THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JAN. 2, 1862.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 27, 2 January 1862, Page 2

THE HAWKE’S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JAN. 2, 1862.

The reading public of Hawke’s Bay have recently been favored by our contemporary the Herald with certain rather lengthy articles on the new native policy of Sir George Grey, which policy it would seem is neither new nor Sir George Grey’s after ail that has been said, —neither is it that of the present Ministry, but a scheme of Messrs. Stafford and coadjutors. The Herald, after publishing the document recently issued by the Government in the English and Maori languages, proceeds to give its own opinion of the same, which may be summed up in .one short sentence, viz., “ It would probably be very good if it was not so very bad,” for our contemporary cannot shut its eyes to the many evils of the scheme, although it endeavors to treat it as if it were a boon to the settlers as well as to the native race. The whole question may not inaptly be divided into two parts—its own details and its most probable effects ; and while in each of these divisions there is perhaps a few points to

commend, we cannot help seeing a great deal more to condemn. Of the principal features of the policy, the most striking are *—first, the legalizing of the native runangas, and raising them to the rank of Provincial Councils. The legalizing of these assemblies, in itself considered, is, as far as we can see, unobjectionable, provided it was properly guarded and its duties well defined ; for the necessity of conferring administrative powers to a body of peaceable and law-observing subjects is evident, but then they must be of that class, which as a whole we well know they are not, and the powers of the runangas should be wholly administrative, and not legislative ; yet this is the branch of government they have always assumed, and if so while they were illegal, how much more so when they are legalized. Only a short time back, we read of the Bishop complaining of the fact that these runangas had actually meddled in ecclesiastical matters even to exercise the power of the lesser excommunication, and he acknowledged the difficulties by which the question was surrounded, and which w r e venture to predict will “ grow with their growth, and strengthen with their strength,” unless confined and guarded as we have said. The second principal feature of the policy is the unconditional surrender of the freehold of all the unalienated lands of the colony into the native hands ; and on this point we would be sorry to mislead our readers as the Herald has (perhaps unintentionally) done by holding out the hope that under this system the sales of land to the Government will be again renewed. We cannot see how any person can suppose there to be any, even the slightest, probability of this, or that even if the Government should enter the market competing with the general public for the purchase of the waste lands from the natives, that it would be of any benefit to the revenue. ' The only method of restoring this source of revenue to the Government would have been to have dispossessed the squatters of their illegal occupancy and made them amenable to the penalties they have incurred, and as, by this means, the only source of wealth to the Maories from their lands wmuld have been in disposing of them to the Government (and be it remembered that this is the only legal source they had), the land sales wmuld speedily have been resumed of necessity. “ To expect that the Ahuriri plains, and other valuable native districts, for many years to come, will be sold to the Government, is utterly futile,” —this is what the Herald says ; the • truth is better expressed by substituting the words “ while squatters are allowed to rent them” for £ ‘ many years to come,” for this is the sole reason why they are and have been retained in the possession of the natives. A third striking point in the policy is the maintaining of the principle of loyalty among the natives by extensive Government employment and salaries. That “ every Maori has his price” we are not disposed to dispute, but that the loyalty of the race will be worth the money it will cost to purchase it we may be permitted to doubt. We have long since had the admission made by the late Governor “ that £lO per annum is not sufficient to secure the loyalty of a Maori,” and that “ even the larger salaries given to some often create jealousies and dissatisfaction.” Of course they do ; and if we are to buy their loyalty, we must pay them what will satisfy them all, or their loyalty will not be secured. Of course £50,000, large as it is, being only an estimate, may, and most probably will, fall far short of the actual and ultimate cost. Turning, next, our attention to the probable effects of the new regime, supposing it to be extensively adopted by the natives—for even this is left to them to decide at their local meetings and central meeting,—but supposing it to be adopted and working, what will be its results ? First, the total cessation of Provincial revenue from the acquirement and sale of waste lands. Even our contemporary cannot shut its eyes to this truth, but informs us that means may be found to partly make up the anticipated deficiency, namely, a tax on the occupants of native runs (won’t they find it out w r hen come to be taxed by the Government, as well as to submit to all the taxation of the taxation of their Maori landlords !) and second the resumption of Land Purchasing by the Government “ after time and peaceful

measures have restored confidence,” —as we have already exploded this fallacy, we shall not allude to it further now ; and third a tax on “ direct purchase.” The first and third methods may tend in some small degree to make up the deficiency, but we may depend on the truth that a land tax, or something equally obnoxious to those who have no interest in the new order* of things, and will not benefit by it, will be the means adopted to meet the deficiency of Provincial revenues, and this brings us to the greatest objection of all—the placing of the “ unscrupulous squatter in a far better position than the large class of men who, out of respect to the law, have abstained from the occupancy of native runs” ; and we may add to the above the placing the unscrupulous natives who have rebelled against the Government, and who have uniformly held their lands, in a far—incomparably far—better position than those loyal and peaceably-disposed natives who have alienated them at a nominal price. This is the grand—the fatal—objection to the whole scheme, whether it be one of Sir George Grey’s, Stafford’s, or Fox’s, that it virtually amounts to a premium for lawbreaking and rebellion ; —those who have had the boldness to act in open defiance of the law, deliberately doing so, calmly calculating the probable risk they ran of prosecution and cost if convicted, comparing this with probable profits, and determining to do so after satisfying themselves that the profits would leave them a sufficient margin to cover all the risk, and even to pay the penalties of the law should they chance to be convicted —these are to be rewarded with the preemptive right over the lands they illegally occupy. The Herald's argument, which amounts to this—that because the lands are occupied—because of the culpable supineness of the administrators of the law it has been violated with impunity, the Government has no option but to “ take these matters as it finds them, and give them the stamp of loyalty” is simply absurd, and its absurdity would be sufficiently apparent if applied to any other question. The Herald owns that it is a “ grievous state of things; but if the natives are henceforth to be allowed to do as they please with their own (mark that) we confess our inability to point out a remedy.” Of course not; but what does the Herald say about a policy which brings such a state of things to pass ? Nothing. Why were not existing evils traced to their source by a searching investigation into all the circumstances of illegal occupation, and especially of the culpable supineness of the administrators of the law in permitting it to extend itself and ramify its branches as it has done, until it has become so gigantic a difficulty ? Why were not the “ unscrupulous” law-defy-ing squatters made to submit to the penalties they had incurred, and quit their illegal occupancy, to suffer all the legal and legitimate consequences of their deliberate wrongdoing, which consequences were always before their eyes ? It is not often we hear so much sympathy expressed for the results of criminal conduct as in this case. The usual reply to a complaint of the kind is to this effect —You should have thought of all the consequences before you violated the law ; now you have broken it you must not consider it hard to have to submit to the punishment of your misconduct. We will inform our readers why such an investigation was not made. It is because many of those in authority, and whose duty it was to have executed the law, are themselves involved in the system, and being unwilling to give up their prey, will not hesitate to sacrifice the “ majesty of the law,” the waste lands of the country, the Provincial revenues, the whole body of colonists who have shewn respect for the law by refraining from illegal occupancy, or even the prosperity of the whole colony, so long as they can continue to enrich themselves by remaining in the possession of their illegally acquired lands.