HOW PETITIONS ARE DISPOSED OF MR. FARNALL'S CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4693, 28 November 1876, Page 3

HOW PETITIONS ARE DISPOSED OF MR. FARNALL'S CASE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Itmav serve to "pointa moral and adorn a tale, 1, if you allow me to give the public through your columns a sketch of the treatment they are likely to experience at Wellington, should it be the misfortune of any of them to have to petition the House of Representatives to redress a grievance. I had two petitions before the House. One was on account of a claim I had against the General Government; the other was one against the Province of Auckland. The two petitions were both presented the same day. After they had been presented, and received by the House, they passed to the Public Petitions Committee, whose duty it was to enquire into their merit, take evidence (if necessary), and report to the House. As the Petitions Committee appeared to be guided by no rule in the order in which they took the various petitions that came before them, it then became my duty, day after day, to hang about the lobbies, and wait until the committee were pleased to take them, into consideration. This was necessary, as petitioners never knew what moment or what day their petititions would be considered. After performing thie duty daily for some time, I was at last summoned, and occupied the time of the committee for about balf-an-hour, when they adjourned. Ordinary mortals will no doubt imagine that when a committee of this sort does at last investigate a case, they go right through with it, but nothing of the kind. It was a fortnight or so after this before the remainder of my evidence was taken. In the meantime, I had to resume my daily watch, in company with the rest of the unfortunate petitioners. Honorable members must have something more than ordinary memories, and have a great deal more than the ordinary amount of intellect, if they can keep in their minds the yarious points of a case which they get this way in dribblets, and at long intervals, and which is mixed up with the evidence taken in a hundred other petitions which are being investigated in a similar manner. In the matter of my claim against the General Government, I was awarded the sum of £139, and the manner in which this sum was arrived at is somewhat extraordinary. The claim itself was a very simple one. In the end of June, 1873, Dr. Featherston cancelled my appointment as Emigratiou Agent, without giving me any notice whatever. Up till then I had been receiving for salary and expenses at the rate of £700 per annum, or £58 6s Sd per month. I was entitled, therefore, to this sum for the month of June. I pointed out to Dr. Featherston that it would take me two or three months to bring my operations to a close, and I remained on until relieved by Mr. Samuel Cochrane, in January, 1874. 1 remained even after that, for when Mr. Cochrane came over he told me that Dr. Featherston had promised a ship'from Belfast direct,' in February, if he could guarantee a sufficient number of emigrants. Mr. Cochrane being new to the work, was under the impression that a sufficient number could not be got in the time. I thought differently, and undertook to guarantee the number, and promised to remain with him and see it carried through. We succeeded in getting the number, and the Queen of Nations broughc them to Auckland. There are plenty of this vessel's passengers still in the province who can testify to the active part I took in the matter of emigration at that time, and that they appreciated my services is shewn by the fact that on the vessel leaving the Belfast Lough they paid me the compliment of giving me three hearty cheers. I claimed from the Government six months' salary (£330) in lieu of notice, together with the salary for the month of June (£SB Gs Sd), my return passage as agreed to (£75), and a further sum of £14, which was disputed by the Agent-General

(the latter it«m was, after investigation, acknowledged by the committee to be perfectly correct), making in all a total of £147 6s Sα that I had * legal claim to, and £350 for compensation. They awarded me £139, made up in the following eccentric manner, viz., —£27 for the June salary instead of;? £58 6s 8d; another £27 for July- as compensation; £75 for the return passage, and £10 for furniture. The latter-1 did net even chum, as the account had been, previously settled. . The result was, I actually got £3 6s Sd fees than I should have received in England from Dr. Featherston had we parted amicably. Not a farthing was allowed me for the expenses I incurred in going to Wellington to prove my case, though the amount I received plus £8 6s 8d should have been paid me in London by Dr.' Featherston. My second claim —the one against the province—arose in this way: —I was making'arrangements to return to the colony early in 1874, when I received an official communication from the late Mr. John Williamson, requesting me to act as agent for the province of Auckland. He enclosed copies of the Auckland Waste lands Act, 1867, under which he appointed me, and he drew my special attention to the fact that I had power to issue land orders. I at once accepted the appointment, and proceeded to act under it. Some months after receiving this appointment from Mr. Williamson, I received another letter from him, telling me the " power to issue land orders under the Act of 1567 could not be exercised until the authority for such issue was renewed by the Legislature, but, in the meantime, I was at liberty to act ia every other respect; as Emigration Agent on behalf of the province without reference to any instructions that might be given by the Agent-GeneraL" All this time, it appears, no provision had been made by the Provincial Council to meet the expenses of the agency. I wrote to Mr. Williamson to know whether I should draw upon the province, or whether he would remit the necessary funds to me, and what amount I was entitled to receive. To this I received no reply. I waited until June, 1875, when I returned to the colony, after having carried on the agency for nearly eighteen months, at very considerable expense to myself. On my return I aaw Sir George Grey (who was then Superintendent) about it. He said that, as there would not be another session of the Provincial Council, my only alternative was to petition the House of Representatives. This I did, and ultimately the Petitions Committee reported that the appointment was not legally made, inasmuch as the 21st section of the Act, which gave the Superintendents authority to make the appointment, had been repealed by the Auckland Waste Lands Act, 1870 ; but that as I had accepted the appointment in good faith, I had a claim against the province. Jn consequence of this, Sir Robert Douglas* moved for an appropriation o£ £1050 to meet the claim. This amonnt was at the same rate as I had been previously receiving from the General Government. There was a short debate, on Sir Robert Douglas's motion, and one or two rathec curious arguments were urged in the course of it. Major Atkinson, for instance, argued that the claim should have been submitted to the Provincial Council, But as there has been no session o£ the Council since my return, this was manifestly impossible. Air. Gibbs, who was a member of the Petitions Committee, and! who professed an accurate knowledge of all the circumstances of the case, coolly informed the House that I proceeded to England as agent for the Provincial with nothing more definite to guide me than a simple letter from the Superintendent! O£ course, as a matter of fact, I proceeded to England as agent for the General Government, and Mr. Williamson's appointment reached me through the post two years afterwards. Mr. Sheehan put the matter in a nutshell, pointing out that, though the appointment was illegal, that was no equitable objection to raise ; that I was in England at the time, and had no means of-knowing, anoT had no reason to doubt the validity of the appointment, and the colony would be acting unfairly if it did not recognise the claim. The motion was, however, negatived. £ trust you will kindly insert this for me, as a great many contradictory stories are afloat concerning these claims, and those who wisb to know the truth of the matter can now satisfy themselves. The recital of them will also, perhaps, serve as a warning to petitionerg.—l am, &c, H. W. Faknall.