The Evening Star. TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1876.

Evening Star, Issue 4130, 23 May 1876, Page 2

The Evening Star. TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1876.

It is somewhat odd that Sir Geoboe Grey, the champion of Provincialism in the North, should advocate precisely the opposite to the practice of the Ultra-Provincialists in the South. To-day’s telegram, under date May 22nd, represents him as very impertinently attacking his Excellency the Governor for permitting favored individuals to purchase lands asserted by him to have been reserved from sale by the exercise of the pre-emptive right of the Crown. Like other whims of a like nature in which the late Governor indulges, his opinion of the right or wrong, the legality or illegality of the transaction must be taken cum gram sal'is His charges against Ministers have been so groundless, so barefaced, and, on the face of some of them, so ridiculous, that even his friends cannot but deplore the absence of sound judgment he displays. It is quite possible that a little inquiry respecting the purchase of so

respectable a territory as Kawau might lead some to the conclusion that while, like Sir Hudibras, the knight is on the move in search of enemies, real or imaginary, with which to measure his strength, ho himself might be suspected to have taken advantage of his position to secure so excellent an investment. We have no doubt it was quite legally done and with the strictest regard to the nicest punctilios of honor. No one would imagine otherwise of the highminded Sir Hudibras of Provincialism. But the question will crop up in spite of every prejudice in his favor, why Sir George Grey should enjoy the privilege of buying the Island of Kawau—a little paradise on which flocks and herds feed in peace, and which might have been a happy home for numbers of well to-do yeomen—and why Thomas Russell should not be equally entitled to buy 13,000 acres in Upper Thames with the sanction of the Native Lands Court. Sir George Grey in his argument virtually condemns the Provincial Executive of Otago. He stands up for ‘ ‘ the poor and defenceless,” who are at all times to be pitied, but who really do not seem to be much injured by a wealthy man investing capital in land they have not the means of purchasing. Sir George Grey apprehends that trouble may arise with the Natives out of this transaction. No doubt he remembers how his own troubles arose, and how Otago has been fleeced for the sake of the Northern land sharks.

We are not in the slightest degree desirous of palliating the transaction if it is found to be really what Sir George Grey describes ; but there is sufficient in the telegram to lead to doubt. Neither are we discussing the question of a large landed proprietary. Our conclusion from all these jobs, no matter whether in favor of Thomas Russell in the North or of certain favored flockowners in the South, is that the whole system is vicious at its foundation, and that the Crown should never part with control over the land. No regulation that severs the title to land from the Crown can prevent capitalists acquiring large estates. The trial has been made in many Colonies without success, and is now being practically proved impossible in Victoria. Theoretically these “ poor and defenceless ” are to be made happy by being planted on some forty or fifty acres, for which they are drained of the gilding of their poverty and helplessness t© pay. Practically a five-pound note from a squatter converts them into so many dummy applicants linked in a plot to evade the law. Or, if after years of labor, cramped by want of capital, their little holdings will not maintain them, the capitalist steps in and on easy terms relieves them of their burden. It is only when occurrences like the late attempt at evasion of the law in Otago and the alleged illegal sale to Mr Russell, in Auckland, take place, that the evils of the system force themselves on public attention. Traditional habits have so blinded the generality of people to them that the silent working of the system is seldom observed. But how is it possible that the two great sections of Provincialists can coalesce, differing as they do in all essentials to unity? Sir George Grey in the North professes to believe that 13,000 acres is too much for one man to buy, because in some way or other the “poor and defenceless ” will suffer ; the Provincial Executive of Otago complain that they are not permitted to sell 64,000 acres of land to some four squatters beeause the “poor and defenceless ” will suffer. Sir George Grey condemns the Native Lands Court for consenting to the sale; his Honor the Superintendent condemns our Waste Land Board for not consenting to the sale. Our telegram states that Sir George Grey accuses the Governor, and the Governor throws the responsibility on the Ministry. This we consider an /Aucklandism, for we apprehend the Ministry had not one whit more to do with the matter than they had in influencing the decision of our Waste Land Board. The probability is that the telegraphist, seeing through Provincial spectacles, used the term “ throwing the responsibility on the Ministry,” when he should have said “referred Sir George to his Ministers for explanation,” as he naturally would. When the matter is explained we have no doubt the Ministry will be able clearly to prove that they were not even aware officially of Mr Thomas Russell’s application, but that the whole affair was transacted in the usual routine of the business of the Native Lands Court,