THE NATIVE LAND QUESTION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume 5, Issue 235, 30 November 1861, Page 3

THE NATIVE LAND QUESTION.

The Aucklander, on this question, holds different views to those advocated by the New Zealander and Southern Cross — both of which are apparently the advocates of a direct purchase, under which the natives will obtain the full market value of their j lands. The Aucklander, on the other hand, argues that they are not entitled to j such advantages. He says : — \ Our contemporary, the Southern Cross, has re '■ turned to the question of Native Title, and states that * the question has often been asked — Are the natives of .New Zealand fairly entitled to reap any advantage in an increased price for land from the additional value it haß acquired in consequence of the introduction of British rule into these islands.' That our contemporary considers they are so entitled is evident from the whole course of his reasoning on the question, even if he did not say expressly, ' the truth of the matter is, that assuming that the natives have a right to their lands, they likewise have an equal right to the full value of their lands when they sell them.' We do not object to this proposition, which is only a hypothetical one, but we do object to our contemporary reasoning as if the question were not a hypothetical one at aIL When our contemporary speaks of the natives having a right to their lands, he of course means that they, have the same right to ' them as a person who possesses a title to his lands, recognisable by law, and entitled to its protection ; unless this is the sense in which he means himself to be understood, all his reasoning upon the subject has no foundation. And therefore in this j sense we answer the question that the native haa no such right ; and we also answer with a negative equally decided the previous question, whether or not he is fairly entitled to reap the advantage of the additional value which the land has acquired in consequence of the introduction of British rule into these islands. In this, however, we would make an exception in favor of parties who offered land to the G-overnment which was refused, although offered on a similar scale of valuation to that at which the Government was in the habit, of purchasing. It is often very convenient for a writer to know but little of the subject on which he treats, especially if he should have arrived at a foregone conclusion. Popular writers, like poets, often succeed better with fiction than with the reality. There is more play for the fancy, less embarrassment from the collision of stubborn facts. But our contemporary cannot be allowed to treat a question of public law, which affects more than all other questions the interests of this community, as if ifc were one upon which the fancy might have full play, and in the discussion of which words might be used in a popular sense, which in such questions, to have any meaning at all, mußt have a meaning Btrictly and specifically defined. Let us now ascertain in what sense the word ' right ' is applicable to the Maori tenure of land. Our contemporary may have heard that there are such works in existence as those of Grotius and Vattel, upon what is called the law of nature and the law of nations, not to mention the later commentaries of Story and Kent upon questions of a cognate character ; but a very cursory glance into any of these works would probably'have deprived his readers of the pleasure of reading so much fanciful speculation, and the Maories the benefit of an advocate whose skill in dialectics is more commendable than his knowledge of principles. If he had consulted any of these works he would have ascertained that it is agreed upon all hands that the law of nature, which may in other words be called the law of God written in the hearts of men, never recognised, a right in any set of men to

tries,

claim exclusive possession of the waste places of the earth, of whioh they themselves could make no use, and which were required for the sustenance of other branches of the femily of Adam. The whole earth is the heritage of man. When a society or nation of men are found to be in possession of a territory which they have power to hold against their neighbours, which they have divided amongst the members of their community, assuring to each member the possession of a portion, by law, that law being established by an authority having power to maintain it, there is a recognition by the law of nations of a national right in the community to the territory they 1 hold j nor can there be any question of the individual right of each member of the community to the portion which the municipal law of that community or nation has assigned him. But when a territory has become too straight for its inhabitants, when their increasing numbers press upon the limits of subsistence, the law of Nature instructs them to find out other portions of the earth where there is room for them to spread and fulfil the law of their existence. No jurist has ever asserted the natural right of a tribe of wandering savages ,who live by the chase, to exclude the colony of such a nation from the occupation of a part of the territory over which they wander, even although it may be the effect of such occupation to deprive them of the game on which they depend for support of life. All that justice requires in such a case is that those who thus deprive the aboriginal inhabitants of the means of savage life should instruct them in the arts of husbandry by which they might obtain a more certain means of subsistence than that of which they hadfbeen deprived. And the rule has little variation when applied to savage tribes which live by cultivation of the soil. No natural right was ever recognised in tribes which were only capable of using one hundredth part of the soil of the country which they occupied to exclude from the use of the remaining ninety- nine parts, the colony of a nation requiring additional territory to provide for the subsistence of its members. These principles having been universally recognised as founded in natural justice, and consistent with the revealed will of the Creator, who made the earth for the habitation of man, have been invariably appealed to by the statesmen of the civilized countries of Europe as the rule which they were all bound to respect in their intercourse with savage and barbarous tribes; superadded to which was the convenient rule that the nation by which countries occupied by such tribes was first discovered possessed the exclusive right to colonize such countries. New Zealand having, as is generally supposed, been discovered by Tasman, the Dutch navigator, the Dutch nation was by this rule entitled to the right of colonizing it. But this right, having never been claimed by the Dutch, was asserted by the English in virtue of the visits of Captain Cook against other nations, but as against the inhabitants it was never, exercised. On the contrary, the independence of the New Zealanders and their right to the sovereignty and soil of their country was solemnly recognised by the British Government in several Acts of Parliament and in numerous administrative proceedings. New Zealand was admitted to be " aßubstantive and independent state." The country was not therefore taken possession of by right of discovery, but was acquired by treaty from the chiefs and people, who were admitted to the right of British subjects on their surrendering to the Crown of England the rights of sovereignty which England had re- I cognised, and the right of pre-emption to the land, which in other colonies had been assumed a3 a national right resulting from discovery or conquest. Now as according to the law of Nature and of nations, the New Zealanders had no natural right to more of the territory which they occupied than was needful for their sustenance, so according to the law of England they have no right to those lands, but what was secured to them by the terms of the treaty — that is, that they should be recognised as their property to hold, but not to sell, unless to the Crown, upon terms to be in each case mutually agreed upon by the respective tribes and the agents of the Queen. So long as the Governor is willing to pay for the lands they require at a similar scale of valuation to what was in use before the Government was established, the Natives have no right to complain. But much the contrary. Their title, such as it was, was of no value whatever before the date of the British settlement. Since then, it has not only acquired a money value but a degree of security which it never possessed till then. Having thus disposed of the question of right and justice, it would seem scarcely necessary to notice the superstructure which is built upon the assumption that the Natives have a natural or legal right to make the most they can of the land independently of the provisions of the treaty, by which they are restricted from selling to others than the agents of the Crown. Our contemporary admits that "on this point hangs the whole question, whether direct negotiation for Native lands is just and desirable." We will not take advantage of this admission, but will be prepared to argue the question on the ground of expediency, should it be the intention of our contemporary, of which we have no doubt, to resume the di^^sion of the question.