MR. BUSBY, THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ENGLISH MINISTRY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1075, 25 April 1867, Page 5

MR. BUSBY, THE COLONIAL GOVERNMENT AND THE ENGLISH MINISTRY.

Wb reported yesterday tlie proceedings at a meeting held in the Chamber of Commerce, upon tlio invitation of Mr. Junes Busby, recently returned from England, to hear what steps had been taken in respect to liis own petition, and that of certain Waugarei settlers, having reference to certain lands of which Mr. Busby contended that he had been illegally dispossessed, and of which they are the present occupants under grant or purchase, and which thoy commenced to occupy under the representation that Mr. Busby bad received compensation upon the disallowance of his title by which his claim had become extinct. Tho following are the papers read at the meeting of Tuesday by Mr. Busby, and contain an elaborate statement of his case :— lb the Right Honorable tho Earl of Carnarvon, H.M. Principal Secretary of State for the Colonial Department. Tho memorial of Jrnnss Busby, of Waitangi, in tho Province of Auckland and Colony of Hew Zealand, Esq., Humbly shewoth, — 1. That on tlio Gth February, 1810, whon the Sovereignty of Now Zealand was codod to the Cro°'n by the treaty of Waitangi, Memorialist was seized and possessed of certain lands held by an undisputed titlo from tho chiefs of that country. 2. That in pursuance of H.H. instructions conveyod through tho Marquis of Normandy to Captain Hohson the first Governor of Now Zealand (dated 11th. August, 1539, (sea papers of Sth April 1810) a proclamation was issued in H.M. name, in which it was statod that IT.INT. would not rccognioo ns valid any titles to land hold by H.M. subjects in Hew Zealand unless proceeding from, or confirmed by a grant from the Crown—that it was not however intended to dispossess tho owners of any property i which had been acquired on equitable conditions, but | to confirm the titles to the same by the issue of confirmitory grants to bo made in H.M. name and on her behalf—on its being proved before a Legislative commission that they were so acquired. 3. That memorialist did accordingly so prove that his property was acquired on equitable conditions, and that the proof thereof matter of record in the Colony of New Zealand. 4. That under cover of certain illegal Ordinances of the Local Legislature, Memorialist was nevertheless dispossessed of tho greater part of his property without being offered any compensation for tho s'ur.e, although ho offered to givo up all his titles to the Government on being reimbursed with interest tho capital he had invested upon thoj]lands purchased by him. 5. That whereas tho capital invested by Memorialist in the purchase and improvement of those lands would, if it had been invested in one of tho Australian Colonies have yielded him an income of from £5,0C3 to £10,000 a-j'ear, Memorialist has been brought to absolute ruin by tho Government having seized his lands in New Zealand. G. That after having exhausted every means of to this country to make known his grievances to H.M. obtaining redress in New Zealand, Memorialist came Governmont, in full reliance on tho Constitutional principle established by the judicial decisions of the Superior Courts, that " every class of tho Queen's subjects has an equal title to invoke tho aid of H.M. Prerogative, either for their protection or thoir benefit." * 7. That tho lato Secretary of State refused to listen to his complaints referring him back to the local Legislature and the local Government, as if bis allegiance had been, or could bo transferred from h'is most Gracious Sovereign to tho colonial authorities, at whose hands ho had suffered injuries of bo unprecedented a character. S. That on tho 25th April, 1865, Memorialist transmitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies a copy of a petition to the House of Commons, from certain colonists of the Province of Auckland, representing that they " are living on land which though they obtained it from the Government they consider to bo rightfully the property of Mr. Busby." The petition was also signed by other old colonists who wero acquainted vith tho circumstancoa, the signatures numbering 10*1 in all, including those of 14 present or former members of the local Legislature. And the prayer of tho petition was " that inquiry might be made into the case of Mr. Busby, in order to his obtaining compensation, in other Jan of tho province, for the land of which he was deprived by tho local Government." 9. That these petitions wero presented to the House by Mr. Horsfall, one of the members for Liverpool, on the 12th June, 1565, and were printed in the appendix to the 20th report on public petitions. 10. That the Secretary of State not only refused to support the reference of tlieso petitions to a Select Committee, but brought in u bill which, without previous discussionf passed into a- law on the 29th of the same month, six days befere tho dissolution of Parliament, when probably not ten members of either house wero awaro of its provisions, j This Act is supposed to givo validity to tho illegal ordinances under which memoralist was disposessed of his property without containing any provision for tho protection of private rights.^ 11. That while Memorialist abstains from enlarging on the immorality and fatal consequences of such proceedings, on tho part of persons acting in the name of tho Crown in Now Zealand, he cannot forbear from stating that thoir effects upon public morality were most deplorable, and that they were ■ the re:il cause of tlie insurrections of the Maoris who held tho same ideas as to tho inviolability of property, as aro held by civilized nations (and which indeed constitute the very bond of socioty) and many proved the sincerity of their convictions by sacrificing their lives in maintaining tho titles which thoy had conveyed to Uritish settlers ; all which is capable of beiug proved by indisputable evidence. 12. That while Memorialist respectfully submits that the rights of property existing in New ZealUnd at tho date of th« Treaty of Waitangi, and the obligations incurred by the Queen's instructions of 11th August, 1839,|| and the subsequent proclamation reciting tho samo are binding upon tho National faith for all time, ho would further represent that her Majesty's Prerogative of issuing Confirmatory Grants, in fulfilment of her promise, in respect to such lands as were proved before tho Commissioners to have been acquired on cquitablo conditions, has, in no-wise, been restrained by any subsequent legislation, inasmuch as the Local Ordinance declaring the invalidity of Is ativo titles contains a clause expressly reserving her Majesty's Prerogative, which reservation is consequently confirmed by tho Act of tho 28 and 29 Tict., Chapter G3. Neither is there any othor difficulty in the way of vindicating the National faith, in regard to Memorialist, if tho Queen's instructions were carried out by a Governor acting in good faith. All which is very respectfully submitted by Memorialist, James Busby. The Elms, Richmond, Surrey, July 13th, 1860. The Elms, S.W. 18th August 186 G. Mt Lobt>, —I have the honor to acknowledge tho receipt of Mr. Elliott's letter of tho 16th instant, in reply Jo the memorial which I addressed to your Lordship dated tho 13th ultimo ; in which he states, with respect to what is considered as my " claim against the Governmont of Now Zealand,; either for certain lands in Now Zealand, or for compensation in money for tho loss of those lands," that "if my claim is a legal one, 1 must pursue it in ordinary courso of law, but that if it is merely a claim of justice, I must prefer it to the local Governmont," and that " if X can neither establish my claim of legal right to the satisfaction of a Court of law, nor my claim of justice to ths satisfaction of tho local Government, it is obvious.that the Secretary of State has not tho powor to procure me redress." The importance of the question to myself as well as of tho constitutional principlo which it involveß will excuse me to your Lordship for being unablo to acquiese in the conclusion arrived at in Mr. Elliott's lettor. In regard to tho former observation as to my logal claim I would simply observe thatlbelieveitwas perfectly valid, until it was barred by the passing of tho 28 and 29 Tict chG3 which gave legal validity to tho illegal local ordinances through tho operation of

! which X was dispossessed of my property. This was an $x post facto law, affecting; property, and it made no provision for the protection of private rights. In s this respect I believe it is contrary to all constitu- | tional precedent, as well aaabhorront to the principles of legislation recogniscd by all civilized nations : and I humbly submit, that not only on that account, it is worthy ot your Lordship's revision, but also, because it deprives five millions of Her Majesty's Colonial subjocts, of that security for their .-personal rights which is providod by Magna Charla and other fundamental laws. "With respect to my " claim of justico " your Lordship, ia your speech on the Jamaica question, in the House of X.orda affirmed the distinct find strictly constitutional principle, that if a colonist suffers injustice, helms a right to redress at tho hands of the Colonial Minister in this country. Surely if any appeal for that redress, which is due to a colonist, is entitlod to consideration, it is that of a colonist who complains that he has beon robbod of his property by the criminal action of subordinate authorities ; and whoso claims to attontion are supported by a Petition from upwards of a hundred colonists, the substance of whoso representation ia that some of them have been made therecoivcrs ofstoleD property, by having been induced to purchaso from Qovcrnmontcertain lauds of which thoy are now in occupation, but which they have discovered to bo tho " rightful property" of the individual in whoso favour, as well as to relieve tliomsolvos from tho pain of holding property which is not rightfully theirs, thoy have petitionod the British Legislature. I am prepared to prove that certain colonial functionaries—and amongst thom I particularizo Bir Georgo Groy, tho prosone Governor of Now Zealand— havo been guilty of tho most flagrant violations of justice, and of tho National faith in dealing with my own rights, and with tho rights of others of hor Majesty's subjects. I ain xeady to make good this accusation in any way in which your Lordship may call upon me to provo it, having already published to the world some particulars of certain transactions, which ought to bring a blush into tho chocks of ovary Briton who reads thom. And I now humbly submit to your Lordship that, in respect of theso transactions, tho Crown lias been dishonoured by tho conduct of its Eopresentativo in Now Zealand.* To expect justico from suchpersons was a vain expectation, but I had nevertheless oxliaustcd ovory means of obtaining justico in New Zealand before I made my appeal to her Majesty's Secertary of State in England. Finally, as my caso is of so complicated a character as to preclude the hope that you should find timo to investigate it yoursolf. I would huuiblj suggest to your Lordship that you might adopt a similar courso tD that pursued by tho late Secretary of State for tho Homo Department, Sir Georgo Grey, who stated in the House of Commons, that boforo coming to a decision in the matter of a claim against tho Crown, for the alleged misconduct of its officers, ho had subjected it to tho investigation of a barrister unconnected with tho Government. After I should thus havo established my right to invoke the gracious aid of her Majesty's prorogativo in obtaining restitution of my property, the exercise of that prerogative in tho issuo of a confirmatory grant would bo simply the fulfilment of an engagement mado in her Majesty's name by a public proclamation.—l havo, &c., JiiiiEs Busby. P.S.—I send herewith a copy of the pamphlet referred to. The Elms, Richmond, S.W., Sept. 24, 1866. My Lord, —As I have not yet received any answer to my last communication which I addressed to your Lordship, dated tho 18th ultimo, and as tho evidence which I have laid boforo your Lordship has in no particular been at any timo disputed, I trust X may assume that I havo established my caso : namely, that I was illegally dispossessed of my property in New Zealand by tho local authorities, whoso duty it was to protect mo in tho enjoyment of it; sot only because the protection of property is ono of tho cliiof objects for which government exists, but because tho national faith was, in relation to this property, specifically pledgod in her Majesty's name. By a proclamation published in hor Majesty's name, hor Majesty incurred tho obligation to issue confirmatory grunts from tho Crown in recognition of my native titles, on certain conditions, with which conditions I complied. If, however, anything should still appear to be wanting to mako good these assertions, and to OBtablish my right to rodrcss at your Lordship's hands, I am ready to supply what may appoar to bo wanting, and to provo that tho persecutions I havo suffered arc of a character so aggravated as to havo beon raroly, if over, paralleled under a civilised government. When I stato to your Lordship that upwards of a quarter of a century has elapßed sinco I was first engaged in contention with tho local authorities of New Zealand in defence of my rights, and that I havo now boon upwards of two years in England, without having beon ablo to bring my caso to an issue, your Lordship will bo disposed to pardon somo degree of importunity in urging it upon your attention. But as it may bo inconvonient to your Lordship to precipitate any measures which you may havo in contemplation in regard to New Zealand, will you permit mo to ask from you an assurance that, on tho appointment of a successor to Sir Georgo Groy in tho Government of New Zealand, your lordship will instruct that successor, as tho representative of her Majesty, and acting on her behalf, to fulfil tho obligations incurred in hor Majesty's namo, by tho iisuo to mo of confirmatory grants for such parts of my property as may not have boon placed in the possession of privato individuals; and that iu accordance with the prayer of the petition to tho House of Commons, from tho parties who were lod to purchaso my land from tho Government, undoi the belief that it was public property, your Lordship will further instruct sir Georgo Grey's successor to submit to tho local Legislature a proposition to mako provision for an equitable compensation for such portions of it as were so disposed of to privato individuals. With such an assurance from your Lordship, I should think it unnecessary further to prolong my stay in England.—l have, &c., Jajihs Busby. Tho Eight Hon, tho Earl of Carnarvon, &c. Tho Elms, Richmond, S.W., October 1, 1866, My Lord, —I have the honour to acknowledge the reccipt of a lettor from Sir Frodoric Rogers, dated the 28th ultimo, informing me that your Lordship " is not prepared to depart from tho conclusions adopted by successive Secrotaries of Stato who havo had my claims undor consideration, and to supersede tho decisions of legally-appointed Commissioners, confirmed by that of the local Government." I have to express my obligations to your Lordship for the careful consideration which jou have given to my case, and for tho expression of your Lordship's regret that jou havo beon unable to arrive at a favourable conclusion. But, in truth, your Lordship hns been altogether misled by false representations from Now Zealand, to tho effect that I was dispossessed of my property by the decisions of legally-appointed Commissioners, or indeed, by any other legal processNo words could convey a meaning mora remoto from the truth than the words used by your Lordship as the grounds of your conclusion. It is altogether an orroneous supposition that the Commissionsrshad any authority to give decisions dispossessing parties of land which was proved beforo them, as mino was, to have beon acquired on equitable conditions from tho rightful owners; nor did thoy attempt or assume a power to do so: The legal functions of the Commissioners were confined to the investigation of titles acquirod from tho nativos ; and to reporting to what extent of land the expenditure incurred in acquiring it entitled the owner, according to a specified scale, to have his titlo recognised by a confirmatory grant. One ordinanco of the Nominee Couucil declared titles acquirod from tho natives invalid; a second ordinanco subjected parties making use of land in their possession to enormous penalties, unless the native title, even when proved to bo valid, and upheld by tho nativos, had boen confirmed by a grant from the Crown. These measures made tho greater part of my land useless to me, but did not dispossess mo of it. The transaction by which I was dispossessed of my land at Wangarei, end the parties who have petitioned the House of Commons on the subject placed in possession, was ono of a character bo fraudulent and criminal as to have made it impossible that it could have esoaped the severest condemnation, or remainod unreversed had the truth boen brought before tho successive Secretaries of State who havo had my case » Seo a reference to th o caso of two widows in the pamphlet entitled " Our Colonial Empire, and the caso of New Zc*land" p. p. 130, et. seq. See also a notice of a caso of scire facim iu the Supreme Court at Auckland, p. p. IW, ct. scq.

nndor consideration. No species of subornation could lie in itself moro criminal, or in its consequences more extensively iiijurious, than that by which Sir Georgo Groy prooured the natives who had Bold the property tc me, to receive money for it a second timo, and to sign document? purporting to convey it to the Government, notwithstanding their declaration that they had divested themselves of all property in it by having sold it to me many years before. I cannot bring mysolf to believe that, on tho truth being fully Inown, any Mini-tor of tho Crown of England could pass over such a transaction, oi refuse redress to the parties injured by it; and I would humbly submit to your Lordship that few inquiries could be of more national importance fhan an inquiry how far tho disturbances in Now Zealand wero attributable to this and similar transactions, the inevitable tendency of which was to mako Government by confidence impossible.—l have, &c., James Busby. The Right Hon. tho Iv-irl of Carnarvon, &c., &c. [[The answor to the above wns, that Lord Carnarvon regretted ho must decline to continue a correspondence on tho subject to which it relates.] In conclusion 3\lr. Busby read a paper, which he had prepared lor the information of a gentleman, formerly a member of the General Government, of 'which the following is a copy :— I am informed that it has been said tho Government wero willing to afford me compensation, but that the)' could not got me to say what compensation would satisfy mo. This is far from being correct. In its ttuo sense, indeed, compensation [ would bo nothing Bliort of tho actual amount of tho losses I havo suffered, through tho illegal and unjust conduct of tho Government. This would amount to many thousand pounds—perhaps if calculated at tho lato day, to not loss than £40.000 or £50,000. But I have never insisted upon what strict justice would require, that ij, upon a true compensation, but have always been forward to express a readinoss to compromise, dictated not by what my necessities required. At tho time the Government was suborning the natives of Wangarei to givo them a titlo to my land by largo sums of tho public money, I mado three distinct propositions, copies of which, and the letters rejecting thoso propositions, I have in my possession. 1. The cost of tho land at Wangarei had been ascertained by tho first Commissioner. The titlo to the land atNgunguru had not then been investigated, but has since then been investigated and tho cost thereof ascertained by Commissioner Bell. Tho former was reported to bo £839 ; the latter has been ascertained to bo about £1,500 — £2,339. My proposition was, that I should give up all title to tho land and rcceivo back these sums, together with what interest would have accumulated upon them if re-invested evory six months at tho current rato on the best security. This is Bimply what my capital would have yielded mo without any trouble on my part; and thoso who purchased allotments in Auckland know well that it is a mere trifle to what theso allotments have yielded to the purchasers. Secondly, that Chief Justice Martin should be requested to investigate tho caso, and decide on principles of natural justice to what sum ho Bhould consider, under all the circumstances, I was entitled. Thirdly, that tho question should bo referred to arbitration, under the same principles—the Government to name ono arbitrator, and myself one; providing that, if thoy should disagree, they shculd noirinate an umpire within a certain period, in default of which an umpire to be nominated by the Chief Justice. I am willing to adhere to any of these propositions. If none of them is accepted, it would seem only to remain for the Government to mako any proposition that to them may seem fit. 1. That the Commissioner of Land Claims in his report, datod July 8, 1552, and printeJ with tho Appondix to the proceedings of the House of Representatives of that your (D. No. 10), stated "that although Mr. Johnson (Land Purchase Commissioner) had suffored much trouble and anxiety from tho opposition of Mr. Busby and the Land League, tho original purchase mado by Mr. Busby was a fact that could not bo evaded." 2. That Commissioners Godfrey and Richmond found that the actual valuo of monoy and goods multiplied by threo given to tho natives by Mr. Busby, was £839 9s. 3d. 3. That portions of the land for which Mr. Busby has paid the natives havo beon sold by tho Government, are now in the occupation of the purchasers, and the proceeds of tho sales have beon paid into tho Provincial Treasury. 1. That, in tho opinion of this meeting, Mr. Busby has a reasonable claim against tho provinco for compensation. 2. That the following gontlemen bo appointed a committee to prepare a petition to the Provincial Council, soliciting an onquiry into tho facts connected with Mr. Busby's claim, and praying that compensation bo given for tho injury Mr. Busby has sustained : —Messrs. Daldy, Macfarlane, Rattray, and D. Nathan.