nolice. What the House ought lo have done, upon finding that Sir W. Molcsworth's statements were not impugned, is obvious enough. It should have struck whatever related lo this mailer out of the Bill —reserving it for separate and subsequent consideration — and have gone on with the remainder of it ; and Ibis was what Mr. Gladstone suggested. The country, by the Act of 4847, was made liable for whatever was at that lime the existing liability of Ihe Company lo its Nelson settlers ; it now appears (hat such liability ,was 200,000/. and upwards, according the Company's standing counsel, and the House ought at once lo have ordered thai it should be ascertained whether such is the law, for if the claim be legal, it is legally bound to pay it to the Nelson settlers by the Act of 1847. It shonld then seek its remedy against the Directors of the New Zealand Company, and it is entitled to withhold its concession of Ihe 268,300?. secured on all the lands of New Zealand until its rights against the Company shall be ascertained. The House was shown no disposition lo do any of these things; it ciidcntly wished lo get out of the affair by any means, and' to suffer the New Zealand Directors to walk off with Ihe money (hey had so craftily obtained. Is such conduct on the part of the House entitled to the respect of the public? Is it conducive (o the promotion and extension of sound moral sentiments on public mallei s? Is il guarding the public purse? Is it not rather encouraging the crafty and unscrupulous lo dip their hands into it? We agree entirely with Mr. Gladstone, lhat il would have been unjust had (he House u sprung" to a decision against Ihe Directors upon Sir W. Molesworlh's statement, even , though they proved unable lo contradict il after full preparation (as one of them had announced on June f 6), and perfect cognizance of all the documents and evidence. We think it would ! have been unjusl ; but far inoic unjust is il to 1 " spring" to a conclusion the other way, and to ' say, as they have done, u Let them have the * money, and we will examine "hereafter •' whether Ihoy ought to have had it." An anxa ious friend exclaims, " The man to whom you <

' are going (o give your daughter iti marriage, sir, has been guilty of forgery, and lioro arc (he proofs." " Well," says the father, "lei him marry my daughter at once, and I will " examine tbo proofs hereafter." Such is (he precedent which Ihe Jl'u.se has followed; public morality, (he public money, (he rights of (he much-injured IVeHon settlers, every respectable consideration (hat should havo aroused their feelings and guided their conduct, all has been overlooked ; and (he House of Commons seems actually prepared to break up itself and go (o the constituencies boasting like Dogberry, "That though (hey suspect some persons by virtue of their office, to be no true men, yet for such kind of men (he less they meddle or make with them the more is for their own honesty." What response will (he constituencies give to the men who act thus? and what will the Colony of New Zealand say ;— and what will the future historian of (he colony say when he recounts (he foundation of its constitution laid by the mother country in such a soil as we do not care further to dcsciibe?