16

on the 5th of July 1850, a contract then
subsisting in regard to a part of the land
of the Company in the Colony.

2nd Whether if they did constitute
such a contract, it is one to which the
land in question remains legally or equit-
ably subject in the hands of Her Majesty
as demesne lands of the Crown.

Lincoln’s Inn, 10th Dec., 1850.

In obedience to your Lordship’s com-
mand we have considered the case and
the several documents transmitted to us,
and have the honor to report that

1st, 2nd, and 9th, We are of opinion
that the terms of purchase of August
1849, constituted on 5th July 1850, a
contract then subsisting in regard to a
part of the land of the Company in the
Colony; and that the land in question
remains at Law and in Equity subject to
such contract in the hands of Her Ma-
jesty as Demesne Lands of the Crown.

(Signed) JOHN ROMILLY.
A. E. COCKBURN.

(Copy)

Downing-street,
31st May, 1851.

Sir,—In addition to the other sub-
jects to which I have called your atten-
tion, by Despatches of even date here-
with, touching the Affairs of the New
Zealand Company’s Settlements, I wish
to bring under your notice the necessity
which appears to exist for defining those
settlements by Local Boundaries.

2. The various terms of purchase is-
   sued by the New Zealand Company con-
   tain no local description of the settle-
   ments. This was, indeed, at the outset,
   scarcely practicable. But it appears to
   have been always understood, that Land
   Orders for a given settlement were to be
   executed by a Grant of Land, when the
   Company should acquire it from the
   Crown, in the neighbourhood more or less
   close of the chief place of the settle-
   ment.

3. Recently, however, as far as I am
   able to judge from the imperfect infor-
   mation before me, this system has been
   to some extent, departed from: Compensa-
   tion Land to settlers at Nelson having
   been given at Waitohi, which I under-
   stand to be locally situated at a con-
   siderable distance from the Town of Nel-
   son. What other instances of this kind
   there may be, I am not aware.

4. By the additional Instructions, which
   were directed to you at the close of last
   year, the Crown Land Instructions of
   1847 were suspended so far as regards
   the settlement in question. But neither
   in these Instructions was any attempt
   made to define the extent of the several
   settlements.

5. I have, now, therefore, to instruct
   you to cause the several settlements of
   Wellington, New Plymouth, and Nelson
   to be locally defined, and their bounda-
   ries accurately laid down. The territory
   included in each settlement should be
   sufficiently extensive, to give fair room
   for the completion of the settlements by
   the sale of desirable Land, amounting at
   least to the number of Acres specified
   in the terms of purchase, within its limits.
   When the settlements shall have been
   completed by the sale of that quantity
   of Land, (a contingency which the quan-
   tity recently granted by way of compen-
   sation probably renders distant) the set-
   tlements may be regarded as closed and
   the old land instructions will revive within
   their local limits.

6. I may here mention that a doubt
   has been raised whether, in point of fact,
   some of these settlements have not been
   completed by the quantity of land granted
   by way of compensation taken in addition
   to the quantity sold. But as I do not regard
   this view, even if it were the legal one,
   as really satisfying the engagements en-
   tered into by the Terms of Purchase, and
   which the Crown is bound to preserve,
   I leave all lands not sold on those original
   terms out of the calculation.

7. It will be unnecessary, in effecting
   this object, that you should embarrass
   yourself with the consideration of the
   boundaries of Provinces. There is no
   necessity, in my opinion, that any one of
   the settlements should be conterminous
   with any future Provinces. It will
   be quite sufficient that their area should
   be such as to satisfy amply, and so as to
   leave no room for cavil, the purposes
   originally proposed by the New Zealand
   Company with respect to each.

8. I entertain no doubt that the Crown
   has legally power to define these boun-
   daries, without in any way infringing on
   those contracts of the Company which it
   is bound to preserve. But, as it will be
   necessary that application should be
   made to Parliament this Session for
   some powers in relation to these settle-
   ments, I shall take the same opportunity,
   if I find it practicable, of obtaining a
   clause defining your powers in this re-