15

pensation in the particular manner which
they authorize. No Provincial Ordinance
can absolve the local, or Her Majesty’s
Government, from the necessity of fulfilling Act of Parliament obligations.

13. But, on the other hand, if any
    Nelson proprietors, who may be within
    the terms of those resolutions, have already accepted the compensation provided by your Ordinance, you may safely
    regard them as having waived that to
    which they were entitled under the resolutions, and accepted the other in lieu
    of it: and their cases are concluded.

14. If, on the other hand, there are
    still outstanding Nelson Claimants, it will
    be necessary to propose to them, as an
    alternative, either the compensation given
    by the Ordinance, or that given by the
    resolutions.

15. I transmit, for your further information a copy of the opinion of the late
    Law Advisers,* now in question, as it
    does not appear to have accompanied my
    predecessor’s despatch of January 10th.

16. With these observations I leave
    this matter for the present in the hands
    of yourself and the authorities of New
    Zealand. I cannot, however, do so without expressing my sense of the care and
    industry with which the subject has been
    investigated in New Zealand, which I
    hope will enable you, with the powers
    with which you are now invested, to make a
    rapid progress towards the settlement of
    these embarrassing questions. If you
    should be enabled to complete it before
    the Constitution comes into force, you
    will probably spare the future Legislature much embarrassment, and it will
    take the land questions into its own
    hands comparatively free from the many
    difficulties which have unavoidably beset
    them during your administration.

I have the honor to be,
&c., &c., &c.,

(Signed) John S. Parkinson.
Governor Sir George Grey, K.C.B.,
&c., &c., &c.

Copy of the Opinion of the Law Advisers
referred to in the foregoing Despatch,
clause 15.

Temple, 13th November, 1851.

My Lord,—We were favoured with
your Lordship’s commands contained in
Mr. Elliott’s letter of the 23rd of September last, in which he stated that he
was directed by your Lordship to transmit
to us the accompanying case, which had
been drawn up by the Colonial Land
and Emigration Commissioners on points
arising out of certain resolutions passed
by the purchasers of land in the settlement of Nelson in New Zealand, and he
was to request that we would favour your
Lordship with our advice on the several
questions raised therein.

In obedience to your Lordship’s command, we have considered the several
documents transmitted to us, and have
the honor to report:

1. That as Colonel Wakefield had received plenary authority from the New
   Zealand Company to adopt the plan sent
   out by them for the adjustment of the
   differences between their purchasers and
   the Company, or to substitute any other,
   which after consultation with the settlers
   he should deem more advisable, his assent to the scheme embodied in the resolutions of the Nelson purchasers, if in
   fact given, was binding on the Company,
   and that the operation of such assent
   was not effected by the circumstances of
   the previous reference by the purchasers
   of the matter to the directors at home,
   made by them when unaware of the
   authority of Colonel Wakefield to settle
   with them.

... It appears to us that the assent of
Colonel Wakefield must be assumed for
the present purpose to have been given,
inasmuch as there is no evidence to contradict the statement of the Nelson purchasers, and the resolutions have for the
most part been acted upon and treated
as binding by all parties concerned.

2. We are of opinion that Colonel
   Wakefield having had full authority to
   bind the Company, and having done so
   by his assent to the resolutions, it was
   not competent to the Directors subsequently to add the qualification in regard
   to the meaning of the word “Arbitration”
   in the 2nd clause.

3. We are of opinion that the resolutions in question did form one of those
   contracts in regard to Lands or existing
   engagements with reference to the settlement at Nelson which, by the surrender of the Company’s Charters, have devolved on Her Majesty’s Government.
   It appears that the word existing must
   be taken as referring to engagements
   existing at the time of the surrender of