OPINIONS OF THE PRESS ON THE PARLIAMENTARY REPORT ON NEW ZEALAND, and the COLONIAL OFFICE.

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 158, 1 March 1845, Page 207

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS ON THE PARLIAMENTARY REPORT ON NEW ZEALAND, and the COLONIAL OFFICE.

I The report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the state of the colony of New Zealand and on the proceedings of the New Zealand Company, which appeared in the Herald of the Ist instant, is well calculated to promote the welfare of that distant dependency, and also to facilitate the future colonisation of other uncivilized portions of the British empire. Only let the Colonial Office infuse the spirit in which the report is drawn up, and enforce the recommendation* it contains on the Local Government, and let the New Zealand Company do the same, and harmony, good-will, and co-operation taUl be substituted for the discord, bitterness, rancour, and suspicion which have hitherto retarded the success of New Zealand colonisation, and well nigh ruined "an heroic work." The original "illegality" of the Company, in sending out settlers against the authority of the Crown, has been England's gain. It saved New Zealand from French occupancy, and annexed it to the British empire. Let the country then treat the Company in a manner worthy of the great result it brought about, and not as if the settlers were trespassers on a gentlemnn's park or a nobleman's demesne at home. There is land enough and to spare in New Zealand to preserve and to civilize, if we can and will, the aboriginal tribes, and to form flourishing British settlements besides ; why, then, create imaginary difficulties, instead of conquering what are real — why, by a fiction of law, confer on the natives a property in land they do not occupy, and a title to what they can have no real interest in ? It is not by treating them as the owners of all the wild lands in the colony that we can humanize them ; it is rather by inducing them to intersperse their settlements with our own, to limit the circle of their professions, and to give by industry and enterprise a value to the land they are located upon. The old principle of colonial law, so well laid down by Sir George Gipps, that " uncivilized inhabitants of any country have but a qualified dominion over it, or a right of occupancy only has a far more active agency in aboriginal civilization, than that new-fangled rule adopted by the New Zealand authorities, that the ownership of unoccupied land is in the natives ; for one great cause of aboriginal barbarism is the extent of country at the disposal of the natives and their dispersion over it. " All the difficulties which have been experienced in the colonisation of New Zealand are," says the report, " to be mainly attributed to the erroneous view of this question taken by those to whose hands the powers of government have in these islands been committed." Their view was, however, derived from the characteristically " shabby " mode in which the Whigs obtained the sovereignty of New Zealand from the chiefs, and from the defective instructions they gave to the first Governor of the colony, Captain Hobson. It is very true that the Company's first expedition to New Zealand was illegal ; but it is equally true that a wise aud thoughtful Government would have assumed dominion over New Zealand years before that expedition sailed; for this reason — that an irregular and injurious colonisation had long been carried on there by British subjects — such as runaway convicts and sailors; and in 1832 the question had practically been reduced to this —shall New Zealand be a nuisance or a British colony ? Instead of treating it as the latter, the Whigs formally disclaimed sovereignty over it, aud recognised its independence ; but no sooner had the Company resolved on settling part of it, than out they sent Captain Hobson to undo what they themselves had previously done. Captain Hobson certainly did induce the native chiefs of the Northern Island to cede ' their independence ; but in a manner and after a fashion which, " though a natural consequence of previous errors of policy," laid the foundation for still greater evils. The defective instructions that officer had been furnished with, naturally enough, begot an imperfect and ambiguous treaty of cession ; the Whig Colonial Minister had not informed the gallant officer that by operation of law all unoccupied land vested in the Crown as a consequence of the cession ; and he, ignorant of law, assumed that all such land must be purchased of the natives, and introduced terms to that effect into the treaty. This treaty the Whigs first approved of, and then, by the Royal Charter by which they declared New Zealand a British colony, laid down the principle it had violated — that occupancy and enjoyment alone established a right of property in the natives. The instructions sent out with the treaty did not clear up or remove this inconsistency ; and the Local Government which, by this time, had quarrelled with the Company's officers, and, in consequence, affected great regard for aboriginal rights, in the absence of all precise instructions, commenced the investigation into the land claims on the narrow assumption of Captain Hobson and his treaty, and not on the broad and comprehensive principle of English law and of the Royal Charter. This investigation has clearly been conducted in an illiberal and pettifogging spirit ; and its glaring injustice end manifest prejudice to the Company's settlers, and its dad effect on native passions, are properly stated by the Committee. The consequence of the assumption on which that investigation has proceeded is, that Government cannot put the New Zealand Company in possession of the number of acres awarded to it by the Government Referee, and the only excuse Lord John Russell has to offer for this state' of things — the inevitable result of the slovenly way in which he instructed the Local Government of New Zealand, — is, that he believed, in 1840, that " the extent of land which it would be in the power of the Crown to grant, to be far greater than would be enough to satisfy its ■ engagements." Lord Stanley, of course, inherited the difficulties thus created ; the New Zealand Company have been nearly ruined by them ; the progress of the colony has been checked ; disturbances mth the natives have been produced ; and every one connected with New Zealand has been distressed, worried, and annoyed. The difficulties at last became so great that a reference to Parliament was indispensable. The Committee referred io was appointed, and its principal recommendation is that what the Whigs ought to have done at first be now done:—" That means ought to be forthwith adopted for establishing the exclusive title of the Crown to all land not actually occupied and enjoyed by natives, or held under grants of the Crown; such land to be considered aa vested in the Crown for the purpose of being employed in

the manner most conducive to the welfare of the inhabitants, whether natives or Europeans. — Morning Herald.

We have not yet noticed the Report of the New Zealand Committee — as severe a blow to Lord Stanley's colonial administration as a Minister ever encountered. The New Zealand Company and the Colonial Office, unable to agree, referred their differences to a Committee of the House of Commons, which Mr. Aglionby, one of the Directors of the Company moved for, and which Lord Stanley nominated pretty much as he chose. The Committee have decided against Lord Stanley ; and the minutes of the proceedings of the Committee, which have now been published, enable us to estimate the whole force of this decision. The Committee consisted of five members of the Opposition — Mr. Aglionby, Lord Howick, Mr. Hawes, Lord Ebrington, and Mr. Roebuck; and ten Ministerialists, among whom were Mr. Hope, Undersecretary to the Colonies ; Mr. Cardwell, added after the first appointment of the Committee, for the express purpose of providing Mr. Hope with the assistance of an acute lawyer's mind ; and Sir John Hanmer, whom it is only fair to name, as, though sitting on the Ministerial side of the house, he frequently votes against the Government Ten to four, however, even though Sir John Hanmer was one of the ten, were powerful odds in the Government favour : and so tenacious was Lord Stanley of this great advantage, that when Mr. Aglionby asked to have a lawyer added from the Opposition side, together with Mr. Cardwell, the request was refused. Mr. Hope and Mr. Cardwell have done their utmost in the Committee to save the Colonial Office ; and the New Zealand Company have triumphed over all their efforts, and over all the disadvantages which might fairly have been expected to arise from the unequal nomination of the Committee, through the independent conduct of the following Ministerial members : — Mr. Milnes, Mr. Charteris, and Lord Francis Egerton. The Report of the Committee, and a series of resolutions appended to it, were drawn up by Lord Howick, the chairman. The resolutions were first submitted to the Committee, and Mr. Cardwell proposed a set of counter-resolutions. On the motion of Mr. Roebuck, no partial member, Mr. Cardwell's resolutions were set aside, and the consideration of Lord Howick's determined upon by seven to six, Mr. Milnes, Mr. Charteris, and Lord Francis Egerton voting in the majority. Lord Howick's resolutions were afterwards fought singly, and sustained in all their material points after divisions more or less close, Lord Francis Egerton sometimes giving his opinion to the Government, Lord Jocelyn sometimes voting with Mr. Aglionby, and the casting vote of the Chairman being sometimes required. The main point at issue between the Company and the Colonial Office was the refusal of the latter to put the Company in possession of land awarded to it by a Government Commissioner. On this point Lord Howick submitted the following resolution: — " That the New Zealand Company has a right to expect to be put in possession by the Government, with the least possible delay, of the number of acres awarded to it by Mr. Penniugton ; that the Company has this right as against the estate of the Crown, without reference to the validity, or otherwise, of its supposed purchases from the natives, all claims derived from which have been surrendered." Mr. Hope proposed some amendments ; the first of them was rejected by seven to four, and Mr. Hope then wisely declined from dividing on the others. The resolutions having been all considered, Lord Howick submitted a report. Mr. Hope proposed a rival report. The latter was rejected, and Lord Howick's adopted, without a division. Lord Stanley's refusal to carry out Mr. Pennington's award had long impeded the colonising efforts of the New Zealand Company, and at last brought the Company to a stand-still. It is impossible, after this report, that he can persist in his mischievous refusal ; but what amount of injury has Lord Stanley already wrought to the interests of an infant colony ! Poor Lord Stanley ! The formidable guerilla general of Opposition has soon found his level as a Minister. Now that a Government may be compromised by his rash tongue, Sir Robert Peel does all he can to moke him hold it ; and his administrative incapacity is exposed by a Committee, on which he had taken the modest precaution of placing ten friends, and five opponents. — Globe.

The public have for some time been wondering how Lord Stanley has managed to keep himself and his department so completely out of public view. His own policy, dictated alike by Peel and prudence, has been shaped with a view of taking as little part as possible in general debates ; and he has had the good sense to restrain those wonderful powers of speech which he never exercises without raising the spirits and infinitely damaging the interests of his party. Still, it was matter of astonishment that the variety of the questions daily subjected to his decision, and the importance of the interests with which he has come in contact, not to say collision, did not occasionally force on him the necessity of defending his departmental policy ; for all the world has been for some time aware that the absence of any discussion of his colonial policy has arisen from any thing rather than universal satisfaction. The public are greatly indebted to the New Zealand Company for being the first to drag Lord Stanley from his hiding, place, and expose a gross specific instance of that mismanagement of which all complain in general terms. In May last, the Directors of that body published a report to their Shareholders, in which they stated that they had come to the conclusion that it was impossible for them to continue their colonising operations without great detriment, not only to the shareholders, but still more to all the colonists who might settle in New Zealand under their auspices. They ascribed this result to no deficiency in the resources of New Zealand, to no error in their own plan of operations, nor to any want of energy or steadiness on the part of the settlers. In the plainest terms they imputed the whole mischief to the Colonial Office — to its narrow jealousy of the Company, exhibited mainly in its violation of specific contracts with that body, and systematic ill-offices to all the settlers on its land, and still more to a general policy, with respect both to natives and Europeans, that was founded on the most short-sighted and erroneous principles. The Company lost no time in provoking the most public investigation into the truth of these allegations. A member of their body, Mr.

Aglionby, moved for a Committee to " inquire into, the state of the colony of New Zealand and into the proceedings of the New Zealand Company,," The Government acceded to this motion, and with their consent a Committee was named, of which two-thirds consisted of their own political supporters. Lord Howick was placed in the chair. Mr. Hope, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, was the formal representative of his office in the Committee, and Mr. Cardwell was added, in order to supply his deficiencies. The proceedings were conducted with a more than usual resemblance to the trial of an issue between two parties. The Company put in a printed statement of its charges against the office, and a vast mass of documents in support of its statements. The Colonial Office put in a printed answer. The report of the Committee is its judgment on the matter thus litigated before it. And it is hardly possible to conceive a more thorough, clear, and well-reasoned condemnation both of the general policy of the Government, and of its treatment of individuals, than is here given under the sanction of Lord Howick's acknowledged integrity and complete acquaintance with colonial affairs, and of a decided majority of a Committee mainly composed of political partisans of the Minister whom they condemned. The erroneous principle laid down by Lord Stanley with respect to the great question on which the prosperity of new colonies mainly depends— that of the disposal of land, has extended to the whole colony of New Zealand. But from the temper of the man, we suspect that the adoption of that principle in dealing with New Zealand has arisen, not so much from any generally erroneous view with regard to the rights of the Crown, or the sound mode of disposing of land in new countries, as from mere determination to take a view exactly contrary to that of the New Zealand Company. Antagonism is the great motive of Lord Stanley's actions. It can hardly be said that he has any more permanent or worthy object at any time than that of thwarting the person with whom he then happens to have a quarrel. His adversary, in fact, by taking one line, can always dictate to him the taking of that most opposed to it. It is impossible to doubt that from first entering into office he took offence at the New Zealand Company, either because it bored him with longer letters than he liked to read, or, more probably, because it did not appear before him quite so cap-in-hand as suited his lordship. From this moment, therefore, his line was clear. Whatever the Company asked he refused ; whatever principle it laid down, he immediately laid down the opposite. Suggesting nothing, because, in fact, he wanted nothing done, he exercised his ingenuity in picking holes in every thing proposed to him — in devising pretexts for a quarrel, and in " dressing up a case " for Parliamentary discussion. In this spirit he seems to have determined, with utter disregard of its consequences to others, to "spite" the Company, by refusing to put it in possession of the lands which it claimed by virtue of an agreement with Lord John Russell. For the purpose of maintaining this position, he questioned a principle with regard to native rights to the soil, inconsistent with every principle either of law or of common sense, subversive of the rights of the Crown, and utterly incompatible with any colonisation of a new country by Europeans. And to this principle he has adhered, even when such adherence compelled him to break the plighted faith of Government with individuals in this country, and when its effects were visible in the colony, in the check suddenly given to a thriving community, and in such disasters as the massacre at Wairau. Of the general principles laid down by Lord Stanley with respect to the land question, and of his consequent opposition to the claims of the Company, the Committee have summarily and decisively disposed. They, in the first place, lay down the general rule—" That it is one of the fundamental principles of colonial law and policy, which they believe to have been correctly laid down by Sir George Gipps, that ' the uncivilized inhabitants of any country have but a qualified dominion over it, or a right of occupancy only ; and that until they establish amongst themselves a settled form of government, and subjugate the ground to their own uses by the cultivation of it, they cannot grant to individuals not of their own tribe any portion of it, for the simple reason that they have not themselves any individual property in it.' " After describing the mode in which this principle should have been applied to the settlement of New Zealand, they state the interpretation which should, consistently therewith, have been placed on the treaty with the natives, by means of which " the most serious of the evils which have since arisen would have been avoided." "If the native rights to the ownership of land had only been admitted when arising from occupation, there would have been no difficulty in giving at once to the settlers secure and quiet possession of the land they required, and they would thus have been able to begin without delay and in earnest the work of reclaiming and cultivating the unoccupied soil. The proceedings of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the claims of land would also then have been short and simple ; they would have had to inquire merely whether lands actually occupied by natives had been fairly sold to settlers by the occupants, and with respect to wild lands, whether Europeans claiming to have purchased them had done so at such a price, or had incurred such an expense in respect to them, as to give to their supposad purchasers not a right to the lands (for they could not derive a title from parties who did not themselves possess one), but a claim on the consideration of the Crown to have granted them, as an indulgence, more or less, according to circumstances, of the lands they had nominally purchased. With respect to the New Zealand Company, as the extent of land to which they were entitled had been already settled by a special agreement with the Government and the award of Mr. Pennington, they would at once have been put in possession of all that very large proportion of the land on which they proposed establishing settlements which was previously wild and unoccupied ; and the question to be determined by the commissioners would have reduced itself to that of whether those inconsiderable portions of lands ' actually occupied and enjoyed ' by natives had been fairly sold by the occupants — a question the decision of which, one way or the other, would have been comparatively unimportant. To have proceeded in this manner, and to have assumed at once all unoccupied land to belong to the Crown as a right inherent in the sovereignty, would have been attended with no tort of injustice tc the natives, and would have teen con-

t ducite to their real interest*. The unoccupied land, previously to European settlement, was of no value to them ; they were neither a pastoral people, nor one living, like the North American Indians, by the chase, and therefore requiring a great extent of country for their support ; they derived their chief subsistence from the produce of the toil, and agriculture, rude as it was ; and according to the witnesses who have been examined by your Committee, hardly a thousandth part of the available land was thus made use of by them." In a sub* sequent passage, the claim advanced by the New Zealand Company is still more specifically confirmed by the Committee, who further state that " they cannot doubt this conclusion to be completely in accordance with what were the views of the then Secretary of State." In this they are completely borne out by a letter of that Secretary of State, Lord John Russell, which is given in the Report of the Directors. It follows that the New Zealand Company's rightful claims have been arbitrarily set aside by Lord Stanley, and that, in the opinion of the Committee, he has been guilty of injustice to that body. If the mischief ended with the temporary denial of its rights to the Company, it would still be no light charge against a Minister that he has thus sported with the rights and fortunes of individuals, whom no one can deny to have been engaged in an undertaking of great public utility. But, though the Directors, in their report, speak with great doubt as to the chance of Lord Stanley's submitting to the decision of the Committee, we cannot believe that he will long be able to set it at defiance. He must defer to the decision of the arbitrator to whom he has formally and publicly submitted his case. And if he were to be so ill-advised as avowedly to refuse, or (what appears more likely), in effect, to evade a compliance with its recommendations, we do not believe that our countrymen would tolerate, even in a Secretary of State for the Colonies, a clearly dishonest repudiation of the engagements of the Crown. But Lord Stanley's denial of justice to the New Zealand Company has already produced mischiefs far more seriously affecting other parties. Some of these it will be very difficult for the tardy justice and enforced wisdom of Government to repair. It will be yet more difficult to repair to the poor settler in New Zealand the loss of capital and the extinction of hope, occasioned by the long delays that have been interposed by the Government between him and the land which was his right. It will be most difficult to re-invest the colony with that general belief in its security and progress which the good conduct of its founders created, and without which its progress will be impossible. And most of all will it be difficult to cure the native tribes of that avidity for a high price for land which the erroneous measures of Government have instilled into them, to disabuse them of the notion that by menace and violence they may extort any terms that they choose, and to re-establish those happy relations between them and their white neighbours which the Government alone has disturbed ? But there are mischiefs which Lord Stanley has done, and cannot undo. Had he, when first apprised in December, 1842, of the difficulties raised in New Zealand, given the Company that title to its lands which the Committee now decide that in strict justice it was his duty promptly to have given ; had he, as good sense and humanity required, even in the absence of strict right, put an immediate end to so dangerous a litigation ; had he directed his local subordinates to enforce submission to the law, instead of encouraging the ignorant to uphold their fancied rights by the strong hand — there would have been no dispute between native and European, there would have been no resort to arms, and the energies of those who fell under the tomahawk would still have been preserved to their associates and friends. This is the sad result of Lord Stanley's mistake, obstinacy, and controversial ingenuity. His wrongful quarrel with the New Zealand Company has been voided in the massacre at Wairau. Perhaps, to his volatile mind, these sad responsibilities may never occur. But events such as these should impress on the country the necessity for entrusting great duties to men capable of appreciating with fitting earnestness the solemn responsibilities which they inspire. Lord Stanley is the best hand in the world at a party speech, when such things are wanted. But his possession of this qualification is no reason for entrusting him with the fortunes of our colonies, of which he has no time to understand the many wants, while his best energies are devoted to breeding horses for Liverpool and Goodwood races !—Morning Chronicle.

We recur to the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the state of the colony of New Zealand, and into the proceedings of the New Zealand Company, to which are appended nineteen resolutions, stated by the Committee to contain a summary of the opinions they have formed on the whole subject. The soundness of those opinions cannot, of course, be satisfactorily tested until the evidence on which they rest is also published ; but the report and resolutions of the Committee, coupled with the notorious condition of the colony, as admitted by all parties, are sufficient to justify several very important conclusions, and they certainly are urgent enough to demand immediate attention. Indeed, matters in New Zealand appear to be hastening to a crisis, which will not tarry for the publication of " blue books." Our first conclusion from the Parliamentary papers is, that the Colonial Department has for once overshot its mark. The general policy of that office is to do nothing itself, and to thwart the efforts of those whom any motive leads to labour for the benefit of our colonies, by the mere " vis inertia," by a passive resistance to advance or improvement, to which it is very difficult to attach any positive culpability, beyond that which long experience has taught every man who knows its ways to regard as a matter of course. But in the present instance, the right hand of the department appears to have forgotten its cunning. It has been visibly bared for mischief. It has not only suffered wrong to be done unheeded and unchecked, but it has been actively forward in wrongdoing. The grossness of its misconduct is proved by the fact that a Committee of fifteen, ten ofwhom are gentlemen who habitually support the Government, have not only been unable to justify Lord Stanley's procceedings, but have actually been compelled by the force of truth to pronounce a heavy condemation on them. Secondly, it is dear that the hopes which the public at one time entertained, that Lord Stanley would be able to See himself, as Lord John Russell in a great measure

freed himielf, from the domination of underlingjs have been altogether disappointed. It is now manifest that the character of that nobleman owes its appearance of strength to a mere ardour of temperament. There has not been force of will enough to support him through the labour necessary to place him on a level, in point of information, with the narrow minds to which knowledge has given its inherent power. And how great, measured by what Lord Stanley might have been, and what he is, has the failure been ! Benefiting by the vantage-ground on which the energy of his predecessor had placed him, he might have been the great reformer of the colonial administration throughout our noble dependencies. Heftnight have consummated the measure of emancipation, and given a death-blow to the foreign slave trade, by furnishing the West Indies with a sufficient supply of free labour. He might, long ere this, have solved the problem, the protracted discussion of which is still distracting the public mind, and checking improvement in Canada. He might have delivered Australia from much of the ruin and misery involved in the crisis from which she is now slowly emerging without his assistance. He might have made New Zealand a flourishing colony, easily defraying all the charges of its Government, and advancing with rapid strides to take up the high place which nature has assigned to it. He might have done all this, and much more which our space forbids us to recapitulate ; and thus have not only earned present gratitude, but have made himself a name in history as lasting and as widely known as the benefit of such achievements. He will now be regarded, till the House of Peert engulphs him, as a ready and skilful debater, as a man of large words and small deeds, as another puppet to be played upon in the office, and crammed for displays in the house by the understrappers of the department.— Morning Chronicle. The Report from the Select Committee on New Zealand is a full expose* of that most melancholy story. It describes with a vigorous yet delicate hand the series of blunders through which we have struggled from the first enthusiasm which seized the English mind down to the miserable, because most causeless and most careless, loss of British life at Wairau. After a night of confusion and errors, we are at last presented with a gleam of practical truth. It only remains to hope that the working of that practical truth will not be attended by the same difficulties as its slow discovery. For as long as thirty years British missionaries and colonists have been making their way in New Zealand, and increasing in numbers, in the stability of their position, and their acquaintance with the country and its inhabitants. The first error of the British Government — as perhaps time alone could show— was, that it did not follow closely enough on the track of British enterprize, and legitimatize this spontaneous settlement. So often that we nave sent our discoverers, and even fullgrown colonial staffs, to essay a landing on untrodden sands, it does seem unaccountable that we should have neglected islands possessing a climate which might be called the perfection of our own, with a soil productive even in the hands of savages, populous with an ingenious and docile race, only a few days' sail from New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, and, what is more than all, already tried and approved by British settlers. It is true there were no Ught grounds, as the present report says, for not thus following the lead. We had already many and expensive settlements on those distant shores. But it is now better understood that Government had not really any choice in the affair. Wherever the British people go, their Government must follow. They carry everywhere the rights, the duties, the name of their nation. The Government cannot, either with conscience, with credit, or with regard to its obvious interests, suffer the random growth of ungoverned, unrecognized colonies. Their rashness and cupidity would be as ruinous to us and the whole civilized world as to themselves and the savages in their immediate contact. Wherever we went we should find the dens of murderers and pirates misrepresenting the British name. All this, however, was not then so clearly seen. This omission led to the second error in the series. The scheme of a larger and more systematic self-sown colony was suffered to grow up in the public mind. The projectors of the New Zealand Company were allowed for many years to cherish and elaborate their very attractive scheme. Whatever nature or prejudice denied at home, was to be accomplished by our British antipodes. The parent stock was worn out and vitiated, so a seedling settlement was to be tried, unheld, unled, ungoverned, unfettered, unprejudiced, uncorrupted, almost unassisted, and, if possible, even unheard of. by the capricious- and tyrannical sire. This theoretical independence was eventually modified to the great disappointment of the amiable visionaries ; but the actual results showed strong marks of the original theory. The colony established by the New Zealand Company was not enough of a British colony. And now for the working of these two errors on the great question of the possession of the soil. Those first stray settlers, of course, got the little land that they wanted as they could. Tew, and chiefly mercantile, they did not want much ; and while there was no demand for land, either real or imaginary, they found its price as insignificant as the forms of acquisition were easy. They experienced an absolute difficulty in ascertaining whether there was any notion of properly in uncultivated land, and consequently of a transfer of such property. Why purchase fruitless sea and unploughed sand? Chance occupiers themselves, they had to deal with chance occupiers, individuals with individuals, kingless and lawless adventurers with kingless and lawless natives, chiefs themselves as much as the petty chiefs they encountered. They found no difficulty, and, unfortunately, reported that there was no difficulty. It was industriously circulated at home that the natives were only too willing to dispose of the land for anything, even for nothing, for the mere advantage of a civilized neighbour. That tneir willingness had been fairly tried, and that the soil was undoubtedly theirs, and they knew the pleasures of possession and the opportunities of sale, all this was never questioned. The chieft were the territorial aristocracy of the country, and of course knew the value of an estate and the meaning of its tnnsfer. To be sure, lancUwverj cheap, the owners very easy, and the forma verj simple ; *J1 circumstances agreeably contrasting with our own domestic experience. But what ol that? Owner* are owners, a sale is a sale, and i

price is a price. It was only a matter of degree ; and the degree of these impediments reported from New Zealand was very slight indeed. Hence arose the great error of the New Zealand Company, or rather of the Government which undertook to overrule its operations. The whole soil of New Zealand, or at least of the Northern Island— for, happily, the compromise does not extend to the Middle and Southern — was supposed to be vested in the chiefs. None was to be occupied except on the ground of a legal transfer from some one of them. Such was the existent practice, it was considered, and so it was to continue. The Company, still labouring under the defect (or the license, as they thought it) of a private body, were to tread in the steps of their forerunners, the private missionaries and merchants. It certainly is strange that a party so intent as the Liberals were on humbling the aristocracy and the predominance of landed wealth at home, should so gratuitously have imagined and created an aristocracy and a landed interest in those almost uninhabited regions. New Zealand consists of a group nearly as large altogether as the British Isles, with a population estimated at about 150,000, if so much — not much more than the number of trampers, gipsies, and other itinerants, who, in a certain sense, occupy and divide our surface. Their chiefs cannot be many, if powerful — cannot be powerful, if many ; and anyhow cannot be supposed to hold continuous possession of 60,000,000 acres. They do not hunt, and therefore have no idea of extended occupation. They cultivate, and their movements, as also their ideas, are necessarily tied to the circuit made by their cattle round their huts. Probably there is not a chief with the actual occupation of a large English farmer. At least 99-100ths of the land is unoccupied, unpossessed ; common to the natives — common to the world. With the rudest cultivation, and pettiest range, they are to the surface of those islands as an ordinary English village is to an ordinary English county. Yet the suggestive, created jealousy of a circle of Liberals, making the thing it hated, the very lion it dreaded, exalted these scanty wanderers, fringing the shores and the rivers, always moving, always driving about one another, into a settled, rightful, awful, Jove-born landed aristocracy ; thus transferring to New Zealand the very evils — the very struggles of money with land, which they were flying from at home. The sequel will show the absurdity and actual cruelty of this supposition. — Times.