Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, MONDAY, 16th JANUARY, 1865.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume V, Issue 214, 16 January 1865, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, MONDAY, 16th JANUARY, 1865.

Agitation in the North of the Colony, combined with a certain amount of grumbling in the South, and the cry of injustice, robbery, and oppression in the mothercountry, has at length resulted in the complete acknowledgment of the title of the Native tribes of New Zealand to the ownership of the waste lands of the colony. On this subject, as on most others, we hold decided opinions, and though well aware that very many of our fellow-colonists whose views are entitled to deference consider that the operation of the “ Native Lands Act” wall have a beneficial effect, we must still be permitted, to believe otherwise, and to express the grounds of this belief.

lii this Act we behold only another instance of Sir George Grey’s favorite policy of purchasing temporary quiet by the exercise of and concession—a policy that has always hitherto proved itself powerless for good and. prolific of.evil results, yet one to which His Excellency seems wedded, even though its full exercise fails, and always will fail, to satisfy the demands of those it is intended to conciliate—the pseudo-philanthropists of Exeter Hall. It is pretty well known now that the terms of the treaty of Waitangi were hot intended by the Imperial Government to . apply to the waste lands of the islands. The terms, “ their lands and estates which they collectively or individually held,” signifying that which they actually held in use or Occupation, and though by concession to the outcry raised by the Church Missionary party, when instructions to act on this interpretation were forwarded street to the Governor of New Zealand, these, The unoccupied and, .indeed, the whole waste lands of the islands'i still the condition upon which the treaty: was based remained as before, limiting .the, nature of the title if bestowed to something very different to actual ownership. It amounted, in fact, to no more than this .■■—“ We claim the de facto ownership of the iand,;but acknowledge your fight to receive from us such atw hs may be agreed upon between ! us' if pmtime to time as you acknowledge our claim.” Nor can There be brought to'this interpretation of treaty,; any olyectfon foiUier Von the ground of nasouhdness or. injustice, for proof

of which we refer to the instructions furnished by the Most Honorable the Marquis of Normanby to Captain Hobson, dated August .14:, 1839. Supposing the pre-emptive right of the Crown to purchase land secured by treaty. Me proceeds :—“ It will be your duty to obtain by fair and eqnal contracts with the Natives the cession to the Crown all such waste lands as may be required for the occupation of settlers.

The re-sales of the first purchases will provide funds for future acquisitions; and beyond the original investment of a comparatively small sum of money, no other resource will be necessary for this purpose

. . . . The price paid the Natives will bear an exceedingly small proportion to that for which the same lands will be re-sold by the Government to the settlers. Nor is there any real injustice in this, as to the Natives the waste lands are of no actual use, and scarcely of any exchangeable value. This value has to be created and gradually increased by the introduction of capital and settlers. In the benefits of that increase the Natives will participate.” And with reference to the partial nature of the Native title. Lord Grey, through Under Secretary Meridale, under date 13th April, 1848, writes “An absolute right of property involves the right of alienation. The rule (that the Crown should beheld to be the general owner of the soil, as trustee for the public good, more particularly as regards the Native race, has) become a principle of national law, whether by recognising this right as originally existing in the Crown, or obtained through the Crown’s exclusive power of extinguishing Native title, either yiew leading practically to the same result.” Certainly, had the gross mismanagement in the land purchasing department, and troubles arising from the admission of the clashing claims of rival owners been ever contemplated, the former alternative of the two would have been chosen by the Government, and thus have settled at once and for all the Native land question, and by promoting the progress of colonization of the islands effected the civilization of the Maories long, long ago.

We regret that we have not space to proceed further with the subject now. Much can .be said, on the evils wrought by the direct purchase system, in the early days of the colony, and which are still partially felt. The impossibility of even the Government conducting land purchases satisfactorily to this day, and the improbability of private speculators succeeding better, notwithstanding the provision of the Native Lands Bill, which points we shall probably take up upon a future occasion.