13

great complication and difficulty of the
\nquestions raised by the sudden surrender
\nof the Charter of the New Zealand Com-
\npany, and the necessity of repeated re-
\nferences to the Law Advisers of the
\nCrown in order to ascertain the rights of
\nthe various parties affected by it, as well
\nas of a long correspondence with the
\nCompany itself. It was felt that imper-
\nfect instructions would only mislead you.

\n3. And I think it is farther to be re-
\ngretted that you did not wait until such
\ninstructions arrived, or, that if you felt
\ncompelled to undertake Legislative mea-
\nsures, you did not do so with more re-
\ncourse to legal advice than appears to
\nhave been the case. For the embarras-
\nment occasioned by the Ordinance, and
\nwhich has caused Her Majesty’s Govern-
\nment to be thus late in acknowledging
\nand deciding on it, has been mainly ow-
\ning to the circumstance that it conflicts
\nwith the provisions of the Act 10 and 11
\nVictoria, c. 112, under which contracts of
\nthe New Zealand Company and certain
\nliabilities of that Company are recognized
\nas devolving on the Crown, which con-
\ntracts and liabilities could not, therefore,
\nbe affected by any provincial legislation.
\nHowever much they might feel disposed
\nto give effect to your Ordinance, it was
\nimpossible to give Her Majesty’s confi-
\nrmation where, being in conflict with an
\nAct of Parliament, it must be a nullity.

\n4. But the power which Her Majesty’s
\nGovernment now possesses, under the
\nlate Constitutional Act, together with
\nthose given by 14th and 15th Victoria, c.
\n86, seems, as will be presently explained,
\nsufficient if not to enable Her Majesty
\nformally to confirm the Ordinance, at
\nleast to allow it to be put practically in
\noperation. And although the compensa-
\ntion which it awards is certainly some-
\nwhat large, and appears moreover to be
\ngiven without reference to the merits of
\nparticular cases, on which you have at
\ndifferent times addressed my predecessor
\nand myself, yet I am too sensible of the
\ngreat importance of settling these ques-
\ntions, as far as possible at rest, to wish to
\nthrow any obstacle in the way of the set-
\ntlement thus proposed by yourself, and
\nenacted after very full consideration by
\nthe Legislature of New Zealand.

\n5. The leading provisions of the Ordi-
\nnance forwarded in your despatch No.
\n133, appear to be these:—It authorizes
\nthe Governor to appoint a Commissioner
\nfor deciding all claims upon Government
\narising under contracts with the New
\nZealand Company. It empowers the
\nauthorities to satisfy these claims in con-
\nformity with the Commissioner’s award,
\nby the issue of Crown Grants of land
\nscrip. It declares that by such issue the
\nGovernment shall be exonerated from all
\nfurther liability in respect to the contract
\nwhich the land granted or scrip issued
\nmay have been intended to satisfy, and it
\nextends the ordinary regulations for the
\ndisposal of Crown Land (including, of
\ncourse, those which prescribe the mini-
\nmum upset price of £1) to all the settle-
\nments of the New Zealand Company.

\n6. In a legal point of view, this Ordi-
\nnance appears open to two objections.
\nFirst as I have already indicated, it mate-
\nrially interferes with, and in some cases
\nassumes to extinguish obligations which
\nare imposed upon the Crown by the Im-
\nperial Act 10 and 11 Vic. c. 112, sec. 19;
\nthose, namely, of performing all subsist-
\ning contracts of the New Zealand Com-
\npany in regard to any of their lands. It
\nis true that all persons who voluntarily
\nsubmit themselves to the Colonial Ordi-
\nnance will have waived their right to a
\nstrict performance of the statutory obliga-
\ntion, but the Ordinance not only deals
\nwith the claims of such persons, but, in
\ncases where a claim may have been
\nwrongly admitted by the Crown Com-
\nmissioner and satisfied accordingly by the
\nGovernment, it assumes to exonerate the
\nCrown from its liability to satisfy the
\nrightful claimant, who may never have
\nreferred his claim under the local Ordi-
\nnance, and who consequently remains in
\npossession of his strict legal rights.

\n7. Next, the Ordinance restores the
\nupset price of £1 an acre throughout the
\nislands, in direct contravention of the
\nrights of the Canterbury Association, as
\nsecured by the Act of Parliament—of
\nthe Contracts of the New Zealand Com-
\npany (which have now devolved upon the
\nCrown) with the Otago Association, and of
\nthe provisions of the 14th and 15th Vic-
\ntoria, c. 86, sec. 1, which enacted, that so
\nlong as the Cook’s Straits settlements
\n(in which, for the present purpose, I in-
\nclude New Plymouth) exist, land should
\nnot be sold in them below its then price.

\n8. On these grounds, as I have already
\nsaid, Her Majesty cannot be advised to
\nconfirm this law. But it will be allowed
\nto remain in force; and I wish to point
\nout to you the effect which the recent
\nlegislation in this country will have in
\nenabling you to give practical effect to
\nits most important provisions, comprising
\nsome of those which, when originally
\nenacted, were contrary to the Imperial