Committee were therefore only able to arrive at an approximate estimate of the claims which, in consequence of the Company having surrendered its charters without issuing titles to its purchasers, will now be brought against the Colonial Government.

These claims may be divided into two classes, namely:

I. Claims in respect of land originally purchased; and
II. Claims in respect of compensation.

From an Appendix to the last Report (set July 1849) issued by the Company before its dissolution, it appears to have sold about 240,000 acres of original purchases in the settlements of Wellington, Wanganui, Nelson, New Plymouth, and Otago. But being unable to give possession of a great part of the land so sold, and a large proportion even of the land of which possession could be given being worthless, the purchases in the four last-named settlements demanded compensation for the non-fulfilment of the contract. The general principle on which it was eventually determined to allow that compensation are stated in the “Correspondence relating to Land Questions” appended to this Report. It consisted of two privileges which were conceded to purchasers: one was that of surrendering land either unrequired or of which possession could not be obtained; and, reserving other land instead; the other was that of receiving a fresh grant of an additional quantity of land. And although in the adjustment of the Nelson claims the right of selection was extended to apart only of the land purchased, yet, as the Company subsequently offered it to all the purchasers in the other settlements of Wellington, Wanganui, and New Plymouth, in pursuance of its own admission that every purchaser was entitled to “beneficial occupation of the full amount of his purchase,” it seems to your Committee neither just nor expedient to exclude the Nelson purchasers, even partially, from the privilege of re-selection, or to compel them to retain any land which from position or otherwise may be unavailable, and of which they cannot consequently have had “beneficial occupation.”

In estimating the probable extent of the claims that will be brought forward under the first class referred to, your Committee have assumed that the Government will recognise and carry out the general offer of re-selection made by the Company to its purchasers. It appears, indeed, to have been established with the consent of all parties including Her Majesty’s Government, that it would be unjust and unwise, since the Company in every case demanded and received money for land that had never been seen by the purchaser, to force the latter to keep any land which was not a fair equivalent for his money: unfit to the purchaser who got no return for his investment, unfair to the colonists whose land would otherwise have been selected freely by the disposition and disappointment of a body of persons who had contributed large sums to its foundation.

If that principle is admitted by the Crown, and retrospective engagements of the Company to the same effect with the large majority of its purchasers have to be carried out, it is evident that the quantity in respect of the 240,000 acres originally sold by the Company, more or less fulfilled by the mere offer of Crown Grants for the land hitherto selected. On the contrary, considering the character of much of the selected land, the incompleteness and inaccuracy of many of the Company’s surveys, the impossibility of giving possession of about 20,000 acres selected in districts not yet acquired from the natives, and other fair grounds for reselecting, it is clear that Government must provide for the rejection of a very large proportion of the whole quantity originally chosen; and though your Committee have had some difficulty in ascertaining, from the witnesses examined, what that proportion would be likely to be, they cannot estimate it at less than one-half, or 120,000 acres.

With regard to the second class of claims, arising from the right of compensation, your Committee have found still more difficulty in ascertaining their probable extent, chiefly from the fact that only a part of those relating to the Nelson settlement were advanced against, or even considered by the Company before its dissolution. But as far as the adjustment was proceeded with by the Company it appears, first—that the claims of all the purchasers resident in the settlements of Wellington, Wanganui, New Plymouth, and Nelson have been settled by the gift of land to the extent of about 70,000 acres; and secondly—that the Company made a proposal to the absentee proprietors in the three first named settlements, to fulfil which (when all these parties come into the arrangement) about 81,000 acres more will be required.

The claims just referred to as not having been settled are those of absentee proprietors in the Nelson settlement, who were not included in the Company’s proposal; but who, it appears, are now before Her Majesty’s Government with a request for some similar arrangement, in accordance with the recommendation of the Company; which has admitted their claims since its dissolution, and would therefore have adjusted them had it continued its functions. The claim advanced in particular by the Hon. Henry John Tancred, being, one of the matters referred to your Committee by the Council, they have given the whole subject their earnest consideration; and without admitting the allegations of injustice and unfairness on which that gentleman mainly rests his case, they are of opinion that he, as well as the great body of absentee proprietors in the Nelson settlement, would have land, as against the Company, an equitable right to refer their claims to arbitration, under the plan of adjustment known as the “Nelson resolutions” of July 1847; but that, as the Company’s dissolution has rendered such arbitration impossible, their case should now be adjusted by the Colonial Government on a general principle similar to that which was adopted with regard to the Wellington and New Plymouth absentees; namely, that of giving an additional amount of rural land, not exceeding 75 acres, in respect of every 100 acres originally purchased. This would require about 40,000 acres more.

Adding together, then, the whole number of acres already given or offered by the Company in compensation at Wellington, Wanganui, and New Plymouth, to the number which under the proposal of your Committee would be further necessary for Nelson, it appears that nearly 260,000 acres would be required to meet the claims for compensation under the Company’s contracts. And as out of this quantity only 70,000 acres have been selected (namely, by the resident purchasers in all the settlements), new land will have to be provided out of which more than 120,000 acres may now be chosen.

Thus, taking the probable quantity of land which would be thrown up under the before-