The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, NOV. 20, 1877.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XLVIII, Issue 5227, 20 November 1877, Page 2

The Lyttelton Times. TUESDAY, NOV. 20, 1877.

The, Native Land Purchase policy; is to Native policy what the character of Hamlet is to the play of that name. Its consideration was therefore naturally the chief part of Mr Sheehan’s statement as, Native Minister. A short f recapitulation of the different phaies,' up to this time,,of the Native land purchase system is hecesaary the 1 proper understanding of its present state. Before’New Zealand hecamh a Crown Colony, individual -Europeans' had treated with Native tribes for Jibe purchase of part of their lands, ind pretended purchases of immen’sd tracts were made. The Grown on taking possession of New Zealandaaa British Colony refused, in accor dance wi th the : principles of English law on the subject, to recognise these claims.: A land law was passed declaring them invalid, and empowering the Governor, after enquiry in each case, ’ to grant, upon satisfactory proof of the extinguishment of the Native title being made, lands to . claimants not exceeding two thousand five hundred acres to any one claimant. The balance of land over which the Native title had been extinguished but not grantable to individuals was claimed by the Crown for the benefit of; the public. The Treaty of Waitangi absolutely vested in the Crown the right of purchasing Native laud. Excepting the waiver, afterwards cancelled, of this right of preemption in the days of Governor Pitzroy, this was the law until 18(52. At that date the General Assembly was induced to alter! the law so as to allow private purchases to go on concurrently with purchases by the Crown. We are glad to, know that Mr Sheehan, who speaks with authority on this point, both from an European and a Native point of view, has expressed his Opinion—one. which We have always held—that that change in the law was a great political blunder. We agree, however, with him that it is impossible now to ! revert to. the original state of things. In : politics it often occurs that great public changes cannot be altogether reversed, and this was one of them. We must accept the situation, j and make the best of-it. In view of the requirements of the Public Works policy, a modification was made under which the Crown was enabled to atop private negotiations with respect to blocks of land for the purchase of which the Crown was in treaty. But that modification did not work well, and it has been repealed. So anxious, however, was the Legislature that, for the purposes of systematic settlement and of ensuring the success of the I PnbhV Works policy, the Crown should have ample means of acquiring Native ■ territory, that a loop of £700,000 was contracted since 1870 for that purpose, and that loan : was made a charge upon the whole Colony. Mr Sheehan brings up to the latest date ’ the expenditure of that loan; and, as we have before had occasion to point out, that expenditure has been very unsatisfactory. The negotiations, in • pursuance of this loan, for purchases in the North Island were-r-for freehold, 4,613,329 acres; for leasehold,! 540,081 acres, out of these negotiations the completed transactions were only—for freehold; 1,967,402 acres, and hone for leasehold. The sum expended is £531,000, and the unexpended balance is £169,000. Mr Sheehan did not refer to tbe quality of the land purchased, but we have too much reasojp to believe that the greater part of it is unavailable for settlement, and will remain for many years to come : useless - and unreprbdactive. Bat Mr ; Sheehan’s figures show that £148,921 have been spent on incomplete negotiations for freehold and leasehold purchases; and that, of the leasehold, not a single acre was in a condition 16 be used. It is impossible at present to say how ; much more, money, we shall have to ,spend in order to 'make good' this ; £148,921 spehk oh incomplete ! trnns--aitihni/' fiws no wieh*tO go into the causes of all this waste of money, except in so far that we may profit thereby for the future. The bad

selection of land purchase agentk,aod their payment by commission, were, the chief causes; aud we quite agree, in the proposal that, in closing out-i standing transactions, proper responsible Government officers should be alone employed, and that they should be positively forbidden to purchase Native lands, either for themselves or for other persons. ' ;i i We now come to what Mr Sheehan intends to do for the future with respect generally to Native land purchase. , ; He proposes that,,as soon as existing transactions are completed, the Government should go out of .the market as purchasers of Native lauds. There are. many reasons, connected with the progress of colonisation,' which cause us toregret such a step?; but we fully appreciate the force of those arguments which recommend it as the least of evils. Absolute prohibition of pnyate purchase is impracticable j concurrent purchase hj the Crown and by private persons is, even if the Crown could get the money, productive of waste of, public, funds, embarrassment and private ■; purchase is, under all circumstances, the oUly alternative, the important consideration is how to rogulate'that purchase: so as best, to serve the interests of both races, and to promote the settlement of the country.. We gather from Mr Sheehan’s remarks that he 1 looks! upoU the . following measures as conducive to that end. He would render the Native Lands CoUrt less departmental than it is abpreseUt. He would promote individualisation .of Native titles. He would introduce largely the Native element in the determination of facts within the jurisdiction of the Native Lands Court. He would exercise as much as possible Government influence in ’ guiding and directing the Natives in the disposal of their lands. Till we see the exact form and pressure ” of the legislalibn will not Venture to criticise them jin detail; but; generally, vve may say that we approve of their purport, c We think, however, that more restriction, will be required to prevent Native lands going into the Hands of speculato the, hindrance and injury of real settlement. •

With, respect te' the question jof Native, representation in the Assembly, Mr Sheehan does not ■ think tbatj it would be advisable to abolish special Native representation. The hvgothent adduced by him in support of his vi,ew iir'of weight. He-says that 4 such' abolition would be unjust* whild a" large portion of the- "oanhot acquire-the franchise' by Crown grapits and individual titles in the-same mpuner as Europeanedan'. dETelsdn of an increase of special representation to seven members/ and if, after a few yearsV a change took, place in Native - tenureofland, special representation might be abolished and Native representatives be elected in the ordinary way. There are at present four Natives in the House' and two. in the Council. We do not kno|v whether Mr Sheehan wishes that one more Native should sit in the. Assembly, <nr three mote in the House. We are inclined to the opinion that it would, be unwiep to increase special Native representation, though we do = not say that cjrcdmstances, such perhaps as the submission of the King party, may not render the special addition of one member ad* visable. Our policy should tend to encourage individualisation of title, and the assimilation of the Native franchise and representation to our own. With that view, special Native representation should be temporary and exceptional.