THE ROADS.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 117, 14 July 1847, Page 2

THE ROADS.

We directed the public attention a few weeks since to the unsaiisfactoiy way in which the work on the roads is now being carried on. We know not who has the management, or rather Mm-manngement of this department of the public works, but it is evidently some one who does not shine iv his present occupation. Instead of putting those thoroughfares in proper repair which are most pressingly wanted, those which adjoin the town : a large amount of capital and time, is for the present at l?ast, almost being thrown away on places the public seldom or ever visit. As an instance ; let any one look at the road leading from the town through the cemetery — one of the greatest thoroughfares we have. It is positively in such a state, that drays are constantly meeting with accidents ; and yet not one farthing has been expended on it towards Us improvement. We really think if the Government, in the procuring material lor its buildings, is the means of cutting up a road so as to render it dangerous for the public, that to such a place its expenditure should be first directed. We consid r, too, that a} great mistake is being made in coating the*roads with such large s'.ones. It is well known thai ths finer the material, in reason, the firmer and better in every respect will be the surface. Large stones are constantly working out; aid wherever a email break occurs, it soon comes to a large bole. We have often observed that no one, if he possibly can avoid avoid it, travels on the rough surface which the repaired roads now piesent. There is, moreover, abundance of fine scoria asbes for the purpose — indeed, a better material could not be lound in any country. Such is the wretched state of the important road leading by Mount Eden, that Messrs. Ptirtington and Bycroft, who have lately purchased and fitted up 'the Eden Mill, find great difficulty m conveying produce from any quarter to o ( r trom it. Anrl yet, one-fir-tieth part the labour which is now being expended on some distant and comparatively useless roads, would put this thoroughfare in a permanent state of repair. We do not wonder at the surprise of the public at the way in which road-making is here conducted ; for any man who knows anything of (he re (juirements of a civilized community, would surely begin his operations where they aie most wanted ; or, in other words, from the centre of population, and not at the extiemities.

On Saturday last, the Pestonjee Bomanjee anchored in our port, having on board Mr. Eyre, the Lieut -Governor of New Zealand, and the second division of the 58th Regt. His Excellency landed under a salute from Britomart Point battery, and was received in Eden

Crescent by a guard of hononr of the 58th Regt., the band playing the national anthem. He was escorted to Government House by Lieut. Col. Wynyard and several other civil and military functionaries, where he was received by Governor Grey. We believe that it is not yet publicly known when or where the Lieut -Governor is to be sworn in, and enter upon the duties of his office. We have vecefvcd, by this arrival, Sydney papers to the 30th ult. The Triton, schooner, <'npt. Lillewal,. which sailed from this pprt on the Ist June, for Hobart Town, after a very distressing voyage, wai obliged, being short of provisions, to put in at Sydney, where she arrived on the 27th ult. Two days after her departure from Auckland, a heavy gale of wind compelled her to seek shelter at Wangati, where she remained four days, and then resumed her voyage, and, until her arrival at Sydney, experienced a succession of gales fromthe south-west. The Tritons cargo was discharged at Sydney. The Emma and Ebenezer, the former hence the Ist, and the latter the 2nd ult , arrived at Sydney on the 29th June. The Ebenezer wasalso driven into Wangarl for shelter, and sailed for Sydney in company with the Triton, having a similarly boisterous passage. Tub Tkoofs.— Yesterday the second division of the 65th llegt embarked on board the Thomas Lowry, in order to leave room for the division of the 58th, arrived, by the Pestonjee Bomanjee. The head quarters of the 65th will embark in the latter vessel on Saturday next, after which all will sail for Port Nicholson. Wrecks.— We understand that several small craft have been lost on the East Coart during tho late gales. The Lady Filzßoy, belonging to the chief Taniwa, went down by the head at anchor, and ten of her crew, Maories, were drowned. The Two Brothers, and the Flying Fish, have also been wrecked. A rumour also prevails that the Dolphin, schooner, has been driven on shore, but we have been unable as yet to trace it up to any certain authority.

To the Editor of the New-Zealand Spectator. Wellington, June 14>th, 18.7,Sir,— Without venturing to conjecture what view you may be disposed to take of that part of Lord Grey's despatch, to the Governor of New Zealand, which refers to the Crown's title to land, or how far your readers generally may take an interest in the question, I must request you to allow me a small space in your columns, that I may express my opinions on the subject, believing as I do th.it the principle laid down by Lord Grey is both erroneous and likely to prove prejudicial to the interests of New Zealmd. J3ut lest I should incur the charge of presumption for venturing thus early to give my opinion, I shall justify myself from the possible charge by prefacing the observations which I am about to make by an extract from Cole* ridge, — " Every man's opinion has a right to pass into the common auditory, if his reason for the opinion it paid down at the same time, for arguments are the sole current coin of intellect. The degree of influence to which thejopinion is entitled, should be proportioned tothe weight and value of the reasons for it." To which I might add, that having been called upon to witness the signature of the Treaty, I have a right to speak. Lord Grey begins his argument by stating fJiat of his imaginary opponents, but instead of making them advance what has actually been said -by his real opponents in defence of the rights of the New Zealanders to their lands, he makes them argue on behalf of the claims of " nomadic tribes, despasturing cattle, or hunters living by the chase, or fishermen frequenting the sea-coast o*r banks of rivers ;"-»-people totally distinct in their habits and mode of life from' the New Zealanders; and 1 then proceeds to demolish the phantom of his own creation. For this purpose he quotes a passage from Dr. Arnold's writings. A higher authority, had he cited the opinion ot this eminent clergyman on any question concerning which he proposed to give a deliberate one, he could not have found. But the passage 1 in question is contained in a hastily written controversial article in a newspaper, dated June 1 1, 1831 ; and is introduced casually while writing on another subject. This seems scarcely an authority on which one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State should have ventured torest an argument in defence of a principle of such paramount importance as that contained in his official despatch. But without laying any great stress on this objection, had Lord Grey even read the whole of the 1 article, instead of, as must be conjectured— indolently taking the extract from some clerk in the colonial oifiee, he would have perceived that Dr. Arnold's argument was directed against those who wished to take possession of land owned by others, whom he compare* to "pick-pockets and thieves ;" and that while he allows the right to take possession of lauds, "which have been hunted over," expressly charges with robbery those whotake possession of countries which are " cultivated," as New Zealand has been for ages ; adding "we haye * done with beasts nature, and are living according to Law and Right, not according to Brutality and Might." A quotation more unfortunate, and less tohis purpose- could hardly have been made by Lord Grey. But so well satisfied is he with his authority, that he thinks any further argument unnecessary, and supposes that "the justness of this reasoning must be generally admitted," and "considered fatal to right which has been olaimed for the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand." He however, seems to have his doubts as to whether others will be so easily satisfied with the applicability of the reasoning ; and remembers that " it is true the Now Zealanders were not a people ' of hunters, that they lived in a great measure at least ou the produce of the soil," &c. J3ut how was it that 'he did not perceive that this very difference — that theNew Zealanders were not a people of hunters, but had, always lived by cultivating the soil, not in a rude way as he assumes, but with great care and attention,-— t utterly nullifying the force of the passage cited from. Dr. Arnold's newspaper article, even allowing it .to have contained his deliberate opinion on the subject, and left him where he was when he began— without a single argument in support of his hypothesis 1 He therefore returns to the old ground, and proceeds to argue, that as the New Zealanders have more land* than they can occupy, or can ever be supposed to require, civilised men have a right to step in and take possession of it. But as he really advances nothing in support of his assertion, it can have no weight whatever attached to it ; for although he oharges his opponents with assuming the truth of their positions without advocating them, it must be confessed that this ii a mere assumption on his part; and although he.aocuses them of'beinjr ignorant of the grounds on which the right of property rests, his own position clearly opens, the dqor to such Jacobinical notions of right to property as would apply with equal force, and somewhat inconveniently, to the property possessed by himself and.

many other noblemen both in England and Ireland j tvho cannot be said to require the immense extent of property which they possess, any more than the New Zcalanders require theirs ; but who nevertheless find the means of turning their property to good account. But when Lord Grey ventures to charge hi« opponents with " mistaking the grounds on which the right to property rests," he should advance some argument in Mipport of his own opinion, — he should infoun them what the real grounds are, but this he abstains from doing. He ought to know that right to property is not founded upon any abstract notion, — that it cannot he/leduced from any such notion by abstract reasoning,—that it wonld be impossible to deduce from any abstract reasoning, any but an abstract conclusion. The language here used by Lord Grey has rcsiliy no meaning whatever, its only object can be to mislead those who have never accustomed themselves to think jeriously concerning the foundation of all rights, but have imagined that there must be something in language of this kind, when used by men holding the position which Lord Grey does. And even Dr. Arnold's hasty expression,— that the right of property in /'land, is derived from labour bestowed upon it,— lhatis, from its having been subdued, is clearly untenable ; for if so, on what rested the prior right, the light of subduing, the right of bestowing labour ? The right to bestow labour must have preceded any right derived from the labour bestowed. The only tenable right is that of possession by prescription ; modified in each particular community by the laws, whether written or unwritten, of that pariicular community. To talk of arguing the question, as Lord Grey does, on "the grounds either of religion, or morality or expediency," is merely to argue beside the question : it is a question of law which cannot bo disposed of in that manner. And here it may be remarked by the way, that the British Crown on obtaining thf sovereignty ot New Zealand had no right to question the title of the actual possessor of property among the aborigines; whether his title were derived by inheritance, or by conquest, or by any other means acknowledged by Maori custom, which was the law of the land up to that period : it was beyond the power of any ex post facto liw to affect it. But as to those claims which Ime been set up by individuals to large tracts of land, which they profess to have obtained by purchase from natives, Lord Gr,ey need not have entered into any argument to disprove the right of the natives to their lands, in order thereby to invalidate those claims; as he ought to have known, that it is a universally admitted principle of colonial law, that no uncivilised aboriginal people can confer a title to lnnd on the subjects of another nation. Hut, when Lord Grey, in a subsequent part of his despatch, admits in a most unqualified manner, the right of individual natives to dispose of their own property as they may think proper, without any respect to the Crown's right of pre-emption, he certainly does, what every real friend of the natives, or advocate of regular and systematic colonization, must consider highly prejudicial to the interests of the former, as well as utterly subversive of the lett&r; so little does Lord Grey understand the real merits of a question concerning which he writes with the greatest dogmatism. But Lord Grey grows weary of argument, and asserts boldly, that "from the moment British dominion wa3 established in New Zealand, all lauds not occupied by the natives, should have been considered as the property of the Crown:"— that is, that immediately alter the most positive and solemn assurances had been given by the Representative of the Crown, that no land whatever in New Zealand would be claimed on behalf of the Crown ; and a Treaty embodying an article guaranteeing that assurance, as an indispenrable condition, had been signed in reliance on the good faith of the British government;— that immediately, I say, after this solemn assurance was given, and the Treaty was signed, the Governor should have proceeded as though nothing of the sort had taken place ! And this is the sentiment of a British minister! O Macluavelli ! alas! thouhast not written in vain 1 Let it only be told to the natives,— -let it only be told to those who have repudiated sales which they have nude : the worst of them would then find in it, not only a justification of their acts, but a motive to future dishonesty and treachery, —and those hitherto loyal and peaceable, a motive to open, avowed, determined and reckless rebellion. British honour is deeply concerned in this question. The heathen historian, Polybius, could attribute the strength and grandeur of the Roman Republic, to the rcveiencee shewn for the inviolable nature ofatieaty and its invariable observance and fulfilment. Truly •has it bepn said that a short sighted utilitarian policy is the " Road downwards." But at length Lord Grey comes to what might be considered a valid argument, were it not that he is in error concerning two facts collected with it. He says that the unoccupied lands, to which on behalf of the Crown, he asserts a title, are not possessed by the natives as individuals but as tribes, and consequently that the title of the tribe to these lands being merely dependent on the attribute of sovereignty, now ceded to the British Crown, the title to these lands must have been ceded likewise. In opposition to this I assert distinctly —and writing in New Zealand I can easily be refuted if lam wrong— that various individuals in each tribe hnve acknowledged rights to these lands, which they use for their own private purposes and advantage ; and consequently that Lord Grey's assumption, and the inference attempted to be deduced from it are erroneous. Moreover I must repeat that even supposing Lord Grey's assumption to be correct, the Treaty of Waitangi is so explicit on this head that it precludes the possibility] of any difference of interpretation, unless by wilful perverfiion of language : the words of the Treaty are these :— " Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chief ani tribes of New Zealand, and to the respective families thereof, the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so Jong as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession." I have now shewn, that Lord Grey's opinion obtains -no support from the passage extracted from Dr. Arnold's writings, inasmuch as Dr. Arnold only asserts the right of taking poesession of lands which have merely been hunted over, but denies the right in reference to countries that are cultivated by their inhabitants :— that hi? argument derived from the extent of country of which the New Zealanders can make no use, applies with equal force to the right of property in England and Ireland :— and that the portion of his argument which resis on the assumption, that the natives do not possess their lands but as tribes, iserroneons,andifitwerenot, would not affect the subject, the lands even of tribes having been secured to them by the Treaty. . J3ut there are some other expressions used by Lord Grey upon which I must make some observations :— they are these, "An exclusive right of property has been asserted on behalf of the nativeß," &c, and— "Which tribes lnve been taught to regard as their own : ' aeain— "A right which has been claimed for the abonffinal inhabitants." Can anything oppose Lord Grey's ignorance of New Zealand more than these expressions ? Does he not know that the property of which he thus sneaks, has been defined by accurate boundaries for many generations; and that the owners to a man, have always been, and still are, ready to shed their blood m defence of it? But Lord Grey i> not the only pesron jn England who has, either ignorantly or purposely

andeavoured to represent the question as though a few sentimental philanthropists were contending, on behalf of the aborigines, for an abstract right to large tracts of waste land concerning which they themselves had previously no interest ; whereas the truth is that for many generations their notions of property in land have been as clear and their laws of inheiiunce as well defined, as those of any civilized people who have been guided in these matters by an unwritten and common law;— a fact which he might have ascert lined by attending to the I official despatches on the subject. Nor is the subject oi so little importance, or to be disposed of in so summary a way, as he seems to imagine. It is not merely a quebtion of abstract tight — not merely a question as 10 whether the British Government could justify itself in an act o. spoliation, which might be quietly effected without the possibility of any remonstrance or exposine of its injustice, on the part of the natives; but whether a war is to be undertaken— a war must last for yeais, in which hundreds, nay, thousands of British sol- ' dicrs and settlers must fall, and only to be terminated, if persevered in, at some remote period by the extermination of the aborigines. And if we may conjecture the future by the actual experience of warfare hitherto pursued in New Zealand, the Government has no great reason to indulge any very sanguine anticipations ; for allowing that about a hundred aborigines have been killed, at least a hundred whites have fallen in the contest ; and I venture to suppose that I shall not mateiially overrate the additional expenditure incurred on the British Government on this head, beginning with Captain Fitzroy's issue of debentures on this account, if I estimate it at about .£lOO,OOO ; or for every native killed at about £ 1000. But after all, Lord Grey seems to admit that the application of his principle is impracticable ; for he allows that no object could be gained from breaking faith with those who have received an assurance that their lands would not be claimed by the crown. But if so, why avow the principle ? when he knows that all who signed the treaty have received this assurance, and consequently that no practical object is gained by it: whereas, on the other hand, the mere avowal is likely to involve the government in a teries of almost interminable hostilities with the natives, for which Lord Grey will be responsible. He seems after all the high sounding pietenMons which he advances, to come to the practical conclusion, that the Clown's light can only be asserted to the residue, after all rights of all individuals in New Zealand have been ascertained and registered:— a conclusion which he need not have been at the pains of attempting to prove, as no opponent —at least none worth reasoning with,— would have ventured to question it, as it is an indisputable princi-" pie of law— that the crown has a permanent title to all lands ; and consequently lands which do not belong to any individual, belong to the crown. Having already exceeded the limits within which I had wished to contain my remarks, I cannot allude to the preposterous absurdity of another part of the dcs • patch,— that which is designed to render luwlesmess, legal in the aboriginal districts. I am, &c, 11.