By the following June 25 the provisions of the Bill had been widely circulated, on which date a spirited protest against its enactment was received from a number of gentlemen claiming to be landowners in the new colony. This document, which was presented to the Legislative Council by Mr. H. H. Macarthur, set out that the petitioners having perused certain proclamations in the New South Wales Government _Gazette_ of January 22, as well as the Bill introduced by the Governor, they submitted that their rights and privileges as subjects of the Queen and as landowners in New Zealand would be unwarrantably and unconstitutionally invaded by the provisions of the said measure. They therefore prayed that they might be heard by the Council in protest against such unjust legislation. So reasonable a request was readily acceded to by the members of the Legislature, and on June 30 Mr. Busby, the former British Resident, Mr. William Charles Wentworth, Mr. A'Beckett, and Mr. Darvall, barristers-at-law, were introduced to the Council, and on that and several subsequent days addressed the members in opposition to the Bill. The burden of Mr. Busby's contention in defence of his claim to 50,000 acres, including the site of a township, was that the Bill sought to legalise confiscation, and that therefore the principles which it was designed to enact were at variance with and in excess of all that was sanctioned by the British constitution.[169] No doubt, he said, there were many claims to land in New Zealand which would not bear investigation; but contrariwise there were many respectable settlers on the banks of the rivers and shores of the harbours who would be deeply injured were the proposed Bill to become law. This injury would be all the more ruthless because no attempt had been made by the Government, now become so paternal, to prevent British subjects acquiring property in New Zealand, as had been done in the case of those settlers who had come over from Van Dieman's land to originate the settlement at Port Philip. No sooner did it become known that these speculators had purchased extensive tracts of country from the aborigines than a proclamation was issued declaring the illegality of their proceedings. No such prohibition had, however, been put upon the acquisition of property in New Zealand, where the settlers, relying upon certain acts of repudiation by the British Government, had purchased from the natives in the belief that they were negotiating with an independent people. Mr. Busby proceeded to review the various stages of New Zealand's history in order to emphasise the events by which the independence of the chiefs and people had been repeatedly acknowledged, and concluded by asking why the chiefs had been induced under the Treaty of Waitangi to surrender the pre-emptive right of purchase to the Queen if they had never had the right as an independent people to dispose of their lands as they pleased?