SIR DAVID MONRO'S PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Colonist, Volume X, Issue 951, 6 November 1866, Page 3

SIR DAVID MONRO'S PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

On the principle of hearing both sides, and giving an opportunity of explanation, we copy from the Examiner of Saturday the subjoined letter from Sir David Monro:—

Sir, —It was not my intention to have offered any remarks upon the statements made at Mr. Curtis' meeting with regard to the Nelson Pastoral Land Leasing Act, and the petition I presented to the Legislature, which was the cause of that bill being introduced. The experience of a great many years has dispelled the illusion which, in common I daresay with other younger ineD, I at one time entertained, that misrepresentation could only exist where there was a want of knowledge, and was to be dispelled and combated by a truthful statement of facts; and I would not have troubled you on the present occasion had it not been that I have been told by some of my friends that they are at a loss to understand the matter, and would be glad if I would offer some explanation. The Chairman of Mr. Curtis' meeting (Mr. Edwards) says that I was wrong in going to the Legislature, that I ought to have gone to the Supreme Court. I presume that-Mr. Edwards has not seen my petition. The prayer of the petition' is as follows : —" Your petitioner humbly prays that your honorable House will be pleased to take the Crown Lands (Nelson) Leasing Act into your consideration with a view to its amendment." I presume Mr. Edwards will give mc credit for understanding that if I seek for compensation for a wrong suffered I apply to a court of law. On the other hand, I have as little doubt in believing that I shall obtain his assent to the proposition, that if I ask for an alteration of a law the Legislature is the proper jjiipdy to apply to.

His Honor the Superintendent made some observations to th« effect, that the' only witnesses examined by the committee were witnesses whom Iliad suggested. My reply to this is, that it is not the practice for committees of the Legislature to consult petitioners as to the evidence they shall take; that I was not consulted, and made no suggestions; and that I really do not know even at the present day what witnesses the commitr.ee examined. I apprehend it was not a question of evidence the committee had before them, but a question of interpretation of a contract, and judgment upon the character of a public law, the operation of which was complained of.

What has puzzled people most, I am told, is the resolution of the committee, that the sale of land held under license without the application of any bona fide purchaser, is a breach of contract, and that therefore any such sale is invalid, and any money obtained from a licensee by such a process, either complete or announced, should be returned to him.

This, or rather the first part of this proposition, certainly was the view that I always took of the matter, and which I endeavored unsuccessfully to urge upon the Land Commissioner before the sale advertised for April last took place. No one, I presume, imagines that a resolution of this sort, adopted by a committee, has the force of the judgment of a court of law ; nor, I suppose, was it intended for an instant that it should. But it is not without its value as expressing the opinion of a tribunal of considerable weight upon a question about which I am free to admit that there may be a diversity of opinion ; and it may be of use as an indication to those who administer the land laws throughout the colony, of the interpretation which the Legislature places upon certaiu previous contracts between the Crown and the licensed occupants of its pasture lands. The resolution in question, I was informed, was adopted on the motion of Mr. Whitaker, who, from the high legal position he has held in the colony, and his long acquaintance with its laws and history, probably understands these questions as well as any man in New Zealand.

Finally, as regards the bill that was introduced to provide a new system of leasing, and which lapsed, like some other bills, in consequence of a difficulty between the two Houses, it has been said that I was not the proper person to introduce such a bill. The bill was not, in point of fact, introduced by mc ; it was ordered by the House to be prepared and brought in by Mr. Curtis and Mr. Parker. I drafted the manuscript of the bill, it is true, hut it was not printed until it had been submitted to Messrs. Curtis and Parker, and carefully considered by them and approved of.

When a bill is ordered to be prepared at home, I presume it is generally put into the hands of some Parliamentary draughtsman. It is nevertheless the bill of the members who bring it up, and they are responsible for it. This was what was done in the case of the Nelson Leasing Bill. I merely acted as a sort of Parliamentary draughtsman (a very bungling one I have no doubt). But the bill was in reality the bill of Messrs. Curtis and Parker, and if my name has been mentioned at, all in the matter, it is because the public have, in this particular, been more fortunate than it often falls to their lot to be, and have been admitted to a peep behind the scenes.

I may add, that before the bill was much further proceeded with, it was submitted to all the Nelson members and, with modifications, approved of by them. If it had passed, it would have conferred, I believe, a benefit upon the Province of Nelson. The present law is confessedly unworkable. The law that wo sought for was one which would have been intelligible, and under which a fair rent would have accrued to the province in exchange for a satisfactory tenure by the pastoral occupant. If the Provincial Council in its next session will prepare the outline of some such measure to be submitted to the General Assembly for its adoption, it will do a good service to the province. I am, &c, D. Monro. Nelson, November 2, 1866.

[Sir David Monro omits that part, of the prayer of his petition which hears out the remark of Mr. Edwards the chairman of Mr. Curtis's meeting. The prayer requests not only the amendment of the act, which may ho a perfectly proper subject on which to pc : tition the Legislature,—but also asks the House of Representatives to take " measures to insure the working of the act" in a particular way. This is asking the Legislature to perform the duty of the "judicial tribunal." And Sir David, in the ninth article of his petition, complains "That the Commissioner of Crown Lands of the Province of Nelson has virtually and capriciously cancelled your petitioner's license." Now this, if illegally done, is a "wrong," for which there is a remedy at law, for it is an axiom in constitutional jurisprudence that there "is no wrong without a remedy." In the 11th article, Sir David Monro says : —" That your petitioner complains both of the provisions of the act, and of the manner in ivhich it is being carried out in Nelson." The latter part is a complaint for which redress can be obtained in the Supreme Court, and ought not to be sought for from the Legislature. He says too in the foregoing letter, that it was a " question of interpretation of contract." That also, we apprehend, is a question for a judge. If a breach of contract is committed, people don't generally go to Parliament to obtain fulfilment. The worst feature, in the case was the decision of the Waste Lands Committee of the Assembly, which proposed a most unwarrantable and unconstitutional assumption of power, to which no Legislature has a right. —Ed.]

It is proposed to establish a Pastoral and Horticultural Society in the thriving little town of Wanganui, which is situated in a rich and fruitful agricultural country. A tremendous storm of hail, rain, and thunder passed over Sydney on Sunday, October 28. It did immense damage at Botany. Ice is lying there now in huge masses, although melting fast. The fall of hail was the most severe ever known there. The residents say that the stones measured one inch and a-half in circumference. Thunderstorm and Loss of Life near Brisbane. —A telegram from Brisbane, dated 30th October, says : —" In a terrific thunderstorm, the Ipswich coach was upset and a passenger killed ; a boat on the river was swamped and a man drowned ; and chimneys were blown down, and houses unroofed."