THE HAWKE'S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1862.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume II, Issue 54, 10 July 1862, Page 2

THE HAWKE'S BAY TIMES. NAPIER, THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1862.

Intelligence irom Auckland has come to hand per Z ill ah to the 3 oth June, the most important item of which is il.o proclamation of Sir George Grey, declaring the district of Coromandel a gold-field, that is fso far as appears from the tenor of the proclamation) J. so much of the said disdicr as are Crown Lands, for it is net by any means certain that the difficulties that Lave been hitherto encountered regarding “ Paul’s land".have been removed, it being currently reported that two of the native chiefs interested in this reserve (Te Hira and Taraia) were witholding their consent, the probability is that this may be the case judging from the course of conduct usually pursued by the ‘race’ when they believe they have the Pakeha in their power, especially as the proclamation relates to ‘’Lands, being waste Lands of the Crown.” Whether this should prove correct or not will depend solely on what may have been native caprice, and adds one more instance (if such were needed) of the folly or madness of the whole system that has been from the first pursued by the Colonial Government, in relation to the Waste Lands of the Colony with the natives. £ There is the highest possible authority for the assertion (the Charter under the Great Seal, 1840) that the lauds of these Islands which were secured to the native race, % the Treaty of A aitangi, in consideration of their ceding the sovereignty of the Islands to the British Crown, were such as they could establish a title to from “actual occupation and enjoyment,” and though it was found expedient in practice to give a more extended meaning to these terms than was at first intended by the Government, or indeed than they could properly bear, this was not much regarded at the time by the authorities at home, as the other condition of the Treaty —the pre-emptive right of alienating these lands made it theoretically a matter of but little consequence whether the Crown took actual possession of them then, or awaited the pleasure of the claimants. On this question it will be as well to refer to the words of Earl Grey, as given in a document, bearing date 13th April, 1848, and signed by Mr. H. Merivale, under Secretavy: — “ In the absence of any such stipulation as those contained in the Treaty, the right to all the waste lands in New Zealand would have been claimed for the Crown from the moment British sovereignty was established. But it is only a trustee for the whole community that the Crown would have claimed this right, and acting in that capacity, it would have been the first duty of the Governor, as the Crown’s representative, to take care that the Native inhabitants of New Zealand were secured in the enjoyment of an ample extent of land, to meet all their real wants. In taking measures for this purpose their habits would have been considered; and though it certainly would not have been held, that the cultivation and appropriation of tracts of land, capable of supporting a large population, must ba forborne, because an inconsiderable mini-

ber of Natives had been accustomed to derive some part of their subsistance from hunting and fishing on them, —on the other hand the settlement of such lands would not have been allowed to deprive the Natives even of these resources, without providing for them, in some other way, advantages fully equal to th ise which they might lose. But, after making the most ample allowance for all their wants, there would have remained in New Zealand, land fully sufficient for the purposes of colonization, which it would have been the object of the Government to distribute to the settlers in such a manner as to ensure, as far as possible, its being obtained by those who would have turned it to the best account. With this view, it would have been sold at a price sufficient to prevent its being acquired by those who did not intend to make use of it, the whole proceeds of the sale being applied for the general benefit of the community, and more especially to objects such as Emigration, and the construction of roads, which would have tended to increase the value of the land sold. •‘Such, under the Instructions transmitted to him by Lord Grey, would have been the policy with regard to the appropriation of land, which it would have been the duty of the Governor to adopt, had the Treaty of Waitangi never been concluded, and had the colonization of New Zealand been only now beginning ; and I have to point out to you that under that Treaty, bad it been properly executed, there would have been no practical difference in the course pursued. I need hardly remind you that while the Treaty of Waitangi recognized the right of the Native Chiefs to their lands, it no less distinctly recognised the right of the Crown (which existed independently of that Treaty) to he the sole purchaser of these lands. But as there is abundant evidence that the Natives did not wish to prevent, but on the contrary, to promote the settlement of Europeans among them, and were only too ready to part, inconsiderately, with their right to land which they did not actually occupy; the Crown, in the absence of all competition, would easily have been put in possession, by purchases at little more than a nominal price, of all the land that could be required for settlers. Nor would there have been any injustice in taking advantage of the exclusive right of purchase vested in the Crown, to obtain land on such terms from the Natives; —the object of the'Crown, in acquiring the land, being to turn it to the best account for the whole community. The price to be paid for it to the Natives would properly have been measured, not by the value the lands they sold were capable of acquiring in the hands of civilized men, but by the amount of benefit they had themselves previously derived from that which they thus surrendered : it is hardly necessary to observe that, so estimated, the value of unoccupied land would have been next to nothing.” ******* “ I have already pointed out, that if the exclusive right of the Crown to purchase land from the Natives is enforced, it is of little practical importance whether the title to unoccupied land is considered to reside in the Natives, or in the Crown, since, admitting it to belong to the former, the surrender of tlieir rights can easily be obtained for a mere nominal consideration ; and if the Crown is regarded as the proprietor, it is merely in the character of guardian of the interest of its subjects, and especially of those of the Native race, whose want of knowledge causes them to stand peculiarly in want of protection. The view therefore, of this question, which is to be contrasted with tligit adopted by Lord Grey, is the one which recognises in uncivilized Tribes an absolute right of property in the lands over which they have according to their own customs, dominion. But an absolute right of property involves the right of alienation; that individuals or Tribes are to be recognized as absolute proprietors of the soil, but at the same time as not having power to sell it to whom they please, is a rule which might be established by treaty and by mutual concession, but which cannot exist, independently of some express stipulation, by virtue of any recognized principle of law.” In view, of the above statesman-like and clearly expressed views we may well be excused for wondering at the amount of blundering, mismanagement, and incompetency, that the Colony has witnessed since that time, nearly the whole of which might have been avoided by the simple expedient of enforcing the terms of the treaty, at all events against the European transgressors who tempted the natives into its violation, or who became parties to the act; hut instead of this having been done, illegal occupancy was at first

winked at, till thejnatives found that it was their interest to retain the lands they had been allowed by the Government nominally to hold, as by so doing they could realize not “the value” these lands were to them, as was the expressed meaning of the Government in the treaty, hut the value imparted to them by the Colonization of the Islands, which value was none of theirs hut belonged entirely to the community, and should have been made a source of revenue the benefits of which would have been realized) alike by Pakeha and Maori. There is now no room to question that the position of the] whole) native population would have been for the better Lad they never had their claims for land allowed at all, long ere this these Islands would have been densely peopled with European inhabitants, with all ;„the arts] and comforts of civilization, and while (as the idea is expressed in the document to which we have referred) “ample reserves to meet all their real wants would have^been' secured )to. them,” —there would have remainedj fully sufficient for all the purposes of colonization, “and they would have been raised from their present state of “Brutal Communism” and semi-barbarism'to the position of civilized British subjects. It might well have been supposed that the experience of the mother country on the land question would not have been without its influence on the minds of the founders and guardians of an infant state, and that in view of the disadvantages and difficulties which suiTOunds society there through the monopoly of land,“and the difficulties in the way'of its acquirement—means might and would have been taken'to secure this Colony'from a similar fate.—Even there the doctrine is gaining ground “that the land is a national trust, to be cultivated for the common benefit,” and it is now seven years since Lord Stanley, himself an extensive landed proprietor, gave utterance to the following remarks at a meeting of the Manchester and Liverpool Agricultural Society:— “ He would say with confidence, that he thought laud in this country ought to be easier and freer to buy and to sell than it was. The real difficulties in the way were not legal, but social. One could sympathizewith the feelings of a man who was reluctant to part with any portion of land he had once called his own; but peesonal feelings MUST GIVE WAY TO NATIONAL NECESSITIES, and he did not hesitate to say that, whether consciously or unconsciously, any man teas a wrong-doer as regarded the community, who retained the ownership of land which he had not the power to improve, but which he had the power to sell. The community had a right to say, Either use your property profitably yourself, or let others use it for you.” Had a system in accordance with views like these we have given been adopted from the first in these Islands, how different might we have been at this time, but even now every step taken by our Government seems to be in the retrograde course, and should the threatened new Policy he approved by the General Assembly, and the “absolute right of property” in the land be conferred on the native race, the crowning stroke of the ?nfs-government of New Zealand will be given.